UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 26 APRIL 2011

PAUL MURPHY, MR ELFYN LLWYD, RICHARD OTTAWAY, ADAM AFRIYIE, MR MICHAEL MEACHER, DR SARAH WOLLASTON and CHRIS BRYANT

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 19

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 26 April 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Jane Ellison

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Paul Murphy, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Richard Ottaway, Adam Afriyie, Mr Michael Meacher, Dr Sarah Wollaston and Chris Bryant made representations.

Q1 Chair: Sorry to keep you waiting outside for 10 minutes. Shall we have the Welsh first? [Interruption.] It’s the Welsh debate isn’t it?

Paul Murphy: Well, we return.

Chair: Welcome back.

Paul Murphy: We are grateful for the Committee’s consideration. We understood that there were practical difficulties which did not allow the Committee to recommend our request and the request of the majority, almost all, of the Welsh Members of Parliament to have a Welsh day debate, which we have had since the second world war. We return because, although St David’s Day has passed-every day on the calendar has a Welsh saint incidentally, so we could have an appropriate Welsh saint for the day-the real issue that we face as Welsh Members is that we had a referendum on extra powers for the National Assembly, which was carried. That, of course, meant that Welsh Members were engaged in campaigning on that issue. Next week we have the elections to the National Assembly for Wales as well so inevitably, and unusually and uniquely, these events have taken place which would have meant that the timing of a St David’s Day debate was not possible. However, our view remains and it is, I believe, the view of all Welsh Members of Parliament, that there should still be a debate on Welsh issues on the Floor of the House, even though it is a few weeks after St David’s Day.

We talked last time about whether a specific resolution would be appropriate. We were relaxed about that. However, our view now is that if there were to be a resolution it would be slightly different from the one that we proposed to the Committee last time because the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has since become an Act, even though the issues remain. A resolution that Elfyn and I have talked about and would certainly meet with cross-party support is on the relationship between Wales and Westminster post the referendum on devolution, and, for example, whether the position of the Secretary of State for Wales has changed, whether legislative competence orders will still be necessary and whether the constitutional landscape within the United Kingdom, particularly in Wales, has dramatically changed since that referendum. However, were the Committee to feel that no resolution was required then the traditional debate would centre merely on Welsh affairs.

Mr Llwyd: I fully support what Paul says. Both of us have appeared in nearly all of the Welsh day debates over the last 19 years and they have always been oversubscribed. There has to be cutting back on time and so on. It is not a case of a bit of flag waving today and only half a dozen people attend. In every instance the debate has been oversubscribed and people have been able to speak about anything that they wanted, normally responded to by a Government Minister. Paul himself responded more than once, I am sure.

In a way, it is unfortunate that we have to make the application. I do not mean to be critical or facetious, but up until now the average Welsh backbencher has had a day per year. It appears that if our request is not successful, that will no longer be the case. I think that would be very unfortunate. I know that others may say, "Well, there’s not a Scotland day, there’s not a Northern Ireland day." That may be the case, but as Paul says this has been ongoing since 1944; we feel very strongly that we should have a St David’s Day debate. Of course, this year it would have to be called something else because it would be rather preposterous to do it three months after the event. Even in a Welsh time scale that seems rather odd. However, perhaps if we can put down a marker for this year and have a fully subscribed, proper, full afternoon’s debate, then we can look forward with confidence to other debates in future. I think it is very important that we have this.

Paul Murphy: It could be argued that, with the Welsh Grand Committees that meet to discuss these various issues, what is the point of a day’s debate in the Chamber? Well, the main point is that the debate gives every Member in the House of Commons an opportunity to speak on these matters, especially the new Wales-Whitehall situation that arises following the referendum on devolution.

