Transcript of representations made on Tuesday 25 October 2011

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT    

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

PROPOSALS FOR BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2011

SARAH NEWTON

AUSTIN MITCHELL, JOHN McDONNELL AND MARTIN VICKERS

ROBERT HALFON AND MARTIN VICKERS

MR FRANK DORAN, SHERYLL MURRAY, AUSTIN MITCHELL AND

DR EILIDH WHITEFORD

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 51

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 Members have not 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.

Representations

Made before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 25 October 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Austin Mitchell

Sarah Newton, Austin Mitchell, John McDonnell, Martin Vickers, Robert Halfon, Mr Frank Doran, Sheryll Murray and Dr Eilidh Whiteford made representations.

Q1 Chair: You have not written to us?

Sarah Newton: No. I should be here with Barbara Keeley, Chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on social care. We request a general debate, without a vote, in Westminster Hall on the crisis in the funding of social care and, in particular, the Dilnot commission report. The report was published a few months ago, and its cross-party support was warmly welcomed. The Government committed themselves to introducing a Bill, but the 16 members of the APPG from the House of Commons and 11 Back Benchers are concerned about the drift in what the Government are doing. We would love a general debate to highlight the issues and to reiterate our support for Dilnot.

Q2 Chair: So you are after a general debate in Westminster Hall on the Dilnot report for three hours?

Sarah Newton: Absolutely.

Q3 John Hemming: Within that, you have 11 other members of the group.

Sarah Newton: And 16 members of the all-party parliamentary group on social care, who represent all parties.

Q4 John Hemming: Will they all want to speak?

Sarah Newton: That will be an issue, given the three hours, but everyone will want to speak. We will have 27 speakers.

Q5 John Hemming: It is obviously a key issue.

Q6 Chair: You have contacted them, have you?

Sarah Newton: Yes. They have all said positively that they support the motion and would contribute.

Q7 Chair: And it is cross-party?

Sarah Newton: All three main parties.

Q8 Chair: A pro forma is on our website, but we can send you a copy. If you will fill it in for us, that will be helpful so that we have names and specific details of the debate that you would like to have.

Q9 John Hemming: We have the 27th and potentially the 10th, but we would not normally set a date such as the 10th now. Would you be able to do the 27th, if that were allocated?

Q10 Chair: No. The 27th is already allocated. We have one day in Westminster Hall, which is 10 November. That is what we would be looking to allocate today.

Sarah Newton: That is great. Thank you very much indeed.

Q11 Chair: May we have Austin Mitchell, please? Have you been to the Committee before? Did you come to us on fisheries before?

Austin Mitchell: Yes, and I will do again.

Q12 Chair: But you are aware of the format and how it all works?

Austin Mitchell: Yes. I came here this afternoon to put our case. We would like a debate on "Putting Quality First", which is the BBC’s agenda for cuts consequent on the comparatively small licence increase. This issue affects pretty well all MPs, because it is going to hit local radio and regional television, which is important to all of us. It is going to affect the quality of BBC programming and the number of repeats that people have to put up with. It also affects the BBC’s reputation as a producer of quality programmes and its role as the financer of the BBC World Service, which was previously financed by the Foreign Office, but which has now been put on the licence fee, causing further cuts.

Knowing the limits on your ability to bestow debates, we would like a three-hour debate. This is the only appropriate forum to seek a debate, because the Government will not give us one and the Opposition are not going to ask for one, but Members have a broad interest in the subject. There needs to be a public discussion of the proposals that the BBC is putting forward, which need to be adjusted in various ways-that is what I think, but the House should have the opportunity to declare it.

Q13 Chair: So you are asking for a votable motion.

Austin Mitchell: Yes. We have submitted a motion

Chair: Brilliant. That is great. Who wants to come in on this?

Q14 Mr Bone: Would you mind reading the motion just so that we have it on the record?

