UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 9 JULY 2013

MR GRAHAM ALLEN and MR ANDREW TURNER

NEIL PARISH, SIR NICK HARVEY and MR ROBIN WALKER

MR MIKE WEIR and KATY CLARK

TIM LOUGHTON and ANN COFFEY

DANIEL KAWCZYNSKI CAROLINE DINENAGE and MR ROBIN WALKER

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 9 July 2013

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Mr David Anderson

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Ian Mearns

Mr Graham Allen and Mr Andrew Turner made representations.

Chair: Hi, Graham. You are very welcome to the Committee. Is it your first time here?

Mr Allen: It is. I am quite nervous.

Q1 Chair: Would you like to let the Committee know what you are here to discuss?

Mr Allen: Thank you, Chair. I could not let the moment go without saying I am very pleased to be before the Backbench Business Committee. A lot of people worked very hard to create the Committee and we share great pride in the work you do. You probably heard, in my Westminster Hall debate, my tribute to the work of the Backbench Business Committee, which I hope will give us all confidence to go on further and demonstrate that we can run our own affairs in the House without the great assistance that is given to us, often, by Government.

I would like to ask, respectfully, that the Committee give me 10 minutes or so on the Floor of the House to report from my Select Committee, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which fully supports this application-one of the members, Mr Turner, is here to support me. The Committee would like to report that we have concluded our discussions on the parliamentary reforms proposed by the Wright Committee, and that we have some suggestions and proposals to make in respect of that report.

You may recall that it had a number of key features, including the election of members of Select Committees, which has been very welcome and has proved to be a great success. Another was the election by colleagues across the whole House of Select Committee Chairs, which, again, I believe has given great strength and legitimacy to the work of Select Committees-that they are elected by their colleagues rather than appointed by the Government or the alternative Government.

Finally-and perhaps most importantly, I should say, in this company-there was the creation of a Backbench Business Committee. That proves that Members themselves can get a foothold on the ladder, trying at least to be consulted on the business coming before their own House and, in this case, deciding on it and with very great success tying it to public concerns as well.

There are a number of items of unfinished business, which, again, we will report on. The report will be published ahead of any statement, should you allow that from me, on the Floor of the House. Those issues will concern things such as the public interaction with Parliament; that includes things like e-petitioning, which has caused a lot of concern. That was clear from evidence given by witnesses before the Committee.

Also there is the unfinished business of a House Business Committee. The Government have set us a number of tests that they feel are appropriate, before the issue moves forward. We feel, in the report, that those tests are met, and that we can effectively have a continuing interaction with Government in order to put forward the business of the House.

Q2 Chair: That sounds absolutely fine. If you have got the report published before 18 July, or specifically the date that you have asked for, I don’t think any of us can foresee a problem with that. Independently of that, if you wanted to come back and ask for a debate on the recommendations in the report or anything like that, then obviously you would be free to do so. There is a maximum of 20 minutes available, and it is done in the form of interventions so that you, as Chair of the Select Committee, would be taking interventions from other Members.

Mr Allen: So the Committee is giving me more than I asked for, with typical generosity.

Chair: It works out as the more time you take, the less time others have later on.

Mr Allen: Of course. If I am lucky enough to be allocated that time, I will not use 20 minutes. I will not be returning to ask for time for a debate on the report itself and its proposals, unless and until we have had that interaction with Government and hopefully reached some sort of conclusion and consensus. That may take some time, but with good will I think we would then be in a position to put something on the Floor. I wouldn’t want to do something that didn’t have a consensus between Government and legislature.

Chair: Thank you very much.

Neil Parish, Sir Nick Harvey and Mr Robin Walker made representations.

Q3 Chair: Welcome. Please tell us what you want to apply for.

Neil Parish: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I echo the words of the hon. Gentleman who just spoke and congratulate the Backbench Business Committee Chair and all those who work hard to get us the debates.

We want to have a debate on a fair share of funding for local authorities throughout the country, especially rural ones. We have the support not only of Sir Nick Harvey and Mr Walker here, but also of Mr Graham Stuart, Sir Tony Cunningham, Pat Glass and Dan Rogerson, among others, so we have quite a lot of support. If at all possible, we would like either 2 or 3 September, or 9 or 10 September, and a three-hour debate, please.

