CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 28 JANUARY 2014

ROBERT HALFON, MR ELFYN LLWYD, DR JULIAN LEWIS and ALBERT OWEN

ALBERT OWEN, MR ELFYN LLWYD and ROGER WILLIAMS

DAME ANNE BEGG and MARGOT JAMES

MRS CAROLINE SPELMAN, DAME ANNE BEGG, ROBERT BUCKLAND and MS MARGARET RITCHIE

MR DAVID RUFFLEY

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 28 January 2014

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

Ian Mearns

Alec Shelbrooke

Robert Halfon, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Dr Julian Lewis and Albert Owen made representations.

Q1 Chair: Robert, we were just commenting on this very impressive list of names that you have provided.

Robert Halfon: Thank you. It has slightly grown since we last sent it through.

Q2 Chair: We have calculated that they have about three seconds each if they are all to speak. Do you want to kick off?

Robert Halfon: I am grateful for the Committee’s time. I am also hugely thankful to and appreciative of my colleagues who have come here today; as you can see, they are from a number of different parties. I believe that 165 MPs have signed my suggested Back-Bench motion: 25 Labour MPs, nine Liberal Democrats, three from the SNP, four from the DUP and the one Member from the Green party. George Galloway is the only one we have not yet got hold of, but otherwise, we have every party in the House.

Some weeks ago, a pensioner in my constituency of Harlow contacted me to say that she had had a letter from her energy company, which was going to charge her £63 extra a year because she did not want to pay by direct debit, even though she always pays on time. I was shocked to hear that. I rang up the energy company and spoke to the managing director, who said that his charges for those who do not pay by direct debit were actually some of the lowest. We went through every single energy company and found that the average cost is about £114 a year if you do not pay by direct debit, and it goes up to £390; that is what one company was charging. A million people in our country do not have bank accounts, and 45% of people do not pay by direct debit, yet they are being fleeced by utility companies.

Some of those companies call that extra charge a discount, which in my view is like calling a mortuary a negative patient output. "Discount" is a weasel term, and we need to raise the issue in Parliament. That is why I have tabled the motion, which is supported by an enormous number of colleagues. It asks the Government to consider the matter and to examine the possibility of setting a cap on how much energy companies can charge if people do not pay by direct debit. I am sure that my colleagues would like to say something.

Q3 Chair: Before we hear from your colleagues, could you read out the motion that you propose to put forward?

Robert Halfon: Yes, of course. The title is "Excessive charges for customers not paying energy bills by direct debit". The motion states: "That this House is disappointed that seventeen energy companies in the United Kingdom charge their customers more if they do not pay their bills by direct debit; acknowledges that some firms do not charge their customers anything extra at all; notes that the Department of Energy and Climate Change statistics show that this adds £114 to the average consumer’s bills; further notes that 45 per cent of people do not pay their energy bills by direct debit; recognises that over one million people in the United Kingdom do not have access to a bank account; believes that this is a stealth tax on the poor; and therefore urges Ofgem to hold an inquiry into these practices, encourages energy companies to operate with more transparency, and for the Government to consider ways of limiting these charges, such as by introducing a cap."

Q4 Chair: May I ask a few things? First, this is a votable motion and therefore it must be considered in the Chamber-I understand that. However, in terms of the number of names that you have supplied us with, we have had experience of being provided with a lot of names of Members who support the idea of having a debate, but who do not then participate in that debate. Given that you only asked for a 90-minute or three-hour debate, how many of these many, many Members do you anticipate taking part in that debate?

Robert Halfon: I have had a lot of support for this and, as you can see, the number of signatures has way surpassed even the number that I had imagined. Between 20 and 30 colleagues have said that they would like to speak in the debate. I am careful about asking for a debate of either 90 minutes or three hours because I do not want to abuse the Backbench Business Committee’s allocation of time, and I know that many other colleagues have important things that they would like to discuss.

Q5 Chair: It is simply that if you have a debate that is allocated three hours and you have huge numbers of people interested, their contributions being cut down to two or three minutes is counter-productive. I assume that you think that you could fill the Chamber for the whole day with this number.

