UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

PROPOSALS FOR BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 14 JUNE 2011

MR GREG KNIGHT

MARK PRITCHARD, BOB RUSSELL AND JIM FITZPATRICK

PETE WISHART

STUART ANDREW, NICOLA BLACKWOOD, MR STEVE BRINE, NIC DAKIN AND GREG MULHOLLAND

NICK SMITH, IAN PAISLEY AND IAN MEARNS

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 31

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

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

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 14 June 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Mr George Mudie

Mr Greg Knight made representations.

Chair: Thank you very much for coming, Greg. Just before we start, I should say that last week and this week we have been discussing the fact that we are increasingly not being allocated very much time by the Government. We are running at about one day every two weeks at the moment. We have been led to understand that 23 June, next Thursday, is our only day. We might not have a day the week after, but we don’t know; that is what we have been led to understand. We don’t know what we have in the Chamber after that.

We have only one six-hour slot, and a huge amount of business has started to pile up. We have allocated in Westminster Hall up to 23 June, so we have 30 June available in Westminster Hall for a three-hour debate on a non-voteable motion. That is all we have available, and I wanted to make that clear. There is a huge amount of stuff piling up for very little time. I am just making sure that people understand that. With that, you are welcome to the Committee.

Mr Knight: Thank you. I fully appreciate your difficulty. At Business Questions last week, I put in a plea to the Leader of the House that Procedure Committee matters should be debated in Government time, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

I am not seeking a debate in Westminster Hall because the issues will need the determination of the House. I am here to mention three of the Procedure Committee’s reports, two of which, I believe, can be dealt with on the Floor in 90 minutes. The first is about the use of electronic devices in the Chamber and in Committee, and the second is about modernising and improving scrutiny, which deals with allowing Select Committees to table amendments and with the tabling of explanatory notes to amendments and new clauses in Committee and on Report. It also suggests an experiment that will hopefully improve the effectiveness of written questions. I believe that all those issues can be dealt with in 90 minutes.

I am here not to argue the merits of the Procedure Committee’s recommendations, as that is a matter for the House, but to say that while there will always be pressing issues that come before you, one issue that should always be paramount is how we do our business. The House should have an early chance to decide whether it wants to make a change to-and, in my view, in the two cases, to improve-the way it does business and to facilitate the way Members make speeches by allowing them to refer to tablets and other electronic devices instead of speaking notes if they wish to do so. At the moment, it varies from committee to committee as to whether the Chair will allow you to do that and to what extent.

The other matter is one that is close to your heart, because you asked us to look at it; it wasn’t on our agenda. You asked us, in your first motion, to look at ministerial leaks. We had a thorough look at it and prepared a report. The Government have been less than helpful in their response, and it is a matter for you where you wish to go from here. You may take the view-this was your idea initially-that the House should have an opportunity to debate that, so that the mood of the House may be assessed by the Government. I think that that should be a free-standing, separate debate. Realistically, one would need to allow perhaps two to three hours.

I am also aware that other Members may argue that we should have procedural debates to debate general issues, but I hope you would agree to keep those separate, because in this instance the debate on ministerial leaks could be a general debate and it would be for the Government to pick up the mood of the House. But for the debate on hand-held devices and those other matters I mentioned, we would need specific motions and, to prevent them being talked out, we would need to have a timetable motion so that the Questions were put at the end.

Q1 Chair: Just so that I am clear, you think that the three reports that you would like to have debated, and that would need voteable motions, could be done in 90 minutes, including the motion on hand-held devices in the Chamber?

Mr Knight: Hand-held devices and explanatory memorandums, Select Committee amendments and an experimental change to written questions-those two reports could be dealt with in 90 minutes.

Q2 Chair: You are saying that in your report on ministerial statements, which was initiated here, there is no specific recommendation to have a change? All I mean is does that need a motion?

Mr Knight: We make a number of recommendations but, like all such reports that cover a fairly broad subject, there is room for debate and argument within that. I am saying that the majority view may well be that you should have a take-note debate on that report. But it is really a matter for individual judgment; that is how I see it.