Q4 Chair: I am not clear whether you have a substantive motion, whether it is a general debate or-

Neil Parish: It would be a general debate, because it would be for Back Benchers to air their views on how they see funding for local authorities. We probably do not really want to get ourselves into a particular jam on a vote, but we do want to be able to lay down to Ministers our feeling that at the moment, the sharing out of funds for local authorities is not fair. We are there to present our case, basically.

Q5 Mr Amess: In order for it to be a proper debate, who other than the Minister is going to argue against your proposition?

Neil Parish: I imagine there may be one or two Members. Not that we are out to steal all the money from urban authorities, but one or two people might well feel that there doesn’t need to be a fairer sharing of the money. I am not necessarily encouraging them to do so, but if they come along and join in the debate, I am sure we will be happy to take them on. The trouble with local government funding, as you well know, Mr Amess, is that in times when there is a tough settlement, in order to share more money across the rural areas you have to tighten elsewhere. The only thing we are arguing is that the amount going to the urban areas is about 10 times that going to the rural areas, so perhaps a small alteration in some of the urban areas would give a fair share to the rural authorities. That is the argument we will make, but I don’t think you necessarily want to have the argument here this afternoon.

Q6 John Hemming: Do you have a view on Westminster Hall? If you were offered a debate in Westminster Hall at some stage, would you reject it?

Neil Parish: Not necessarily, but we would much prefer the Chamber because we believe that we have a fair head of steam behind this, and we hope to get a lot of Members to speak. Therefore, the Chamber would be much to our advantage if we could have it.

Q7 Chair: On the point about having a lot of Members, you have got Graham Stuart and Dan Rogerson, and obviously the two of you here as well, and you mentioned Tony Cunningham. I appreciate that Labour Members tend to represent urban constituencies, but we would like to see a few more of them support this debate as well.

Neil Parish: We are not looking to be hugely divisive, but we will be encouraging as many Labour Members as possible. As you rightly said, Madam Chairman, the nature of the way the seats are carved up in this country means the issue is perhaps not as interesting for Labour Members as it is for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. However, I assure you that Graham Stuart and I will be encouraging as many Labour Members to support us as we can.

Q8 Chair: Normally in these circumstances, we would ask you to supply us with a definite list of names, simply because we have such huge demand on the little time we have available. We have to be absolutely certain that if you are asking for three hours, you will be able to fill them. If you could get back to us with more names, that would be helpful.

Neil Parish: Yes, we have a whole list of names, don’t worry. I don’t think there will be any problem filling three hours.

Q9 Chair: Okay. Does anyone else want to add anything before we finish?

Mr Walker: I have been very involved on the school funding side of this debate. There is a health funding side, but this is specifically about local authority funding, which faces some of the same problems. One of the issues we would like to raise is the smoothing mechanisms that the Government sometimes apply. There seems to have been moves by the Government to recognise issues of rural scarcity, but they then undo the benefits of that recognition by applying a smoothing process, damping or delays to the implementation of changes. That is an issue a lot of people feel strongly about; I represent an urban seat within a rural authority, and it affects me directly. It affects a number of constituencies that might not appear on the face of it to be rural.

Sir Nick Harvey: Just to underline that point, the Government recognised there was something wrong last summer when they changed the formula. We all thought, "Yippee! The issue is solved." Then they brought in the so-called damping effect, which undid all the good they had done. We are focusing on getting them to revisit that.

Neil Parish: I will make sure you get that list of names today, if possible.

Chair: That would be great. Thank you very much.

Neil Parish: Straight to you?

Chair: If you could send it to the Clerk, that would be the best thing. Thank you very much.

Mr Mike Weir and Katy Clark made representations.

Q10 Chair: Next we have Mike Weir, Katy Clark and Sheryll Murray.

Katy Clark: I am sorry that Sheryll Murray is not here; she has been held up. She has asked us to say that she supports what we are saying today, but at the last minute she hasn’t been able to make it.

Q11 Chair: Please tell us what you want to apply for, what the subject of your debate is and whether you want the Chamber or Westminster Hall. At the moment we have Westminster Hall on 18 July and the Chamber on 2 September. That is pretty much all we have available at the moment.

