Backbench Business Committee - Minutes of EvidenceTranscript of representations made on Tuesday 4 March 2014

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2014

PAULINE LATHAM

SIR ALAN HASELHURST

MARK DURKAN, LADY HERMON, DR WILLIAM MCCREA, MS MARGARET RICHIE, MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON and JIM SHANNON

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 4 March 2014

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

John Hemming

Ian Mearns

Pete Wishart also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 152J (7)

Pauline Latham made representations.

Chair: Pauline, I understand you need to dash off.

Pauline Latham: Yes. You will be aware of the debate we wish to have about the licensing of cancer treatment. This has arisen because I have taken an particular interest in the licensing of melanoma drugs, but also of bowel cancer drugs. NICE recently responded to a consultation, where it said that Ipilimumab cannot be used as first-line treatment-it can only be used as a second or third-line treatment-but it has been proven that it helps people on first-line treatment. I feel that that should be aired, because NICE has now extended the consultation and there is an opportunity to ask it to look again at its findings. Quite a lot of other Back Benchers from all parties have told me that they are interested in taking part. I am on the melanoma taskforce, but I take an interest in melanoma and bowel cancer.

Q1 Chair: We now have available to us a 90-minute slot in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning from 9.30 am till 11 am-is that right?

Pauline Latham: Next Tuesday?

Chair: We are just trying to find out whether Health is the answering Department next week or the week after, but would that be the slot you are interested in?

Pauline Latham: Yes, that would be perfect.

Chair: Okay. We will definitely consider that. The Clerk is looking that up. It will be either next Tuesday or the Tuesday after.

Pauline Latham: That’s perfect.

Chair: Can we let you know about that?

Pauline Latham: That’s fine.

Chair: Fantastic.

Pauline Latham: You don’t need any more details?

Chair: No. We’ve got everything there. Thank you very much.

Pauline Latham: Thank you.

Sir Alan Haselhurst made representations.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Madam Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you again. I come wearing my hat as chairperson of the executive committee of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, although I am also the international chairman. It is in the latter capacity that I have been urging all Parliaments and Speakers in the Commonwealth to focus on the general subject of the Commonwealth every year, around Commonwealth day, which is 10 March. There are some countries where the consciousness, if you like, of the Commonwealth is not as great as perhaps one would ideally like it to be.

There are also issues to be discussed. Since the contention over having the Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka, there are concerns about the general structure of how the whole governance within the Commonwealth works. There are specific issues about violence in one or two Commonwealth countries. There is the recent decision of the Ugandans on the gay rights issue, which continues to be a problem. There is also the whole matter of how we effectively uphold the fundamental values of the Commonwealth, as signed into the charter a year ago by Her Majesty.

There are a lot of live issues, which can be aired, or there is the scope to air them, within a 90-minute debate-a "take note" debate-and it would be particularly helpful if this Parliament was seen to be responding to the international chairperson’s suggestion that this is a subject that should be dealt with in general form on around Commonwealth day.

Q2 Chair: We actually have three hours in Westminster Hall on Thursday 13 March, which would be the closest date available to 10 March. Were you specifically asking for 90 minutes, or did you want to have three hours?

Sir Alan Haselhurst: I have quite a number of takers for it, but one never likes to guarantee on a Thursday that other things might not divert colleagues’ attention. Whatever you are able to offer would be greatly appreciated, I am sure.

Q3 John Hemming: Would this be the responsibility of Foreign? How would this be handled on a departmental basis, if it was on a Tuesday?

Q4 Chair: Who would answer the debate? It would be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, would it not? Who was it last year?

Sir Alan Haselhurst: I forget who answered it last year. I imagine that this year it would be Hugo Swire.

Chair: Brilliant. Okay. We will consider in our private session where to slot that in. However, we appreciate that you would like to have it around 10 March, or as close to that date as we can get-

Sir Alan Haselhurst: As close to that as possible.

Q5 Chair: It is just that 11 March is a Tuesday.

Q6 John Hemming: It depends on which Department is there as well.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Then you would at least allow me to say to my other colleagues across the Commonwealth, "Well, we did it."

Chair: Absolutely. We will get back to you after we have finished this afternoon.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Thank you very much indeed.

Chair: Thank you very much for coming.

Mark Durkan, Mr Laurence Robertson, Dr William McCrea, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Jim Shannon and Lady Hermon made representations.

Q7 Chair: We appreciated the urgency of this debate, so we unusually took your late application. We are looking forward to hearing the details of it.

Mark Durkan: Okay. Thank you very much, Chair.

