CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013

CAROLINE DINENAGE, MR GRAHAM STUART and ANN MCKECHIN

MR DOMINIC RAAB

GUTO BEBB, DAVID T. C. DAVIES and DANIEL KAWCZYNSKI

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 26 February 2013

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

John Hemming

Mr Marcus Jones

Ian Mearns

Caroline Dinenage, Mr Graham Stuart and Ann Mckechin made representations.

Q1 Chair: Caroline Dinenage is here, so we’ll take you first. First of all, so that you know, we only have 14 March in the Chamber, and we already have two pages of debates that are waiting to be allocated. We did have 7 March, but that has been changed to 14 March. Then, we only have the pre-recess Adjournment debate. We are not really thinking that we will get anything until after the Queen’s Speech, so we need to know what it is that you want, but also whether there is urgency and a time beyond which it cannot be heard. So, over to you.

Caroline Dinenage: Thank you. This is quite an urgent issue. A staggering one in six of the UK adult population are functionally illiterate, and that obviously has implications for the business and skills agenda. We are all always talking about improving skills, and this is surely a massive obstacle towards achieving that. It not only blocks people’s ability to be economically active and to fulfil their potential, but it is also a massive block on aspiration and ambition as well.

For me, it is really important that the debate is in the Chamber, because it is such a massively cross-departmental issue. It doesn’t just affect BIS. Graham is the Chairman of the Education Committee, and it is obviously a massive problem in schools, because despite all the measures that we have put in over the last decades, the number of kids still leaving school without sufficient literacy skills remains about the same. The armed forces are also affected: in 2007, the Army dropped its minimum literacy and numeracy requirement for recruits to entry level 1, so it is now accepting young people with a reading age of five to seven years old.

Q2 Chair: That would be really interesting for the debate, but are you after a votable motion, or do you want a general debate?

Caroline Dinenage: I haven’t prepared a votable motion, but I would like to. Although it is a general subject, I think it would be important to vote on it. We are producing a lot of signposting sending adults to colleges and FE, but that is not addressing the fundamental issue, which is that there is massive stigma attached to adult illiteracy and innumeracy, so there need to be innovative ways of addressing it. I have asked so many questions about this-I have raised it at PMQs, for example-and I am continually being signposted to the same answer, which is the mainstream education system. We need to come up with a much more radical set of solutions.

Q3 Chair: If there was nothing else, would you take Westminster Hall?

Caroline Dinenage: The reason why I shy away from a Westminster Hall debate is that although there are sections of this that would be very applicable for Westminster Hall-Guy Opperman did one on literacy in the prison system; less than 50% of prisoners have literacy skills-the fact is that this is a cross-departmental issue, affecting DWP, the Army and the prison system. In addition, we have so many changes to the benefits system coming, which almost dictate some kind of literacy skills. Universal credit almost presumes that people are not only computer literate, but literate. That is why I think it is very important that we have this debate now.

Q4 Mr Jones: As the Chair has explained, we are extremely short on time. Obviously we have the Budget coming up and then the Queen’s Speech. Within the debates that follow both of those, there will obviously be a lot of latitude in terms of what you can speak about in the Chamber. Have you considered raising this issue in those debates, if we cannot give you enough time?

Caroline Dinenage: I certainly would do, but a number of Members who represent lots of different backgrounds are keen to take part in this debate. Justin Tomlinson, who leads the APPG for financial education, and the rest of the APPG are keen to get involved in this, because it leads on from their work. Ann is here from the BIS Committee; it is obviously something that affects the BIS work. I have a briefing event in Parliament next Tuesday with NIACE to look at cross-party support and stimulate the discussion. Because so many people want to get involved, I am keen to have a Chamber debate.

Chair: Thank you very much; that is really clear. We will be making a decision next week on what to schedule for 14 March. We will not be making any decisions about your debate today, but we will let you know as soon as we find something for you.

Q5 Mr Jones: Can I clarify something? You gave a steer to the Chair that you would not accept Westminster Hall. Is that definite, or would that be something that there is some leeway on?

Caroline Dinenage: I would prefer a Chamber debate.

Q6 Mr Jones: But would you accept it if it was offered?

Caroline Dinenage: If it was sufficiently long.

Q7 Chair: It is a protected three hours.

Caroline Dinenage: I think that this is such an important issue with regard to the skills agenda, which just seems to be so massively important across the board, it deserves attention in the full Chamber.

Chair: Okay. Thank you very much for coming.

Mr Dominic Raab made representations.