Austin Mitchell: Okay. It says, "That this house calls upon the BBC to reconsider the scale and timing of its proposed cuts so as to better safeguard BBC local radio, regional TV news and programmes, the morale and enthusiasm of its staff, and the quality of BBC programmes generally, all of which have made the BBC the most respected public service broadcaster in the world".

Q15 Mr Bone: One of the real problems we have here is the pressure of time. Chamber days are now very limited; in fact, we may officially have only one more this Session. These things are now at the Government’s discretion, and they may not be looking to stage too many more Back-Bench business debates after yesterday. This is a really important issue, which Members would be very interested in, and three hours is a great length of time, but if you had a motion that we could not divide on, you would have much more chance of getting Westminster Hall. What do you think about that idea?

John McDonnell: Better than nothing. The problem we have is that the debate so far has been focused on local radio but it is a much bigger issue than that. The timing is absolutely critical now because the decisions are being made now. Possibly 2,000 jobs will be lost. Individual areas of service are being cut quite dramatically. The decision making in the BBC, at Trust level and management level, is taking place literally over the next month or so. We are trying to shape that decision-making process by creating a climate of opinion around these issues.

Chair: So there is an element of urgency as well.

Q16 Jane Ellison: As you say, you care passionately about this, but I have a slight concern about the extent to which you feel a Minister can respond to some of the very specific points you want to make. I half wonder whether there might be a more appropriate forum, such as an all-party group with open debate, where you could invite BBC’s senior management to respond directly. Do you have any concerns about the fact that you really want a response from BBC senior management, but they obviously cannot respond to parliamentary debate?

Austin Mitchell: We shall do that, too, but this is an opportunity for the House to give its views. It is MPs’ views that are important; the Minister is clearly responsible for the decision on the scale of the licence fee, but the detailed response is not for him, in any case. This is an opportunity for Members of Parliament, who are affected by these cuts, to air their views about what should be done. The response will come eventually from the BBC, but the BBC is in the process of making the cuts now, and we want to get our views in.

Q17 Jane Ellison: I completely appreciate that. I suppose that would incline me towards thinking that if the object of the exercise is to get views on the record and let MPs have some input, the motion is slightly less relevant. What you are saying is that this is about MPs having a vehicle for getting their views on the record.

John McDonnell: It is slightly more than that, because the Secretary of State has decided that the cost of the development of local television will be borne by the licence payer, so it looks as though another tranche of cuts will come up over the next 18 months or so. We need to influence the Government about the overall funding issue.

Q18 Ian Mearns: One of the impacts of the BBC’s decisions, for instance, from my perspective is that "The Politics Show" in the north-east region has the local content pre-recorded on the Friday, and by the time it is aired on the Sunday it has quite often been overtaken by intervening events. Some things can look a bit irrelevant and make those who are appearing look like proper ’nanas. That is symptomatic of what has been going on, and must be of concern to Members of Parliament across the board.

Q19 Chair: Thank you for "proper ’nanas".

Q20 John Hemming: Do they comply with EEC regulations?

Q21 Chair: Has there been a Department for Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry into it?

John McDonnell: No.

Q22 Chair: Do you know if it is looking into anything like this?

John McDonnell: Not that I am aware of.

Austin Mitchell: No.

Q23 Chair: Have you asked it to do so?

Austin Mitchell: We are raising it now.

Q24 Chair: That is really helpful. Thank you very much. We will not be scheduling a Chamber day today because it looks like it is so far off. You won’t be hearing from us today, but you will be on our list.

Can I have Robert Halfon, please?

Robert Halfon: Hello.

Q25 Chair: Thank you very much for coming.

Robert Halfon: Thank you for seeing me again. I am here with Martin Vickers, who is part of the all party FairFuelUK group, as well as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) who is sitting behind me and also a member of the group.

Q26 Chair: What debate are you asking for?