We are here not so much to press the urgency in time terms for the debate; we are happy to take whatever time the Committee might be able to offer in the future. However, we felt that it was important and useful that it would be the full complement of sitting MPs from Northern Ireland who made this bid, in a united way, obviously framing the topic in fairly neutral terms. However, we have no doubt that it is not only Northern Ireland MPs who want to discuss many of the issues and questions that arise from the issues that have been the subjects of statements and an urgent question recently. Those issues would not only relate to what has happened but to the implications for the process going forward and the implications for the ideas that are in the Haass talks, and so on. So it is not only a "looking back" debate, which can be dealt with by way of inquiries-either the review set up by the Prime Minister, or any other inquiry that might be conducted by Parliament.

While there has been a debate on aspects of this in the Northern Ireland Assembly, we feel that it is important that there is a debate in the Chamber here in the House of Commons, because-obviously-many of the issues involve the responsibilities of Parliament and the role of the Government as well. So we feel that it is important that those issues are discussed, because they do not just affect Northern Ireland but affect incidents and victims in other locations as well. We feel that it is appropriate to seek a debate here.

Q8 Chair: Okay. Did anyone else want to add something?

Dr McCrea: Yes, Chair. Thank you for receiving us today. Cross-party representation is important. This issue is vital not only for Northern Ireland MPs but for MPs right across the United Kingdom. There are matters that need to be discussed, and I think the debate is of such importance that it should be for the Floor of the House. There is a seriousness about the whole issue, and justice should be taken completely into account. I know that the Northern Ireland Committee is willing to support the request, too.

Mr Laurence Robertson: I chair the Northern Ireland Committee, and I co-chair the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I was responsible for calling the urgent question last week. The Government responded, but that was just one hour to discuss what is an extremely serious issue. There is not just the court case itself but the whole background. An inquiry has been announced, but I think it is important that the House of Commons is given an opportunity to suggest ways in which that inquiry might be carried out. This is an extremely serious issue, and we saw last week that the Northern Ireland Assembly and its role were in question. There was a question of whether it would actually survive, so not to hold a debate on such a serious issue would be rather extraordinary. I am here fully to support the calls for such a debate, which I think should be allowed a fair amount of time, too, rather than being just a very short debate.

Chair: You’ve got three hours on this application.

Q9 John Hemming: I am reading the words of the motion, and they are quite narrowly drawn. Listening to what you are saying, do you want to think about other people to whom letters may have been written, or anything like that? Do you want a broader debate on the wider issues?

Chair: Could you just read out the words?

John Hemming: The words written here are, "This House has considered matters pertaining to the High Court judgment which was the subject of written ministerial statements by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 25 February and the Attorney-General on 26 February." Obviously, other letters were written. To me, a broader debate seems sensible because, in many ways, those letters are more important. Who else received them? It is an issue in Birmingham, for instance, so I know that there are other Members who would wish to speak beyond the normal number. Adding me and you makes 15, doesn’t it? I don’t think we need to ask for extra names.

Mark Durkan: We did not want to name the debate in the way that it appeared in one Hansard, in which a debate appeared under the name of a particular person who was in the recent court case, nor did we want the name to refer just to the prosecution decision, which is too narrow. "Matters pertaining to" raises a lot of issues.

Q10 John Hemming: Yes, it can be broadly interpreted.

Mark Durkan: It includes all of the background issues and all of the possible implications that now arise from the controversy.

Q11 Bob Blackman: Can I just press you on time? Obviously, the Government have given way and agreed to a judge-led inquiry, which I welcome, but the clear concern is about having this debate before the inquiry starts so that it might inform the inquiry. I am not sure when the inquiry is going to start, so it would be helpful to indicate how urgent it is that we allocate the time so that, when we come to a conclusion afterwards, we get the right sort of timing, rather than having you wait for a while and possibly miss out on the start of the inquiry.

Mark Durkan: If we can establish definitely that there is going to be a debate, I don’t think there is a pressing urgency that it has to be next week or by an absolutely definite date. The fact that it is known that the debate is happening would be particularly helpful, not least for those who have constituents who are now concerned about what has happened. Whether it is Birmingham MPs or others, it gives them time to realise and to reflect on representations and questions that they might receive. I do not know what decisions may be taken by the Select Committee on any inquiry that it might do, but whatever the terms that a review set up by the Prime Minister or an inquiry undertaken by the Select Committee might have, I don’t think the debate needs to take place first to inform those terms. They will be able to take forward their own work in the light of some of the further questions that will emerge from the debate.

