UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

TUESDAY 17 MAY 2011

ALEX CUNNINGHAM, ANAS SARWAR

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 9

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

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

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 17 May 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Jane Ellison

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Alex Cunningham and Anas Sarwar made representations.

Q1Chair: Hello. What we need is a short round-up of the topic on which you are bidding for time, how much time you need and whether you want time in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. Before you start, I must say that we do not at the moment have any time in the Chamber to allocate, as we are waiting for the Government to come back to us on that. It will be after the recess, so if it is urgent-

Alex Cunningham: It is not immediately urgent.

Chair: That’s fine.

Alex Cunningham: I am grateful for the opportunity to request-together with colleagues from across the House-a three-hour debate. There is very little parliamentary time given to international responsibilities in relation to child mortality in some of the world’s poorest countries. The campaign by Save the Children, No Child Born to Die, is the subject of early-day motion 1329, which has attracted 120 signatures from across the House, demonstrating the concern that we all share about mortality from preventable diseases in those countries.

It is a timely moment for such a debate because the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation is due to hold a conference in London on 13 June, and it faces a £3.7 billion gap in funding for its vaccination programme. That could effectively lead to some 4 million children dying needlessly. As the host country, our Parliament has a responsibility to debate the issues and demonstrate our commitment to playing our part in taking action to address this horrific position-perhaps that is even more important today with the speculation about the status of our overseas budgets.

Q2 Chair: Do you have cross-party support? You are both Labour Members.

Alex Cunningham: Apart from Anas, we have Caroline Lucas and Tessa Munt who support the debate. We also have the 120 Members who have signed the motion, so it is something that people would like to debate.

Q3 Chair: You say three hours: do you want a voteable motion or a general debate, in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall?

Alex Cunningham: It is just to raise the profile of the issue. We would work with you on an appropriate motion.

Q4 Mr Hollobone: I don’t notice any Conservative names on your application.

Alex Cunningham: I have made a mistake then. I thought that someone on this list was a Conservative MP, but clearly not.

Chair: Tessa Munt is a Liberal Democrat.

Alex Cunningham: I beg your pardon. But there are many Conservatives who have signed the early-day motion.

Q5 Mr Hollobone: Obviously, your subject is hugely worthwhile, and nobody would argue against it. It is very important that Parliament talks about it, but there are lots of early-day motions that have more signatures than yours and that have not yet had the opportunity for debate. While you might think that 129 is a large number, there are lots of early-day motions with more signatures.

Given that you have said that you do not have a particular motion in mind and that you want a general debate to raise the profile of this worthwhile issue, presumably it would be acceptable if the Committee were to offer you time in Westminster Hall at some date in the future?

Alex Cunningham: Well, we would prefer it to be on the floor of the House. We have not had a debate about child mortality on the floor of the House for a long, long time. I take the point about other early-day motions attracting more signatures, but nobody else is here asking for a debate. It is important that if people want debates, they should be here to pitch for them. To have the debate on the floor of the House would raise its profile and help with the media coverage. It would highlight our responsibilities, especially at the time of this international conference.

Mr Hollobone: What this Committee does not have is endless supplies of days and time. Three hours allocated to you on a general motion with no vote would deny someone else the opportunity of a debate with a vote. What I am putting to you is that we do not have enough time for all the issues that we would like to discuss. When someone comes forward with a worthy issue but without a vote, a good place to highlight its importance is Westminster Hall.

Alex Cunningham: I appreciate your point, but I did not want to make this a political issue and force a vote on how we deal with our international aid. I want this to be a genuine debate on the floor of the House, in which people could talk freely and openly without being stuck under some party whip. This is a matter of international importance and I think that we should do it on the floor of the House.

Anas Sarwar: I take Mr Hollobone’s point about this appearing not to have Conservative support. I have not yet had discussions with my colleagues on the International Development Committee, but I am sure that most, if not all, of the five Conservative members would be happy to support such a debate on the floor of the House.

