UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 11 JUNE 2013

MR FRANK DORAN and PETER ALDOUS

RIGHT HON. MICHAEL MEACHER

SHEILA GILMORE and PAT GLASS

RIGHT HON. PAUL BURSTOW and BARBARA KEELEY

MARK DURKAN and STEPHEN MOSLEY

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Made before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 11 June 2013

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Marcus Jones

Ian Mearns

Mr Frank Doran and Peter Aldous made representations.

Q1 Chair: Welcome to the Committee.

Mr Doran: Thank you very much. The application is for a debate to mark the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster. The oil and gas industry in the UK is now huge, and it employs something like 400,000 people. It is also a very dangerous industry, and Piper Alpha was the worst offshore disaster anywhere in the world. It led to substantial changes in health and safety, not only in the UK but throughout the world. Virtually every country that has an oil and gas regime, apart from America, mirrors the British experience. They take Britain as a benchmark because of that particular disaster.

At the same time, we still have a lot of problems. In the past two years, we have seen three helicopter ditchings, one of which resulted in substantial deaths. There have been various incidents in the industry, mainly related to gas leaks, which is what led to the Piper Alpha explosion. We feel that it is appropriate to mark the anniversary by reinforcing the case for safety. Peter Aldous is here with me as a representative of the southern gas industry in his constituency, and most of my concerns, obviously, are with the North sea industry.

We wish to have a debate. There is a substantial amount of interest, not only in Scotland or East Anglia. Employees come from all over the country and facilities have developed, including in the north-east of England. There will be a number of Members from all those areas who will take part in a debate.

Q2 Chair: On what date did the disaster happened?

Mr Doran: The disaster was on 6 July.

Q3 Chair: So you are ideally looking for a debate on or around 6 July?

Mr Doran: As close as possible to that date, yes.

Q4 Mr Jones: Obviously, this is a significant anniversary of an absolutely awful situation out there in the North sea.

On the debate, quite often the days that we have end up being Thursdays. Bearing in mind that quite a few Scottish Members are likely to be interested in the debate, do you have any preference as to when you would like it to be? I think you have asked for about an hour and a half.

Mr Doran: If it was Westminster Hall, we would hope for a three-hour debate, because there are certainly enough Members interested.

Q5 Mr Jones: You are willing to accept Westminster Hall?

Mr Doran: Yes. Peter Aldous is here to show that it is not just Scottish MPs who are concerned. Mr Mearns is nodding his head; I think he would vouch for that. We would like it to be as close to the anniversary of the event as possible-either the week before or during the week, if that is possible.

Q6 Mr Jones: But if it was a Thursday, you would take it?

Mr Doran: A Thursday would be fine. We would be perfectly relaxed about that.

Q7 Mr Amess: No argument about the merits of the subject, but do you think you would really get enough Members to keep it going for three hours? Are you confident that you will?

Mr Doran: Experience tells me yes. We organised a similar debate on the 20th anniversary, and we fully filled the three hours that we were given.

Q8 Chair: Peter, did you want to add anything?

Peter Aldous: No, other than that the North sea is a very important part of the British economy, increasingly so with the fiscal arrangements the Government have come up with for both decommissioning and opening up marginal fields, and also the emphasis, as we have seen in the Energy Bill, on offshore wind farms. Skills are transferrable from oil and gas to renewables. This is an appropriate anniversary to reflect on what happened there. The British safety regime in the North sea is first class, worldwide, and that is something that we need to be proud of. We do not want to lose that. We need to re-emphasise that in a moment of reflection.

Chair: Brilliant. Thank you very much. We will let you know after the Committee deliberates.

Jane Ellison took the Chair.

Right Hon. Michael Meacher made representations.

Mr Meacher: I am grateful, Madam Chairman. I apologise for missing the first few minutes. There was a trespasser on the line, and we were held for 10 or 15 minutes.

I seek your agreement to a debate on employment rights-a much neglected area, which has been continually affected, usually by being pared back in some respect or other. I think it is really important that the House sets a broad framework of employment rights, as there is in other countries, which should be respected in terms of good working practice. It is my belief that there are a number of grey areas at the moment, which could do with quite a lot of clarification. I am not sure whether I gave you notice of this, but that includes-

Q9 Chair: That can wait for the debate, if that is all right. We have some time coming up to allocate. You have indicated three hours for a general take-note debate?