Robert Halfon: Depending on how long a whole day was, I am sure that we could fill-

Chair: Up to six hours.

Robert Halfon: Up to six hours, yes. To be fair to others, we would be happy with a three-hour debate because of pressure on Back-Bench time.

Q6 Chair: Recently-this is a change in direction-we have asked people to provide us with the names of people who will participate in the debate, rather than with the names of those who support the idea of it. The list you have provided is very impressive, but could you get back to us with a list of people who you are confident will take part in the debate?

Robert Halfon: Yes.

Chair: Would any of the other Members like to add anything?

Q7 Oliver Colvile: I am very curious about this. When I pay a quarter, I hope I pay some of my bills by standing order. Is that also affected?

Robert Halfon: You pay the most if you pay by meter, you pay more if you send a cheque to the companies or you pay via the Post Office, and you pay slightly more if you pay by standing order.

Mr Llwyd: Briefly, I support what Robert has said. It is a big consumer rights issue on the day when we have the Second Reading of the Consumer Rights Bill. I just hope that we have a decent slot in which to argue the point.

Albert Owen: I am a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, and we have taken evidence from a number of organisations, including the regulator. To be frank, we have not been able to pin this issue down. We have had great debates about charging, dual fuel bonuses and the extra money that people get off their bills, but this section of society is paying through the nose for their energy costs, and they have been singled out. I do not want to digress into a discussion of other utilities, but the same applies with telecoms. This is appropriate timing, given what we have discussed about energy and, whatever side of that debate you are on, energy costs are the big issue. It is predominantly vulnerable people who are being hit the hardest, so, to echo Robert’s remarks, this is very worthy of a general debate.

Dr Lewis: I entirely agree with what has just been said. This is one of those rare occasions when a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons has a genuine chance of changing the behaviour of the companies concerned. I am not quite clear where the Committee is coming from, on the question of wanting to know the names of the people who are going to speak. I could well understand the situation if you were concerned that there would not be enough people to fill up the time. Here, if anything, the problem is that there might be too many people. I am sure that the people who have supported Robert in this application would be willing to agree things among themselves, if you were really concerned that there would be too many people and that they would only have a couple of minutes each. I am sure that Robert’s well known organising capabilities will be equal to the occasion, and that he will ensure that there is an appropriate number of people-enough, but not too many-to make the best use of the allocated time.

Chair: Fantastic, thank you. I have one question from Ian Mearns.

Q8 Ian Mearns: Robert, I cannot help but notice, from the telly behind you, that it is the Second Reading of the Consumer Rights Bill in the Chamber. I am just wondering whether this should have been included in the Bill.

Robert Halfon: Yes is the answer. I wanted to show that there is a lot of Back-Bench support to get the Government’s attention. I admit that I only found out about this some weeks ago. I had no idea about this, because I pay automatically by direct debit. That is why I decided to do this.

It is easy to get 50 names, but to get 165-odd is not an easy thing to do. The response from Members has been enormous. I am absolutely convinced that there will be significant demand for the debate, and I don’t think I have ever let you down in previous Back-Bench debates that you have kindly granted us. That is reflected by the fact that we have all parties, including smaller parties, here today.

Ian Mearns: For the record, on the names you have put forward, I know that John Thurso has a big constituency, but Caithness, Sunderland and Easter Ross? He has extended his boundaries.

Q9 Chair: He is a great man. Is there a time limit before which this has to take place?

Robert Halfon: Obviously, I realise that there are huge pressures on the Backbench Business Committee. I would prefer to have it sooner rather than later. Perhaps we can do something similar to what Mr Mearns suggested.

Q10 Chair: The next available slot is 13 February, which is the last day of term. If we were to look at something on that day, would that be a problem for you, or would it be something that you would consider?

Robert Halfon: We would be very happy. We would be happy with any day that the Committee granted.

Q11 Chair: Do ask those people who say that they will participate whether they are willing to stay on a one-line Whip on the Thursday before recess.

Bob Blackman: On the day of a by-election.

Chair: Yes, on the day of a by-election.

