UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF REPRESENTATIONS

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 10 JANUARY 2012

MR PHILIP HOLLOBONE, MR MARCUS JONES, SIR BOB RUSSELL, JUSTIN TOMLINSON and CHRIS WHITE

RICHARD OTTAWAY

GAVIN BARWELL and JIM SHANNON

ANDREW ROSINDELL

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 32

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

on Tuesday 10 January 2012

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Marcus Jones, Sir Bob Russell, Justin Tomlinson and Chris White made representations.

Q1 Chair: The first thing we are taking is the Portas report.

Mr Marcus Jones: Thank you, Chair. I have the job of speaking on behalf of a number of Members. At the moment, I think some 18 Members would wish to see a debate on the future of our town centres and high streets, hopefully a six-hour debate in the main Chamber.

I probably do not need to tell the Committee a great deal about the importance of our high streets and town centres to every constituency or about the problems that they are currently encountering, but I think it is important that Back Benchers have the opportunity to debate the Portas review, an extremely important part of the Government’s work, before the Government report back on that review, which I understand will be at the end of the winter or in early spring. If Back-Bench Members do not have that opportunity, it will be very difficult for us to influence the Government’s work after an oral or written statement is put before the House. So I think it is extremely important that at this stage we have a full, frank and open discussion between Back Benchers, hopefully in the main Chamber, to reflect the importance of the issue.

Q2 Chair: You say six hours in the main Chamber. As I am sure you are aware, we have a very limited amount of time, and what we have tended to do in the past is split it, certainly the Chamber time, half and half. The other thing we have looked at, too, is whether there is a voteable motion. If what you need is the debate, we would be more likely to put it into Westminster Hall, where you would be guaranteed three hours. Is there anything that says that you must have six hours in the Chamber because you have a voteable motion, or would you also be prepared to consider less time and a different venue?

Mr Marcus Jones: I think the resonance of this issue, particularly the fact that it resonates with virtually every Member of the House and that so many Members have come to me in a very short space of time and would be willing to put their name to this request, shows that there is a real will for the debate to take place. I am sure that colleagues would probably support me in taking that view.

Mr Hollobone: I can think of few issues that affect literally every constituency in the country. I doubt there is any parliamentary seat without a high street of one form or another. I think the danger, Chairman, of having a three-hour debate, whether it be in Westminster Hall or on the Floor of the main Chamber, is that you will end up with ridiculously short speeches of perhaps three or four minutes each for Members to try to talk about the difficulties that their particular high street is facing. The other reason for having a general debate, rather than a motion, is to try to feed into the Government the views of ordinary Back Benchers, as the Chairman said, before the Government come back with their own recommendations.

I did ask the Leader of the House just before Christmas at business questions for a debate on this, and he said that we should come to the Backbench Business Committee.

Chair: Of course he did. I am going to bring in Peter Bone.

Q3 Mr Bone: Mr Hollobone, you will know that time is very precious to the Committee. We tend only to put on in the main Chamber debates that have a substantive motion. It would be very unusual for this Committee to give a six-hour debate on a general motion. The other point I would like to make-Sir Bob has just joined us-is that I believe it is all coalition Members sitting before us. On the list of names here, there are very few Opposition Members. We do look for cross-party interest in debates. I am not sure that you have yet shown that.

Mr Hollobone: The person who is not here and who wanted to be here is Jim Dowd, who along with Sir Bob and myself helped to compile a report entitled "High Street Britain: 2015" some five years ago. Jim Dowd, who is the Member for Lewisham and Penge, assures me that there will be lots of Opposition Members who want to take part in this debate as well.

Justin Tomlinson: The actual meeting where Mary Portas came to present to the town centre APPG was dominated by Opposition MPs, who pointed out that Mary had not consulted with the Opposition. A meeting was hastily arranged. There is vested interest from all sides on this.

Q4 Chair: Did you want to come in, Chris White?

Chris White: If I could start by thanking the Committee for helping me to secure the debate on manufacturing, which was similar in terms. It was not a voteable motion, but once we recognised that the debate was going to take place, a large number of Members from across parties took part. That was seen as a good and constructive debate once everybody recognised that it was on the timetable.