Q2 Chair: Before I bring the other members of the Committee in, I should say that the reason why we ask you to come and make representation is that we took a decision very early on, when this Committee was formed, that, although 35 days were allocated to Back Benchers, all of those days were already pre-allocated with set piece debates. We wanted the flexibility to make sure that the debates were topical, and that other debates could be brought to us, and we have had some very successful debates, which is why we ask everybody to come to us.

Specifically on a Wales day, or St David’s Day, we’ve had the conversation about the fact that St David’s Day was taken up by referendum campaigning, and that you were absolutely open to come any time and bring a resolution to the Committee. We are absolutely open to that kind of representation. I just wanted to reassure you that there is no sort of anti-Welsh bias in this.

Mr Llwyd: No, I don’t think that anybody thinks that for one minute. Appearing before the Committee has not been an unpleasant experience either, and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be here. All I am saying is that, in the interests of all Welsh Back Benchers, we hope that we can persuade you to give us this day.

Q3 Mr Hollobone: I am a quarter Welsh, part of my family comes from Wales, and I completely understand why you are making your pitch, and why you have come again. However, there is another view, which the Chair has elucidated in part, that Wales is actually very well represented in this place, and Welsh people are very well represented at several levels. There is the Welsh Grand Committee, which you’ve mentioned, and the Welsh Select Committee. I notice that the Select Committee Chairman hasn’t come with you, and he didn’t come with you the time before. I think it would impress the Committee more were representatives from all parties sitting at the table, rather than just the two of you, even though you are of course very distinguished in your own right.

There are Welsh questions, and of course there is the Welsh Assembly, so there is no shortage of opportunities for issues important to people in Wales to be raised, whether in this place or in Wales itself. Of course, when we have legislation affecting Wales, such as the Government of Wales Bill, that is given lots of time on the Floor of the House.

The problem this Committee has is that if we were to allocate an annual day to a national debate or a regional debate-an annual debate on London, the East Midlands, Scotland-all of our days, of which we don’t really have enough, would soon be filled up. If you were to come to this Committee and say, "There’s a really big issue in Wales, a really serious issue which is this: we’ve got a resolution that we want the House to decide on," I think that that would impress the Committee a lot, rather than just a request for an annual debate about Welsh affairs, which might not be as impressive as you perhaps think it is.

Paul Murphy: I don’t think there is an awful lot of opportunity for the sort of set piece debate I have described. Yes, there are questions, there was technically an opportunity during the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, but we never reached it. In fact, as far as that Bill was concerned the only place where Welsh matters were discussed was in the House of Lords; they were never discussed on the floor of the House of Commons, within its own timetable. The Welsh Grand Committee, it is true, gives the opportunity for Welsh Members to discuss, but it does not give the opportunity for other Members of Parliament to discuss the issue that is potent and important, which is what happens in the relationships between our Governments and Parliaments, now that the Welsh people have decided by a referendum to have more powers. Parliament no longer legislates on things it did until three weeks ago. Those are now a matter for the Welsh Assembly. What happens to the position of the Secretary of State for Wales? Is it changing? Should it be there? Those are big issues, which come in the wake of that referendum result and whatever might happen next week in the elections.

Constitutionally, Wales will not have seen such enormous changes for over a decade and only twice in the past 100 years. A particular debate would grant not only Welsh Members but all Members of Parliament the opportunity to speak on that. I initiated a debate in Westminster Hall some weeks ago on the West Lothian Question. It brought some interest from Members well beyond Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. That, too, will be debated in the context of what I have just described.

Mr Llwyd: When we applied, there was a massively important issue, which is the Constituencies Bill. To the best of my knowledge, not a single Welsh Member of Parliament has been able to debate or express their view on what is likely to happen next in terms of their constituencies. All those matters are extremely important. You will no doubt come back and say to me, "Every Member of Parliament will be subject to it." Indeed they will. There will be 7% cuts in England and 25% in Wales. It is a special case in any event, on that basis alone. I am not saying that it will be confined to those issues, but I dare say that if a debate is granted, several people will want to talk about that.