Robert Halfon: Ah, that is the day of the by-election. That is a fair point, actually.

Chair: We will let you know about that after we have been in private session. Thank you very much.

Albert Owen, Mr Elfyn Llwyd and Roger Williams made representations.

Q12 Chair: This is the annual debate.

Albert Owen: It is an annual event. It is very traditional; it has been held since the 1940s. Post-devolution, it has gained in importance because the Government and this Parliament have declined to hold it. The Backbench Business Committee has, in the past, allocated a slot, which we are very pleased about. It gives us the opportunity to put the Welsh dimension to the UK. The application has cross-party support, as you can see. The debate is an opportunity not only for Welsh MPs to debate general issues but-I say this as a proud Unionist-for colleagues from Scotland, England and Northern Ireland to debate issues pertaining to Wales. It can be Welsh-centric but can also have a different dimension.

There is an important part of Welsh politics that is not really debated under devolution. When issues are properly England-only, or there are issues that the Welsh Assembly do as Welsh-only, a big section of issues are not properly covered, in my opinion, and the opinion of many colleagues: cross-border issues-education, health, broadband and transport in particular. This is an opportunity to have a very generalised debate about those issues, which is very important, and it should be on the Floor of the House.

When we have had this debate in the past, colleagues have raised specific issues, but we have had a general debate, and have actually had a lot of support from the Wales Office and from Government Departments; we don’t just cover what the Wales Office is responsible for. This is an opportunity for that. The request is time-sensitive; we want to go as close as we can to St David’s day, so we would be looking for the closest Thursday or Monday that is applicable.

Oliver Colvile: Bore da.

Albert Owen: Bore da-well, prynhawn da.

Oliver Colvile: That is the only Welsh that I know.

Albert Owen: You said good morning, actually, but there we are. Nice try.

Q13 Oliver Colvile: This is obviously a Parliament for the United Kingdom, so is it not the case that you need to try to make sure that you get some English, Scottish and Northern Irish Members of Parliament as well?

Albert Owen: Absolutely. I focused just on the Welsh, but I did make that point in my presentation. The debate attracts people from other parts of the United Kingdom. One issue I want to talk about is broadband. We have had announcements today about the success of broadband, but that is something for which both the Welsh Government and the UK have responsibilities. That is what I am focusing on. There will be a lot of colleagues on the border, particularly in the west midlands and the Cheshire area, who will be very interested in many of these debates, so yes, there will be a lot of non-Welsh Members interested in debating these subjects.

Q14 Oliver Colvile: There are a lot of Members of Parliament in the south-west who will be very interested in the amount of money that Wales is getting and so does not necessarily come to their area.

Albert Owen: Well, that is why it is called a Welsh debate-so that we debate those issues and do not come at them from one angle.

Q15 Chair: Did you want to add anything, Elfyn and Roger?

Mr Llwyd: Just to say that the subject I would like to raise is tourism, and that covers England, Wales and Scotland. I would welcome input from people who represent other places, to compare and contrast. I echo everything Albert said. It is a tradition worth upholding. I do not say that every tradition in this place is worth upholding, but this particular one is, by virtue of the fact that when we have these debates, they are very well attended.

Q16 Chair: On attendance, there are only two supporting Members on your list, although I know that the debate is incredibly well attended.

Albert Owen: I just went for quality on this occasion. Seriously, I have talked to people since. I wanted to get the application in early, because I realise the pressure on your Committee. Had I had this week, I know I could have filled the list.

Q17 Chair: Could you come back to us with some more names of people who you are quite certain would participate?

Albert Owen: Absolutely. I am quite prepared to do that, yes. I was not really sure about the procedure, and the most important thing for me was to get the request in early, because of the time sensitivity to St David’s day. The nearest day will be Monday 3 March.

Q18 Chair: That is really helpful. If you can come back to us as soon as possible with more names, that would be really helpful.

Roger Williams: Just to emphasise the point, I am sure that quite a large number of English colleagues will want to participate, particularly, as was said, on the cross-border impact on services, such as health and education services. A lot of my constituents go to Hereford for their health care, for instance, and I know English people come to my constituency for their GP care. That raises particular problems, so it is good to have a forum where these things can be debated and expressed.