Robert Halfon: About two weeks ago, the Committee asked me to come back regarding my motion on fuel, following the e-petition of 100,000-104,000 now-people who signed it. Members asked to have a votable motion and we have agreed to that. I have a copy of the motion. It has been seen by members of the all-party group and is supported by FairFuelUK, the organisers of the petition.

Q27 Chair: Will you read out the motion so that it is on the record? Oh, it’s massive.

Robert Halfon: It states: "That this House welcomes the 1p cut in fuel duty at the 2011 Budget, the abolition of the fuel tax escalator, the establishment of a fair fuel stabiliser, and the Government's understanding that high petrol and diesel prices are a serious problem; notes that in the context of the Government’s efforts to tackle the deficit and put the public finances on a sustainable path, that ensuring stable tax revenues is vital for sustainable growth; however, believes that high fuel prices are causing immense difficulties for small and medium sized enterprises vital to our economic recovery; notes reports that some low paid workers are paying a tenth of their income just to fill up the family car; adds that high fuel prices are particularly damaging for the road freight industry; asks the Government to comment on whether high rates of fuel duty have actually led to lower tax revenues in recent years, after reports from leading motoring organisations suggested that fuel duty revenues were at least £1 billion pounds lower in the first six months of 2011, compared with 2008; finally calls on the Government to consider the effect that increased taxes on fuel will have on the economy, to examine ways of working with industry to ensure that falls in oil prices are passed onto consumers, to consider issues around market competitiveness, and more widely, to consider the feasibility of a price stabilisation mechanism that would work alongside the fair fuel stabiliser, to address fluctuations in the pump price."

Q28 Chair: Phew! Brilliant. Is that a votable motion in the main Chamber?

Robert Halfon: In the main Chamber, yes.

Q29 Chair: Does it have cross-party support?

Robert Halfon: Yes, as you saw two weeks ago. I did not want to burden people by making people come here again, but we have huge cross-party support-there are 20-plus members of the FairFuelUK APPG. We have a huge demand from Members across the House, because fuel cost affects every constituency in the country.

Q30 Chair: Have you provided us with a list of names?

Robert Halfon: I can do that pretty quickly by e-mail.

Chair: That would be helpful.

Q31 Mr Hollobone: Why is the wording of that motion not the same as that on the petition?

Robert Halfon: Because I worked on the motion with the petition organisers, FairFuelUK, and we thought that that wording was the best to unite the House on the matter. Obviously, I do not expect the Government to support the motion, but I want people of all parties to be interested, which was the purpose of having a votable motion in the first place.

Q32 Mr Hollobone: Why did you not do that before you tabled the wording on the e-petition?

Robert Halfon: Well, it is our petition and the petition of FairFuelUK. This is the motion it thinks it is best to present to the House. We think it links with the petition pretty carefully.

Mr Hollobone: Well, my concern is that there is a danger that we are misleading members of the public. More than 100,000 have signed up to the wording you drafted with FairFuelUK, but that wording is significantly different from the wording you are giving the Committee now. This e-petition process should have integrity, and you can understand that concerns would be raised if members of the public signed up to an e-petition expecting a motion to be debated on the Floor of the House, but the MP who tabled it came along with different wording.

Q33 Chair: Can I intervene? As a result of a new petition, we had a debate in Westminster Hall on the rioters. The motion did not reflect the wording on the e-petition; in fact, it was quite far away from it. It is not a requirement to have the same wording on the e-petition as on the votable motion. We have not established as a Committee that that is a requirement.

Robert Halfon: I understand what you are saying, but we genuinely believe that the motion clearly reflects the e-petition.

Q34 Mr Hollobone: The big point of difference is that point No. 1 in your e-petition says, "Scrap the planned 4p fuel duty increases". That will have appealed to many people who signed the petition, but it is not in your motion.

Robert Halfon: The motion says exactly the same, but in slightly different language. It calls "on the Government to consider the effect that increased taxes…will have".

Q35 Mr Hollobone: Why don’t you put the wording you had in your original e-petition?