There will be other issues as well. The West Lothian Question is becoming more and more of an issue. Members from all parties and all over the United Kingdom will take part. That will allow them to take up some of the time. I feel strongly about this. We are not making a bid for next year now. I might have been a bit sloppy when I said that earlier. We are asking for a Welsh day debate this year. Needless to say, that does not tie your hands in any shape or form, Chair, for the future.

Chair: I’m going to bring in Jane and Ian, but I am conscious of the time.

Q4 Jane Ellison: I have a quick point then two quick questions. The first is that it is a surprising suggestion that Welsh backbenchers do not speak often on many different subjects, because as a new Member I have heard lots of new Welsh Members speak on all sorts of subjects.

Mr Llwyd: I did not say that. I was talking about the Constituencies Bill.

Q5 Jane Ellison: Two questions. I understand the point that you are making about the changing nature of the relationships between the Assembly and the UK Government, but there is a case for that to be debated in Government time, rather than Backbench time. It is not clear to me why such a debate would come out of Back-Bench time, if it is about the changing nature of the relationship between Governments.

Secondly, you are a party leader, so you are arguably only on the cusp of being Backbench. You talked about the long tradition of the debate, but in the course of that long tradition, the nature of the relationship between the Welsh and UK Government has changed enormously. Would you not expect that things like the tradition of the debate would change to reflect that?

Mr Llwyd: I don’t see why, because, again, this is an annual debate which has been vastly oversubscribed for the past 50 or 60 years. If anyone is concerned about people not turning up if this debate is granted, there are no concerns there at all. The mere fact that people turn up means that things have not changed that much, otherwise they would not be there to present their case and to use the time.

Paul Murphy: Certainly the current Secretary of State for Wales has written to the Committee. At the last Welsh Grand Committee, she said that there should be a debate on these issues, but never offered any Government time for it. That is not our position; it is not our business in that sense. I am coming in as a backbencher to ask for an additional Backbench debate in a new context. I understand if you are constrained by time. I think the Committee should consider carefully whether something that has happened for well over half a century should disappear. It is one thing to give, quite another to take away the opportunities that we have had.

This is also a unique year, as Elfyn said. There will be a disproportionate cut in the number of Members of Parliament, new powers for the Welsh Assembly and a question mark over the role of the Secretary of State. Those are all big constitutional issues that deserve proper debate on the Floor of the House. An argument could be made that the Government should provide time. That is not my argument, or yours, because that has not been offered. Ironically and unusually, the Government, through the Secretary of State for Wales, is saying that there should be no loss of tradition as far as this particular debate is concerned.

Q6 Ian Mearns: In essence, we have a dilemma because the Committee has inherited a certain amount of days to allocate. The Government has put a range of things to consider in that pot. If we say that there will be a Welsh day debate every year, that would cut from 35 to 34 the number of days that we have for everything else. That is a problem. Certainly in the North East of England, my colleagues would be on my neck asking when we were going to have a North East day debate, as we have a similar population and similar political and economic difficulties. If an application were made, based on topicality, to have a debate on the constitutional, political, social and economic implications of the Welsh referendum, we would look at it. However, it would be extremely difficult to allocate a Welsh day debate every year.

Paul Murphy: As Elfyn has said, each year is taken on its merit, and has to be. We would argue a very strong case for continuing the precedent, but we are not in your position. You have to make up your own minds on that. For this year in particular, we will provide you with the wording of any resolution required, which would encapsulate the points we have made. The comparison with the North East is interesting because there are big regional similarities between Wales and somewhere like the North East, but the constitutional ones are not. The constitutional ones are unique. In many respects, we are talking about, "Whither goes the Union?" Do we as Welsh Members of Parliament still vote on everything in the House of Commons? Some people say we should and some say we should not. These are big constitutional points that are reflected solely in the devolved administrations, nations and regions of the UK.

