UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

TUESDAY 5 NOVEMBER 2013

JOHN THURSO

ANNE MARIE MORRIS, SIMON DANCZUK, GRAHAM EVANS, MR BRIAN BINLEY, DEBBIE ABRAHAMS AND ANDREA LEADSOM

MR ELFYN LLWYD AND MRS CHERYL GILLAN

IAN SWALES

ANN COFFEY AND SIMON DANCZUK

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 5 November 2013

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

John Hemming

Ian Mearns

Mr Mark Spencer

Pete Wishart

John Thurso made representations.

Q1 Chair: I think this is your first time at the Backbench Business Committee.

John Thurso: This is my second. I did this last year.

Q2 Chair: You did this last year, of course. We were hoping to have Barry Sheerman here with you, but he may be coming along later. There is another debate in the pipeline similar to the one that you are going to propose for your annual debate.

John Thurso: As I said in the application form, last year, for the first time ever, we had a debate on the advice that the Finance and Services Committee gives to the House of Commons Commission so that it can set an estimate. The debate provided a vehicle for Members to raise any point on that. I thought it was a rather successful debate, and we had three amendments-one was taken, one was defeated, and one was deferred-so it was useful. This proposal is exactly the same. Our Committee has produced our advice to the Commission and published it in our report. If you were kind enough to grant a debate, it would be an opportunity for Members to raise any topic in respect of the running of the House that is covered by the report. I know that there are several topics, including Barry Sheerman’s one, that would fit in with that. It is an opportunity to agree or disagree with, or amend, our advice as the House thinks fit before it goes to the Commission. I would suggest that, in the light of the success last year, it would be worth repeating this year.

Q3 Mr Amess: I am fine with the whole thing, but I do not remember you coming to the Committee last year. Perhaps I was not here.

John Thurso: I may have dreamed it, but this is such a wonderful gathering that I probably did not.

Q4 Mr Amess: Just out of interest, why can this not be done in Government time? I am a bit confused by that.

John Thurso: That is a very good question that is slightly above my pay grade.

Q5 Mr Amess: I think we need to make it on our pay grade. This should be done in Government time. It is extraordinary.

John Thurso: There was a discussion. The background is that my Committee felt very strongly that there should be an opportunity for this debate to take place. Normally, if Committee Chairs wish to apply for something that would be substantive and voted on, they may well come before this Committee. That was the view taken at the time by the Government. It is obviously always open to all of us to seek to persuade the Government to give up Government time, but we have all had dealings with the usual channels and know the successes or failures of that.

Q6 Chair: It could be in either Government or Back-Bench time. It is very much House business, and we do schedule a lot of House business. That would not stop the Government from scheduling it themselves, but we are able to.

John Thurso: No. It could be done.

Q7 John Hemming: Today we have Government business that will probably end early, and therefore there is time for something in the House, but obviously you cannot be quite sure how much time. Is this the sort of thing that could be dealt with in that way, or does it definitely need three hours? There is a risk of it only being two hours or something.

John Thurso: I honestly have not a clue. Last year, there was every range of opinion, from the thing dying in 10 minutes and it being a complete waste of time, to it taking up two days and completely gumming up the entire legislative process. In the end, the House behaved-as the House does-exceptionally well. I cannot remember how many speakers there were, but there were quite a few. Many good things were raised and, from my point of view as the proponent, it worked very well. I would suggest that there might be a little less interest this year, for the simple reason that last year we were also doing the medium-term financial plan and the savings programme, which can obviously be brought up and debated in this debate, but the big debate on that was last year. There may therefore be a little less interest than last year, but I would not wish to second-guess Members. I am quite certain that Members will find things to discuss that I would never have thought of, so my best estimate was a three-hour debate, but it could well be less.

Q8 Pete Wishart: I know that we all paid keen attention to, and took great interest in, the debate last year, but could you remind us of the issues that were discussed? You said that two amendments were tabled.

John Thurso: The first amendment, as I recall, was from Sir Alan Haselhurst, and it proposed that we accept the business improvement plan and not proceed to market testing. That was accepted. The second amendment was from the Science and Technology Committee, which suggested that its grant be maintained rather than cut for a variety of reasons. I asked it to withdraw that pending a discussion. It did withdraw it. There was a discussion, and as a result, a middle way was found that accommodated everybody. It got a bit more money, but not quite as much as it wanted, in exchange for some other things. I am racking my brains like crazy for the other-

Q9 Chair: It was the clock tower.

John Thurso: No, the clock tower was a separate debate that went before. There was something about taking something out and doing away with it.

Chair: We will look it up, Pete, before any debate happens.