Q3 Mr Bone: Mr Knight, you present your case very well. On the last issue-the statements-it seems to me that you have investigated and you have made recommendations, and the Government have responded and made it clear that they will not bring forward changes in Government time, but the Leader of the House at business questions last week made it clear that he would welcome a debate initiated by the Backbench Business Committee. It seems to me that if that was the case, the motion would have to be to introduce your recommendations rather than to have a general debate, because we have had the report and your investigation, and now it is up to the House to decide whether it wants to implement your recommendations. Do you think that that is a possibility?

Mr Knight: That argument has some force, yes.

Q4 John Hemming: Are you potentially arguing, however, that there might be merit in having, say, a Westminster Hall debate about the report, followed by a motion to deal with it?

Mr Knight: I think what I am saying, diplomatically, on the ministerial leaks report is that if the Government came forward with some proposals which met most of the concerns in our report, but which suggested a different solution, the House might be in a mood to accept it. That is why I was saying that you might want a take-note debate, because if the Government are pilloried by speaker after speaker, they may feel that they have to do something, but they may want to suggest something that is slightly different from our report. That is how I see it, but again that is a matter for the House. If the House feels very strongly that the Government have not engaged with good will in their response to this and that it is time to be firmer, that is not an argument I would wish to dismiss.

Q5 Mr Hollobone: The other way in which an alternative argument could be presented is by tabling amendments to a motion that was in support of your recommendations. That would flush it out perhaps rather quicker, given that we had already had a substantive debate in the Chamber on the issue before your report was written.

Mr Knight: Indeed, Chair, yes.

Q6 Chair: Just another point-back to our banging on about how little time we have-on the urgency of this. Is there an absolute requirement that this must be done on 23 June, or would it be possible to defer it to another time?

Mr Knight: It could be deferred to a time after 23 June but, particularly with hand-held devices, more and more Members are getting iPads and similar devices and Members want certainty as to whether they can use them, because there is nothing worse than leaving your speech notes on an electronic device and the Chair saying that you cannot refer to it. To be completely honest, I cannot say that it has to be on 23 June. If you are expecting another day within a month or near enough a month, I could live with that. I would not, however, want it to be beyond that.

Chair: Thank you for that and thank you for coming.

Mark Pritchard, Bob Russell and Jim Fitzpatrick made representations.

Chair: May we have Mark Pritchard and the wild animals, please? [Laughter.]

Mark Pritchard: I thank you, the Committee and the Chair, for meeting us again. I know that it is unusual to come back to the Committee a second time, but hopefully it will show the strength of feeling of the House, across the parties. I am delighted that Bob Russell from the Liberal Democrats and Jim Fitzpatrick from Labour have joined me. I also have support from the minority parties. I mentioned the support of Caroline Lucas last week, and some of the DUP are supporting our motion as well.

Our motion asks for a ban on wild animals in circuses. As I outlined before, DEFRA’s own consultation showed that 92 per cent. of the public want to see a ban. Animal welfare charities have surveyed Members of Parliament and 62 per cent. want to see a ban. The Government, however, even after taking advice from the British Veterinary Association, have ignored that advice, have ignored public opinion and, most importantly for this Committee, have ignored the will of the House.

We have had debates, including one recently, but people feel that we have had these debates and this dialogue before. What we need now is a vote and a resolution on this matter.

Q7 Chair: You were here last week-you are here this week as well-and you have heard our plea about time. We have little time, and you are particular about it being a voteable motion. We discussed last week the urgency of the debate, with it fitting around a consultation. Can any of you state when this debate needs to be held by? When do you need to have had a voteable motion?

Mark Pritchard: Bob and Jim may want to say something briefly on that. The fact is that the Government are out to yet more consultation with experts, but we know that the experts have previously said that there should be a ban, and the Government have ignored that expert advice. There is therefore no guarantee that the expert advice will be listened to this time. We are at the stage of more consultation before a licensing regime is introduced. There is an urgency that the Government should understand the will of Parliament on this issue, because Parliament will be locked out of the new consultation process.

The only reason why we are here today is that, as the Committee knows, the Government were found out by putting a statement before Parliament that was inaccurate. Some of us in this room were involved in pointing out that that statement was inaccurate. That is not acceptable to the British people or to Members of Parliament. We need a motion in this short time period, because if we have a motion in the autumn or later on in the year, the licensing consultation may well have come to an end.