Mr Meacher: Yes.

Q10 Chair: You’re quite experienced with this Committee now-you have come a few times. We normally ask about cross-party support.

Mr Meacher: Yes, I am very glad you asked that. I should have said that right at the beginning, but I was too flustered. I have asked for support from the following, all of whom expressed interest and commitment, and would have liked to be here, but are mostly tied up in Select Committees. Among the Lib Dems are Simon Hughes, Greg Mulholland, Gordon Birtwistle, Ian Swales and Julian Huppert; on the Tory side, there is Peter Bottomley and Zac Goldsmith. I then got a message that it was not important to have a comprehensive list, so I stopped at that point. Nobody I contacted said, "I’m not bothered."

Chair: We’re just looking to make sure that there is a to-and-fro across the Chamber. Any questions from the Committee to Mr Meacher?

Q11 Mr Amess: At least, Michael, you didn’t have the effect on our Chairman that the previous attendees seem to have had, so that is a joy in itself. You mentioned two Conservatives. Dare I ask, do you have any mainstream Conservatives supporting you on this debate?

Chair: You may decide that that is a leading question.

Mr Meacher: I am not an analyst of the various Tory factions. I would not pretend to know about these things. I take the point you are making, but-if I may stoop to such vulgar things as factions-I think that people on the Tory right would be very interested in this.

Natascha Engel took the Chair.

Q12 Chair: Michael, I just want to say that my leaving was really nothing to do with the fact that you are here. I’m sorry.

Mr Meacher: You will be pleased to know that I have been given a thorough going-over. There have been lots of questions below the belt.

Q13 John Hemming: Another question is, what if you could get a debate in Westminster Hall at an earlier stage? Would that suit you? Would you accept, say, an hour and a half in Westminster Hall?

Mr Meacher: Obviously-I don’t need to say this because it has been said to you repeatedly-the Chamber is much more important. If it were a relatively specific or localised issue, I think it would be fair to go through Westminster Hall, but employment rights applies to 29 million people in this country, and I think it deserves a debate. Three hours-not more-is plenty for a short, sharp debate on the Floor of the House.

Q14 John Hemming: You’d reject the offer of Westminster Hall if one was made?

Mr Meacher: With grace and reluctance, yes.

Q15 Chair: Thank you very much for your excellent representation.

Sheila Gilmore and Pat Glass made representations.

Q16 Chair: Sheila, I understand that you have to be away early. Is that right?

Sheila Gilmore: I am on the Finance Bill.

My application is for a debate primarily on east coast rail franchising, in relation to the Government’s decision to refranchise the operation, which, as everyone knows, has been operated by Directly Operated Railways for some four years. We had a short Westminster Hall debate on this last week that was hugely oversubscribed to the extent that Back-Bench speeches were down to three minutes apiece and the answering Minister had just slightly less than 10 minutes to respond. On that basis, there is clearly a lot of interest in the matter, and many people did not put in to speak because they knew that there was probably not much point.

Q17 Chair: Was that a half-hour debate?

Sheila Gilmore: No, it was an hour and half and it was still very busy.

There was also a lot of cross-party interest. It was not simply that there was a huge number of people on one side and absolutely nobody on the other, which I know is relevant to seeking a Back-Bench debate on a subject such as this. There was interest from Liberal Democrat speakers and Tory speakers. They did not necessarily take the same viewpoint, but they wanted to have that debate because they were interested in having the issue fully discussed. Some obviously took a different line. Some did not object to what the Government are doing and others had some queries on the detail, but there was not the time really to explore that. I have had support from several members of my own party in seeking this Back-Bench debate, but I have had specific support from Stephen McPartland of Stevenage, who was one of the speakers in the Westminster Hall debate, and from Tobias Ellwood. There are probably others.

Q18 Chair: You haven’t put down whether you wanted a general debate or whether there is a votable motion.

Sheila Gilmore: We just thought it could be a straightforward votable motion. The one that says that we have considered it rather than-

Q19 Chair: The issue is about whether it can go into Westminster Hall or whether it has to go into the Chamber. That’s all it is. If you want a votable motion and to divide the House, it has to be in the Chamber.

Sheila Gilmore: What we really want is to have as wide an opportunity-

Q20 Chair: Would Westminster Hall, in theory, be possible if we did not have any Chamber time?

