Backbench Business Committee - Minutes of EvidenceTranscript of representations made on Tuesday 3 September 2013

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 3 SEPTEMBER 2013

MRS LOUSE ELLMAN

ANDY SAWFORD

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 3 September 2013

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Marcus Jones

Ian Mearns

Mrs Louise Ellman made representations.

Q 1 Chair: Welcome back. Before we begin, I should say that the days available to us are Thursday 12 September and Thursday 10 October. We are looking to allocate Thursday 12 September today, so if you could tell us of the time pressures on the debate, that would be helpful.

Mrs Ellman: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to apply for a debate in the Chamber on aviation strategy, which is an important, controversial issue of major public interest.

The main focus of the strategy has been the provision of hub airport capacity, particularly in the south-east, but it goes much wider than that, because it has implications for the regions and other aspects of aviation, such as air passenger duty. It is important that Parliament debates this vital issue, but it has been somewhat sidelined because of the decision to set up the Davies commission. Although its remit is to consider the matter, it will not report with final recommendations until after the next general election.

The Transport Committee conducted an inquiry on aviation strategy and we produced our report in May, and the Government responded to it in July. In response to our report, we found that there was widespread public interest and concern, focused on the hub issue but also involving other aspects of aviation strategy. The Davies commission, which will report in 2015 after the next general election, will produce an interim report with shortlisted options by the end of this year. This is therefore a critical time, and Parliament should have its say on this important issue so that Members representing different parties and different geographical areas can express their views. You can see from the supporters to this request that there is support from people with very varied views on the topic coming from different parts of the UK and from different parties. I ask that we can debate this in the Chamber. I have suggested a half-day debate if that is possible. If that is not possible then we would be interested in discussing alternatives.

Q2 John Hemming: You do not have a motion on the issue so it could go in Westminster Hall. Would you refuse Westminster Hall if that were offered?

Mrs Ellman: We would prefer to have it in the Chamber.

Q3 John Hemming: The point is that at the moment we do not have Westminster Hall. If we had Westminster Hall and we could offer you that would you turn it down or is it worth asking you?

Mrs Ellman: No, we would not turn it down but we would prefer the Chamber for the reasons I have given.

Q4 Jane Ellison: I agree that this is a huge issue and very multifaceted. Would it be your intention really just to say it is a debate on aviation strategy and to leave it wide enough for everyone to row in all the different issues?

Mrs Ellman: Yes, it would. It is aviation strategy. It involves a lot of things: hub airports, regional aspects, air passenger duty. There are a lot of different aspects to this and the aviation sector itself.

Q5 Jane Ellison: You must have a sense as Chairman of the Select Committee about when the Davies commission will be moving towards its interim recommendations. What is the key timing for this debate genuinely to influence the Davies commission in terms of the interim report rather than being too close to that reporting point to be truly influential? Do you have a sense of that?

Mrs Ellman: This is a very important time. There have been various press reports-I do not know whether they are reports or leaks-about various possibilities. But I think this is the right time. At this moment Sir Howard Davies is talking to the all-party aviation group. Clearly this is a time that they are listening.

Q6 Jane Ellison: So if we can find time relatively soon because of the link to the Davies report, do you think three hours is enough? Did you put down three hours in the hope that that would make it easier to allocate or would you take a full day and fill it if it was billed as your chance to influence the Davies commission’s interim recommendations?

Mrs Ellman: There is widespread interest, as shown by correspondence and Members raising the issue in various forums but without the chance of a proper debate. We were trying to strike a balance between meeting the widespread interest and being reasonable in terms of the time of Parliament and knowing other Members have other interests they want to discuss.

Chair: That is really helpful. We will see what we have available. Thank you very much.

Mrs Ellman: Thank you.

3.9 pm

Sitting suspended.

3.10 pm

On resuming-

Chair: I am sorry, we will have to return next week to hear Robert Halfon’s bid about free school meals.

Q7 Ian Mearns: Andy, were you supporting that?

Andy Sawford: I am here because of Michael Meacher’s-

Q8 Chair: Oh no, he was here a while ago. Is this on employment rights?

Andy Sawford: Yes.

Andy Sawford made representations.

Q9 Chair: This is important; I remember this now. We had a discussion about the possibility of a bid for a debate and I said, "Actually, Michael Meacher has just been to the Committee and made a bid for something very similar, so why don’t we see whether we can put them together?" Do you want to outline what you said to me?

Andy Sawford: I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on employment agencies, both generally, because there is such a big issue in my constituency and right across the country and the use of agencies has grown in recent years, particularly during the recession, but also specifically because the Government have recently made an announcement. In July, I had a letter from the Minister for Employment Relations, Jo Swinson, confirming that the Government intend to abolish the employment agency standards inspectorate, which is only a small team but, in my view, does a very important job. That was demonstrated when they came to my constituency just a few months ago and carried out spot inspections of all the employment agencies and found over 70 breaches of the law, so my concern is about enforcement, in particular where people are breaking the law through agency working.

There are also related issues-for example, around payment of the minimum wage and unfair deductions-so I had a team from HMRC come and investigate. They found that over £100,000 was owing to local workers. There is a particular issue in my constituency, but I know it is by no means unique. I have spoken to many other Members who have concerns about the role of employment agencies. The timeliness is around the change in enforcement, but also the rise in employment agencies and the growing concern that there is around employment agencies.

Chair: My only issue about this was whether those issues could be raised by Members in a general debate on employment rights or whether this was such a big issue in itself that it warranted a separate debate. That was really what we were talking about.

Q10 John Hemming: There is also the zero-hours issue. It overlaps.

Andy Sawford: Absolutely. I understand that there may be plans for an Opposition day debate specifically on zero hours at some future time, but I do not know whether that will be forthcoming. [Interruption.] Well, I don’t think it would be a surprise that an issue on which there has been a great deal of interest over the summer might be something that is coming up.

Q11 John Hemming: I think the Chair’s question of you is: would you would be happy to fit that in with employment rights?

Andy Sawford: Absolutely. These things are related. For example, the issues around the Swedish derogation in relation to employment agency working and the rights that people have-issues about day one rights-

John Hemming: It is all rights, isn’t it?

Andy Sawford: Issues about zero hours-all these things are related. I was hoping that there would be time to explore the issues around employment agencies, but if that is within the context of a wider debate about the labour market, so much the better.

Chair: That is really helpful; thank you. We will have to discuss whether you just take part in the debate as a Member and we say to Mr Speaker that you have been here or whether we put two debates together, which has in the past been very unsuccessful. We will take a decision about all that when we go into private session now, so we will let you know this afternoon if that is all right.

Andy Sawford: Thank you very much.

Q12 Mr Amess: Do you have any support?

Andy Sawford: Do I have any support on this issue? [Interruption.] I have not filled in a form, because I understood that Michael Meacher had made the formal proposal. I know that many MPs are interested in these issues. For example, a recent Westminster Hall debate specifically on zero hours-a Back-Bench debate-attracted huge interest, including in employment agency working. That was such a time-limited debate, but it did show the interest.

Chair: Thank you.