Robert Halfon: This is what I have agreed with FairFuelUK, and we thought that this motion would, as I said, unite the House. I still believe that it reflects the e-petition.

Q36 Mr Hollobone: I understand why you have done it, but I want to know why you have not got the words "Scrap the planned 4p fuel duty increases".

Robert Halfon: We thought this was the best way forward, because it reflected the petition and was a way to unite the House.

Chair: This touches on how we deal with e-petitions as a Committee, so it is not appropriate here to start going into how we will deliberate. E-petitions are very new, and we are still working out how to deal with them, so we will discuss this in private session.

John Hemming: When the Procedure Committee originally looked at the process of e-petitions-I am a member of the Procedure Committee-it looked at having a system whereby a Member of Parliament would always sponsor an e-petition, but we have this strange situation where that sometimes happens and sometimes does not. We looked at a system whereby the wording would be made to be in order right at the start, so that there was continuity in the process. The difficulty is that the system we have has no inherent continuity, so it faces real challenges regarding whether what is, or is not, voted on and gets debated relates to the original thing. That relates in a sense to the process of e-petitions.

Chair: But that is something we as a Committee need to deal with, rather than something an individual Member has to answer at this point.

Q37 Jane Ellison: May we just take a step back? We have been clear in our deliberations in other contexts that e-petitions, or any form of petition, are important supporting evidence that a Member of Parliament might present as part of their case. May I invite you to take a step back, Robert, and tell us about the case you believe there is for debating the issue-with the e-petition, if you like, as your supporting evidence? Tell the Committee more generally about how the issue is important, and about the evidence you have that it would enjoy widespread participation across the House.

Robert Halfon: First, I am chairman of the all-party group on fair fuel for motorists and hauliers. This is the No. 1 issue for me locally, and I would say that it is the No. 1 issue for many other MPs around the country. I have a huge postbag on this, as I am sure many other people do. I work closely with FairFuelUK, and we believe we need to put as much pressure on the Government as possible, through the e-petition and the House of Commons, not to raise taxes on fuel. We also need to put pressure on the oil companies to lower the pump price of petrol.

FairFuelUK and I wrote the e-petition, and we then agreed the motion. FairFuelUK was the main organiser of the petition, and it is very happy with the petition. This issue affects every MP around the country, and it affects millions of constituents every week. The high cost of fuel is a major brake on our economic growth. We believe this should be a main Chamber debate, and we have the necessary support, as you saw two weeks ago, when we brought MPs from all parties. We think that this is the best way to put pressure on the Government for the Budget next year.

Q38 Mr Bone: This question partly follows on from Jane’s. E-petitions do not mean debate; they are supporting evidence, and we need to tick all the other boxes. We need to ask whether there is cross-party support, whether the Government would not bring it in, whether there was legislation before the House on the subject-all that sort of thing. You said that you want to put pressure on the Government to take a position before the next Budget, or the next statement from the Chancellor. You could achieve that, and there is more likelihood that we would be able to find the time, if you took three hours in Westminster Hall and had a general motion on the issue. We are exceptionally pushed for Chamber time. If you had Westminster Hall, and you had people there making their points, you could put the pressure on without necessarily having to divide the House.

Robert Halfon: The last is unacceptable to the organisers of the petition, and to me. We would almost rather not have the debate.

Mr Bone: Okay. That has answered it. Thank you, Robert; that is fine.

Q39Chair: Thank you very much for coming back in. Could we have Frank Doran, please? Before you start, we have also had a representation from the EFRA Committee for a debate on fisheries, specifically about the reform of the common fisheries policy, but not until February, because that is when it is looking to report on an inquiry. Could you bear that in mind when you make your case, because I understand that yours is for a different time?