John Thurso: I will have to look it up. May I take that under advisement and write to you?

Q10 Chair: Thank you for bringing your application. We do not have any time to allocate this week, so we will not be able to let you know until next week. You have indicated a preference for 21 November. That is a day when our time will come at the end of Government time, so it would be the second debate of the day, unless we can persuade the Government to swap the debates over.

John Thurso: If 28 November was preferable for you, that is doable.

Q11 Chair: When do the estimates get agreed by the Commission? We would have to hold the debate before then.

John Thurso: It is at the December meeting of the Commission, so 21 November, 28 November or 5 December would work. I have a mild personal preference, but I do not think that that should come into it at this stage. I should be very grateful for whatever you chose to give me.

Chair: That is very helpful. Thank you.

Anne Marie Morris, Simon Danczuk, Graham Evans, Mr Brian Binley, Debbie Abrahams and Andrea Leadsom made representations.

Anne Marie Morris: I am conscious, Madam Chair, that you will be pushed for time, as there are seven applications, so would you like me to fire away?

Q12 Chair: Could you introduce your colleagues and then briefly tell us the debate’s title, where you want it, and how long for-that kind of thing?

Anne Marie Morris: There is myself-you will appreciate that I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for micro businesses-Simon Danczuk, who also has a great interest in small businesses, and Graham Evans, who has a good track record here and is a businessman. I am sure that you know Brian Binley, who chairs the all-party parliamentary small business group. We are united in our passion for small businesses. I can read the motion for you. It states: "That this House encourages the Government to consider what further measures can be taken to encourage small business to flourish and prosper, including reducing the burden of red tape, addressing the complex tax structure, improving access to finance and gaining support from local government." I should not forget Debbie Abrahams, who is sitting behind me and who is also passionate about the subject.

The reason why such a debate is absolutely crucial now is that much of Government focus has been on small and medium-sized enterprises as a whole, not the smallest businesses in that sector. There are issues across a number of Government Departments, and there has not yet been a debate that tries to pull it all together. By virtue of the motion, we want to get the Government to recognise that the will of the House is for more to be done.

We want the debate now, and it is important because we are beginning to come out of recession. We have seen the growth figures. The Federation of Small Businesses did a recent survey that found that 54.2% of businesses say that they are ambitious to grow. If that is to happen, the Government have to play their part and more initiatives need to be put in place.

From the application, you will see that the interest in the House is overwhelming. We have signed up 75 Members-10% of the House-who say that they want to participate in the debate. I am sure that you will ask me, "Why not Westminster Hall?" The reason is that we have been there, seen it and done it. There have been several debates there. We had eight debates in 2012 and six in 2011, but I believe that we have never had one that is completely joined up.

We believe that the debate should be on a motion, rather than just a general debate, because we want a positive message to go to the Government: we want them to do something.

However, another important point is that there will be divergent views. This will not be a debate where 75 people stand up and say the same thing: there will be some diversity of opinion. That is good and healthy, to get the ideas out on the table.

We have asked for three hours on the basis not of the numbers-clearly, the numbers justify spending more time than that-but recognising that others wish to have some time for a debate. We want to be realistic in our request. I hope that is a useful opener. May I hand over briefly to Simon to add some remarks?

Simon Danczuk: I won’t keep the Committee too long. We have had a number of debates covering a variety of small business issues, whether it is business rates or late payments, but it would be good to have a debate that encapsulates the whole issue of very small businesses. It would also be good for Parliament and MPs to be seen to be talking about and giving a voice to small businesses, to show that we fully support them. As we know, they are the backbone of our local economies. It is an opportune time. There hasn’t been a full debate of this nature since, I think, 2010, so it is an opportune time for MPs and Parliament itself to show that we are fully supportive of small businesses.

Q13 John Hemming: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I run a small business and I think I am a member of the Federation of Small Businesses-if I have paid recently. You make a good argument as to why the debate should not be in Westminster Hall, but this Committee rarely matches the volume of people wanting debates to the number of debates available; it tends to go one way or the other. At the moment, we have a mass of people wanting debates and nothing to allocate. Hence, the question is: would you refuse a debate, were it to be offered in Westminster Hall?

Anne Marie Morris: Yes, and the reason is that in the real world-been there, seen it, done it-what do we add? How do we change the-

John Hemming: Yes; good answer.

Q14 Mr Spencer: How credible would the debate be, given that you have only three hours? Given the number of people who want to speak, by the time you have taken off the time for the Front-Bench spokesmen, you could be allocated a minute each.