Chair: Thank you very much. We look forward to getting some more names from you.

Albert Owen: We will do that as soon as possible.

Dame Anne Begg and Margot James made representations.

Dame Anne Begg: I am here as the ex-vice-chair of the Speaker’s Conference, which was set up during the last Parliament to look into the whole issue of parliamentary representation, and the lack of diversity in the House of Commons predominantly and in politics more generally. One of the conference’s recommendations was that there be a debate on the issue every two years to keep it on the agenda, to measure progress and to see how things are going with regard to candidate selection in particular. We want a debate at this time of year because that last happened two years ago, in January 2012, and we are going for the time window between January, when the Speaker’s Conference reported, and March, when the Government responded to our report.

As you can see, the supporting Members are from all the main political parties-Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and SNP. The last time we had the debate two years ago, we had it on the Floor of the House and lots of people turned up whom we were not expecting. I would expect that to be the case this time. It is very topical, because there is quite a lot in the newspapers, as we know, about a number of MPs choosing to stand down at the next election. It would be useful to find out why.

The issue is not only one of gender, of course; it is about encouraging more people from ethnic minorities, disabled people and people who are gay or lesbian. The one thing that we did not cover in the Speaker’s Conference that has also been quite topical is the fact that people from lower socio-economic groups tend not to get themselves elected nowadays, and the idea of perhaps including mechanisms to deal with that. In our submission, we have all the facts and figures about representation and the problems, but really the purpose of the debate is to hold the feet of the party leaders to the fire, and make them aware that they should be taking these things into account when devising their policies around candidate selection. As people have declared in the past few months that they are not standing at the next election, there are a lot of selection processes going on. As a result of all that, we think this deserves a wider airing.

Q19 Chair: Anne, could you read the substantive motion for the record?

Dame Anne Begg: "That this House welcomes the fact that there are now more women hon. Members and hon. Members from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities in the UK Parliament than at any time in history; notes that in spite of progress Parliament is not yet fully representative of the diversity of UK society; recognises that increased diversity of representation is a matter of justice, would enhance debate and decision-making and help to rebuild public faith in Parliament; is concerned that the progress made in 2010 may not be sustained unless concerted efforts are made to support individuals from under-represented communities to stand for election in 2015; and calls on the Government and political parties to fulfil commitments made in response to the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) in 2010, including commitments in respect of candidate selection and support for candidates."

Chair: Excellent, thank you. You have asked for three hours in the Chamber. I will hand over to Alec Shelbrooke.

Q20 Alec Shelbrooke: You mentioned the Speaker’s Conference on parliamentary representation. I do not know what commitments were made by the political parties, but are they likely to make this a votable motion? Is it controversial?

Dame Anne Begg: No, I don’t think it is. In the Speaker’s Conference, we managed to get all three party leaders in front of us-not together, although I would have liked that, but individually-and they all made commitments to ensure that the candidates that their parties were selecting would try to represent or improve the diversity of the House of Commons. The parties do not agree on the mechanism for doing that, but there is a will in all the political parties, even if they have not necessarily achieved it, and a view that this is the right thing to do.

Q21 Alec Shelbrooke: That is the important point. The motion does not say that there should be a mechanism of all-women shortlists, or something like that; it is more a broad set of aims.

Dame Anne Begg: In fact, one of the recommendations that the Speaker’s Conference made was to set up an access to elected office fund for disabled people. The Government have done that and this is perhaps the right time to reflect on whether that has been successful.

Q22 Chair: Margot, did you want to add anything?

Margot James: Thank you very much. Anne has summed everything up brilliantly, so the only thing I would add is that there has been quite a lot of experience since two years ago, certainly in the Conservative party’s candidate selection processes and, I would presume, also with the Labour party’s processes. I think it would give Members a chance to reflect on that experience: what has worked and what the interim results are of how the parties are getting on in living up to their commitments towards increasing the diversity of their candidates going forward to the 2015 election. So I think it is very timely to have this debate this year.

