UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 18 JUNE 2013

DR JULIAN HUPPERT

JOHN MANN

SARAH TEATHER and MR DAVID LAMMY

MR NICHOLAS BROWN, HELEN GOODMAN and GUY OPPERMAN

CHRIS WHITE, PAUL FARRELLY and JIM SHERIDAN

MR DAVID WARD and HEATHER WHEELER

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made

before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 18 June 2013

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Anderson

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Marcus Jones

Ian Mearns

Dr Julian Huppert made representations.

Q1 Chair: You have been to us before about a cycling campaign, haven’t you? Is this a follow-on?

Dr Huppert: Yes. This is a follow-up. This is on behalf of the all-party group on cycling. I am sorry that my colleagues Ian Austin, Meg Hillier and Sarah Wollaston in particular could not be here.

We applied about a year and a half ago for a debate in the Chamber, following on from the Cities Fit for Cycling campaign run by The Times. That was not possible, so you very kindly gave us a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall on 23 February last year. That debate was attended by about 80 Members, including four Ministers and various people around here. I think we ran out of seats. I believe that it was one of the largest debates ever in Westminster Hall. There was a huge energy that came from that, so we are keen to follow up on it.

Since then, as well as the debate, we have run an inquiry called "Get Britain Cycling". We had a whole series of evidence sessions from cycling organisations, pedestrian groups, the AA, the Institute of Advanced Motorists, road freight organisations, the police and others, which have also been well supported across the parties and the Houses. That resulted in a report called "Get Britain Cycling", which is the core of the debate here. We have not gone through all the recommendations, just a couple of the key aspirations.

In the interests of transparency, I should say that the report was funded by News International through The Times campaign, though they had no role whatever in what it said. It was also supported by the Bicycle Association, and it was distributed to local authorities and people interested, paid for by Atkins. It is an important cross-departmental issue, with health, planning, business and transport consequences.

Q2 Chair: Could you read out your substantive motion, just to put it on the record?

Dr Huppert: Absolutely. "That this House supports the recommendations of the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report ‘Get Britain Cycling’; endorses the target of 10% of all journeys being by bike by 2025, and 25% by 2050; calls on the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual cycling action plan and sustained funding for cycling."

Q3 Chair: You are asking for three hours in the Chamber on a substantive motion. Is there any sort of time sensitivity to this? Does it have to happen before a certain time or on a certain day?

Dr Huppert: There is no specific timeliness. Soon would be helpful, with the spending review and various other decisions on cycling funding happening. It would be convenient for it to be soon, but there is no specific date that it has to happen by or on.

I should say that we have also had even more signatures on the e-petition that was organised by The Times. There are now about 70,000.

Chair: Okay.

Jane Ellison: Just to endorse what Julian said about the debate, which I attended and briefly spoke in-we were down to two minutes each by the end. It was incredibly well attended.

Q4 Chair: Okay. Do you think that three hours is enough?

Dr Huppert: I would be happy to have more, but I think three hours, if people were brief and efficient, would enable people to have their say. We would be grateful for more time, but I did not want to try your patience.

Chair: Okay, brilliant. That’s great. Thank you very much. Thanks for your brevity.

John Mann made representations.

John Mann: I will be brief as well. It seems to work.

I am proposing-I have the support of 16 Members, which has been sent through to the Committee-a debate, ideally for three hours in the Chamber, on the use of corporate structures in the United Kingdom and money laundering, tax evasion and other financial crime. The subject is suitable for Back-Bench business because although the main parties all have a lot to say on it, none of them is prepared to say anything specific. Therefore, neither in Government time nor Opposition time has there been the opportunity to go into the issue.

If one was to take an Adjournment debate, that would probably be against a Treasury Minister who would simply say that, because of the standard practice in relation to any particular company, they could not comment on anything. The traditional Adjournment debate would therefore be rather futile, so it seemed to me, with the backing of 16 other Members, that having a proper debate about a big issue in the country, on which the party leaders have a lot to say but do not seem willing to come forward with a precise proposal that we could debate in their time, is precisely what this Committee is about.

