CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2014

ANNETTE BROOKE

SHEILA GILMORE

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 25 March 2014

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

John Hemming

Alec Shelbrooke

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

Annette Brooke made representations.

Q1 Chair: Thank you very much for coming. You have an idea for a 90-minute debate on the gap in achievement in reading between poorer children and their better-off peers.

Annette Brooke: That is right. The achievement gap is a focus for everyone. We do not think that this is necessarily a debate that will find its way into Government time, because it is something that is firmly on the agenda. Of course we may want to discuss a number of measures and their relative effectiveness, but I want to underline how important it is for a child to have a good grounding in reading before they can progress. Recent statistics on literacy levels in secondary schools have been published, but the problem should be addressed in primary schools.

Superficially, one might think, "Well, what is there to debate? Everybody is going to agree." I am likely to be on a slightly different route from the other Members who may be interested in taking part in the debate, because I support the campaign Too Much, Too Soon, and I am in favour of formal education starting later, unless the child is ready to read. According to that viewpoint, you can damage children’s life chances by starting to introduce concepts too soon for their development. There will be many different views about that, including, I suspect, that of the education Minister who will respond to the debate. That is a good basis for discussion, because we are all concerned about the achievement gap, but do we spend enough time debating how best to close it?

Major campaigns have been launched, such as that by the Evening Standard, to support reading in different ways. Many of us attended a reception with Save the Children and the Beanstalk Group, which support children’s reading.

We could also discuss the role of the voluntary sector, the best use of the pupil premium-I could go on and on, but perhaps it would be better if I took some questions.

Chair: That is interesting.

Q2 Bob Blackman: It is an interesting subject. You have applied for a 90-minute debate, but not said whether you want it in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. Are you particularly worried about its location?

Annette Brooke: No. The debate will be fairly specialised, which is why I think we should go for an hour-and-half debate, rather than longer, because people with a specific interest in reading methods and all sorts will participate.

Q3 Bob Blackman: Could you hold this debate at relatively short notice, because we are likely to get some end-of-day slots, which might fit 90 minutes as opposed to a full half-day debate?

Annette Brooke: Yes, I think I could. I did have a phone call about this, and I think that perhaps I was too precipitate in saying that I was not available next Tuesday.

Chair: Thursday 3 April.

Annette Brooke: Was it Tuesday?

Q4 Chair: In Westminster Hall, we have some time on Thursday 3 April. There is also a 90-minute Tuesday slot in Westminster Hall in the week beginning 31 March, so that would be 1 April.

Annette Brooke: I was slightly precipitate because I have a year group coming up that week from a local school and, as you might imagine, that is one of my priorities.

Q5 Chair: They could watch you.

Annette Brooke: The timing is determined by the education programme that is laid on in the House. It had occurred me to check whether Alex Cunningham could lead the debate, and if I had permission to join the debate a quarter of an hour late, that could make it work, and next Tuesday could be a possibility. However, I am afraid that Alex Cunningham is not in Westminster today; he accidentally came here last week to back the request.

Chair: That’s right.

Annette Brooke: We would need to double-check whether he could start the debate-

Chair: A staggered debate.

Annette Brooke: My only problem with short notice is just next week.

Q6 Chair: At the moment, we have the whole of Thursday 3 April available in Westminster Hall. Would you not be able to fill that three-hour slot? We could divide it into two one-and-half hour sections.

Annette Brooke: I think I would only need the hour and a half, but I just need to double-check on the children because it is a huge group that comes up to London from the constituency. They do all sorts of exciting things all week, so half of them come one day, and then half the other day. I just need to double-check the times. I could do that now. Is that convenient?

Chair: If we could get back to you after we have gone into private session and, in the meantime, if you could check with Alex Cunningham, that would be helpful.

We will now have a short interlude while we wait for Sheila Gilmore.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming-

Sheila Gilmore made representations.

Q7 Chair: You are asking for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall or in the Chamber on incapacity benefit migration.

Sheila Gilmore: We are now at the point in terms of the changes to incapacity benefit where the migration of people-the technical term that is used-or the movement of people from that benefit to the new benefit of employment support allowance is drawing to a close. That transition started in 2011 and is due to be completed this spring. I am not sure how much on target we are to complete that.

We are now able to look at the impact of that change, and not just on new applicants for the benefit. When it was introduced in 2008, employment support allowance was only available to new applicants-those who had recently suffered illness or loss of employment because of illness or disability. The actual migration process has been rather different from that in some ways, because it is dealing with some people who have been on benefit for a considerable period.

I thought it was appropriate to have the opportunity to discuss and evaluate the process and how it has worked during the past two years. Perhaps we could consider some of the relevant statistics, because despite the many statements about the number of people who have been found fit for work as a result of the process, the number of people in receipt of benefit remains relatively high and has not reduced by the same amount as the number of those who have been found fit for work. That is slightly mysterious. The Department for Work and Pensions itself is expecting the cost of the benefit to continue to rise over the next few years. Such issues need to be explored, including people’s experience of the migration process, now that it is nearing to an end, and why the outcomes do not quite appear to match the intended outcomes.

Q8 Alec Shelbrooke: You only have four people listed as sponsors. Do you think you can get more people?

Sheila Gilmore: To speak on this, or to sponsor it? Yes.

Q9 Alec Shelbrooke: On your sponsors, they are all of one party.

Sheila Gilmore: They are at this stage.

Q10 Alec Shelbrooke: Do you think you can get cross-party support?

Sheila Gilmore: I think so. People may not necessarily agree with my point of view-

Q11 Alec Shelbrooke: That’s fine; they don’t have to approve of your point of view-that is why you have a debate-but you think you can come back to us with a lot more names.

Sheila Gilmore: Yes.

Mr Amess: Do you not need 15 people down?

Chair: It is 90 minutes.

Q12 Mr Amess: Yes, sorry. Sheila, do you think you could get a Conservative and a Liberal to support the request for a debate?

Sheila Gilmore: I am absolutely certain that I could.

Mr Amess: Michael Meacher came to us for his debate, and is there not some overlap?

John Hemming: His was on sanctions, wasn’t it?

Chair: Yes-same area, but different issue.

Mr Amess: Okay; I just thought that if they wanted three hours, they could have worked on it together.

Chair: It is quite a specific bid, though, the migration period.

John Hemming: It is quite narrow. What number of people do we require for a 90-minute debate?

Q13 Chair: Half of 15-seven and a half. Sheila, we normally say to people in a similar case that there are not enough people down and that the existing sponsors are all of one party, so you would have to come back to us with more people from different parties, not just to support the idea of the debate but to participate, so that we make sure that we do not run of speakers in the time. Are you after a 90-minute Tuesday slot, like we used to have? Do you remember that there used to be the Adjournment debates? We have a Westminster Hall slot on 3 April, for which we have pencilled something in for an hour and a half, so you could use the other hour and an half.

Sheila Gilmore: It would depend on timing. The Clerk did write to say that there might be that slot, but the only difficulty is that, if that were the first slot, I have a meeting with people from the UK Statistics Authority, which we have already moved once.

Chair: We can work round that. If you can get us more names from Members in different political parties before the close of play today, that would be really helpful in allowing us to make a scheduling decision. Thank you.