CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER 2013

GUTO BEBB, TESSA MUNT, MARK GARNIER and MR GARY STREETER

ANDREA LEADSOM

ALUN CAIRNS, STEVE BRINE and DAME ANGELA WATKINSON

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 15 October 2013

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

John Hemming

Mr Marcus Jones

Guto Bebb, Tessa Munt, Mr Gary Streeter and Mark Garnier made representations.

Q1 Chair: You are very welcome to the Committee, again, Guto. We have for allocation Monday 21 October and Thursday 24 October in the Chamber, and the 24th in Westminster Hall. We have nothing for the week of the 28th. That is absolutely definite. We will not get anything and that is why we have a double next week. So if you could be specific about whether you are asking for Westminster Hall time or Chamber time and explain the title of your debate, that would be very helpful.

Guto Bebb: We are asking for Chamber time. As you are perhaps aware, this is my second application on a similar subject to the Committee. The topic this time will be the progress of the FCA redress scheme-or the lack of progress I should argue-for the mis-selling of interest swap derivatives to small and medium businesses. The reason we ask for a debate in the main Chamber was that 15 months ago, I think, Parliament spoke quite strongly on this issue. The debate was well attended and, as we saw from the debate, I think it is fair to argue than the then FSA announced a pilot scheme to look at this issue.

Those of you who have been following this issue will be aware that they undertook a pilot, which highlighted that 91% of the cases involved were mis-sold. As a result of that pilot, they have created this redress scheme, which includes something like 40,000 businesses.

Q2 Chair: Guto, rather than going into the details, which you will obviously explore during the debate, would you outline-

Guto Bebb: I was getting to that.

Chair: If you would read out the motion, that would be really helpful.

Guto Bebb: The motion, which basically calls for a general debate, notes "That this House has considered the lack of progress made by the banks and the Financial Conduct Authority with respect to the redress scheme adopted as a result of the mis-selling of complex interest rate derivatives is both unacceptable and costly causing further undue distress for the small and medium businesses involved". The reason why we need a debate in the House is that we are talking about 40,000 businesses and a redress scheme which, I suspect, has now cost in excess of £200 million. Yet we have 32 businesses that have been offered redress. So it is topical and it is relevant.

Q3 Chair: So in terms of a debate in the Chamber, it would definitely be next week’s slot that you are looking for?

Guto Bebb: Ideally, yes, that would be the case.

Q4 Chair: Tessa, can I ask if you are still a PPS? Because as such-

Tessa Munt: Yes, I have not put my name to it.

Chair: You just want to adorn it?

Tessa Munt: I am adorning it like a hen.

Q5 Chair: Would anybody like to add anything to that?

Mr Streeter: The debate last time served as a catalyst to the FSA and the banks, but since then the FSA and certainly the banks are dragging their feet and basically having a laugh. There are lots of constituents all over the country who are really suffering. This debate could be another catalyst to take it forward into a new season of activity.

Mark Garnier: I certainly endorse those comments. We need to get the regulator to move on this. It is also quite timely, given that we have the Banking Reform Bill coming back from the House of Lords in due course. Also, since we had the last debate, we had the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards reporting. This provides quite a good book-end to the Parliamentary Commission, in terms of demonstrating in the first debate how bad things were, and in the second debate how bad things still are and how much more the banks have to do. In that respect, it can be a big feature in the wider banking debate.

Chair: Okay, that is very clear, so thank you very much for bringing that debate to us. We will let you know this afternoon what we choose.

Andrea Leadsom made representations.

Andrea Leadsom: We are after a backbench business debate, ideally in the Chamber for three hours, to discuss the 1001 Critical Days manifesto, which is a cross-party manifesto launched about four weeks ago by me, Frank Field, Caroline Lucas and Paul Burstow. It looks at ways that the Government can improve how they deal with the earliest years of a baby’s life, so from conception to age two. It has a huge amount of cross-party supporters. Just a few names are on the form that you have seen and they are genuinely from all parties, not even just restricted to the main three. We really want to air some of the ideas that people have on how we can turn things around, by focusing on earlier prevention and avoiding the appalling outcomes from poor early attachment.

Q6 Chair: In terms of a Chamber debate, it would not be essential to have it in the Chamber. Could you have it in Westminster Hall if we had nothing else available?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes.

Q7 Chair: Is there an urgency to it?

Andrea Leadsom: The manifesto was launched four weeks ago. I am going in front of the Social Justice Cabinet tomorrow to talk about some of the ideas, so obviously there is some good momentum behind it at the moment. I have set up an all-party group for the critical early days and it would be good to have the debate soon, but there is not a particular drop-dead date. Any time within the next two to three weeks would be fine.

Q8 Bob Blackman: This all sounds very sensible and logical, but is there anyone who would be itching to say "This is all a load of rubbish and I don’t agree with it"?

Andrea Leadsom: That is a good question, Bob. In theory no, but in reality the issue is-as you know-at the moment public policy tends towards fire-fighting. So there is that same old debate about having to deal with children who are regularly beaten up by their parents, and how can we spend time and money focusing on giving them the right support in the earliest days so they develop healthy relationships rather than abusive ones. That is where the problem arises. It becomes one of taking a leap of faith into investing in prevention to stop the problems later on. In answer to your question, nobody would instinctively say "What rubbish", but if you call for action, it needs quite a lot of pressure to see things change.

Q9 Bob Blackman: So are you calling for intervention in families and suchlike where things are going wrong?