Katy Clark: Ideally, we are looking for the Chamber on 2 September. Our feeling is that this is a big issue for the whole country. You have obviously got two Scottish MPs in front of you today, but if you look at the list of names we have supplied, it is a mix both in terms of geography and political parties.

Q12 Chair: Could you specify what the debate is, for the sake of the record?

Katy Clark: The debate is about the implications for both Royal Mail and the Post Office-in particular, rural post offices-if the decision is made to proceed with the sell-off of Royal Mail, which will probably take place in October. We are expecting a statement-perhaps tomorrow, perhaps next week-from Vince Cable, saying that the Postal Services Act 2011, which enables the Government to sell off Royal Mail, is likely to be implemented through a procedure that would allow a sale to take place in October. Obviously, I cannot prejudge what will be in that statement. It might not be October, but that is the expectation.

I therefore think this is likely to be a big issue by September, and I think Members on both sides of the House will have questions they want to ask and points they want to make. There will be a great deal of concern from people of all persuasions, whether they support the move or not. Out feeling is that a debate in the Chamber would be appropriate at that time, given that there is no other mechanism for these issues to be debated in Parliament. There was a debate in the lead-up to the legislation going through, but that was quite some time ago, and it would be appropriate for there to be parliamentary scrutiny of whatever Vince Cable announces.

Q13 Chair: For the sake of the record, could you read out the motion that you have put down?

Katy Clark: I have not got the motion in front of me at the moment. We have rushed from another event, so I apologise for that. It is quite long: "This House recognises the vital contribution that Royal Mail makes to rural areas; the six day a week collection and delivery service to rural and remote areas is invaluable to local life; the relationship Royal Mail has with the post office network is equally important for the continued survival of post offices; recognises that the impending privatisation of Royal Mail will place a question mark over its willingness to maintain what may be loss making services; calls on the Government to provide more concrete, long term protections for postal services in rural areas, remote areas and islands while ensuring the postal universal service obligation in its current form endures."

In the debate, it is likely that Members of Parliament from all sides will ask for reassurance on a number of issues.

Q14 Chair: Would you like to add anything, Mike?

Mr Weir: I back up what Katy said. Obviously, in Scotland and in rural areas of Northern Ireland, Wales and England it is a very important issue regarding both Post Office and Royal Mail services. Privatisation, in whatever form it goes ahead, will potentially have a huge impact on both those services.

It is important that Parliament fully debates privatisation before it goes ahead. As Katy said, it is rumoured that there will be a statement tomorrow with possible privatisation either in October or in the spring, so September would be a good time to start the debate in Parliament on how it goes. Although there has been a debate on privatisation, it was on the principle, not the mechanics of how it will be done. In other Westminster Hall debates there has been mention of a sale perhaps to European operators or the IPO. We do not know which way the Secretary of State is proposing to go at the moment, but however it goes ahead, that will be important.

Q15Mr Anderson: You asked for two hours-do you think that will be enough? Do you know how many people are down to support the debate?

Katy Clark: I am not sure whether two hours or three hours would be the appropriate time. I suspect that if there is an announcement tomorrow or next week that the sale is to go ahead in whatever form in October, there will be a lot of interest and MPs from all parties will want to contribute.

Even if you support privatisation, as Mike says, there are different ways of doing it and there will no doubt be different views as to whether the right mechanism has been chosen. Obviously, there will also be many who think it will be a mistake to go ahead with that policy. I represent island communities and it is a big issue there, but I know that it is a big issue in many parts of the country.

Q16 Mr Amess: Katy, this is a big issue. I probably got the wrong end of the stick when I was listening in my office to a statement today by Jo Swinson, but at the tail end of that she seemed to be talking about rural post offices. Have I got that wrong?

Mr Weir: I think that rural post offices were mentioned in the statement. That statement was about the Horizon project, which is a completely different thing, but questions were brought up again about the effect of the Post Office Local programme on post offices.

Q17Jane Ellison: I am just wondering whether you think the debate will be able to encompass a range of views. Presumably, some might have different views on privatisation but will share some of the concerns expressed in the wording in the motion. Do you think that the debate can be all-encompassing like that, or would you see it as ending up being just a debate about the way forward for the Royal Mail?

