Session 2010-12
Publications on the internet
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
HOUSE OF COMMONS
ORAL REPRESENTATIONS
TAKEN BEFORE THE
BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE
PROPOSALS FOR BACKBENCH DEBATES
TUESDAY 21 JUNE 2011
MRS HELEN GRANT and JULIAN SMITH
Evidence heard in Public |
Questions 1 - 9 |
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
1. |
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence 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 evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. |
Representations
Taken before the Backbench Business Committee
on Tuesday 21 June 2011
Members present:
Natascha Engel (Chair)
Mr Peter Bone
Philip Davies
Jane Ellison
Mr Philip Hollobone
Ian Mearns
Mr George Mudie
Mrs Helen Grant and Julian Smith made representations.
Chair: Hi. Thank you very much for coming. Have you been before?
Julian Smith: No, we haven’t.
Mrs Grant: We’re newbies.
Q1 Chair: You are very welcome. What we look for is a very brief outline of the debate, without going into the details, and a demonstration of why you need it to happen in Backbench time and why it is topical.
There is also the caveat that we have very, very little time to schedule. We have more time in Westminster Hall than in the Chamber; having said that, there is also very little time in Westminster Hall. In fact, there is a chance that there will be nothing until we come back after recess. Will you bear that in mind? Would you let us know what you are making representations for?
Julian Smith: Thank you for seeing us. We are here to seek a debate in the main Chamber about Lord Davies’s report about women on boards. As you know, he basically advocated a series of measures from different parts of corporate Britain-from the Government, but mainly from the Financial Reporting Council, companies themselves and headhunters, to push forward and deal in this Parliament with the appalling issue of there being only 12.5% representation of women on boards at the moment, with a view to moving that to a minimum of 25% by 2015.
Lord Davies has advocated no quotas, and Helen and I agree on that. However, for us to move forward on the issue, we need as a Parliament to demonstrate that there is cross-party commitment to dealing with it. If we cannot move the issue on through non-quotas, we will look at other ways of pushing this forward.
Q2 Chair: When was the report published?
Julian Smith: February this year.
Mrs Grant: March.
Julian Smith: Yes, February-March.
Q3 Chair: Has there been any time for debate-in the form of a statement or a Westminster Hall debate?
Mrs Grant: On 22 March there was a Westminster Hall debate, which I applied for. It was for an hour and a half and was very well attended; at the end, speakers were warned that they needed to speed up if everybody was going to get a turn. Ed Davey dealt with it for the Government. It was a very good debate-Julian spoke in it-and there was lots to be said.
Julian Smith: The key thing is that we would like a motion from the House of Commons supporting Mervyn Davies and his recommendations. We are confident that we can get more than 50 people in that debate and on the list, so that we can say that Parliament has spoken about this issue and people externally are clear.
Q4 Chair: Why is that not happening in Government time? This seems to me to be a clear cut debate for Government time.
Julian Smith: I am not sure that I would agree with that. The Government have basically said yes to Davies’s recommendations, but because those recommendations are largely non-statutory-they are recommendations-the Government have been quite clear that they are not legislating. That gives Parliament an opportunity to demonstrate its voice.
Mrs Grant: We also feel very much that we want to show support for what Davies has done and for the report. Because he has not gone down the route of legislation or said that he wants to impose quotas, he has very much left it up to the business community to take the lead on this. The concern is that because of the voluntary aspect-voluntary action, voluntary codes and voluntary targets-"voluntary" can sometimes turn into nothing.
It is an important issue, as Julian has said. It is shameful that so few women are on boards and that even fewer are managing directors of big companies. We see this not only as a gender equality issue, but as a business performance issue, which our country needs to make the most of at the moment.
Q5 Philip Davies: We may or may not disagree about the issue-we probably will not agree about the issue if I am perfectly honest about it-but, as you have just said, Lord Davies said that it was a matter for the business community to tackle and that he did not believe in quotas and all the rest of it, so I guess that the bit that I am struggling with is where Parliament is in all this.
