UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

TUESDAY 6 DECEMBER 2011

MR ADRIAN BAILEY and MR BRIAN BINLEY

ADAM AFRIYIE

ANN CLWYD, JOHN MCDONNELL, DR HYWEL FRANCIS and JIM DOBBIN

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 20

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

Made before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 6 December 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Mr Adrian Bailey and Mr Brian Binley made representations.

Q1 Chair: Welcome to the Committee. You have come to us before about the pubcos debate. Do you want to let us know your thoughts?

Mr Bailey: Yes, thanks. Just before I do, may I make a point of clarification? In the first hearing, I referred to the All-Party Beer Group, but that was a slip of the tongue; it should have been the All-Party Save The Pub Group. I have had a prod from the chair of the All-Party Beer Group, who has not told me what his position is on the issue. I would like to put that straight, for the record.

We have literally just come hotfoot from an inquiry session with the Minister, and we would like a backbench debate arising from that, the reason being that the Minister is in negotiation with BBPA-the trade body for the pub companies-and they have not yet drawn up the final code of practice that will be the legal basis on which the industry will be run. We would like a debate in the new year on that, and on the implications. I have a motion that I am happy to read, if you would like me to.

Q2 Chair: That would be great.

Mr Bailey: Right. It says: "That this House believes that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ proposals for reform of the pub industry falls short of the undertaking given to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in July 2011 and will not resolve the contractual problems between pub companies and their lessees; and calls on the Government to introduce a statutory code of practice and adjudicator for the Industry." Short and to the point.

Q3 Chair: Thank you. That is a votable motion, isn’t it?

Mr Bailey: Yes.

Q4 Chair: We definitely have 15 December in the Chamber; we do not know what we have in the new year, so we would not be able to say yes or no to your request for a debate in the new year, but is there any reason why the debate cannot be on 15 December?

Mr Bailey: First, we cannot be sure of having the industry code of practice by then; obviously it would be very helpful to have it. Secondly, there have been a number of assertions made by the Minister at the session this morning to which we would like a response from other interested bodies in the industry, and we cannot guarantee that we will have them all in by 15 December, and we feel that we would have a more rounded debate, and could give a more coherent, focused response in the new year.

Q5 Chair: That is great. Could you return to us once you have all that in place? That would be fantastic.

Mr Bailey: Certainly.

Ian Mearns: For the record, as we have had mention of the pub group and the beer group, I should mention that I am co-chair of the All-Party Wine and Spirit Group. I am also a member of the Private Members’ Clubs group.

Chair: Do many of us drink?

Ian Mearns: I would not like to think how many shares I might have bought in Scottish & Newcastle Breweries over the years.

Adam Afriyie made representations.

Q6 Chair: Adam Afriyie, welcome back.

Adam Afriyie: Thank you very much, Chair. It is a great pleasure to be back here, after so many months of being absent. My request is not for an answer today, but I am interested in the 15 December date. I would like to put forward a substantive motion for debate on the Floor of the House relating to a report from the Members’ Expenses Committee, which I chair. We have officially agreed our report, which will be published shortly, and I would like to reserve a slot, if that is possible, or ask you to consider a slot on Thursday 15 December, because the report needs to come out this side of Christmas, and the House really ought to take a view on the recommendations made.

A debate would be timely, because the report has to be out before Christmas. Also, this is a period of austerity; we have all the pension changes in the public sector, and there are the salary implications of austerity, so it is timely and relevant in that respect as well. The Leader of the House made it absolutely clear that matters relating to terms and conditions for Members are a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. I wholeheartedly agree with that, as does most of the House, so it seems appropriate that the matter should come through this Committee. Given the nature of the issues tackled in the report, it is important that there is an opportunity to have some sort of minimal debate, and that the House expresses a view on whether the recommendations are acceptable to it, so that we have a clear view of the way forward.

It is unlikely that the debate would be secured through any other route, largely because it is a Back-Bench matter, and rightly so. That is why I want to flag up that date. I am not asking for a three-hour or five-hour debate; these matters have been covered so many times before that I think it would not be proper to take too much parliamentary time, but the House does need the opportunity to say one or two words on the recommendations of the report, and to express a view.

Q7 Chair: Could you expand on that? As we are talking about a Select Committee, we were discussing whether it would be appropriate to have a select committee chair’s report mini-statement launch, but you say that you do not think the debate needs three hours.

Adam Afriyie: No.

Q8 Chair: I would say that there has been a great deal of interest in the last few debates that we have had on IPSA matters that you have brought to us.

Adam Afriyie: There has. I have two observations. I think there is a precedent for a select committee presenting a debate; I think the BBC World Service debate came on the back of a select committee report. Also, the Select Committee, which is only temporary-we are disbanding at the end of December-was set up specifically and only to tackle this matter, which relates solely to the House. I guess the way that I would put it is that this is a select committee report that relates solely to matters related to the Backbench Business Committee. That has been acknowledged by both the Government and the Leader of the House.

Chair: That is very clear. Are there any other questions?

Q9 Jane Ellison: What sort of time did you have in mind? You have said what you do not think the debate needs, but if you could give us an indication of the time needed, that would be helpful.

Adam Afriyie: If I am frank about it, I think that one hour would be plenty, purely because we have been through the minutiae of all the different issues; we know the general level of feeling. It is more about expressing a view on whether, on balance, the recommendations in the report should be carried by the House or refused by the House. That, rather than the minutiae, is the nature of the debate.