Anne Marie Morris: You’re right. That would be unrealistic. If I thought it was credible to ask for a whole day, I’d ask for a whole day. If the Committee is willing to give me more than I ask for, I don’t have a problem.

Chair: It is really helpful if you can be that flexible; if we do get additional time, obviously, we will take that into account.

Q15 Bob Blackman: It would be terribly helpful if you could clarify exactly how many people want to speak in, rather than just support, the debate, because that would help your case. The other issue is timing-not of the length of the debate but when you hold it. Obviously, we have the autumn statement coming up, then we have the Budget and so on. Is there a particular time frame within which you want to have this debate?

Anne Marie Morris: Let me answer the second question first. You are quite right to point out the autumn statement and the Budget. That is really why we are here today, and it is my mistake for not mentioning it. If we are going to get change, then that change has to happen in the autumn statement and the Budget. Otherwise, we are running out of time, because the next autumn statement and Budget are frankly too late for anything to be done by the current Government.

So yes, ideally we would like this debate if not before the autumn statement, then at least before the Budget. On the numbers that will actually speak, I will be honest. I was amazed at the response I got, which was positive: "We want to speak", not so much, "You’ve twisted my arm, Anne Marie-I think this is a good idea". The number who have mentioned small businesses and micro-businesses throughout the House over the last year has grown exponentially. The interest is there.

Q16 Pete Wishart: You said that you had "been there, seen it, done it" in Westminster Hall. When did you have these debates and how much interest was there? If you’ve "done it" so many times, why is it necessary to do it again?

Anne Marie Morris: As I said at the outset, in 2012 we had eight debates in Westminster Hall, and in 2011 we had six. The Library doesn’t have the figures for 2013 as yet. To the extent there have been debates about small businesses, I think we had one of 90 minutes, but that doesn’t give many people a chance to say very much. I have identified eight different Departments where there are some issues, never mind the specifics of pubs and retail and so on. In a sense, you are only scratching the surface with that. The other debates have been quite specific; there have been some on business rates and similar issues. So we are really saying that we cannot look at this through just one lens. With small businesses, if we want to do anything sensible we have to join up the dots, and you cannot do that in a Westminster Hall debate.

Chair: Thank you. As I said already, we do not have anything to allocate this week, but we will let you know for next week, certainly. We appreciate that there is a time limit, given the autumn statement, so we will take that into account as well. Thank you for coming today.

Mr Elfyn Llwyd and Mrs Cheryl Gillan made representations.

Mr Llwyd: Good afternoon. My name is Elfyn Llwyd, and I am supported by the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on stalking and harassment, the right hon. Cheryl Gillan, to my left. I will keep it short, because the application form is quite detailed.

The new stalking laws came into force on 25 November 2012. The terms of reference of our inquiry are set out in the application. We reported having taken evidence from probation officers, social workers, victims of stalking, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and so on, and also from academics. We then drew up some amendments to the law. On 7 February 2012 we produced our report, and exactly a month later, on 8 March, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would legislate to accept our amendments. Two offences are created: 2A, a less serious offence; and 4A, a more serious offence carrying five years’ imprisonment on conviction.

The twenty-fifth of November 2013 will be the first anniversary of the law coming into force. Unfortunately, we have reason to believe that the implementation of the new law is being hampered by lack of training. Figures obtained via a freedom of information request show that only 33 offenders were convicted by the courts in England and Wales over the first six months of the new stalking laws being enacted. In England and Wales, during the period 25 November 2012 to 30 June 2013, 320 individuals were arrested, 189 of whom were charged with one of the new stalking offences. Of those charged, six received custodial sentences and a further 27 were found guilty and given community disposals. All police forces were asked for information, via FOI, to tell us what training was actually being undertaken. Unfortunately, the response was poor and we believe that training has not commenced in many forces.

Q17 Chair: This is really important for the debate itself, but for now please would you read out your motion, and let us know for the record what you are applying for and where you want it?

Mr Llwyd: Yes, certainly. The motion reads:

"This House notes that 25 November 2013 will mark the first anniversary of the new stalking laws coming into force; is concerned about the lack of progress made on the training of criminal justice professionals in the news laws, particularly police and CPS; and recognises the impact that this is having on the confidence and well-being of victims of stalking."

Q18 Chair: You are after 90 minutes in the Chamber because obviously, this is a dividable motion-or is it a "take note" motion?

Mr Llwyd: Yes, we would hope so. I think it is of importance, because as you will see it is supported by Members from the governing party, by Labour Front Benchers, by the Green party Member and by Liberal Democrat Members. There is considerable interest in this throughout the House.

Mrs Gillan: This is my first time before this Committee, so-

Chair: You are very welcome.