If his recommendation is that the Government should not set quotas and not do something and that it is down to the business community to take the measures that are needed to deal with the issue that you describe, I am struggling to see where Parliament fits into this and what we are urging the Government to do, when the report that you are endorsing does not want the Government to do anything anyway.
Julian Smith: But a number of statutory bodies have got to get a move on. The Financial Reporting Council has got to look at the corporate governance code, and we need it to get a move on quickly with it. As you saw last Friday, to stimulate a debate on issues, Parliament has a important role, and I think that this is one that is pretty key. A lot of MPs, as we have talked about this debate, are really supportive of giving a clear message from the House of Commons.
Q6 Chair: You said that you wanted to have the debate in the Chamber because you wanted a voteable motion. What would that voteable motion be?
Julian Smith: It would be quite simple, just saying that the House believes that the low percentage of women on British corporate boards is unacceptable, that we support Lord Davies’s recommendations, that we call upon, whether the Financial Reporting Council, executive search firms or companies themselves, to action the recommendations that he has made and that, should that not happen and the 2015 target looks as though it will be missed, the House would consider other actions.
Q7 Jane Ellison: Just a quick point. The Chairman has outlined how much pressure there is on time. One thought might be that the idea of exposure in Parliament might have a bit more teeth slightly further down the line on this issue. For example, one year on from the report, a debate might give Members the opportunity to expose where progress had or had not been made. I am not saying that it is not a good subject for debate now, but it is hard to imagine that anyone would vote against the motion that you have just described. So it is voteable in that sense-
Mr Bone: Speak for yourself. [Laughter.]
Q8 Jane Ellison: Okay; fine. It is unlikely to produce a massive ping-pong; it might produce a particularly long speech from the Member for Shipley, but we do not know. I think that you are talking about Parliament using its teeth. I think that if you are not necessarily successful this time, because we have such stack of applications and not much time, you might want to consider whether there could be a sort of "could do better" report somewhere a bit further down the line, when you see the extent to which the various statutory bodies have responded.
Mrs Grant: All I would say to that is that Davies really has given a last chance to the business community. He has said, "Okay, we will not do quotas, but you need to act. Therefore, we will look at this again every six months." We are coming up to six months in September, and I hope there is action; I hope there has been an improvement. If there isn’t, we are just a step a nearer to quotas, which is something that many of us do not want.
Julian Smith: The EU Commissioner has come in and said that she will push forward on a directive next year, which, as a business man, I want to avoid. The other problem with the nudge approach by the Government on this issue is that it does require parliamentarians and others to demonstrate that there is enthusiasm for this, because we see some of these things as potentially drifting. The Financial Reporting Council is going through a consultation. Will it move quicker if there is a clear message from Parliament? Yes, it will.
Chair: Okay. I am quite clear what it is that you are after.
Q9 Mr Mudie: I would have thought-maybe you did this, and I was thinking of previous business-that a run through in Westminster Hall would be useful, with an appropriate response from the Minister, who says, "I have heard the debate. This is how important Parliament thinks about it. I shall be watching, as the Minister. If nothing happens, Parliament will have act."
That sends out the message to industry, doesn’t it? There would be time to act, and if that does not have any effect, you then come to the Chamber with a motion that says to the Government, "Well, the Minister was strong about it in Westminster Hall. There’s been no response. There’s only one thing you must do."
Mrs Grant: I think that we have done that. That happened on 22 March, and the Minister was strong and supportive of Davies, but actions speak louder than words. My concern from what I am hearing from outside in the business community, particularly from many women’s organisations, is, "Well, what’s happening now?" It has all started to go just a little bit quiet. A lot of time and effort is being put in; but with some things, you’ve actually got to keep pushing, keep nudging and keep agitating, because if you do not, they go away.
Chair: Thank you very much.