Dr McCrea: It is not for us to tell the Committee when the debate should take place, but there certainly is the desire to have an openness about the issue and show that the House of Commons is treating it with the seriousness that it deserves. I think we need the time, however, to debate it. It is important to have sufficient time to have a meaningful debate, because the people in Northern Ireland-and other interested MPs on the mainland, because other cases and issues have been taken into this-would fail to understand if we did not get sufficient time to have a meaningful debate.

Q12 Chair: Okay, I appreciate that. Jim, would you like to raise something?

Jim Shannon: Yes. There is a perception among our constituents and the general public that Parliament has been ignored. It is important that Parliament, therefore, has a chance to express itself through this debate on their behalf.

Ms Ritchie: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to say that we would like the opportunity to debate this issue at whatever time, because this is such a complex issue. From my perspective, I would like to concentrate on what might happen coming out of the Haass talks, and not to avoid those issues.

Q13 Chair: I have got Oliver and then John wants to come in briefly. Did you want to say something, Sylvia?

Lady Hermon: I will respond, after-

Oliver Colvile: No. Go on, please.

Lady Hermon: Oh, that is awfully gentlemanly of you. Oliver sits with us in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, so we are used to his very good manners. Thank you very much for that, Oliver.

This is a really serious issue and I know that the Committee appreciates the serious nature of it. I sat in a state of shock last Wednesday, and I think I am not alone. It was a revelation to me-and I am sure that I speak on behalf of my colleagues-when we found that out in the House because the secrecy had been lifted over the judgment in the John Downey case on Tuesday. Information has trickled out and we now learn that a scheme had been in place since about 2001 to do with on-the-runs, who were on the run for alleged very serious offences in Northern Ireland and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom as well.

We understand that the scheme commenced under the Blair Government and then was continued by the Brown Government. To make matters even worse, we learn that it was inherited by the current coalition Government in 2010. The Attorney-General confirmed in his reply to the urgent question last week that, under the current Administration since 2010, policing and justice has been devolved to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, but, despite that fact, a further 38 so-called comfort letters had been issued to on-the-runs. It affects many MPs and it is an enormously serious issue at home and right across the United Kingdom.

Chair: That is also the point that John raised and we appreciate that.

Oliver Colvile: I need to declare an interest here in that I am a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and also a member of BIPA. I was with the excellent Chairman of the Select Committee in Northern Ireland last week and I can tell you that this is a big issue in Northern Ireland.

I think there will be a broader interest in this, not only from the people in Northern Ireland, but from those of us who represent garrison towns and cities, because there is now a big question mark over the potential prosecution of soldiers who, rightly or wrongly, were going about Government business and whether they are being treated in a different way. If I might suggest, I think the debate needs to be sooner rather than later to help the Government set the criteria and terms of reference for the judge-led inquiry. My concern is that if we do not do that sooner, potentially someone could say, "If you are doing that in the middle of the inquiry, frankly that could be subject to judicial reviews."

Q14 Chair: The time that we have provisionally is 27 March. Of course, we have the Budget coming up, so a lot of time will be used for the Budget debate. But 27 March is provisionally our next available slot, so we will definitely keep that in mind.

Q15 John Hemming: There is one other issue when we allocate three hours. At times, there is a statement that might take out half an hour to an hour, so the debate might only end up being two and a half hours. Would that be a problem?

Mark Durkan: It could be, but I suppose there are no guarantees.

John Hemming: It is just the way it tends to be. I accept that it is an important point, but it is just the practicalities.

Q16 Chair: There is a programme motion, so we can consider those things.

John Hemming: We do not have the power. The Government would have to put down the programme motion.

Chair: We ask the Government and then they put down a programme motion.

Dr McCrea: I would doubt whether the Government would find that this was not something that they could not have a programme motion for, to assist. They should assist it.

Chair: They did it recently.

Q17 Bob Blackman: Given the broad range of issues-it started a bit narrowly, but there clearly is a broad range of issue-would you consider revising your request to be for a full day’s debate, rather than for three hours? I am just thinking that we do not want it constrained too much, and if the opportunity is there, let’s have a proper debate on the subject.

Mark Durkan: I do not think we would be averse to a full day’s debate. In fact, I think that that would send its own important signal. We thought that we would be moderate by consensus.

Q18 Chair: It would all depend on what we have available.

Mark Durkan: Yes. We are not making it imperative or a demand, but we know that a full day’s debate could assist in allowing more to be said and make it easier for people to accommodate interventions and other things, as would be natural in a debate as wide as this.

Chair: Okay. Thank you very much for that. We will let you know after we have finished our private session.