Q7 Chair: I think we are quite clear. Thank you for coming back and spending so much time outlining everything. We will go into private session and let you know. At the moment, we have got only 5 May to allocate in the Chamber, which is obviously not an appropriate day for a debate. As soon as we get more days, we will get back to you.

Paul Murphy: Thank you.

Mr Llwyd: Thank you.

Chair: Can we have Richard Ottaway please?

Richard Ottaway: Thank you.

Q8 Chair: We are going to have to bash right through everything very quickly because one of our Members has to leave and then we shall cease to be quorate. Are you able to bash through quickly?

Richard Ottaway: I will not take as long as the Welsh. [Laughter.] It is very simple. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs published its report on the World Service a couple of weeks ago, which concluded that we regretted the proposed cuts. That report has been hugely well received by everywhere except the Foreign Office, and I think it is worthy of a debate, possibly on a substantive motion. We expect the Government’s response on 10 or 11 May, so we would have the added bonus of having the report and the Government’s response to it.

Q9 Chair: Are you asking for a Westminster Hall debate, something in the Chamber, or a mini-statement?

Richard Ottaway: I think it would be best to have a debate in the main Chamber on a substantive motion.

Q10 Chair: After the Government have responded, I assume. After 10 or 11 May.

Richard Ottaway: After the 10th. This is not a pitch for 5 May.

Q11 Chair: There are not many of those.

Richard Ottaway: Can I just add that in this application I have got the support of the following Select Committee Chairmen: James Arbuthnot, Defence Committee; Andrew Tyrie, Treasury Committee; Keith Vaz, Home Affairs Committee; and John Whittingdale, Culture, Media and Sport Committee? Those are the main Departments covering the area.

Q12 Mr Hollobone: Presumably, through the Liaison Committee you could have an afternoon in Westminster Hall, albeit without a motion, using another parliamentary avenue. Is that something that you have thought about?

Richard Ottaway: We have thought about it. I actually detect quite a lot of support. It depends on the substantive motion, but I think that there is quite a lot of support for a carefully worded substantive motion, so it might be a missed opportunity if it is in Westminster Hall. We would still get the Government response, of course.

Q13 Chair: That’s brilliant. Are we happy to move swiftly on? I am sorry about this.

Richard Ottaway: That’s fine-you are not alone.

Q14 Chair: Adam?

Adam Afriyie: This should be equally swift. Again, this is not a pitch for 5 May, but I have drafted another substantive motion based on the 2 December motion that was passed unanimously, which said that IPSA was too expensive and was discriminating against less well-off MPs, building a Parliament for the wealthy, and restricting MPs in doing their duties. IPSA has now reported; it brought back the scheme a few days before the end of the last recess. It is quite clear that that scheme does not meet the terms of the motion that was passed unanimously by the House. My pitch today, therefore, is for you to consider that we bring back a substantive motion-not on 5 May-stating, in effect, that IPSA has failed to deliver a scheme that meets the requirements of the House and that parliamentary time should be made available to change the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. That is what the House committed to and what the Leader of the House has indicated is an issue for the Backbench Business Committee to deal with.

Q15 Chair: Have we got a copy of the proposed motion?

Adam Afriyie: I will leave a draft with you here. This is by no means the final, but it should give an indication.

Q16 Chair: That’s great, Adam. Thank you very much, and thank you for being so brief. Can we have Michael Meacher and Sarah Wollaston? We spoke briefly on the phone about parliamentary reform, so if you would like to kick off.

Mr Meacher: Thank you. My request is for a debate on the floor of the House about amending Public Bill Committee procedure, on two grounds. The first is access to Bills. At present it is widely recognised that Government Whips can tend-I won’t say always-to put a majority of trusties on a Bill with a majority who are unlikely to try to change the Bill and can be relied on loyally to vote for the Bill. It is nothing about this Government; all Governments do exactly the same. My point is that that is not a good way to ensure that you have a proper balance of skilled Members for scrutiny of Bills. Sarah Wollaston, who is sitting with me, has had recent experience of that, as I think many people know, and she will speak to that.