Mr Doran: If you recall, we addressed the Committee during the time between the recesses. We made the case then, and I will not repeat all the things we said. Fishing is a vital industry, particularly in the coastal towns around the UK, but also in a number of industrial cities such as Grimsby, Hull, and my city of Aberdeen. The common fisheries policy has been in place for more than 40 years; at least, it has affected this country for more than 40 years. The EU Fisheries Committee has been reviewing it, and it published its findings in July. That is what prompted our request for a debate-that and the fact that historically there has always been a one-day fishing debate. We are one of the areas of interest that lost out when this Committee was formed; that is progress. We are delighted at the work the Committee does.

Last year, we were given a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall. This is an extremely important issue for our fishing industry; it is fundamental to its future. We have one of the largest fleets in Europe. It is the most diverse, ranging from small, 10-metre boats to very large industrial trawlers. The decisions of the Fisheries Council are crucial, as is our Government’s position on the Fisheries Council. We think that the issue is important enough to merit a one-day debate in the Chamber. That is the bid that we made to you in September, and we have submitted a votable motion. I do not know whether you have had a chance-

Q40 Chair: Do you have the votable motion with you to read into the record?

Mr Doran: I am happy to read it out. I hope that this is the right draft-the one that I sent. I had to scrape this together this morning. It states: "That this House agrees that the Common Fisheries Policy has failed to achieve its key objective of producing a sustainable European fishery; welcomes the review of the policy by the European Commission; urges Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that a revised Common Fisheries policy makes particular provision for:

(1) a move away from a centralised management system to a system of regional management of fisheries involving all stakeholders and to strengthen the local management of the 12 mile limit;

(2) a manageable and practical scheme to eliminate the problem of discarded fish;

(3) The replacement of the current system of annual quotas with to a multi-annual system of management focussed on conserving fish stocks within a sustainable fishing industry, in particular to protect the viability of low impact fishing."

That covers the territory. We must emphasise that we are here as representatives of the all-party fisheries group. We have about 70 members from all four major parties. We do not have a Liberal Democrat here with us, because we organised this at very short notice, but the Lib Dems are very well represented on our group. I am happy to answer any other questions, and my colleagues may want to contribute. This is a crucially important issue for the fishing industry, and those fishing communities that are supported by the industry. The importance is difficult to overestimate if you represent, as we all do, fishing communities.

Chair: Of course.

Sheryll Murray: May I just say that, traditionally, for as long as I have been involved in the industry, which is decades now, though perhaps not quite as long as Austin, the fishing communities-not just fishermen going out to sea, but all the processors, the allied trades, the engineers, and the people who sell the fish-have looked at the one-day debate. It used to take place before the Minister went to the Council of Ministers meeting in December, so that the Minister could go away with some authority, or, on a couple of occasions, without the authority of the House. Since I have been an MP and the Backbench Business Committee has taken up its responsibilities, the coastal communities feel that they have lost that voice. I cannot emphasise enough-you can see the e-petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures-that there are hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country who feel that their livelihood depends on the Minister getting a very strong message from this House to take to the negotiations that happen before the end of the year.

Q41 Mr Hollobone: I do not think there is any doubt that this Committee recognises how important fisheries is. Our problem is that we are not given enough time by the Government. I do not know how to make it clearer than that. We have a two-year Session, and we have been given 35 days, plus a few more. If there were any justice in this world, we would have 70 days.

Fisheries has already had half a day in Westminster Hall, and there was just more than half a day on the Floor of the Chamber on fish discards-both very well attended debates. We now have before us a request from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for a debate on fisheries in March, and a request from you for a debate in December. You can do the maths as well as we can. It is not that we do not think the subject is important, but we must try to allocate the time as effectively as we can. The challenge for us, Chairman, with these two very important bids for a debate in December or March, is, I would have thought, to decide which we choose. I do not think you are going to get both.

Sheryll Murray: May I just say that this is a once-in-a-decade situation for the United Kingdom fishing industry?

Mr Doran: Once in four decades.

Sheryll Murray: Time is important.