Bob Russell: I think I am more exotic than wild, although I can get angry as well. It is my belief that DEFRA was going to propose a total ban, but-I’ll be blunt about it-there was interference from Downing street. The will of Parliament should prevail. As Mark has pointed out, all the evidence is that circuses with wild or exotic animals should be banned. There are very few left. I have tabled a parliamentary question to establish at precisely what point Downing Street stuck its oar in and stopped DEFRA from making what I believe was going to be a declaration of a total ban.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I shall defend No. 10, if I may, which shows how tame I am. I do not think that No. 10 is necessarily responsible, but clearly there is a blockage. We had a resolution and there was almost unanimity of opinion, with the exception of DEFRA. Parliament should be able to express an opinion to give impetus to overcome that obstacle to get the solution that the vast majority of professionals, experts, the public and parliamentarians want. Therefore, as Mark has outlined, there is a degree of urgency about the matter.

Q8 Chair: The last time that you came, you asked for six hours of Chamber time. Although there are probably lots of people who are very interested in taking part in this debate, how much opposition is there? Wouldn’t everyone just be saying the same thing?

Mark Pritchard: There is opposition, and I think that I mentioned that the last time I was before the Committee. It is fair to say that there will be people from across the House who take a different view from that of the three people who you see before you now. The Government are clearly taking a different view. I have no doubt that there will be a debate and that there will be people who take a different view from ours. All along, from the previous Parliament to this one, we have had debate, narrative and dialogue, but we have not had a vote or heard the will of the House.

Q9 Mr Hollobone: You have made your argument extremely well. There is no doubt that this is an issue that excites the support of the public. You have heard that the Government do not give us enough time to debate all the important issues that Back Benchers want debated. You have also heard that at the moment, the Government have only given us one day in the Chamber-23 June-and there is no guarantee that we will get anything else. I know that you want a six-hour debate, but were we in a position to give you a two-hour debate with a vote, would you take it?

Mark Pritchard: I think that there would be enough people to fill a six-hour debate, but I wish to read the feeling and the mood of this Committee. Having discussed the matter with both my colleagues, we would be very happy to compromise on a three-hour voteable debate. Although that may exclude some Members who want to express a view both ways, we accept that there is limited time. I accept that there are many other worthy causes and many people who have spoken most eloquently in the past, such as Mr Greg Knight. We would be happy to compromise to the point where the Committee is happy. At the same time, I am minded that Members from across the House want to express a view on this.

Q10 John Hemming: That brings us to the difficult question of what is the minimum possible. We have talked previously about the Procedure Committee getting two issues dealt with in 90 minutes. Is there a point at which it gets too short a period of time? Is an hour too short a period of time?

Mark Pritchard: That is an excellent question, which you as a Committee are more experienced to answer than I am.

Q11 John Hemming: So you would not turn down an hour?

Mark Pritchard: I am a mere applicant. What the Committee would also want to avoid is putting itself in a position where people were frustrated because they had a voteable motion, but little opportunity to speak. Perhaps six hours is too long and two hours is too short. Three hours answers all the questions that this Committee has put before us today and perhaps will answer many of the questions and provide the opportunities for those Members who want to express a view on a voteable motion.

Chair: Thank you very much. That is very clear. Thank you for returning and bringing your support with you. Could we have Pete Wishart, please?

Pete Wishart made representations.

Pete Wishart: Thank you, Chairman. No wild animals this time. I will not detain the Committee for too long. I am looking for a three-hour debate to consider the recommendations made in the Hargreaves report on intellectual property and copyright. The report was published about a month ago, and we are waiting for the Government’s response to the many recommendations that have been made. At this stage, the Government have not issued a response, so, in terms of urgency, it would be good to let the Government know what individual Members of Parliament feel about the recommendations and what is included in the report. As you can see from the paper that I have submitted to the Committee, this is supported by a wide range of spokespeople from across parties and it is a subject in which select committees would take an interest.

The Hargreaves report touches on critical issues to deal with our creative industries. As you all know, the creative industries is among the fastest-growing sectors of our economy. It touches on things such as the film industry, the music industry and the press. Members from the previous Parliament will remember the number of representations that we received on the Digital Economy Act 2010, so this is something that members of the public also take a great deal of interest in. All I am looking for is three hours for a general debate. Westminster Hall would be sufficient for that.

Q12 Chair: What a lovely presentation! That was perfect. Does anyone have any questions-although we do not want to ruin it? Thank you.

Stuart Andrew, Greg Mulholland, Nicola Blackwood, Mr Steve Brine and Nic Dakin made representations.