This is an extremely important debate, not least because we are starting this year-2012-absolutely focused on growth. An area where we can see great potential for growth is giving greater prominence and support to our town centres, not least Warwick and Leamington, which are demographically and geographically at the centre of the country. It is an area where I would greatly appreciate the support of having the main Chamber in which to discuss the ways that we think we can move forward in terms of local authorities, tourism, transport and the local economy.

Q5 Jane Ellison: I actually attended the all-party group town centres meeting with Mary Portas-well, I tried to, but I had to squeeze through the door because the room was so full. For Committee members who were not there, it might help the case if you could talk about that meeting a bit more and the demand there was for time and questions. I think Marcus that you were chairing it. My impression was that you ran out of time way before Members had exhausted the questions and the debate that they were having.

Mr Marcus Jones: It was an extremely interesting meeting and a great opportunity for Members to feed into the work Mary Portas was doing on behalf of the Government. In relation to that, I think 26 Members came along. Most of those Members were able to contribute. Two Members of this Committee came along and contributed towards that event. The success of that and the number of people and the interest shows how important this is across the House.

Ian Mearns: In the interests of transparency, Chair, I should point out that I am a member of that APPG and I attended that meeting. My own town centre in Gateshead is undergoing a £150 million redevelopment at the moment, so it is very topical for me.

Chair: What a fantastic plug.

Sir Bob Russell: I should like to endorse the points that have been made because I do not see this as a party political issue at all; it certainly was not under the previous Government. The phrases "sustainable communities" and "localism" spring to mind. This must affect every community and every Member of Parliament in the country, so considering the maximum time that could be allocated, I am pretty confident that there will be more than enough Members from across the House who will fill the time. It is a very important issue as far as I am concerned. I just hope that the horse has not bolted, although I sense in a way that it has. Anything we can do to retrieve the situation, the better. I just hope that the Backbench Committee will go along with the request.

Chair: We still have town centres, so it has not quite bolted entirely.

Mr Marcus Jones: As to having a voteable motion or not, the reason why I would say we should not is that this particular case is more about an opportunity for Back Benchers to feed into the work that has been done, and giving those views to the Minister on the day, rather than looking to press a particular point; particularly as the review is quite far-reaching in relation to the remit that Mary Portas was given.

Q6 Mr Bone: The point you make is very valid but I think the Committee might come back and say that we would normally expect that sort of debate to be three hours in Westminster Hall, and if that then justified it-because of the number of people there and the interest-to come back to the Committee afterwards and ask for the main Chamber. That is what has happened on a number of occasions. If we were to say to you that we have not actually got a main day available at the moment but we could give you Westminster Hall, would you take that?

Mr Marcus Jones: I would be hesitant to do that. The reason is that the Government are likely to bring forward their views on the Portas review very quickly. I expect we are going to be in a position where we are likely to get only one shot at having a debate. In relation to that one shot, it needs to be in the main Chamber and, if possible, that needs to be the full six hours to give everybody the chance to give their contributions.

Chair: We will look at it, depending on what other bids come in. We will take on board everything that you have said. Thank you very much for attending. There is clearly a lot of interest.

Richard Ottaway made representations.

Q7 Chair: Thank you for coming, Richard. I understand that there is a supporting letter from David Winnick, which has been distributed around the Committee, so thank you for that.

Richard Ottaway: A happy new year to the Committee.

Chair: Happy new year to you.

Richard Ottaway: I will start by saying what this is not about. It is not about the Commission on Assisted Dying report published during the recess. It is essentially a parliamentary matter as to who makes the laws. Assisted dying, particularly assisted suicide, has not been debated in the Chamber on a substantive motion since 1997. You will recall that it was Debbie Purdy who went to the then House of Lords-now the Supreme Court-and asked for guidance on whether if she took her husband to Dignitas in Switzerland, he would be prosecuted under the assisted suicide laws.