Q23 Chair: The next date that we have available is 13 February, which is the Thursday that we break up for recess. Not only that, it is also the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. If that were allocated, would that be unwelcome?

Dame Anne Begg: It would not be unwelcome to me, but whether other Members would be free to come along might be the difficulty.

Q24 Chair: Could you find that out for us as quickly as possible?

Dame Anne Begg: Yes.

Q25 Chair: I anticipate that that will be quite a difficult day for us to allocate, so I think it will be more about who can do it.

Dame Anne Begg: I do not know; I was just looking for some time in February, but before the end of March is the time window.

Margot James: It would reduce the numbers.

Dame Anne Begg: I am sure that it would reduce the numbers.

Q26 Chair: I appreciate that, and it is perfectly legitimate to say that you cannot take that day.

Dame Anne Begg: Yes, it is difficult. I would need to speak to each of these people individually, because it will obviously depend on pressures from their own political parties in the by-election.

Chair: I understand that.

Alec Shelbrooke: If we are struggling on that day because a lot of Members-from the Labour party especially-might be up there, we may be able to put the Parliament Act on the Lords over the European Bill.

Chair: That is something for our private session. Anne, thank you very much for bringing this matter to us. We will let you know this afternoon after we have finished our deliberations. Thank you very much for coming.

Mrs Caroline Spelman, Dame Anne Begg, Robert Buckland and Ms Margaret Ritchie made representations.

Mrs Spelman: Good afternoon everyone. I have come to make a bid for a debate as close as possible to International Women’s Day, which is 8 March. Obviously, it is time sensitive. It is an annual debate, but it is important that our Parliament demonstrates not just at home but also abroad how seriously we take this subject.

There are three things that we would like to do in the course of the debate: celebrate the progress made of women participating in the work place; emphasise how important it is to achieve gender equality; and look at areas where we could definitely be doing better and press for further changes that will address where we still fall short. It attracts a wide range of support.

There is an all-party parliamentary group for women, which has 33 cross-party members who are very keen that the debate should be secured. And I have let members of the Backbench Committee have a list of our colleagues who have signed up so far. It is completely cross-party and I keep receiving requests from other Members, including gentleman Members. I think it is very helpful to have men come and speak up on the importance of this subject.

Particularly this year, I would like to highlight a couple of things. As the economy begins to recover, there is important evidence that some parts of the UK are really falling behind. As a west midlands MP, I note that the four cities of Birmingham, Nottingham, Coventry and Leicester are showing the lowest employment rates for women. Since this happens to be the part of the country where the manufacturing recovery is at its strongest, I would like very much to bring out the question of women’s participation in manufacturing and the study of science and engineering, because part of this contributes to a structural weakness we have in the economy which would be good to address on this day.

Q27 Chair: You have asked for three hours, ideally on Thursday 6 March because that is the closet date.

Mrs Spelman: It would be two days before, yes.

Q28 Chair: Obviously, as you know, we are completely dependant on what is allocated to us by Government, so we work one week ahead, then provisionally two weeks ahead. We are not aware of anything in that week so far, but it is really helpful to come this early. On a boring technical matter, what happens is that you get a proposer and a seconder. We normally have people from different political parties as the lead Members. Who from the Opposition side would be the seconder of this?

Mrs Spelman: How many do you need?

Chair: You just need somebody to speak after the lead Member.

Mrs Spelman: I am doing this for the first time. I wonder if either of my colleagues sitting with me would be willing to be the seconder.

Ms Ritchie: I would defer to Anne, but I am quite happy.

Chair: It is just something technical to think about. As you say, this is an annual debate. We have just heard the request for the Welsh debate as well, which is another annual debate that comes to us.

Q29 Oliver Colvile: Given that we have just had one submission about diversity, it is important that both men and women participate.

Mrs Spelman: There is representation from a full range of the parties, including Caroline Lucas from the Green party. It is very important that we show this as diversely based as possible, but I would say to gentleman Members that it is incredibly important to have men articulate the issues that face women on international women’s day. It is really good that Robert Buckland is here today to show his support. He just represents the many men in the House who I hope will join us.