Q13 Chair: We now have Stuart Andrew. Thank you very much for coming. You have heard what we have and do not have available. You have many supporting Members for your application, so take us through it.

Stuart Andrew: Yes, thank you. There is currently a review into congenital cardiac services for children around the country. Admittedly, my initial involvement was with the Leeds children’s heart unit, and I secured an Adjournment debate on the matter. After that debate, it was obvious that the issue was affecting other parts of the country, too.

There is deep concern, certainly among parents of many of the children affected, but also among clinicians around the country, that the review has not been thorough or organised in the best way. Four options have been listed for consultation. For some hospitals in those options, criteria have been used that have not been used for others, so there is concern that the decision has, in essence, already been made. We are trying to secure a debate in Parliament so that it can have its say. There is cross-party support for that and much support from people in different parts of the country.

Q14 Chair: Your application states that the consultation concludes on 1 July. Are you ideally looking for a debate before that date or would something after it be preferable?

Stuart Andrew: Before would be wonderful, but getting a debate is the most important thing.

Q15 Chair: On a voteable motion that you have provided?

Stuart Andrew: On a voteable motion, yes.

Greg Mulholland: Chair, it is notable that there is cross-party and cross-regional support from a large number of MPs, not just those who are here today. The key reason why we are coming to the Committee is that this is a clinically-led initiative and, to be blunt, it is clear that Ministers are failing to engage with it by simply saying, "This is something that is clinically led and we do not have to do it or comment on it."

The subject is obviously very emotive for all those areas that are concerned-or potentially concerned-and there is strong frustration that there has not been any opportunity to challenge the review, because it needs challenging. There is a real worry about democratic accountability because, so far, clinicians are saying, "Well, we’re making the decision; you can’t challenge it," and the Ministers are saying, "They are in charge; there’s very little that you can do." We can achieve our aim only through a voteable motion on the Floor of the House.

Mr Brine: I agree. On geographical spread, I have been closely involved, as the MP for Winchester, with briefing Hampshire colleagues about this matter. However, it goes much wider than that, because Southampton General Hospital serves not only my constituents with regard to children’s heart surgery, but people in Dorset, Wiltshire and Oxfordshire, who have a great interest in this. Obviously, a colleague is here from Oxfordshire. As Greg has said, this matter has come up twice at PMQs, in numerous Health questions and in business questions. I am going to be at No. 10 next month to present a very large petition from my local newspaper about it. There is huge interest in the matter and there is grave concern across the board, as Greg has said.

Nicola Blackwood: Just to make it clear, there are 11 child heart surgery units across the country; we are talking about reducing that to five or six. It is almost certain that Oxford’s heart unit will close, which will mean that children in Oxfordshire will have to travel to Southampton, London or Birmingham-it is unclear which. Although the inquiry is clinician-led, there is disagreement among clinicians about whether the decisions that are being made in the consultation are accurate. Those disagreements are not being debated publicly. I speak from experience-my father is a cardiologist, so I have some background in this.

In addition, one of the proposals that has come forward in the midst of the consultation is for a partnership between the Oxford and Southampton trusts, even after the Oxford unit has closed. The problem is that once the Health and Social Care Bill goes through, with the new strengthening of foundation trusts, it is difficult to understand exactly how that would work, and I do think that when the joint committee of PCTs comes to make a decision about which of the options it should be deciding on, it will be important for it to understand the Government’s position. Having a debate and giving the Government the opportunity to respond to that debate before the joint committee of PCTs makes that decision would therefore be extremely valuable, and we would appreciate the opportunity for that debate.

Q16 Chair: Fantastic. Did you want to add anything, Nic?

Nic Dakin: Only that there have been a number of EDMs about hospital issues, which shows the strength of feeling across the House. I agree that the feeling about the issue out there in the communities that I and colleagues serve is very strong. There’s an expectation that Parliament should have a voice in this.

Q17 John Hemming: We come to the usual difficulty that there are lots of very important issues. Obviously, this is a very important issue-although I don’t think Birmingham’s is under threat on this one-but there is the question of limits on time. It strikes me that if you are looking for a Government response, you would get that in Westminster Hall. We have lots of pressures on time. We have Westminster Hall every week, but we have only one Chamber day and we’ve got various things that we want to cram in for 90 minutes, or for two or three hours. Are you saying, "Chamber or nothing," or would you be willing to accept Westminster Hall?