Q5 Chair: You have not put in a substantive motion; you have just put in the topic. Does that mean that you just want a general debate?

John Mann: Yes.

Q6 Chair: Okay. And a half day would be about three hours?

John Mann: Three hours.

Q7 Chair: We are very limited in the time that we have allocated to us in the Chamber. If nothing else was available, would Westminster Hall be okay?

John Mann: Yes.

Q8 Chair: Again, is there a time limit? I appreciate the timeliness of it.

John Mann: No, it is not time limited. It is timely, but not time limited.

Q9 Jane Ellison: I suppose that it is a cross-party group, although a couple of Opposition Front Benchers are in there as well. Would you be confident of getting a good spread of Members coming and participating?

John Mann: Yes. There is a keenness to speak on it across parties.

Chair: Okay. Fantastic. That is great. Thank you very much, John.

Sarah Teather and Mr David Lammy made representations.

Sarah Teather: David Lammy is with me, and I know that David Davis was hoping to come and has indicated that he would like to support this application. We want to propose a three-hour general debate on the reforms to legal aid because the changes are incredibly wide ranging, affecting civil and criminal legal aid, but we have not had an opportunity to debate them. It looks very unlikely that we will, because the changes are likely to be made through secondary legislation.

Our application is very timely-the consultation on the changes finished two weeks ago, and the Government are currently preparing a response to it, which we expect will be published after the summer recess. So the application is time dependent-it is really important that we have an opportunity to debate the issue this side of the recess.

About 30 Members have indicated that they would be interested in the debate. It is also worth noting that there are not just the 30 listed, but something like 15 MPs raised the issue at the most recent Justice Questions and 89 Members have signed an early-day motion on the subject, plus there is clear public interest-there are now 92,000 signatures on the Save UK Justice e-petition. There is public interest, it is topical, it is immediate, there is cross-party interest and it is wide ranging, so I really think that it is an ideal subject for Back-Bench debate.

Mr Lammy: I would just like to reiterate that the issues are profound-really significant changes. They have not been debated in the House, and it is unlikely that they will be. It is unusual for such profound changes not to come to the House for any substantive vote. For that reason alone, I would like to hear a debate, and I would like the Government to understand that if they intend to move forward in this direction, it is important that the House has an opportunity to express its views.

The application is timely. The Government are entitled to come back in September with their proposals, as outlined, so it is important that we have the debate before the summer recess. I suspect that many, many Members will have seen a disquiet about this issue across the country.

Q10 Jane Ellison: Is it a general debate that you want?

Sarah Teather: I was proposing a general debate, largely because it is a consultation and people will feel strongly about different bits of the consultation, so it is more difficult to draw together a clear substantive motion on something like that.

Q11 Jane Ellison: And your understanding is that the Government will respond in the autumn, so any time before the recess would work.

Sarah Teather: Exactly.

Q12 Jane Ellison: There is one Conservative Member at the moment, but do you anticipate getting more Conservative Members supporting the principle of a debate?

Sarah Teather: Many Conservative Members spoke at the Justice Question Time, so I think the indications are that it cuts right across all parties.

Q13 Mr Jones: On the basis that you do not have a substantive motion, is this something that you could consider for Westminster Hall should we be tight on time as we go forward?

Sarah Teather: I think we could, but it would be better were it done in the Chamber because of the sheer scale of the interest outside the House. We just need an opportunity to debate it. Many Members want an opportunity to raise some quite specific issues that might affect their constituents.

Chair: That is really helpful.

Mr Nicholas Brown, Helen Goodman and Guy Opperman made representations.

Q14 Chair: Can I just say that we know that you are a Front Bencher, but given that you are-

Helen Goodman: This is in my constituency capacity.

Mr Brown: For one horrible moment I thought you were talking about me!

Guy Opperman: "Who got promoted there?" That was my question. It certainly would not have been me.

Ian Mearns: We happen to know that you are called "Helen" at weekends, Nick.

Mr Brown: I thought we would keep that little secret between us, Ian.