Q30 Chair: Okay. Thank you for bringing that to us. Did you want to add anything?

Ms Ritchie: Just from a Northern Ireland perspective, and particularly from 1998, it would be good to celebrate the role of women, not in politics, but in business and in NGOs and the impact of equality legislation on that. It is a little below par at the moment and it needs to be recognised, acknowledged and built upon.

Q31 Chair: That is fantastic. As a gentleman Member, did you have-

Mr Buckland: I shall remain mute, save to say this: I do a lot of work on domestic abuse and domestic violence issues, which affect women disproportionately. It is very important that men speak out if we are going to engage properly with perpetrators. That side of things needs to be emphasised more and more if we are to really stamp out the evil of domestic abuse.

Chair: Thank you. Again, we will not be able to let you know until much further down the line, obviously, but thank you for making that representation so much in advance.

Mr David Ruffley made representations.

Mr Ruffley: Madam Chairman, thank you for hearing this application, which I make on behalf of the right hon. David Davis, who wrote to you on the 27th. He apologises for not coming. I wish to make this application for a Westminster Hall debate for three hours through your Committee. It is in the name of the right hon. David Davis, Tom Watson and myself, supported by 18 other parliamentary colleagues, three of whom are from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and one from the Liberal Democrats. We would propose in such a debate that all 36 recommendations made in the independent review of the Police Federation by Sir David Normington be legislated for.

I shall not recite all the 36 recommendations because you have them in Mr Davis’s letter, but in summary they cover reform of the regulations relating to the governance of the Police Federation, how representatives in that organisation are elected, how they are held accountable, how financial transparency mechanisms can be improved, and strengthening the safeguards relating to ethical standards in the federation. Those are the proposals.

Q32 Chair: I spoke to David Davis over the weekend and asked him whether the application for Westminster Hall was because there was a reason why you specifically wanted it there, or whether you thought that it would maximise your chances of securing a debate. We are actually very rich in time in the Chamber and we have nothing at all in Westminster Hall. This reads to me like a substantive motion made general. If we were able to allocate some time in the Chamber, would you want to have a debate on a substantive motion-if that was what were available-or do you really want to have it as a general debate?

Mr Ruffley: My understanding from Mr Davis is that if the choice is between no debate and time in the Chamber, we would wish to go for time in the Chamber, if Westminster Hall is not available.

Q33 Chair: Again, 13 February is the date of the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, but it is also the Thursday on which we break up for the half-term recess. If we were to allocate time on that day, would that be a problem or would you welcome it?

Mr Ruffley: It is something that we would be able to accommodate, if I can put it that way. I think there is flexibility.

Chair: I have discussed this. It is obviously a very important debate and an important report, so I do not think that is the issue.

Q34 Bob Blackman: Is there any substantive opposition to these proposals that you are aware of? I know the report, but is anyone likely to come along to the debate and put a contrary point of view?

Mr Ruffley: Not to our knowledge. It might be helpful to say that this has cross-party support, including from Mr Keith Vaz, who is, of course, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Peter Hain and the Liberal Democrat, Sir Bob Russell, all speaking in favour of the Normington proposals. The answer is that we are not aware that anyone will oppose it or speak against what we are suggesting.

Q35 Chair: That is really helpful, thank you. Did you want to add anything else? It is quite comprehensive, and the application is as well. If, as you say, you would be able to accommodate us with 13 February, that might help us out as well.

Mr Ruffley: I would just say, for the sake of completeness, that there are the 36 recommendations of Normington, but it would be remiss of me not to flag up, on Mr Blackman’s point about the contentiousness or otherwise of this proposal, that Mr Davis has also said that on top of Normington, he would call for other changes, including an end to the statutory closed shop that the Police Act 1996 creates. Whether that might lead to contention, I do not know, but finally, Mr Tom Watson would also seek to argue on top of the Normington proposals that the Police Federation become a more conventional trade union, and the sense is that other colleagues might want to contribute on that point. I say that merely for the sake of completeness.

Chair: That is fantastic. Thank you, and thank you very much for waiting.