Greg Mulholland: Can I answer that? We absolutely do need a vote, and the reason for that is very clear. As I and colleagues have said, so far Ministers are not engaging. We do not want to hear the warm words that we have had at PMQs. This has been raised again and again. What we are essentially trying to do is to have the first opportunity to challenge the premise on which this review has taken place-there has been no opportunity to do that. We see the only way to do that as being to have a vote to stop the review from effectively going forward at this stage without proper consultation. The only way to do that is to get a vote in the House.

Q18 John Hemming: That is not exactly what the resolution says.

Greg Mulholland: I had a conversation with Stuart outside, and I said that the resolution was wrong and needed to be changed.

Stuart Andrew: I am a new Member, so I am learning. I think you’re right that we need to strengthen the motion.

Greg Mulholland: I had a conversation with Stuart. It was my fault-I had not had a chance to look at it-and I said to Stuart, "This actually has to say that the review must be stopped by Ministers."

John Hemming: That’s a definite worth-putting-in-the-Chamber thing. The resolution you’ve got here doesn’t say that.

Chair: Don’t worry about that. What you’re doing is bringing us the principle of the debate.

Q19 John Hemming: But it is Chamber or nothing.

Mr Brine: There is a feeling there that this has slid slightly under the radar thus far, and I think slipping it down to Westminster Hall would just exacerbate that. Putting it on the Floor of the House would really ramp it up.

Q20 Mr Hollobone: You have heard the debate today. We do not have an unlimited amount of time. The time that is given to this Committee is given by the Government. At the moment we have one day in the Chamber. I am pretty certain that we will have lots of days in Westminster Hall. The risk with a ‘motion or nothing’ stance is that you get nothing-not because we do not want to give you time, but because we do not have the time to give to everyone who wants a motion.

I understand completely the importance of this issue. Constituents have contacted me about Glenfield hospital, which is one of those affected, and I know it’s a really important issue for constituents. I understand all that, but the problem is that we do not have unlimited time. If we were able to offer you three hours in Westminster Hall, that would increase the level of parliamentary engagement. It would be fantastic for the Secretary of State to come along to respond to that debate, and you would have three hours of guaranteed parliamentary time.

One of the difficulties with Chamber time is that the Government can come along on the day with a statement that eats into the time available. A backbench Member can apply for an urgent question, which eats into the time available. I completely understand why you want time in the Chamber with a motion, but if it is not in the gift of the Committee to give you that, would you take three hours in Westminster Hall?

Stuart Andrew: It is a difficult question. I suppose my only concern is that I did actually secure an Adjournment debate, and I suspect that the response that we got from the Minister would be the same response that we would get in Westminster Hall. Therefore, I don’t think that would really serve to achieve anything for our constituents, or to address the serious problems that exist with this review and the future of children’s heart units in this country.

Greg Mulholland: If I can answer that further, when I asked a question of the Prime Minister during Question Time, I said very clearly that this needs to be looked at again, but that was ignored. We have raised this again and again. We do not need more talk and reiteration of the same arguments that have been given. We have one opportunity to try to get this properly looked at-so far that has been refused and ignored by Ministers-and the only way to do so is through a vote on the Floor of the House.

Q21 Mr Hollobone: You heard our previous discussion about wild animals in circuses, which is another important issue. We might be able to offer that subject two hours on the Floor of the House on a voteable motion. If we were able to offer you something similar, would you take it?

Stuart Andrew: Absolutely. We desperately want this to be debated on a voteable motion. If it is two hours, we would accept that. The issue is so important that the time is not really important.

Chair: Thank you, that is really helpful.

Q22 Mr Bone: Obviously you have cleared up the point about the motion. The motion as it stood was clearly not for debate. Basically, what you want is an NHS pause-I have heard that somewhere before. The reality is that if the motion said that there had to be a pause, it would be most likely that the Government would whip against it. We have three Government Members before us. Would those Members vote against the Government on this?

Greg Mulholland: Yes

Stuart Andrew: I would, I am afraid.

Q23 Mr Bone: So it is a real, genuine debate?

Stuart Andrew: My background is in the children’s hospice movement. When you listen to the parents in these families, this is an issue that absolutely goes beyond party politics. It is about the safety of these children.