Our application is for a half-day debate on a take-note motion. We do not want to divide the House. We just want a three-hour debate on the North East Independent Economic Review Report, which is a review of the prospects for job creation and the working of the north-east’s economy that was commissioned by the LEP.

Every part of the country that has an LEP, and therefore has difficulties in its employment circumstances, will be interested in this. This is one of the first of its kind. It addresses what is the most significant question for the north-east of England. I guess that if there was a delegation here from the north-west or Yorkshire or from the west midlands or the east midlands, they would all probably say the same thing. It is about the employment base, how we diversify it and how we create jobs for our constituents. That is what we want a half-hour debate on-

Chair: You are after a half-day debate aren’t you?

Mr Brown: Half-day debate-three hours. I accept that some members of the Committee will say that the debate is of regional interest. The interests of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are regularly aired in the Chamber, but the English regions do not get a chance as of right, so we think that this is an appropriate use of a Backbench Business Committee half day.

Q15 Chair: Do you want to add anything, Helen?

Helen Goodman: Nick’s point about the normal lack of opportunity for discussing issues of regional concern is significant, because most Departments answer by subject, but this is a cross-cutting report. The other thing reason why the debate is timely is that it includes some machinery of government changes, which, if the Government wanted to implement them, would have to be made by statutory instrument, but we have no sense of when that might be. We want the overall strategy addressed and debated before we move into the "how to" bit.

Q16 Chair: Brilliant. Guy?

Guy Opperman: We feel that we have a cross-party application, but the problem for you would be that it is a bit narrow with it just being the north-east-I accept that. The way I would like you to look at this is as a pilot. Our LEP, which is one of 39, has taken the idea of getting somebody to come in with a group of businessmen and women to look in a cross-party manner at how they are working and what they can do really to take the Heseltine ideas and all the no-stone-unturned stuff and really implement that locally. That is something that we feel is a pilot.

We need then to discuss that in the House and persuade the Government to implement it. Some people agree and disagree with bits in the report. We will then take it from there. The debate would give other MPs in other regions the opportunity to say, "If the north-east can do this, why can’t our LEP do this?" That would bridge the gap between local and national in a much better way.

We feel that there could be a great national impact. If the Government want to do a pilot project, they can then do some of the things talked about here. It would very much be looking at what Andrew Adonis and others have done. He has deliberately done it on a very cross-party basis in the report, so that the implementation is an awful lot easier, in particular as you get close to the election.

Q17 Jane Ellison: I am all for giving Members more opportunities in the House to talk about their local and regional economies. I am very supportive of that. Do you want the Chamber, or would you have Westminster Hall?

Mr Brown: We are making a bid for the Chamber, but I guess everybody who appears here says that.

Q18 Jane Ellison: Not quite everybody. The reason I ask is because we do tend to get mostly Thursdays. While everyone would support the bid, would you be confident that, with a reasonable amount of notice, you would get everyone to stay for a late Thursday debate and fill the time?

Mr Brown: I am absolutely certain there is enough interest among parliamentarians to carry a half-day debate, even on a Thursday and even with us being northern MPs.

Q19 Mr Jones: Regarding timing, do you know whether this is something that the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills is looking into, in terms of LEPs or individual LEPs? If it is, when is that and how pertinent is this debate to that work being done?

Mr Brown: My understanding is that they are not, but I am happy to check that if that would be a decisive factor one way or the other.

Q20 Mr Jones: I just thought it would be interesting to know in terms of timing.

Guy Opperman: I can pretty much answer the point. They are not doing a specific study of it at the moment. Part of the process of seeking this sort of debate is to say, "We have got this great pilot project idea here." We would like to get it a wider audience, so that other Members of the House say that they like the look of it. Certain Select Committees-BIS is a good example-would be interested. There is a huge amount in there on transport-some of your Committee are very interested in that-which the Select Committee on Transport might want to look at.

Q21 Chair: The regional aspect is important to us. One of the first things we did when we set up was identify that Scotland and Wales were well catered for, whereas the English regions were not. So that is something we have always been keen to look at.

Helen Goodman: Yes. I think that is right. In the previous Parliament we had regional select committees. They were abandoned because they were not terribly successful, but it did mean that we lost a regular forum and space that was of value.