Andrea Leadsom: There is a raft of specific proposals. There are some general proposals that all the MPs I mentioned who have signed up to the manifesto all agree on. There are further proposals for change that individually are fairly easy to make, but would spark a revolution in the earliest years and in fact would not be incredibly costly.

Q10 Mr Amess: Andrea, what is Social Justice Cabinet?

Andrea Leadsom: It is a cabinet that was established by Iain Duncan Smith with cross-coalition membership which looks at policy ideas and issues relating to social justice: things like how children join gangs and how to stop them doing so, that sort of thing.

Chair: Thanks you very much and we will let you know this afternoon.

Alun Cairns, Steve Brine and Dame Angela Watkinson made representations.

Alun Cairns: Thank you, Natascha. I have an updated list of Members who support my request, in addition to the list that you have been given.

Q11 Chair: Do we have that list?

Alun Cairns: I have it here to hand to you.

Chair: Could you pass it over?

Alun Cairns: There are 22 Members who have supported it, but I have no doubt that I could have extended that much further. I would draw your attention to two names included in the list. One is Margaret Hodge, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee; there is also Gareth Johnson, chairman of the all-party group on the BBC. Therefore this shows the general intention of a broad debate on the BBC, both the future of the BBC and learning the lessons of past difficulties that have taken place since 2012, when the BBC launched its investigation into the Savile inquiry.

Q12 Chair: Into what, sorry?

Alun Cairns:Into the Jimmy Savile issues and therefore the issues that have come out from the BBC as a result.

Chair: We recently had a debate on the Savile inquiry-very recently, about a month ago. Were you aware of that?

Alun Cairns: I was not, but the purpose of the debate on the BBC is to look into the finances of the BBC, the licence fee, the scandals and the cost of the inquiries that I talked about. For example, there is the Pollard review, the Respect at Work review and the Dame Janet Smith review.

Q13 Chair: Just to clarify, the debate that we had was specifically about a year on from the Savile inquiry. So this is a much broader debate about the BBC?

Alun Cairns: Much broader, it is about the move to Salford, pensions and pay-offs-that is particularly why I mentioned Margaret Hodge and her interest-as well as the management of the BBC. It is about learning the lessons and looking forward to the negotiations that will start about the BBC charter, as they come forward in the next couple of years.

Q14 Mr Amess: Alan-tremendous idea and I do not think we will have any shortage of speakers. Is anyone going to defend the status quo to make it a proper debate, or will you try to pin the Minister down?

Alun Cairns: I am certainly a champion of the BBC, but I am calling for greater transparency. It is about the culture within the BBC and how we would like to see it evolve and learn the lessons of the financial issues that have been considered, as well as the general culture that we have already talked about.

Q15 Chair: Your motion would be for a general debate. The title of the debate would be "The future of the BBC: learning the lessons".

Alun Cairns: Yes.

Q16 Bob Blackman: Are we going to have a motion that you will put forward for debate? The challenge will be whether we have the debate in Westminster Hall or the Chamber. Equally, if there is a motion to be debated, then clearly it may call on Government to take action or whatever. What do you intend here?

Alun Cairns: I plan to table a motion and request to have the debate in the main Chamber because of the widespread interest.

Bob Blackman: It would be terribly helpful for us to know the terms of the motion, so that we can make a decision.

Alun Cairns: The topic is "The future of the BBC: learning the lessons".

Bob Blackman: That is the topic, that’s not the motion.

Chair: I think what you mean, Alun, is a sort of take-note debate. I think we can work on that, as long as you have got the general topic and it is a general debate.

Q17 John Hemming: Can you clarify: if you were offered Westminster Hall would you refuse?

Alun Cairns: I would much prefer the main Chamber and I would be content with next Monday as an option, because I am conscious of your restricted time.

Q18 Mr Jones: We have a number of debates that we have already put forward. We have to choose between the ones that we have got today and your debate as well for the very little time that we have to schedule. With regard to that, would you say more about the topicality and the reasons why you think we should prioritise the debate that you are bringing forward over the other debates that we currently have?

Alun Cairns: The BBC has a special place in the culture of the nation and the culture of the BBC is obviously extremely important. There have been some significant issues about the management and pay-offs-of late, the Public Accounts Committee has been pursuing the staffing issues within the BBC-about impartiality and reporting news; also about how the BBC pursues internal issues and whether it is with the same rigour as it would rightly pursue issues outside.

Q19 Mr Jones: Is anything coming up that would make this time-sensitive?

Steve Brine: Topicality specifically, Marcus, because last week the director-general announced his strategy for the BBC, which is highly topical and is how he as the new DG wishes to spend all of our constituents’ money, as charged by a non-choice tax, every single year. Not that any tax has a choice to it, but you know my point.

Chair: We won’t start the debate here.

Dame Angela Watkinson: One aspect that is worthy of debate is the fact that the BBC is a publicly funded broadcasting company. As such its news broadcasting should be party politically neutral and it should provide balanced information and not opinion, which it does routinely. That is an important part of the BBC culture which could provide a very interesting debate.

Chair: As you say, that is a debating point. I think that we are quite clear on what you are bidding for. As I said, we have a whole page of debates already; we have the 21st and the 24th in the Chamber, the 24th in Westminster Hall and nothing on the 28th, so we are looking to allocate everything as we can. It may be that because it is a general debate we will offer you Westminster Hall, but we will let you know this afternoon. Thank you for coming in.