Q10 Chair: Recently, if we have had more than one debate, we have seen on the day how many people have put in to speak, and then we have divided up time accordingly. If every Member puts in to speak in your debate-

Adam Afriyie: I hope they don’t-no, I encourage them to do so, but I am very relaxed. I also ought to point out that if, before 15 December, it was understood that there was already a motion on the Order Paper, and it had passed, the debate might not be necessary, but I will not be in a position to make that judgment for several days.

Chair: That is understood. Thank you.

Ann Clwyd, John McDonnell, Dr Hywel Francis and Jim Dobbin made representations.

Q11 Chair: Ann Clwyd, welcome.

Ann Clwyd: I chair the all-party group on Remploy, and John McDonnell is the Secretary. My colleagues here, whom you know, are supporting Members. We have had support from across the House for the request for this debate. There have been various requests on the Floor of the House during Business Questions, but nothing has yet materialised. We have a draft motion and an application form. Have you received a copy?

Q12 Chair: No. For the record, will you read out the motion?

Ann Clwyd: Of course. It states: "That this House calls upon the Government to produce a strategy to develop decentralised public and private sector procurement to ensure the economic viability of 54 Remploy factories and therefore avoiding the redundancies of 3,500 disabled people; and notes Remploy’s proud post-war history as Britain’s oldest and largest employer of disabled people."

Q13 Chair: Thank you. Am I right that there has been a paper petition on Remploy?

John McDonnell: There have been various petitions from individual Members. There was also a Remploy lobby of the workers themselves.

Dr Francis: A petition was handed in to 10 Downing street with more than 100,000 signatures.

Chair: That was my understanding-that there was a paper petition with more than 100,000 signatures.

Q14 Mr Hollobone: I completely understand your approach and am very sympathetic to what you are trying to achieve. The four of you are all from one party, and on the application form it is an overwhelmingly Labour-supported issue. I am not being critical of the issue, but the Committee approaches things from a cross-party point of view. We have had previous representations from Conservative MPs that involved no Labour MPs at all. While I understand completely the importance of the issue, I think the strength of your case would be enhanced were there more visible cross-party support for it. What this Committee does not do is table debates that might be taken up by, for example, the Opposition; it must be from the body of backbench opinion as a whole.

I know I am being nasty, mean and horrible, but how would you respond to that?

Ann Clwyd: Well, Remploy is predominantly in areas represented by Labour MPs, 55 of whom have Remploy factories, along with two Conservatives and seven Lib Dems. We have got Coalition support-if you look at the form that I hope you have now, you will see that Bob Russell, Andrew George, and Elfyn Llwyd of Plaid Cymru, also support the request. But Labour MPs have most Remploy factories.

Dr Francis: May I add that at the recent lobby of Parliament attended by quite a number of MPs, a Conservative MP and a Lib Dem MP spoke, giving strong support to the all-party group.

Jim Dobbin: I am here not as a Labour Member of Parliament but because my constituency has a large Remploy factory, which I visited last week and I saw the tremendous job it does and the benefits to the people, most of whom have serious disabilities, from being part of Remploy. This is a serious issue.

Chair: No one is disputing that; the cross-party support element was the issue.

John Hemming: I happen to have a Remploy factory in my constituency, and I would quite happily see my name on the form in support of the debate, although there is the complication of my being a member of this Committee. However, it has happened in the past, and I would be happy for you to put my name down as well. If you think about it, you have two Lib Dems, plus me, which is three out of the seven-a reasonably high proportion-who have a Remploy factory in their constituency. You would accept my name on it, wouldn’t you?

Q16 Ian Mearns: One would never tell one’s granny how to suck eggs, but I think that the team are selling themselves short by citing the number of MPs who have a Remploy factory situated in their constituency, because the number of constituents who are affected from a wide range of constituencies should also be thought about. The Remploy factory in Gateshead certainly employs people from four or five different constituencies.

John McDonnell: I do not have a Remploy factory, but I have constituents who are employed by Remploy and have lost their jobs as a result of some of the cuts. May I add that the Secretary of State has published the Remploy accounts and 2011-12 targets as part of the statement today, so the debate is highly relevant to try to influence those.

Q17 Chair: The only day that we have available in the Chamber is 15 December, but we have a protected three hours in Westminster Hall on the same day. Would you consider Westminster Hall, or is it essential that you have a votable motion?

Ann Clwyd: I have put down, "Anywhere". Wherever there is an opportunity-the sooner, the better.

Chair: If you want it sooner rather than later, that is a definite possibility.

Q18 Mr Hollobone: Were you offered 15 December, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, would you take it?

Ann Clwyd: Certainly, yes.

Q19 Chair: One last quick question. The other thing that we look at is whether it will be a debate-whether there is a for and against. Is there anybody in their right mind who would speak against a Remploy factory?

John McDonnell: I think you should separate the two elements of that question-is there anyone in their right mind?

Q20 Jane Ellison: We often ask the question, not necessarily because we want it to be a for and against, but because we want to have nuances of argument. The debate will be more interesting if it extracts different points of view rather than a succession of the same.

Dr Francis: I think the debate will be with the Sayce report. The reason we are concerned is the question mark about the future of Remploy because of the Sayce report. In a sense, we are debating against the Sayce report, and hoping that the open-mindedness of the Business Secretary, who has indicated that no decisions have been taken, will be influenced by the quality of our contribution and of our debate. But it would be a debate against, in a sense, someone outside the Chamber.

John McDonnell: But there will be a range of views on the way forward, and they are specifically shaped by these targets.

Chair: Thank you, Jane, for-

Ann Clwyd: Prompting us.

Chair: -explaining my question.

Thank you. That is very clear. We will go into private session now, and we will let you know later this afternoon.

Prepared 23rd December 2011