The point that Alex is making is that this is a very worthwhile cause. The GAVI conference is taking place and the Prime Minister has said that if he is not there himself, he will be represented. Andrew Mitchell, the Secretary of State, will address the conference.

It is good to have divisions in the House and a motion that people can vote on, but it is also special to have a motion that has cross-party support and shows our commitment on a global stage. That is why we are looking for a debate on the floor of the House of Commons, not just in Westminster Hall.

Mr Hollobone: But it is unlikely that this Committee will have any time to allocate before the conference. That is the sad reality of the time given to us by the Government, some of whose representatives are in the audience today.

Anas Sarwar: That is a fair point, and I am happy to discuss that point with Alex. If he is willing to have it in Westminster Hall, that is fair enough, but his preference is to have it on the floor of the House.

Q6 Jane Ellison: Following on from those points, your draft motion mentions a unique opportunity. I am not sure whether that uniqueness applies to the question of timing. To pick up on and amplify the point that Philip has made, the time in the Chamber-if we had any at the moment-has been bumped or shortened by statement or urgent questions, especially over the last few months with world events being so unpredictable. It is therefore more unpredictable, even when we have some to allocate. If that unique opportunity you mention in your motion relates to a window of opportunity to raise the profile of the issue, given all these important international events, it is worth thinking about Westminster Hall, because to date we have had no problems-matters scheduled for Westminster Hall have gone ahead on schedule and always had the exact time allocation.

Alex Cunningham: I accept that point. We still have a preference for the Chamber, but we would settle for Westminster Hall. It is the issue that matters, not the venue. Having it on the Floor of the House would add extra value-

Chair: We understand that, although we are also on a mission to raise the status and profile of Westminster Hall, especially for general debates such as this. It has the same value, it is reported in Hansard, and as long as you can fill the time, it works very well.

Jane Ellison: Just for the benefit of influential audience members, I wonder if I could say that one of the things that we are keen to see is senior Ministers responding to debates in Westminster Hall. That is one of the things that the Committee is encouraging, inasmuch as we can, because it helps to add to the status of the debate in the eyes of those who have won the allotted time.

Chair: That is a very good point.

Q7 Ian Mearns: It is a very interesting topic, but from the political balance perspective, I wish to reiterate the comments by other colleagues. As we speak, we are not aware of the next allocated day for backbench business in the Chamber and there won’t be one this side of the Whitsun recess. You are therefore in a pot with several other people who have already made applications to the Committee, which are pending. We have to balance the importance of their applications, which have already been submitted, against yours, and whether the timing would mean that you missed the boat in what you are trying to achieve. It is difficult.

Alex Cunningham: It is. I thought that it would be the other side of Whitsun anyway, as there is only a week to go.

Q8 Mr Hollobone: Anas, you said that you are on the International Development Committee. Are you on it, Alex?

Alex Cunningham: No, I’m not.

Mr Hollobone: Is the Select Committee looking at this issue?

Anas Sarwar: It is not our current report priority. But the point that Ian made is right. With the timing of the conference, the preference would be to have the debate-I apologise if I am talking out of turn, Alex, and tell me if you disagree-either just before or sometime around the conference. To have it way afterwards would not be ideal, because we want to raise the profile of the conference and show that the House of Commons supports it. If the only available date is in Westminster Hall, it should be considered.

Chair: Have you put in for an Adjournment debate?

Alex Cunningham: No.

Chair: That might be worth doing.

Q9 Mr Hollobone: The other issue that we should perhaps make you aware of is that were the Select Committee to look at this issue at some point and make a recommendation, it would be possible for it to come to this Committee and say that it would like us to allocate time to discuss that report and recommendation. If this timing does not work out in the next few weeks, that would be an option for the future.

Jane Ellison: Indeed, that is what is happening this week with the BBC World Service debate.

Alex Cunningham: I would just reiterate that it is an international conference. The spotlight will be on Britain and we should be seen to be playing our part at this time.

Chair: Thank you for your submission. We will go into private session and let you know as soon as we can.