Q22 Ian Mearns: I wonder whether one of the areas you might want to look at is the peripheral nature of the region in the English context. One of our main competitor regions or nations is just across the border in Scotland. They get the Barnett formula and the north-east of England does not. All of those things could be brought out in a debate.

Chair: That would be very interesting for the debate.

Mr Anderson: I guess he might be speaking.

Chair: We are quite well represented on the Committee.

Mr Brown: If it were a choice between waiting and having the Chamber, maybe in September, or going early and having Westminster Hall, I think our preference would be to wait and have the prestige of the full Chamber.

Guy Opperman: I agree entirely. There is no desperate urgency to our application. We would prefer it in the main Chamber but we definitely want to get ourselves organised so that it is not just a regional debate and everybody understands the wider significance. If you are able to fix us a debate in the future, we can then sell the idea, which goes to the cross-party point as well.

Chair: That is really helpful, thank you.

Chris White, Paul Farrelly and Jim Sheridan made representations.

Chris White: The debate I am requesting is on multinational companies in the UK and corporation tax. There is obviously a degree of topicality for the issue with regard to the G8 and miles of newspaper coverage at the moment. However, the motivation for the debate was a local bookseller who has raised a petition in the region of 170,000 signatures. So it is not only topical but timely and would be well supported.

Q23 Chair: Is that an e-petition or a paper one?

Chris White: It has not gone through the standard route.

Paul Farrelly: I am here to give cross-party support to Chris. This has become such a big issue now, and it is easy to forget that it was only just over 12 months ago that it was first highlighted. That was when a former colleague of mine-in fact, he is the godfather of my children-the journalist at The Guardian, Ian Griffiths, did the first forensic examination of Amazon’s accounts. He rooted around in the likes of Luxembourg and, in part working for The Bookseller magazine and the industry, came up with the headline: "Amazon: £7bn sales, no UK corporation tax".

Clearly that opened up a veritable i-can of worms as we have gone on and the Government have taken this up at the G8, but nothing has essentially changed yet. If the focus were just the G8, we would be abdicating our responsibilities here because there is a very strong argument to say that HMRC, which has come under fire recently, is not enforcing the UK laws and rules as they stand governing permanent establishments-those people who carry out business here. That affects all sorts of companies that carry out business here and can be taxed here but are instead being allowed by accounting tricks and devices to account for that activity offshore.

I am aware that the Public Accounts Committee, amid all the other stuff that it does, has been looking at this. It interviewed Amazon recently. I think that allowing a debate in the Chamber would allow us to support the work of the Public Accounts Committee-by all means, consult with what it would like to do. Because of the sheer numbers involved, it really is a matter of great public interest and I am sure that many colleagues from all parts of the House would want to join in.

Q24 Chair: We had a representation earlier from John Mann on the use of corporate structures in the UK for money laundering, tax evasion and other financial crime. That is not exactly the same, but-

Paul Farrelly: This is tax avoidance, not tax evasion. There is no allegation of criminality in this.

Q25 Chair: I am wondering whether we could, in response to John Mann coming in-

Jim Sheridan: May I say, Chair, that most people have seen the excellent work that the Public Accounts Committee is doing on this, but most of the people who have come in front of it show sheer arrogance. There is a general appetite among the public to look at their elected personnel, especially during a time when everybody is suffering in terms of health education and so on. The public are really looking to the politicians to do something about this. The arrogance that some of these companies have shown is breathtaking.

Q26 Mr Anderson: On the back of that, have you considered putting down a votable motion?

Chris White: That would not be my intention at the moment.

Q27 Mr Anderson: Do you not think that that would get more interest?

Chris White: With all due respect, the subject stands for itself and that would create the level of interest. A ministerial response, following a number of people speaking, would be the direction that we should go in at this stage.

Q28 Chair: The reason why I was asking that was because we scheduled a debate-I think that it was for Michael Meacher-less than a year ago on tax evasion and tax avoidance. Were you aware of that?