Greg Mulholland: The answer to your question, to go one step further, is that I would whip-

Mr Bone: I am sorry; I had forgotten that you are a Government Member.

Greg Mulholland: I would be involved in the whipping operation against the Government Whip, but this goes back to what I said in the beginning. I am not sure that the Government would do that, because they are saying, "This is nothing to do with us, guv"-that is the point. We have to make them commit. If they want to commit by saying, "You must vote against the motion," we would finally have a commitment, but so far we have none.

Mr Bone: That is one of the reasons for tabling voteable motions. Sometimes the Government move just because of the motion.

Q24 Jane Ellison: May I push you a little bit on what the nature of the debate would be? I suppose that I am trying to understand whether there would be an overarching theme to the debate and thrust to your argument, or whether the debate would be, if you like, a series of mini-regional pitches. I could understand the former debate being about a review that was structured in the wrong way, or that had been gone about in the wrong way and lacked transparency-I could imagine that attracting interest from Members even beyond those whose immediate local hospital is affected-but if it were just a series of regional pitches for why something should not affect someone’s area, I can imagine that being quite inward-looking and not engaging Members beyond those with an immediate constituency problem. Can you respond to that?

Nicola Blackwood: The reality is that this reorganisation affects every single constituency because it is the entire child heart surgery service in this country, so it should interest every MP in this country. Secondly, not a single person here is going to be making pitches for their own unit. What we are interested in is making sure that this reform is delivered in a fair and transparent way, and that clinicians, patients and PCTs are listened to and taken into account properly. There are places where you can point to errors and inconsistencies within the documentation and where you can talk to misinformation, and that is not something that should be brushed under the carpet. It should be openly debated in this House, and that is what I hope the debate would be about.

Greg Mulholland: In very human terms, we are effectively challenging the review that says that the 11 units must go down to five or six. Why? Clinicians do not accept that and nor do lots of the units up and down the country. There has been no opportunity to challenge the premise of the review, so we are challenging the whole review.

Chair: George, did you want to speak?

Mr Mudie: No, I am fine.

Chair: Thank you very much. That is very clear and helpful.

Nick Smith, Ian Paisley and Ian Mearns made representations.

Q25 Chair: You wanted to ask for a debate on Southern Cross.

Nick Smith: We did. The other colleagues in support are Ian Paisley, who is with me this afternoon; John Pugh, as the Liberal Democrats have expressed support for this; and Margot James, who spoke on this issue at Health questions last week. I have tried to get in touch with her but she is on a Bill committee today, so I am not sure that she supports this idea, although I suspect she will, given the strength of feeling that she expressed last week. Thank you for giving us five minutes this afternoon to hear us out.

We want to have the topic debated because we think it is an important issue of the day. It has had massive media coverage in the past two weeks. We think it is a genuine national issue. There are 750 Southern Cross homes across the country with 30,000 residents and 40,000 staff. There has been much interest about the effect of the financial situation at Southern Cross from trade unions and others in recent days. There has been much recent interest in the House. I think that there were four questions during Health Question Time last week, and it also came up at last week’s Business Questions. When I raised it, Sir George Young expressed some sympathy for a discussion on it. Hilary Benn, the Shadow Leader of the House, asked for an oral statement. We have had a written statement, but not much opportunity to talk about this important topic.

In conclusion, this is a real issue of the day. It is an opportunity for Parliament to have its say and for Members’ concerns to be raised. It is important that we talk about it shortly.

Ian Paisley: May I add three points? First, this is a truly cross-UK issue. In Northern Ireland there are 25 care homes, 3,200 patients and something like 3,000 to 4,000 workers involved. It is an issue that addresses and gives voice to the most vulnerable in our society. If Parliament is to do anything, it is surely to speak for the most vulnerable in our society and to be a voice for them. This debate would allow that to happen. It is time-critical. Southern Cross management is currently engaged in negotiating new leases and a new rental arrangement that could see some of the homes closing. We could do one of two things: address the issue ex post facto-when it is too late-or influence how those negotiations take place and ensure that the most vulnerable in society have a voice and are protected. I would far rather that this House spoke before the conclusions of the management committee involved.