Dr Whiteford: May I shed some light on this? The formulation of the UK Government’s negotiating position in the EU negotiations is taking place as we speak; people are gathered elsewhere on the estate to do that at the present time. I think the importance of doing this earlier rather than later is not simply about next year’s fishing effort. It is about the fact that the position of the UK Government is being decided at the moment, in advance of those talks and the other EU negotiations. If we do not have the debate now, Parliament will not have an opportunity to guide the Government until after the negotiations are cut and dried, and a lot of the detail will already have been ironed out.

Q42 Mr Hollobone: I understand that. It is a perfectly legitimate point of view, but we have the EFRA Committee telling us that a debate in March would enable the House to express its views ahead of the final round of negotiations.

Q43 Chair: I will just draw that to a close, because that is a bid for a debate on a Select Committee report, and we will take that like any other bid for a debate on a Select Committee report. This is about hearing representations on a specific debate, and we have heard that.

Mr Doran: Could I respond to that? It is important. My two colleagues have made very important points. The three-hour debate in Westminster Hall that has been referred to was last year’s annual debate, in November. We are talking about two things, really. We are talking about this year’s annual debate, but it will focus on the European Council decision. As has rightly been pointed out, decisions are being made now by the Government about their position. The Fisheries Council meeting just before Christmas, in December, will be part of the process. It is important that we have an opportunity to debate with the Government now.

Q44 Mr Hollobone: I am sorry, Chair; you are perfectly at liberty to cut me off, but it is not just like any Select Committee report on any issue. It is on this issue-reform of the common fisheries policy.

Chair: I am saying that this is a specific bid for a debate on a different issue. It is not about a debate on the Select Committee report; they are two separate bids. We are looking at the value of the bid, not arguing whether or not-

Mr Hollobone: It is the same issue.

Austin Mitchell: The situation is this. We usually have an annual debate on the Fisheries Council-last year, it was put into Westminster Hall-to arm the Minister as he goes out, and to discuss how he will present Britain’s case for the changes in the coming year. This is a much wider issue. The Select Committee is doing an inquiry into it; we are asking for a debate that will involve the Members from fishing constituencies, and others who are interested in taking part, saying what they want to be achieved in the coming renegotiation, which, as Frank says, is a 40-year renegotiation of a common fisheries policy that has been fairly disastrous for the British fishing industry generally, and which is now being revised. That revision will take place next year, but we need an opportunity for Members to give their views, and to have their usual discussion of what the Minister should say in the forthcoming council.

Q45 Chair: I am going to bring in Eilidh Whiteford. Did you want to add something?

Dr Whiteford: It is important to remember that this debate is happening in the context of a reduction in time to question Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the House of Commons. Important decisions are going to be made, and we have very little opportunity to make representations to the Government on the issues before those decisions are made. Today of all days, we know the sensitivities around some European negotiations, but the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, whatever important things it has to offer in its inquiry, does not have to account back to constituencies affected by the fishing and fish processing sectors.

Sheryll Murray: I have given evidence to Select Committees in the past, so I have been on the other side. I gave evidence to the 2002 inquiry into the review. That report is very valuable, but it is the Minister who responds to it. I believe that there will be an outcome, or at least a lot of progress, before the report comes out. We must ensure that we send the Minister with the right message by having a debate now; that is better than delaying it and then blaming the Minister for not taking any notice of something that he was completely unaware of when he went off to the Council of Ministers.

Chair: Thank you very much.

Q46 John Hemming: Coming back to Philip’s point, at the moment, we have no days to allocate in the Chamber. That raises two questions. First, we have two groups of Members of Parliament, both of which wish to discuss reform of the common fisheries policy. I would not be too surprised if a conversation between people produced one group wanting to discuss reform of the common fisheries policy. Would you be willing to talk to the other people to see if that could be identified? No allocation can be done now, because we have not got any time to allocate.

Chair: May I interrupt? We have not precisely got any time to allocate, but we know that there will be more time in the Chamber, and that is more than likely to be in the next week of November. We do have time to allocate. It is not as though it is either the Select Committee report or nothing.