The Supreme Court-as it became during the passage of that case-asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to draw up guidelines, setting out how and when he would exercise his discretion. That he did in February 2010, coming up for two years ago, and they have not been debated since they were published. It is my view, and I believe that of many colleagues, that they should be. The DPP is instructed by Parliament, and the House of Lords, to exercise his discretion in drawing up the guidelines, but this is such a sensitive subject that I think it is appropriate that Parliament debates it and expresses a view on the guidelines on a substantive motion. Whether you are for or against it-I have put a rather middle of the road-type motion-if Parliament has a view it stops it becoming an endless political football.

There is a second part to my motion. It is still against the law, and the DPP has exercised discretion not to enforce the law. The second part of the motion invites the Government to consult on whether the changes in the law, or the discretion of the guidance, should be put on a statutory basis. Because it could be changed: the DPP could change his mind; he could exercise his discretion in a different way. If there is a majority in the House in favour of this motion, I think we have done the nation a service. If there is a majority against it, we have certainly done the nation a service, because we have the DPP saying one thing and the people’s elected representatives going in a different direction. That is the thrust of what I am saying. If you are minded to accept it, I have a point to make about timing.

Q8 Chair: On the pro forma, you have put "a minimum of three hours, but probably a full day." Given that it is a substantive motion, it would have to be in the Chamber. You know better than anyone else that the restrictions on our time are quite severe. What are the time constraints? By what time do you want to have had this debate? Is there anything coming up that would act as a deadline?

Richard Ottaway: The timing of the debate, as opposed to the time in the Chamber. If you are minded to accept it, it will attract quite a lot of interest, and the various pressure groups, lobby groups and charities that are involved may want to express a view one way or the other. My basic instinct is that in all honesty it ought to be given a month before it actually happens. That takes us into February; unfortunately, we have the parliamentary recess in the second week, and as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee I am away during the fourth week of February. Maybe there is a slot in the third week, if we are lucky.

Q9 Chair: Do you know when the House of Lords is debating this?

Richard Ottaway: I do not think the House of Lords is debating the guidelines; I think it may be debating the report or indeed a Bill-an actual piece of legislation.

Chair: We can find out about that.

Q10 Mr Bone: I think Richard has answered the question that was in my mind. This ticks virtually all the boxes that the Committee looks for, but if we were to offer you a debate in January, do you think that would be inappropriate?

Richard Ottaway: It could be done, but I am just saying it would be quite a scramble. If you are going to have a proper debate on something that is of national importance, we ought to conduct our affairs in a way that allows the wider constituencies to express a view.

Q11 Mr Bone: I agree entirely, but the problem we have is that the Government do not give us that much notice. If we knew what we had in February, that would be great. The problem is that we can never give you the date until a short time before. Do you see what I mean?

Richard Ottaway: You could say that you are minded to allow a debate on the motion that I have set out at the first opportunity in March, or something like that.

Q12 Chair: In contrast to the last bid that we had, which was specifically on a report, this is a very wide issue.

Richard Ottaway: In one sense it is very wide, but in another sense I have deliberately kept it very narrow, because the guidelines are written down for everyone to see. They are the existing law, so what I am saying to Parliament is, "Would you like to express a view on the existing law?"

Chair: That is great, thank you very much.

Gavin Barwell and Jim Shannon made representations.

Q13 Chair: Thank you very much for coming, and happy new year.

Gavin Barwell: Happy new year to all of you. You have obviously had the submission, and I will just say a few words-

Q14 Chair: Before you start, I had a phone call to let the Committee know that Gavin has now been made a PPS. Since this was not an issue that is related to your brief, and it is quite a general debate, we thought it would be good to allow you to make the representation, but there are others who support this submission anyway.

Gavin Barwell: I was going to start with that point. When I originally drew up the application I had not been appointed, and the appointment was subsequent to that. I was rather conscious of that concern so I sent an e-mail yesterday asking who else would be interested in supporting the application. So far, I have heard from 58 Members of the House-33 from the Conservative Benches, 21 from the Labour Benches, three from the Liberal Democrats and Jim Shannon on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party-so I think there is a broad base of support among Back Benchers for having a debate on this issue.