Sheila Gilmore: Obviously, everybody expresses a preference for the Chamber, but a longer debate in Westminster Hall would give a greater opportunity for people to have that discussion and perhaps to widen it slightly if people wanted to consider some of the issues that have come up recently.

Q21 Mr Jones: Your Westminster Hall debate was last week and, from what you are saying, it was extremely successful. Can you tell me a little more about the timetable for this in relation to the Government, because I am not absolutely certain about that myself? I would like you to explain to us the topicality and why you need a debate so quickly after the last one.

Sheila Gilmore: The Government’s declared intention, as I understand it from what Ministers have said both in the debate last week and previously, has been to move forward with the process fairly quickly with a view to concluding it by February 2015, which is quick in franchising terms. Obviously, the decisions about both the detail of how the franchising would be carried out and any process of trying to persuade the Government to change their mind is very topical, because once the process is a lot further down the line, that will be a lot more difficult.

Q22 Chair: We’ve got a certain allocation of time available to us on 20 and 27 June and an hour and a half in Westminster Hall, but you have already had 90 minutes, so you are definitely asking for more time than that?

Sheila Gilmore: Yes, we are.

Q23 Jane Ellison: What was the balance of speakers in the Westminster Hall debate like? It is good that you said there was cross-party interest, but what was the balance?

Sheila Gilmore: I think the balance of speakers was probably 2:1, in terms of people who wanted to get up to say that it is a terrible idea to franchise and those who were perhaps more supportive. I think that that is about right. I think we had more people. My impression was that there were several people on both sides who came but did not speak. I am all for having a good debate; one-sided debates are not particularly productive.

Jane Ellison: That is all I was exploring. We would be keen to schedule something that has that back and forth.

Ian Mearns: I declare an interest. I was in attendance at that debate, and I was lucky enough to be able to speak. I think Sheila is absolutely right, inasmuch as many more people were trying to make interventions, and you need enough time to make them. I think that the seven Conservative MPs who were there were not necessarily there because they were members of Simon Burns’ fan club. From my perspective, it is clear that there is a huge amount of interest.

The thing about the east coast main line is that it goes from Inverness, Aberdeen and Glasgow, via Edinburgh, into London, so it affects a huge swathe of the country. I shudder to think how many constituencies it actually passes through. This is a very pertinent bid from my perspective, but I do declare an interest.

Q24 Mr Jones: Obviously, I do not doubt that this is an extremely important issue for half the country-running from London right up to Scotland. Looking at the list, there is a substantial number of Members from the Opposition, a small number of Members from the Conservative party, and then obviously the Green party Member, but not much other support in relation to the other party in the coalition. Bearing in mind all the debates we have, the little time we have to facilitate them, and the fact that we are carrying over lots of debates, have you considered at all asking for an Opposition day on this?

Sheila Gilmore: I don’t necessarily have the decision on that. I suppose that is something that someone at a higher pay grade than me might have some views on.

I will just point out that, in the debate, Ian Swales of Redcar spoke. I think he had quite an interesting perspective on the issue, because he was broadly supportive of franchising but had some serious concerns, which I think are shared by others, on the process that was involved in the problems of the west coast, and to try to avoid that happening again. I think there were probably at least three different positions reflected. That would probably be good for debate.

Q25 Chair: Thank you very much for bringing that to us, Sheila. We will go into private session after this and let you know what our decision is. Thank you.

Right Hon. Paul Burstow and Barbara Keeley made representations.

Q26 Chair: We welcome Paul Burstow and Barbara Keeley to the table, and we are also joined by members of the Legislative Council from Hong Kong, whom I met this morning. You are welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Paul Burstow and Barbara Keeley, you have been to us before, asking for a debate on carers. We welcome you back to the Backbench Business Committee.

Paul Burstow: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for this opportunity to make a bid for a debate. We are seeking a general debate on the Floor of the House. We are asking for that debate during this week-carers week-and expect and understand that it may not come immediately. But we hope that before the summer recess, time can be allocated for a debate on the Floor of the House. Many of the 6 million carers in this country will appreciate the fact that Parliament is devoting time to debate their issues and concerns. All too often when Parliament debates those issues, we debate them in departmental boxes, from the perspective of health, benefits or maybe flexibility-in-work and so on rather than being able to look at the issues that affect the lives of carers in the round as they experience them. We know from countless surveys and research about the impact of caring responsibilities on people’s relationships, on their careers, on their finances, on their health, on their well-being and the economic contribution that they make-around £119 billion.