Mr Raab: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to address your Committee. You already have my application form and the votable motion that I am proposing. By way of update, given what you have already explained you want from applicants, this has cross-party sponsorship. So far, I have 20 MPs from four different parties whose constituencies are all in the top 100 flood risk zones, and every day more names are signing up to the votable motion, which you have before you.

There are just three points on the criteria you have set us. First of all, we have already had a whole variety of Westminster Hall debates, including in 2012, mainly on the local dimension of flood defences. A Chamber debate would be an opportunity to focus on the wider, generic policy implications as well as the local impact.

Secondly, you asked about timing. The statement of principles between the Government and the insurance industry, which underpins the insurance of high-risk areas, expires in June. There is, as yet, no deal for its replacement, so this is a window of opportunity, as those negotiations have remained stalled for so long, for Parliament to scrutinise this issue and to have its say. Therefore, I think what is particularly important is that we have a votable motion that is substantive and prescriptive, so that the Commons has an opportunity to influence Government policy and perhaps also to focus both sides of this incredibly important negotiation. As ever, it would be great to get a full day, but I think that realistically, given the pressures on you, a three-hour debate in the Chamber would be the optimum we could hope for.

Q9 Chair: In reality, even if your substantive motion were passed, what would it force the insurance industry to do?

Mr Raab: There are two real questions. One is whether, on the side of the insurance industry, there has been proper good faith in trying to continue with the cross-subsidisation that currently takes place in flood insurance availability. It is that critical issue-whether they really mean business. Secondly, on the Government side, the insurance industry bats this back and say, "Are the Government prepared to provide any underlying state subsidy or state support for those arrangements?" This motion addresses both critical aspects of the negotiations, and I think that it would allow quite a lot of scrutiny of both aspects of that and, hopefully, nudge both sides towards a resolution.

Q10 Chair: I am just trying to understand whether the fact that it is a votable motion is as important as the urgency imposed by the June date. If we had nothing else, would Westminster Hall at least enable the issue to be raised?

Mr Raab: We have already had, I think, three Westminster Hall debates, and they have not affected the outcome. The fact that it is a votable motion and Parliament would be not just trying to air the issue, but having its say on it and trying to influence the negotiations, is what is critical about this one.

Q11 Ian Mearns: Given that the deal runs out in June, how late do you think you could have a debate such as this in order to influence the Government’s and the industry’s thinking on this issue?

Mr Raab: Obviously we would like to have a debate as soon as possible, but I do not think that 14 March would be too late. We have been told for months, if not years, that negotiations are close to a deal, so I do think that this is about ensuring that they get that extra nudge, with good faith on both sides, to seal the deal. What I think is going on is that there is a balance in this negotiation between who has got the most to lose and where the respective balance of embarrassment lies if a deal is not reached. I think that is something that Parliament should and could have its say on.

Q12 Mr Jones: I want to come back to the point about the timing. I appreciate that this is an extremely important issue and there are a lot of people who, come June, if a deal is not done, could find themselves blighted by this issue. In relation to getting the issue aired, Westminster Hall is a good vehicle for doing that. Obviously you could not have a substantive motion, but if we just did not have any time available, would you be willing to accept Westminster Hall?

Mr Raab: With the greatest respect to the Committee-I know it always sounds churlish to say this-there have been so many Westminster Hall debates on this issue. I think that what we really need is for Parliament to focus on the two aspects of this negotiation; those are the key. We have already had that wider airing of the flood defence issue.

Q13 Chair: As you know, we do not know what time will be allocated to us, but we provisionally have 14 March. We then have the pre-recess Adjournment debate, which is 26 March. Beyond that-well, by that stage, it will be too late. Would 26 March be too late?

Mr Raab: It is difficult for me to know, because the Government and the industry are being very tight-lipped about the state of negotiations. I guess all I would say to you, Madam Chair, is, "The sooner, the better."

Q14 Mr Amess: Just out of interest, this isn’t a constituency issue for you, though, is it?

Mr Raab: Yes, my constituency is in the top 100 high flood risk areas. The 20 MPs who have signed this are all in that top 100, so there will be a local aspect, but there is a much broader issue about the policy.

Chair: Thank you very much, Dominic. Could we have Guto Bebb, please?

Guto Bebb, David T. C. Davies and Daniel Kawczynski made representations.

Guto Bebb: I am joined by the Chairman of the Welsh Select Committee.

Q15 Chair: You’ve been here before, haven’t you, Guto?

Guto Bebb: I have indeed, for a debate on interest rate swaps, which was a success.