Chris White: I was not present at that debate, but things have moved on significantly in terms of-

Q29 Chair: In terms of topicality, it is really the G8 summit and those negotiations that are going on at the moment.

Chris White: That would be fair to say, but it is also on a personal level. I know that my colleagues have other genuine reasons for being here, but even bearing in mind where the petition came from, still to have 170,000 signatures must be one of the biggest numbers that we have got through this place.

Jim Sheridan: There has been a significant change in the sense that it is not just tax evasion now, but people who are giving advice to the people who are avoiding paying tax. That is a big issue as well, now, which has come out of the Public Accounts Committee.

Chair: Okay. That is really interesting. Thank you very much.

Paul Farrelly: The topicality is the G8, but this is to keep the pressure on and to help with the work of the Public Accounts Committee on the Floor of the House. On the G8, if we were to allow the argument to prevail that we need international agreement and co-operation on this or otherwise our hands are tied, we would be letting some powerful players off the hook, because there is much that we can do here.

Chair: Okay. That is really interesting. Thank you very much for that.

Mr David Ward and Heather Wheeler made representations.

Mr Ward: The first thing to say is that we are satisfied with a Westminster Hall debate on this issue. I will explain why it will require one and a half hours but we believe that Westminster Hall would suffice. The topic that we are applying for is: "This House recognises that one third of social care users are working age disabled people, and calls on the Government to ensure that the Care Bill and wider reforms to social care specifically address their needs." It very specifically addresses the needs of working age disabled people.

Social care is the largest remaining area of reform in the Government. We all know that the Care Bill is in the House of Lords now. But what people tend to forget and what is simply not known by most people is, as I have already said, that one third of social care users are working age disabled adults. I am sure you know that this is about getting washed, dressed and being able to lead independent lives.

While social care reform as an overall topic has received considerable attention in Parliament, much of that debate has been about the future of our adult care system and it has been focused very much on the elderly and the family and carers. There is no doubt that that has received a lot of attention. A previous Back-Bench debate took place this January on dementia and social care for older people. The Back-Bench debate on social care funding in November 2011 also focused largely on how older people can help meet the catastrophic costs-this is from the Dilnot commission that we are all familiar with.

Working age disabled adults have considerably different aspirations for the social care system than older people. It is important that these areas are specifically addressed in the parliamentary debate that is taking place. One of the reasons why we believe we can make do with a Westminster Hall debate of shorter duration is that a substantial amount of work has taken place, which is why Heather is here. It is a joint all-party group. The all-party disability group and the all-party group on local government came together specifically to look at this and have produced a report which has not yet had time for parliamentary debate, although it will be the subject of discussion in the House of Lords.

We believe it is topical, it is crucial and that the most fundamental element in discussing meeting the needs is the eligibility criteria. It is an extremely topical subject at the present time. The regulations on the level at which people access help will be determined following the comprehensive spending review. It will be done through regulations. We believe that it is vital that costs incurred in meeting this level of need are understood by Parliament. Again research has just been produced by Deloitte’s which shows that, at a time when we know what the economic situation is, if the £1.2 billion worth of funding required to fill the gap for the working age disabled were found it would result in £355 million worth of savings. So we believe it is topical and we believe it is crucial.

Q30 Chair: Heather, do you want to add anything?

Heather Wheeler: The issue crosses so many different Departments. There are major changes going ahead that all of us in all of our constituencies will have to cope with. There are some very good ideas that we want to get as wide a coverage as possible. So it is does not need a votable motion or anything like that. It is just the oxygen of publicity to get the awareness out there.

Q31 Chair: We have scheduled a debate for this Thursday that is about care. I take your point about when we talk generally about care we focus very much on certain sections. Working age disabled people are not specifically drawn out of that. I just want to make you aware that a debate has been scheduled for this Thursday.

Mr Ward: We know. But in some ways that emphasises the point that we make. There is not a shortage of opportunity and interest in social care. It is the biggest area of remaining legislation to be looked at. That is focused very much on carers. One third of users of social care are working age and disabled. That is the group that time after time is not debated and fully understood.

Chair: That is great. Thank you very much for coming and thank you for your patience in waiting to the end.