Mr Weir: The way the motion is phrased is deliberately to be as all-encompassing as possible, because although Katy and I are very concerned about the whole prospect of privatisation, there are many other concerns about how that will impact on rural areas, and how the way that it is done-whether by an IPO or by sale to Deutsche Post or TNT or whatever-may impact on those areas. Those are the options that have been put forward. Many Members who might not be opposed to privatisation in itself may have concerns about the particulars of how it might proceed and how it would impact on their areas.

Katy Clark: Organisations such as the National Federation of SubPostmasters were supportive of what the Government were saying at the time the Act went through, but they are now asking for a delay because they have specific concerns. Those arguments might be rehearsed.

A range of different positions will probably be put forward and that is not necessarily a problem. But as is illustrated by today’s statement and what Mike said, a lot of changes are going on in the Post Office and there is a lot of uncertainty and concern. This is an opportunity for parliamentary representatives to express those concerns and perhaps get some kind of reassurance, or not, depending on how the Government respond.

Chair: Thank you very much. Can we have Tim Loughton and Ann Coffey, please?

Tim Loughton and Ann Coffey made representations.

Tim Loughton: Thank you, Chair. Can I repeat all the comments about how fantastic this Committee is and what wonderful human beings you all are? I have not done this before, but it seems like a bit of a "Dragon’s Den" pitch. We want to put in for a half-day general debate on child protection a year post-Savile. We thought it would be appropriate to have it in September or October, so we do not want it next week or on 2 September. It is a question of what slots might be available, preferably in the Chamber.

I think you all agree that debates in the House on children’s and child protection issues are rare, yet it is probably one of the most topical issues and has been for some time, given all the items in the news since the Jimmy Savile revelations, which broke a year before we are looking to have the debate. It is also concerning that there have been a raft of reviews, announcements of reviews and reviews reporting back, and a heck of a lot of confusion among the public about whether what is actually happening is child protection or not.

One can reel off a list of areas that the issue extends to. It is not just children’s homes. Yesterday, we had a further report from the Welsh children’s homes going back many decades. It is not just the Church. A few days ago, we heard reports from the Church of England about what is going on in the Chichester diocese. It is not just celebrities. There have been recent court cases against Stuart Hall, and others are pending. A year on, it will be good to take stock of what is happening from central Government on child protection post-Savile, which puts it in a whole new and much more topical context. Secondly, a lot has happened on the reform of social work since the Munro review that is absolutely compatible with what is going on in child protection.

The third part of all this is that many of us have called for an overarching inquiry into the historical tale of child abuse, perhaps going back to the ’60s and ’70s when Savile started his work, so that we can, first, have a full analysis of what went wrong. When things started to go better and child protection started to be taken more seriously, was it the Children Act 1989? The second reason is to make sure that all the victims have had the opportunity to come forward, as many obviously have over the last year, and that any perpetrators are properly pursued. The third and most important reason is to give reassurance that all the institutions in this country with significant exposure to children and young people have child protection policies that are fit for purpose, from the BBC, children’s homes and others downwards.

There is an awful lot to fill at least a three-hour debate. There are many more colleagues who would support it, but given that I got the form in five minutes before the deadline on Friday, it was not possible to give you an exhaustive list.

Q18 Chair: That’s great, thank you. My Clerk has just pointed out a very important issue about sub judice. Given that there are so many high-profile cases going on at the moment, would there be any issues with sub judice in the debate?

Tim Loughton: I think if we were to steer clear of celebrities, we would be okay. A directive could clearly be given for that.

Chair: The Chair could give direction on that.

Q19 John Hemming: As you know, I have my own concerns in this particular area. I became aware of a case in Walsall that was similar to Oxford and Rochdale. It is not an issue that has been resolved, but there are obviously questions for this Committee. You circled "Chamber" on the form, but when you spoke, you implied that you might accept Westminster Hall. Would you refuse Westminster Hall? The Committee may be able to provide something in Westminster Hall at an earlier stage than in the Chamber, and you do not have a motion.

Tim Loughton: It is not that date-sensitive. We are looking for something around autumn, which coincides with a year on from Savile. Given the level of interest, how holistic a subject it is and what interest there was when we had the more specialist debate last year around the Oxford case, which was specifically on child sexual exploitation, I think the prominence of the Chamber would absolutely be justified in that case.