The debate will be very well supported by mainstream colleagues from all of the main parties. Tony Baldry and Barbara Keeley are the main supporters for this particular application, but Sarah Newton and Sheila Gilmore have also been supportive. Just ahead of carers week, there was an event a couple of weeks ago when the number of Members wishing to show their support for it created a queue round the block. I am absolutely certain that, if you allocate three hours to the debate, we will have no trouble whatever in achieving a balance across the House and producing a full range of rich contributions.

Q27 Chair: We have recently had a very successful similar style debate on the general issue of mental health, which was very wide-ranging and very successful.

Q28 John Hemming: You’re right. There is a lot of demand for it. The basic question is, if you were offered Westminster Hall, would you turn it down?

Paul Burstow: Rather in the way that Michael Meacher put it, we would respectfully request that we were not offered Westminster Hall.

Q29 John Hemming: You would rather wait.

Paul Burstow: We’d rather wait.

Q30 John Hemming: Even if you waited a year.

Paul Burstow: Well, we would prefer that it wasn’t a year. Given that we have carers week this week, carers hope that, in a few weeks, carers and carers week would be debated on the Floor of the House.

Chair: It is definitely something that we ought to put in our diary.

Q31 Mr Amess: Paul, just to compliment you and Tim Loughton on the way in which you are running a very effective alternative Government. Was it not this time last year that you came to us with a similar bid for carers week or something? This is an annual thing, isn’t it? Didn’t we have it last year?

Q32 Chair: Carers week is annual.

Paul Burstow: Carers week is definitely annual.

Q33 Mr Amess: Didn’t someone last year-

Paul Burstow: No, I don’t think that there has been a debate on carers so far secured through the Backbench Business Committee. There have been many applications for debates on social care in Westminster Hall, through the other route. Again, such debates were looking at it through a particular lens, whereas we want to approach it by looking at it from the carers’ perspective-not services and so on.

Barbara Keeley: I support the motion, which relates to a large proportion of the population. Carers account for 10% of all our constituents. Carers are not just in one part of the country, such as in the east or the north, they are everywhere.

We split up subjects a lot here. I chair the all-party group on social care, and it is important to discuss such things, but every now and then it is important to be able to discuss the whole subject. Today, on Report on the Children and Families Bill, there are clauses on young carers, but it looks distinctly like we might not get to them. As much as there is a whole set of issues to discuss about young carers, we may not get the opportunity to debate them today.

I really feel that we need this opportunity to discuss carers. I asked a question today at Health questions about carers of people with cancer, but it was just a question. You don’t get a come back; you don’t get to say any more, yet there was more that I wanted to say. I agree with Paul that there will be no difficulty in filling the debate with contributions from across the House. People will want to talk about their own local situation, the carers that they see every week and the issues, of which there is a great range.

Ian Mearns: Again, I declare an interest inasmuch as my office in Gateshead is next door to the Gateshead carers association and, if I don’t mention it often, I get a brick through the window from a passing carer. It has been duly mentioned. I was fortunate enough to spend an hour yesterday at the "speed networking event" in Westminster Hall, so I am declaring an interest of support in this application.

Q35 Jane Ellison: I hear what you say about there being a lot of support, but I was personally disappointed-as I suspect were you, Paul-that the mental health debate did not fill all its time. That was commented about by one or two of my constituents. I spoke at it. If you are given time-much of it is on Thursdays-can we encourage everyone who supports the bid to come and make a contribution? When we allocate these important topics, we know that people are watching and we want the time filled.

Q36 Chair: Before you answer that, we would normally ask you to come back and give us some more names of supporters, because you have only mentioned the two of you and Tony Baldry. We would normally ask for a list of people who support the bid.

Barbara Keeley: I can add that I drew third in the private Member’s ballot last year, and I introduced a Bill on social care and carers. A lot of that was about the identification of carers. I got 11 MPs to support that, from across the parties, all of whom I had to ask only once and they all agreed readily to support it. I can ask my 11 sponsors if they would be interested.