My proposal is that the Committee of Selection should be elected on exactly the same basis as the House chose at the end of the last Session members of Select Committees. I have also spoken to Bernard Jenkin, who has sent me a copy of an early-day motion, which I will leave with the Committee. It is rather long-12 lines-but I will read out the last line, if I may:

"and believes that the composition and appointment of the Committee of Selection should be made more transparent in line with recent changes for all other Select Committees."

I very much agree with that.

Secondly, even if access to the Committee of Selection were through election, in my view, that would still leave the Bill procedure seriously flawed, in that too often, after weeks of debate-many colleagues will have experience of this-Bills emerge from Committee virtually unchanged, because the Government majority is sufficient to block any changes. That is not the best way to achieve serious scrutiny of a Bill. Everyone recognises that the Government is entitled, of course, to get their legislation through, and probably more or less intact. But if there is to be sense in examining a Bill, I suggest that there should be a regular procedure whereby, say, for four or five sittings, external experts are invited in to give evidence, exactly as in Select Committees. Then there would be a shorter examination of the consequences of that evidence-giving in looking at the specific contents of the Bill. I think that that would be a much more sensible and mature way of doing it. That is the proposal. I think that it would attract very widespread support from Members in the House-I have spoken to quite a few-and I am seeking a debate on the Floor of the House on a substantive motion with a vote at the end, hopefully a free vote.

Q17 Chair: So what you are asking for, effectively, is a substantive motion on the Public Bill Committee stage of Bills, but also the role of the Committee of Selection, making that like a normal Select Committee and having its Members elected?
Mr Meacher: Yes.
Dr Wollaston: I just want to say that this is something that has cross-party support. I am sure that everyone would agree that nothing could be more appropriate for Backbench Committee time than to consider the role of backbenchers, which is to scrutinise the legislation and hold the Executive to account. My experience-and the experience of many colleagues-is that that does not happen effectively. It is going to be even more important when we see House of Lords reform; We could also discuss the size of the payroll vote and many other relevant issues.
Chair: I am quite clear that this also feeds into the Better Government Initiative and that kind of thing, so it is very interesting.

Q18 Jane Ellison: Can you give the Committee some indication of the level of support and interest?
Mr Meacher: I also chair the Parliament First Committee, which to my chagrin is not well known to Members of this House. It looks at parliamentary reform, it is cross-party, and everyone is invited. I think that there are about 40 members and 10 or a dozen turn up to meetings. I have raised it there and there have been no objections and, indeed, quite vital support. If this was accepted by your Committee, I would certainly write with the full case to every single Member of the House, seeking their support, as I say, on a free vote.

Q19 Chair: Thank you. And thanks for being so brief. Chris, did you want to-
Chris Bryant: It is a matter of courtesy, really, on a slightly complex issue. In October last year I moved a motion that the issue of phone hacking in relation to Members’ telephones should be referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. It has now produced a report which says that there should be a debate. As I understand it, standards and privileges debates are part of your brief rather than Government time, but the Government are meant to enable those debates to happen as swiftly as possible. In the meantime various other issues have arisen , and the News of the World has confessed that in several cases-I think it is probably more than a dozen now-MPs’ phones have been hacked into or messages that MPs have left have been hacked into. So I think that this is a matter of cross-party concern. It is not just Labour MPs’ phones that have been hacked into.

So I wanted to say that I am going to raise with the Speaker this afternoon on the floor of the House the fact that there is complexity about how we go forward. I didn’t want you to hear that rather than my saying it to you first. It may be that the Leader of the House will say to you, "Right, let’s find a time between us when that can happen fairly soon". Thus far the House and MPs have been taken for fools by the News of the World, so I urge that this should not just be on a Thursday afternoon, but it should be on a day when a lot of MPs will be present and able to express their opinion.
Chair: Thank you.