John Hemming: Yes, but we have not got any time to allocate later today, so we will not be allocating something later today.

Mr Doran: I used to be a member of the Liaison Committee, but I do not know how things operate now that this Committee is planning. However, the Liaison Committee would normally make the decision on which Select Committee reports would be put forward for consideration in debate. That is another process. The EFRA Committee has its own route. As I say, I do not know what the impact of this Committee is. The key thing for us is that in December, all Fisheries Council Ministers and all the EU countries’ fisheries officers will be there to debate, and one of the key issues that they will debate is the progress in modernising the CFP.

Chair: I think we have covered the same ground repeatedly. I am keen to move on.

Q47 John Hemming: I had two questions-I sort of asked the first one, in a rather garbled manner. The question is whether you would be willing to talk to the other group that is trying to get a fisheries debate.

Mr Doran: We would be happy to talk to them, but their report will not be completed until March, as I understand it.

Chair: I really want to move on from this. We have established that this is a bid regarding a meeting that is happening at the moment. We can say either yes or no to that bid after we deliberate in private. It is clear that this is something that is happening now; the Select Committee report is happening in the new year. It is a specific bid, and we can decide whether to say yes or no in private, but unless you have anything else on this-

John Hemming: May I ask my second question first?

Chair: If it is on something different.

Q48 John Hemming: Yes. If we were to offer Westminster Hall, would you say no?

Mr Doran: We would not have any option but to say yes, but that is not our favoured option.

Mr Bone: I declare an interest, in that I have a private Member’s Bill going through the House at the moment that would require the United Kingdom to withdraw from the common fisheries policy; I ought to put that on the record.

I think this is an extremely important issue, but as has been said, we do not have the time. We would like to grant all these debates. May I just reinforce a point? Considering that you want to put pressure on the Government, and you need to do this now, a Westminster Hall debate might well be the answer now, and the full-blown Commons debate may possibly be in the spring of next year. I have one other point. You said that there has been a lost opportunity, because you do not get your yearly debate. I take it the other way: you can come back and bid as many times as you like on fisheries, so you may get more debates. Westminster Hall really is the point that I am trying to make. That might be the answer.

Chair: May I bring in Jane Ellison?

Q49 Jane Ellison: It was only a quick comment, following on from something that I asked last time. Looking at the motion, a lot of these points-I think all three points listed-got touched on in the fish discards debate; I was there for most of it. Did you feel that that debate lacked focus, in terms of giving the Minister a clear steer? I think most of you spoke in that debate on some of these subjects.

Mr Doran: That debate was prompted by a television programme. We are dealing with a change in the fundamentals of the fishing industry. That includes discards-of course it does; it is a crucial issue.

Q50 Jane Ellison: So you just feel that the focus of that debate was elsewhere-is that what you are saying?

Mr Doran: One of the issues for us is that the Fisheries Commissioner had a policy on discards that we think is unachievable; there are those sorts of issues. For Peter Bone’s benefit, my understanding is that any decision of the Fisheries Council on changing the CFP will not be subject to a referendum in the UK.

Austin Mitchell: The point, Chair, is that it is very important for the industry that we have a debate-any kind of debate. It would not be our preference, but a three-hour debate would be acceptable, faute de mieux. It is up to the Committee to decide its own priorities, but we hope that you will give fishing a high place in the list of priorities, because it will be important for a long period, with the revision of the CFP; centrally controlled structures will hopefully delegate functions down to regional management, and to the local fishing industry.

Q51 Chair: We definitely have a day on 10 November; when we go into private session, that will be the day that we decide on. We have a long list of things, but that is a day that we will be looking at. We do not have a Chamber day. Would you like us to put you on the list for Westminster Hall for that day?

Mr Doran: If there is no Chamber day available before the December Council-

Chair: We do not know if there is.

Mr Doran: We need to have the debate, so we would accept.

Chair: Thank you.