Paul Burstow: I take that point. I was, like others, disappointed that there were not more, but we made up for it in the quality.

Jane Ellison: It was a good quality debate.

Paul Burstow: Absolutely, but we want quantity and quality. We would be keen to encourage more to take part.

Chair: Thank you very much for that.

Mark Durkan and Stephen Mosley made representations.

Chair: Thank you very much for coming.

Mark Durkan: Thank you very much. We are here to request time in the Chamber for a debate on Sudan and South Sudan. It is now more than two years since there has been a debate in the Chamber on Sudan and South Sudan. The last debate was in early 2011, and that was before South Sudan’s independence.

Recently, we have marked the 10th anniversary of the conflict in Darfur and many Members of this Parliament-many more than have been listed as supporters of this debate-were party to a parliamentarians’ letter from this Parliament to the Foreign Secretary. Members of the Australian Parliament and members of Congress in the US also wrote letters to their respective Secretaries of State in relation to Darfur and the conflict in Sudan and South Sudan. The letters particularly focused on the humanitarian crisis in South Kordofan, the Blue Nile and the Nuba mountains, and the issues of ongoing dispute.

We have listed a number of supporting Members, who include people who definitely qualify as the Conservative mainstream, as well as others across the main party lines and tags. We believe that the debate would be well supported, not least because several all-party parliamentary groups-not just the one on Sudan and South Sudan-have looked at this issue and have met representatives of both countries, as well as, more importantly, many of the NGOs who are working in both countries. We believe that it would be timely to have a debate now.

The absence of a Chamber debate was revealed by some of the activities that took place around the 10th anniversary of Darfur. People said, "If it really was such a concern, why not a debate now?" We know the reasons why there has not been a debate: many other foreign affairs issues have called on our attention, whether it has been Mali, Syria, all the events of the Arab Spring, the ongoing situation in the Palestinian territories and so on. There have been many other things that have called on our time. We felt that it was important to organise some time in the Chamber now before it starts to head towards three years since we have debated the subject.

Q37 Chair: Is 9 July the anniversary date?

Mark Durkan: Yes.

Q38 Chair: Sometimes the Government let us know in advance if business will conclude early, which gives us a slot at the end of the day. Are you wedded to that date of 9 July? If it was something next week, for instance, would you be able to organise quickly enough to get it into the Chamber?

Mark Durkan: Yes, I think we would be able to move quickly enough.

Q39 Chair: Stephen Mosley, would you like to add anything?

Stephen Mosley: As Mark said, it is over two years since we last debated this, and when we did we were all full of hope and optimism. The comprehensive peace agreement had been agreed, South Sudan was getting its independence, and we all thought that would be the end of the problems in Sudan. Two years later, we see that that hope and optimism was perhaps misplaced. We have continuing genocide in Darfur. We have talked about South Kordofan and the Blue Nile, and all the women’s issues in the region. We think it is time for the eyes of Parliament and politicians to return to South Sudan because there is a problem there and we must ask what we can do about it.

The subject will interest a wide range of parliamentarians. If you are interested in international development, there is a huge number of issues to be discussed, and if you are interested in foreign affairs and the middle east, the US sanctions against Sudan and the war crimes allegations against members of the Government there are matters for discussion. Many of those issues would be of interest to a wide range of parliamentarians on both sides of the House and also from all perspectives of the Conservative party.

Q40 Jane Ellison: It is just worth making the point that the slots at the end of the day are often not on Thursdays, so they are much more prominent and there are many more MPs around, but the slight quid pro quo is obviously that they tend to be days that are more likely to be disturbed by a statement, urgent question or whatever. That is a health warning, and it is worth noting that because they are nearly always not Thursdays and are quite high profile days, you might want to consider whether your objective is to get some extra profile on the issue as opposed perhaps to being able to get many people in with long speeches. That is the sort of balance involved.

Q41 Mr Jones: To clarify that there is nothing here in terms of a motion, are you asking for just a general debate?

Mark Durkan: Yes. We thought that it would have been inappropriate to come up with a divisible motion purely as a way of demarcating the lesser Chamber.

Chair: That’s great. We understand that.

Mark Durkan: A number of other Members would have been here in support, but at least two are in the Chamber for the debate on Report, and another three are committed along the Corridor upstairs.

Chair: We understand that. Thank you for coming everyone.