I wanted very quickly to address the four or five points that you give as guidance. In terms of topicality, Holocaust memorial day is on 27 January, which, as I am sure Members know, is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. There is a precedent in recent years of having a debate either specifically on Holocaust memorial day or on a wider issue that allows Members to comment on that, generally in the week in which the date falls. This year it falls on a Friday, so it would not be possible to have it on the exact day.

There are two main reasons why holding a debate is important. First, it would give Members the opportunity to remember the victims of the holocaust, but it is also important that the holocaust is not just portrayed as something that is just about victims. We should remember a thriving culture that was largely destroyed in parts of eastern Europe and we should remember the courage of the survivors-the dwindling number, sadly, who are still with us-and the courage of members of the British armed forces who played a part in the liberation of some of the camps. Secondly, it gives Members the opportunity to talk about some current issues in relation to racism and prejudice around the world. The holocaust is unique in terms of scale, but sadly, since then, there have been other incidents of genocide around the world and prejudice is still very much with us. It will give Members the opportunity to remember and to reflect on some current issues. In terms of timing, I have put three hours on the form, but that is a guesstimate based on the number of Members who have spoken in previous debates. I am conscious of pressures on you in terms of the timing available.

Q15 Chair: Thank you. Did you want to add anything, Mr Shannon?

Jim Shannon: Yes, just very quickly. In respect of what Gavin said, I suspect that most members of my party here will do likewise, because it is an important issue.

Just today, a young boy-a student from Northern Ireland-told me that he had the opportunity to visit Auschwitz last year and it left a lasting impression on him. It is not just something that is historical; it is real today and real among the youth as well.

Chair: Thank you. We have a provisional date of 26 January in the Chamber. That falls the day before, which is great.

Q16 Mr Hollobone: I appreciate why you want it in the main Chamber, because all of us do, but we only have a limited amount of time to give. One problem about having two three-hour debates on a Chamber day is that often the Government table a statement or there is an urgent question and business gets eaten into, so you end up with two two-hour debates.

We have time to allocate in Westminster Hall. The advantage of that is that it is a guaranteed three hours with no interruption from statements and urgent questions and so on. We do not have an endless supply of time to allocate. We were to offer you three hours in Westminster Hall, would you take it?

Gavin Barwell: Of course. There is a balance of issues here. In terms of the seriousness of the issue, there are advantages in having such a debate in the main Chamber, but I take your point, Mr. Hollobone, in terms of guaranteed time. Sometimes there is an advantage in being in Westminster Hall. I would be happy to accept the judgment of the Committee as to the appropriate location.

Chair: Brilliant. Thank you. That is a clear representation.

Andrew Rosindell made representations.

Q17 Chair: Mr Rosindell, we have had your submission on British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. You have put in for a three-hour debate.

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Chairman. The United Kingdom-our Government, our Parliament-ultimately governs 21 territories around the world, but those territories have no voice in this Parliament, they elect no representatives and have no representation, unlike former colonies and territories of other countries, such as Australia, Denmark, France and the Netherlands, which have external territories committees to which representatives are elected.

We give our 21 territories nothing. All they have is an informal all-party group, of which I am proud to be chairman. We have a democratic hole, with hundreds of thousands of people for whom we make laws, whom we ultimately govern and on whose behalf we can declare war, make foreign policy and sign international treaties. We have substantial control over their domestic affairs. Those territories that have sterling are bound by much of our own economic policy. In a range of areas, although the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are not part of the UK they are substantially influenced and ultimately governed by this Parliament, so it is wrong for them to have no voice at all.

There should be a debate on a whole load of issues relating to our territories and dependencies. I am very relaxed about when that debate is. It does not need to be immediately. There is no imperative that it should be held this month or next month, but I hope it will be held at some point this year. It is an appropriate year, the year of the Queen’s diamond jubilee, where we can talk about our territories and dependencies. Also, it is the 30th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands. Perhaps it is an appropriate time to establish the principle that at the very least the UK Parliament gives recognition to our territories and dependencies, and that we actually want to debate subjects that affect them, so that is why I have put in for this debate.