Q26 Chair: Just one question from me: why does the motion need Chamber time? Why could the debate not be in Westminster Hall? It is a very general motion. If what you are trying to do is to influence the negotiations, the issue is about raising the subject rather than having a voteable motion. As you have heard, we have little to no time in the Chamber. We have more time-although not plenty-in Westminster Hall. If this urgently needs to be held at the same time as the negotiations, you are far more likely to be given something in Westminster Hall.

Nick Smith: Good question, and I am not sure how best to respond, except that this is urgent and we want to make an impact, and that is more likely to happen if we have a discussion in the Chamber. I also think there would be very good interest.

Q27 Chair: It is not about the interest. We have no time. If it is between the Chamber and nothing, we probably will not be able to give you anything. However, if it is between the Chamber and Westminster Hall, the chances are that you will be given something in Westminster Hall.

Ian Paisley: All I would say is that in a two-hour debate-we have asked for three, but we may able to limit ourselves to two-we would be able to make the necessary impact. I believe that due to the extent, as there are more than 31,000 patients and 40,000 workers-

Q28 Chair: But what are you asking for?

Ian Paisley: In the Chamber, a two-hour debate.

Q29 Chair: If you have a voteable motion in the Chamber, what will you ask the House to vote on?

Ian Paisley: For the Government to ensure that those negotiations do not proceed in a way that damages the well-being of those 31,000 patients.

Chair: Okay. That is still quite general.

Ian Mearns: May I crave your indulgence, Natascha? I want to absent myself from the Committee and go and join those two chaps, please.

Chair: You are more than welcome, if we are quorate. Yes, that is fine.

Q30 John Hemming: Have you asked for an urgent question?

Nick Smith: No.

John Hemming: Given the urgency, I suggest that you write to the Speaker when you leave the room and ask for an urgent question because this is more urgent than the Committee itself can sensibly deliver. We cannot deliver anything this week, but you could have an urgent question tomorrow. Alternatively, you can write in for an SO 24 debate, and at least you will get three minutes, if you do not get anything else. This is ideal urgent question territory. You may come back to us after that or, if you do not get the urgent question, we do it.

Chair: A very good suggestion.

Mr Hollobone: You have heard that the Government give us the time to allocate and that, basically, they are not giving us enough time so that all the issues that backbenchers bring before us can be discussed. I am sure that everyone here agrees that this is a really important and urgent subject that should be given parliamentary time. I do not think that we need convincing of that. The question is what kind of time we give you, if any.

I should like to reinforce what the Chair is saying: unless you have a motion that instructs the Government to do something that they would not do ordinarily and that is likely to attract debate across the Chamber, you are far more likely to get the subject raised with parliamentary air time in Westminster Hall, where important subjects are always discussed and where the debates attract national media interest-John Hemming’s debate on super-injunctions, for example. With respect, if you think that being allocated time in Westminster Hall would be somehow kicking you into the long grass, that is very much not the case. You would have three hours of guaranteed parliamentary time in which you could raise all your concerns about this issue. However, due to the lack of time that the Government are giving us, the chances of your getting Chamber time are really very small indeed.

Mr Bone: I should just reinforce the point about Westminster Hall. It was not only super-injunctions in Westminster Hall. We had high-speed rail and prisoners’ votes, and they took off in the media and resulted in a change in direction from the Government. I agree entirely with Mr Hemming, in that I would ask for an urgent question or an SO 24 debate. I would also try to convince this Committee to give me three hours in Westminster Hall, because there are competing times for Westminster Hall. If you get 50 Members there-that has happened quite a lot recently-you will get the press coverage and what you want. If everyone said to the Government that they had got it wrong, you would get the change in direction that you wanted.

Q31 Chair: Also, starting off with an urgent question would raise the issue, which would automatically raise a debate to support it. Mr Mearns?

Ian Mearns: I am very grateful, Chair.

There is some urgency about Southern Cross, and I have an awful feeling that a lot more information about its activities will come into the public domain prior to any significant review or financial restructuring of its business. As part of the restructure, it intends to reduce its staffing levels by something like 10 per cent. I have a massive concern about that because I am already aware of a huge number of care quality issues in its establishments prior to a 10 per cent. reduction in staffing. Given that we are talking about 31,000 vulnerable, elderly people, that must be a massive and urgent concern for all Members of the House across all parties.

Chair: Thank you very much. I think we are quite clear where we are on that. Thank you very much for coming at such short notice.

Nick Smith: Thank you for listening to us.