Q20 John Hemming: That is not answering the question. If we said you could have Westminster Hall, would you say yes or no?

Tim Loughton: We are not proud. We will take whatever.

Chair: That is helpful. We have quite a lot of Chamber time and very little Westminster Hall time at the moment, but it varies.

Q21 John Hemming: I would make the point that if people have motions, they can be dealt with only in the Chamber. The difficulty for the Committee is not necessarily the importance of the debate-the Chamber and Westminster Hall are equally important-but that you actually cannot put certain things in Westminster Hall because they have motions.

Ann Coffey: Obviously, I support everything Tim says, but an interesting aspect is that when I was doing some research for a speech on child sexual exploitation, I went through some of the recommendations from previous inquiries, and it is clear that there has never been a mechanism for looking back at such recommendations to find out what actually happened to them and to put them in the context of where we are now. If we got this debate, it would be a useful way of trying to get some mechanism set up so that we can learn from the past. Without that mechanism, all those inquiries will not be gathered into an expert body of opinion to make children’s lives safer in the future.

Q22 Chair: I know things are very tight in terms of the deadline, and you are planning for a debate in September, but as we say to everybody, could you send us the names of people who want to speak so that we can take that into consideration when we deliberate?

Tim Loughton: Of course, yes.

Ann Coffey: How many names do we need?

Q23 Chair: You are asking for a half-day, so it would be enough people to fill a half-day’s debate. On an issue as wide as this, I am sure that you can be quite confident. It is just that we have had bad experiences with debates that it is assumed will be over-subscribed. Unless the Members themselves are making the effort to get people to participate in the debate, people may not do so. If you could send us names, that would be helpful.

Tim Loughton: Absolutely. If worse came to worst, Ann and I can speak for at least three hours ourselves, can’t we? It has been done before. There is the added issue that when we had the child sexual exploitation debate before, there was confusion as to which Minister was responsible. An Education Minister was supposed to respond, but it turned out to be a Home Office Minister. Clarification of whether joined-upness is happening now on child protection would be useful for all concerned.

Chair: That is the kind of thing we would sort out before the debate.

Q24 Jane Ellison: Do you have a preference about the Minister?

Tim Loughton: Well-I am sorry, but I would say this, wouldn’t I?-the Minister in charge of child sexual exploitation and child protection is the Children’s Minister in the DFE. That has not changed, but quite a lot is being done in the Home Office-it may be right or not-and it needs to be clear where the buck stops and who does the joining up.

Chair: Thank you very much for that, thank you for coming and thank you for your patience.

Daniel Kawczynski, Caroline Dinenage and Mr Robin Walker made representations.

Daniel Kawczynski:We would like to apply for a general debate on the Floor of the House about British exports. Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world, but only the 13th largest when it comes to exports. The Prime Minister has set a target of £1 trillion of exports by 2020. In a meeting recently with Lord Green, he admitted to a group of us that that target will not be met and that if we got up to 80% of the target, we should be pleased and satisfied. That is a shortfall of £150 billion. Given all the difficulties we have had with the current spending cuts of £11 billion, if we do not hit that target, there will be significant difficulties for our country.

I have just completed a nine-month report on scrutinising UKTI, which I have sent to all members of the panel. During that time, I interviewed over 300 British SMEs, which came from all over the country to give me their evidence. There are significant concerns among many small and medium-sized British companies as to the lack of traction that they are getting from UKTI. This body receives more than £400 million of British taxpayers’ money ostensibly to support British companies to export.

Q25 Chair: Daniel, before you go on, could you tell us whether you have a motion? Is this a debate with a motion, or is it a general debate?

Daniel Kawczynski: A general debate.

Q26 Chair: It is three hours. Are you thinking of Westminster Hall or the Chamber?

Daniel Kawczynski: The Chamber because, as I was going to say, we have not had any debates in this Parliament on the Floor of the House on exports or anything connected with exports.

Q27 Chair: Caroline, did you want to add anything?

Caroline Dinenage: I think it would be a valuable debate. There are people in the Chamber who feel that the Government have made some progress on this, but a lot of people would like to speak up for SMEs in their own area. As you probably know, at the moment only one in five SMEs exports. If we could just increase that to one in four, it would wipe out our trade deficit overnight, so it is fundamentally important to the British economy.