Mrs Gillan: I am not sure how it works. I am particularly interested in this area because I think that stalking is definitely on the increase, especially with new technologies. That is why I think it is a subject worthy of debate on the Floor of the House. Also, back in 2011 Harry Fletcher, who facilitates our all-party parliamentary group, did a study of 80 perpetrators and discovered that they received very little if any training to make them abandon their behaviour, and they tended to receive only short custodial sentences. As we know, in these instances the victims often pay with their life.

I think that this issue should be discussed on the Floor of the House, and-in the light of our colleague Tim Loughton having spoken on the Floor of the House about his own experience-with a Minister at the Dispatch Box, because is it of concern to all colleagues of all parties, all our staff, and indeed many people who work in and around here.

Q19 John Hemming: Obviously, the motion does criticise the Government, so clearly you want the motion. Would you therefore refuse Westminster Hall, and if the timing is not critical, do you think that slotting it in at the end of the day might work?

Mr Llwyd: Given the interest involved, I think we do need three hours.

Q20 John Hemming: You need a three-hour debate? Because you have 90 minutes at the moment.

Mr Llwyd: Fine. A 90-minute debate it is. My problem with going to Westminster Hall is that I have written reams of parliamentary questions seeking this information and I have so far not had a proper response. Were it on the Floor of the House, I think a Minister would be bound to respond in an orderly fashion and hopefully timeously as well.

Q21 John Hemming: Have you applied to the Procedure Committee for the Government to be challenged on an inadequate answer?

Mr Llwyd: No answer is not necessarily inadequate.

Q22 John Hemming: If you get no answer or an inadequate answer to a written parliamentary question, you can complain to the Procedure Committee.

Mr Llwyd: With respect, I have been around for 21 years and I am aware of that.

Q23 John Hemming: It is a new system. It came in during the last Parliament.

Mr Llwyd: I accept what you say, Mr Hemming.

Chair: Thank you for that useful piece of information.

Mrs Gillan: May I just say that I thought it was a three-hour debate? I am not sure about 90 minutes. I think we were under the impression that that was the minimum you would apply for.

Q24 Chair: We have had applications for three hours where we have allocated a whole day, because we thought that the interest in the subject was so great, but it mostly depends on what we have available. You have 25 November as the anniversary, which you would obviously like to mark. We will have to work around that depending on what we have available to us, but we will take that into consideration. We are not going to be scheduling anything this week, but we will do next week. We do pencil things in, so I am sure that we can let you know.

Mrs Gillan: May I make one additional point? It is important to say that we have a new head of the Crown Prosecution Service, and I think that a debate on the Floor of the House on this subject would focus their attention on its importance and on the growing incidence of this crime, which is affecting more and more people. That is another reason why it would be a very good thing.

Chair: Thank you very much for coming.

Ian Swales made representations.

Ian Swales: Thank you for the opportunity to come in front of the Committee today. I am proposing a debate on inter-city rail investment. I should say straight away that I do not propose a re-run of the HS2 debates, because looking at England alone there are 10 cities, 20 city regions and London, and if you do the maths, that is 465 potential inter-city journeys. HS2 covers 21 of those 465. I am saying that we need a debate about investment in rail that is not all about London.

As an example, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills travelled from Liverpool to Darlington last week and was utterly shocked at how long it took him. He was going to the new Hitachi train factory opening and was surprised to find that the journey took him far longer than it would have taken coming from London, even though he was already in the north of England.

Many organisations, such as the Institute of Directors, are saying that their members want to see more investment in other rail networks.

Q25 Chair: You have specified that you would like a three-hour general debate in the Chamber. You will have heard all the stuff that we have said before: we currently have a huge number of applicants and very little time-it sometimes works the other way round. All the applications are very time limited. If we did have Westminster Hall available, would you accept that?

Ian Swales: It is something I would consider, but there will be a high level of interest in this. Pretty much everyone I have talked to has said that they would support it. I have just provided a sample of the names, but there are others, including shadow Ministers and a member of this Committee, at whom I will not look. Many people want to have this debate. It is badly needed, because too much of the debate on rail investment assumes that the only thing everyone wants to do when they get out of bed is to go to or leave London. It affects the balance of our economy quite radically.

Q26 Ian Mearns: As you know, Ian, I would love to get to Middlesbrough from Newcastle much quicker than I can. It is probably an hour and 40 minutes around the coast from Newcastle, but it is only some 35 miles.

Ian Swales: By the way, the figures I gave on the number of cities are simply for the main station in a city region. I haven’t even got Middlesbrough; Darlington is the Tees Valley one.