I have been an MP for 11 years and I do not think there has been an actual debate on territories and dependencies, except when the British Overseas Territories Bill was introduced by the previous Government in 2001-02. There needs to be a similar kind of annual debate such as we have on Scotland and Wales. Our 21 territories deserve to be given that kind of recognition, and I hope the Committee will give that due consideration.

Q18 Chair: Thank you very much. You have put in for a three-hour debate with no substantive motion. Does that mean that you would be okay with having a debate in Westminster Hall?

Andrew Rosindell: No, I do not think it would be appropriate to have a debate in Westminster Hall when we are talking about territories that we govern. I think that they deserve to be heard in the main Chamber. If we have a debate on Wales and Scotland, we have those in the main Chamber.

Q19 Chair: We have them in Westminster Hall.

Andrew Rosindell: That is a change from how it used to be.

Q20 Chair: We see our role as being to raise the status of Westminster Hall. We have so little time and we have a lot more flexibility on time in Westminster Hall, and it does in fact have the same kind of status as the main Chamber. The only difference is that there can be no vote in Westminster Hall, and we have a guaranteed three hours. As Mr Hollobone always points out, the time in the Chamber can quite often be eaten into by statements and urgent questions over which we have absolutely no control.

Andrew Rosindell: So you have moved the Scotland and Welsh Affairs-

Q21 Chair: It depends on when they come and what time we have available. We work on an ad hoc basis because we are given time. We do not have the entire parliamentary calendar in front of us in which we can slot things in. We have to work on what we are given.

Q22 Mr Hollobone: We do not have automatic Scotland and Wales debates any more. This annual nations day debate thing just does not happen. Have you thought about applying to the Liaison Committee with your Foreign Affairs Committee hat on to see if it might allocate one of its debates in Westminster Hall to this very important subject?

Andrew Rosindell: No, I have not considered doing that, but I am happy to consider it. The Liaison Committee has powers to grant debates in the same way that the Backbench Business Committee does?

Q23 Mr Hollobone: In Westminster Hall.

Q24 Chair: It is not quite the same. The Liaison Committee is allocated a specific number of days in Westminster Hall, and they are normally used to debate Select Committee reports. That is normally what they are there for. In fact, we work quite closely with the Liaison Committee in our allocation of Westminster Hall. That is definitely a route to look at, which we could do through this Committee.

Andrew Rosindell: I will be honest with you. I think that this issue deserves a main Chamber debate, even if it is just the first time. On future occasions, it may be in Westminster Hall. For so long our territories and dependencies have been barely discussed. If the people of the territories saw a debate in the main Chamber, it would give them the recognition that they deserve and also the belief that we actually care about what is going on in those places and that we understand our responsibilities to them. I have no problem with having it in Westminster Hall, but I think the first debate should be in the main Chamber, because it would be the first time it has ever happened.

Q25 Chair: Normally it works the other way round. One of the issues about Westminster Hall is that it is slightly smaller than the Chamber. When we put debates in Westminster Hall and they are packed out, we then look at moving them to the main Chamber, so in fact you would get two bites at the cherry.

Andrew Rosindell: The decision is yours, obviously.

Q26 Jane Ellison: As has been explained, we do not have automatic days any more, but I was very struck by what you said about the Jubilee and the topical pertinence of this year in particular. Can you give a sense of how many Members you think would participate in a general debate? Obviously, I am well aware of your personal interest and commitment, but some sense of how often issues of overseas territories are raised at Foreign Office questions, that sort of thing, would give us a sense of how long the debate would be sustained and what sort of interest there would be across the House.