I am here today because I and a number of colleagues, on a cross-party basis, believe that we should have a debate as close as possible to St David’s day. That used to be a tradition of the House, but obviously because of the confined hours now available because of the work of this Committee, that is no longer the case. I think there is an argument in favour of having a general debate on Welsh issues to highlight and remind the media, in Wales in particular, that there are significant issues affecting Wales and its people on a day-to-day basis that are still dealt with down here in Westminster.

There is cross-party support for this proposition-by that, I mean that Welsh MPs of every political party represented in Parliament have signed up to support this application. Also, there is a feeling that we need to have a debate to have a cross-border discussion as well, because the recent Welsh Grand Committee included Members from border constituencies in England who felt that the developments in the Welsh context were having an effect on their constituents. When we say that we need a debate to discuss Welsh issues on the Floor of the House, that does not mean that that debate will not be of interest to MPs from England as well, because MPs from the border constituencies have seen great value in attending the Welsh Grand Committee, because the issues debated and moved ahead in Wales have an impact on their constituents. That is the rationale for the debate, and we would be grateful if you considered it favourably.

Q16 Chair: Did you want to add anything David?

David T. C. Davies: What I would add at the moment-I am not sure whether it is grounds for a debate or not-is that there is a slight feeling in Wales at the moment that Parliament does not care about them. I regret that very much, because it is not true. It could be seen as a bit negative if we end the tradition that we have always had of having a debate on or around St David’s day.

Q17 Mr Amess: Guto, I think it is a great shame that the Government do not find the time for these debates, when you all sit there splendidly with your daffodils and all that. How was it dealt with last year?

Guto Bebb: I do not think that there was a specific debate last year. Since I was elected in May 2010, I think there has been one specific Welsh debate on the Floor of the House. That in itself is regrettable. We had a debate on the first part of the Silk commission report, but that is the only specific debate we have had on the Floor of the House. That is commented on by the media and the people of Wales.

There is a feeling that the political narrative in Wales is increasingly being governed from the Assembly, yet a more significant proportion of public spending in Wales occurs as a result of decisions made here in Westminster than as a result of decisions in the Welsh Assembly. I do not want to in any way, shape or form attack the work of the Welsh Government, but it is important that we are also accountable in Westminster for what happens in Wales as a result of decisions taken in Westminster.

Q18 Chair: Just to add to that, the debate that was scheduled was around boundaries or the referendum, I think. One of the reasons why we did not have the original debate when the Backbench Business Committee was established was because of the referendum campaign happening in Wales at the same time. That was the reason why not.

Guto Bebb: Yes, fair point.

Q19 Chair: But it did open up the question about those days that were set-piece debates that had been allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. International women’s day falls at a similar time to St David’s day. We took a decision very early on that if we just allocated those days to set-piece debates, there would be too little time left for us to take representations from other Members. Without a doubt, those people who used to have days allocated to them by the Government every year as a matter of course have lost out-there are no two ways about it. Having to compete at the same level as everyone else does make it more difficult. On top of everything else, this time of year is Budget time, so we always have the least amount of time to allocate. St David’s day won’t move just because of the Budget.

Guto Bebb: We can’t move it, I am afraid. It has been 1 March for a very long time.

Q20 Chair: If you moved it to December, it would be much easier to allocate an annual debate. We have to take all those other things into consideration and, as we have just said, we have so many things that have got a time urgency about them. Even though you would obviously like to have the debate about the time of the St David’s day celebrations, if the issue is about debating the issues in Wales and how they relate to Parliament, perhaps we could look at scheduling something at another time.

Guto Bebb: It would be appropriate in terms of the publicity it would generate, because there was negative publicity when the decision was taken not to have a St David’s day debate. I recognise the reasons given, but there is this narrative that Westminster no longer cares for Wales because we have our own Assembly in Cardiff. The key point that we need to address is the fact that more public spending in Wales occurs as a result of decisions taken here in Westminster, but those decisions are never scrutinised on an all-Wales basis. That loss is felt in many parts of the Welsh political establishment, who feel that we are losing out on making Westminster relevant to the Welsh electorate.

Chair: As we have said to others, we literally just have that 14 March day, and we already have two pages of debates that have already come to us. Once we make our decision, we will let you know. We fully appreciate what you have said, and thank you very much for bringing that to us. Do we have anybody else?

Q21 Mr Amess: Daniel, why have you turned up?

Daniel Kawczynski: I am PPS to the Secretary of State for Wales and I just came to lend some extra support for the Welsh debate.

Chair: The Poland-Wales connection. Thank you.