Q27 Ian Mearns: I know you have got Andy McDonald on board, but the list of people you have does look very Government-oriented.

Ian Swales: As I said, there are shadow Ministers. There are many other names. Do you take Ministers?

Q28 Ian Mearns: No, we want Back Benchers.

Ian Swales: That’s what I thought, so I haven’t put those names down. There is any number of people who want to talk about this.

Q29 Ian Mearns: I am going to be a bit provocative. While you have highlighted that we don’t want to regurgitate the HS2 debate, there is actually a debate to be had about our existing infrastructure inter-city, even between the north-east of Scotland and London. The east coast main line has had three significant infrastructure failures this year that have not been weather-related; others have been weather-related. The cabling and electronics are very iffy.

Ian Swales: Tell me about it. I have been affected by all three. Two weeks ago, I had to de-train at York. It took an hour longer from York to Birmingham.

Chair: Fantastic-de-training!

Ian Swales: That is their word, not mine.

Q30 Ian Mearns: It is a timely application, but from my perspective, Ian, I would like to see it firmed up with better cross-party representation of interest in the debate.

Ian Swales: Okay. I can certainly get more names if that is what you want.

Q31 Chair: That would be really helpful. The other thing is that a lot of the debates coming to us today and previously have a time-sensitivity. This does not have the same time-sensitivity. While it is an interesting and important debate, we will give you some time to get some more definite cross-party Members.

Ian Swales: I can do that.

Q32 John Hemming: We are also going to get some half-hour and hour-and-a-half Westminster Hall debates as well. Is that something for you?

Ian Swales: I don’t think that is long enough for the issues involved. As another example, four of England’s six biggest cities are in south Yorkshire and Lancashire, and the journeys between them are diabolical.

Q33 John Hemming: We need to balance out how quickly you get the debate vis-à-vis what you get. You can get something not as good, more quickly. If you say you don’t want an hour and a half, we can’t consider you for an hour and a half.

Ian Swales: Right.

Q34 Ian Mearns: As it happens, Ian, I will urge colleagues if a slot arises not to put this debate on spare Government time on a Monday, because we probably couldn’t get here in time.

Ian Swales: Yes-the very people who need to be there. I didn’t realise that would be such an issue. I don’t have any problem getting more names, if that is what makes the difference.

Chair: That would be great. It is really just to give us the confidence that you can organise the Chamber to have three hours of debate.

Q35 Mr Spencer: Just for assistance, I know that the link between Nottingham, Lincoln and Newark is being debated cross-party among the MPs affected by that line. I know there are Labour MPs involved in that.

Ian Swales: Yes; okay.

Q36 Chair: Thank you very much for coming and bringing us this debate. We will let you next week about allocations.

Ian Swales: In the meantime I will do what you have asked me.

Ann Coffey and Simon Danczuk made representations.

Ann Coffey: Thank you for giving me the time to speak to you.

Chair: You are more than welcome. That’s fine.

Ann Coffey: I have put down only four names, and the reason for that is just to give you the idea that it is cross-party. I can supply you with supporting names across the political spectrum if you wish. Simon has come along as one of the supporting MPs for this application.

As you are probably aware, in January 2012 we had a big six-hour debate on town centres and high streets on the Floor of the House. About 70 MPs participated. Since then we have had the Portas pilots. Lots of our colleagues have experience of those, and views about what happened as a result. We have had the recent Grimsey review. The high street continues to change at a rate of knots with the impact of mobile technology. All of us have issues about our particular high streets, because they are very interesting.

It would make a very diverse debate. It would enable colleagues to raise the particular issues they have in their high streets, and enable us to understand what is happening in our high streets at the moment, which is transitional change at a phenomenal rate because of the impact of mobile technology on people’s changing shopping habits. It is a community space; what happens in the high street affects how we define our community. We would be very grateful.

Chair: You are after a three-hour general Chamber debate.

Q37 John Hemming: Will you reject Westminster Hall?

Ann Coffey: This is not time-sensitive, I would point out.

Q38 John Hemming: You would prefer to hang on and get the Chamber, maybe in six months’ time.

Ann Coffey: I would not want to hang on and get the Chamber in six months’ time; I would not want to do that at all. I would prefer a House debate in the Chamber, but I am not averse to considering Westminster Hall. There is no substantive motion attached.

Q39 Chair: If that were the only thing available, as sometimes happens?

Ann Coffey: Yes, we would consider it. Would you, Simon?

Simon Danczuk: Yes.

Chair: Certainly, the last time we had this debate it was very successful. That was a perfect presentation. Thank you.