Mr Walker: Briefly, I agree very much with what Caroline says. Because UKTI falls between the Foreign Office and BIS, it sometimes does not get as much Select Committee attention as it might otherwise do, so this is a good opportunity for those of us on both Select Committees to contribute. Also, there is a large and active all-party group on trade and investment that I am sure will be able to bring a lot of Members to the debate.

Q28 Mr Amess: Daniel, as you know, we all look up to you, but I must put the question again: in terms of the debate, other than the Minister, who is going to be arguing against your proposal?

Daniel Kawczynski: We sent you a list of Members, which I hope you have received, who will be arguing against. There will be a robust exchange on what is the best mechanism for scrutinising UKTI, and there will be very different views on how best Parliament can actually scrutinise this body and on how this body ought to operate, whether it is a stand-alone entity accountable directly to Parliament with its own Select Committee or whether it continues in the way it has been. Nobody will be arguing against exporting more, but there will be very different opinions on how best Parliament can scrutinise this body to achieve its targets.

Q29 John Hemming: Would you accept Westminster Hall?

Daniel Kawczynski: No, I would not.

Q30 John Hemming: So if you were offered it, you would refuse?

Daniel Kawczynski: No, I would take it as the next best option.

Q31 Chair: Have you had Westminster Hall debates before?

Daniel Kawczynski: I have secured a half-hour Westminster Hall debate, which is simply not enough time.

Caroline Dinenage: The issue is cross-departmental. It is BIS and FCO, so it is much wider.

Q32 Chair: I appreciate how important the debate is, but in terms of a time limit or time sensitivity, would there be a reason why you cannot wait until September or October? At the moment, we only have time in September, but would you rather wait for something to come up in the Chamber than take an earlier opportunity in Westminster Hall? We are very over-subscribed, so it is about what is available. You could have three hours, which are absolutely guaranteed, whereas in the Chamber it sometimes gets squeezed by statements and urgent questions.

Daniel Kawczynski: We could have three hours in Westminster Hall.

Mr Walker: And three hours in Westminster Hall is safer than three hours in the Chamber.

Q33 Chair: Much safer.

Daniel Kawczynski: So we could go for three hours in Westminster Hall? Is that available?

Q34 Jane Ellison: It is worth saying, just to back up what the Chair said, that very few of our half-day debates have actually had the full three hours recently, particularly if there is a rush to get statements out. Nothing can interrupt your three hours in Westminster Hall.

Daniel Kawczynski: Well, if you put it like that-as long as we get three hours. I very much agree with Caroline: my own experience of UKTI, when I have raised issues relating to firms in my constituency directly with UKTI themselves, either through Parliament or in the media, is that the improvement those companies have experienced and the support they then get has been amazing. There will be many examples of other MPs who could raise similar problems during the debate to try to help their companies.

Q35 Jane Ellison: Daniel, I am obviously familiar, as many colleagues are, with the notes that you have circulated and the points you have made about UKTI over some time. In trying to muster colleagues to come and speak, would you be encouraging them to use it as an opportunity to highlight exporting successes in their area or where people have been let down? Where would you see the balance of the debate?

Daniel Kawczynski: I would say both. Interestingly, one of the biggest problems-Caroline alluded to it-that we have as a country is that only a small number of SMEs actually understand that UKTI exists. Although they are at the cutting edge of technology and many of them are producing very innovative products, they do not know what support can be afforded them by Government. This would be a good opportunity to publicise that and also for individual Members of Parliament, as you say, to highlight success stories from their constituencies. I really want to start sharing good experience of exporting, so that those examples can encourage other companies to do the same.

Q36 Jane Ellison: We have quite a few examples from the past of Westminster Hall debates, if they have been sufficiently over-subscribed, going on to get additional Chamber time. If, for example, there is a very over-subscribed debate that highlights particular issues but needs a more substantive response, or even a motion at some later point, coming back to the Committee and bidding for that is not ruled out. We have had several successful transfers in that regard. The key thing is to have an over-subscribed debate in Westminster Hall.

Daniel Kawczynski: We would like to prove to you that it will be massively over-subscribed and then come back to you.

Chair: That’s how to do it.

Daniel Kawczynski: We will have lots of bites at the cherry.

Chair: Thank you.