Andrew Rosindell: I think it is true to say that the vast majority of Members are aware of overseas territories and Crown dependencies, but most do not take a day-to-day interest in them. A few of us do, however, and some take quite a close interest. Some have an interest in a particular territory; others have a general interest. I have a general interest in each and every one of them, as Members will know. We need to test the water and have an opportunity on this issue. I think that quite a few Members would be interested, but I could not really quantify exactly how many. For instance, Sir Bob Russell was here earlier. He is passionate about St Helena and could speak for a long time about that. Other Members might speak about Bermuda; Jeremy Corbyn would want to talk about the Chagos Islands-the British Indian Ocean Territory. There are so many different issues, but they all come together on one point: we govern them; they are British and part of our British family. Unlike every other territory around the world, however, they have no voice and no say. We have no annual debate-we have nothing. There are just a few of us who try to raise their concerns.

Chair: And you do.

Q27 Mr Bone: Andrew, you have raised a very interesting concept, because these territories are unrepresented in this Parliament. If they were, all the Members representing them would be clamouring for this sort of debate. You have put to us an interesting proposition. Having said that, it seems to me that the right approach would be to have a debate in Westminster Hall first to test the water and have a good-quality debate. If many people are interested, it could move to the main Chamber.

The only reason I would say go for the main Chamber would be if you had come with a motion saying, "These territories are unrepresented and I want to change the law so that the people representing them can sit and speak in our Parliament." That would obviously have to be in the main Chamber. In the first instance, however, Westminster Hall might be more appropriate. What would your response to that be?

Andrew Rosindell: As I said, my concern is that we start taking these places seriously. The days of decolonisation are over; we have decolonised them and they have chosen freely to stay British and be territories of the United Kingdom. It is not the old situation where one by one they are becoming independent or going off in a different direction; they have freely chosen to remain British. We have to change our approach to them, and instead of treating them as remnants of empire under the Foreign Office and to which we do not pay much attention, we have now got to treat them as equal parts of the British family.

Another point in which Mr Bone will be interested concerns the ambitions of the European Union and how in many cases it would like to extinguish those places and merge them-

Mr Bone: Outrageous.

Andrew Rosindell: Well, that is another thing that needs to be highlighted in a debate.

Q28 Jane Ellison: Extinguish them in what sense?

Andrew Rosindell: Take away the fact that they are different and have different financial arrangements and are self-governing. They are anomalies in terms of how the EU sees them, which is another thing that affects people’s daily lives. The EU brings in a policy, we adopt it and the knock-on effect is that they have to adopt it as well even though it may be detrimental to their interests.

Chair: These are issues that will obviously be thrashed out at great length during the debate.

Q29 Ian Mearns: Andrew, you quite clearly have a deep interest in this. When coming to a decision about whether or not to allocate time, we have to see whether the interest that you clearly have is also shared by a number of other Members who will want to take part in the debate. You are quite right; it is clear that there is a parliamentary responsibility on us to acknowledge the 450,000 or so souls who live in these different territories, but we must check that against the demand for other debates and the limited time we have. If I can make a humble suggestion, I am sure that there are a number of these territories which have their own all-party parliamentary group. I think that you should be thinking about going to the membership of those APPGs and seeing if you get them to add their names to the request for debate.

Q30 Chair: That is a very good idea. If we do schedule the debate-we will let you know-it is a matter for you to ensure that you organise plenty of people to come along to demonstrate the vast swell of interest that there is in Parliament. That is fantastic.

Andrew Rosindell: I will do my best.

Q31 Chair: We have a clear idea of what it is that you are after.

Andrew Rosindell: I have one final point that I want to emphasise. It is not just about us debating it among ourselves. It is about how it will be viewed in these places. There is not a single media outlet in these places that will not take a deep interest in it. For the people out there, because it is the first time that they are being discussed in the mother of Parliaments, it will be a significant thing. It is not just about whether we are interested in it, because there are 400,000 to 500,000 people out there who will have a huge interest in any discussions that we have.

Q32 Chair: Brilliant. Backbench Business Committee goes international. Thank you.

Finally, Jason McCartney, who is not here, has raised a subject for debate. Stephen, do you want to come in on anything?

Stephen Lloyd: I am a bit late. I was wondering whether Marcus had come in.

Chair: Yes, on the Portas report. We noted your name on it, so thank you very much.