UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 7 JANUARY 2014

MR ROBIN WALKER and DAMIAN HINDS

SHEILA GILMORE

MR ROBERT BUCKLAND and MEG MUNN

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Made before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 7 January 2014

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Mr David Anderson

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

John Hemming

Ian Mearns

Alec Shelbrooke

Pete Wishart

Mr Robin Walker and Damian Hinds made representations.

Mr Robin Walker: Adrian Bailey is hoping to join us, but may not make it in time.

Q1 Chair: You have come for a debate on funding for debt advice through the FCA levy. I am assuming that it is a general debate of 90 minutes, so are you applying for Westminster Hall?

Mr Walker: Yes. We are happy with Westminster Hall.

Q2 Chair: Do you want to give us some background?

Mr Walker: Yes, absolutely. The key to this is a cross-party group of MPs who have been working on some of the issues and talking to the FCA and the Money Advice Service about how they raise the money that goes to organisations such as CAB. It appears that there is a bit of a log jam with the Money Advice Service being under quite a lot of pressure to show that it is doing a good job in providing value for money. It is not asking for an increase in its budget. The FCA believes that it is a collection organisation when it comes to the levy and the money to goes towards debt advice and therefore that it does not have a remit to judge whether there is a need for an increase. But if you talk to people such as the CAB and other charities involved in debt advice, they say that payday lenders are creating an enormous demand on their services and that there is absolute logic that payday lenders should pay for some of that demand and pay the levy.

Payday lenders will be brought into the existing FCA levy and we are told that that will occur during the next couple of years and that they will be paying it by about 2016. The problem is that, if no action is taken and if there is no form of political leadership, everything will go ahead and the money will simply be spread out among the whole financial services industry, and what they pay for the cost of the regulator and the actual budget that goes towards debt advice will not increase.

We are saying that, with a little political leadership and, hopefully, with this debate nudging people in the right direction, the House will be able to say that money should be ring-fenced for debt advice as the BIS Committee has recommended. I do not expect it to be particularly contentious, but some people may want to come along and argue that the burden of regulation on other parts of the industry should be reduced. I am happy to deal with that as an issue, and to say that I am happy to see that happen as long as more money gets through to the debt advice services.

Q3 Chair: On your supporting Members, in the past we have had slight issues with Members supporting the idea of a debate but not turning up when it is held. Are you confident that those Members will come and speak in the debate?

Mr Walker: Yes, as far as I can be-I do not have written certainty. One thing would help enormously. I don’t know what your timetable is for 90-minute debates, but many of the people are from the BIS Committee and we tend to meet on a Tuesday morning, which I know is the same time as your 90-minute slot, but it so happens that, the week after next, we will not have a meeting on the Tuesday morning because we are meeting on the Wednesday, so if there was a chance of securing that slot, it would work incredibly well and I could then guarantee that all the BIS Committee people would be available.

Q4 Chair: I need to check something with the Clerks because it depends on what Departments are up for answer. Perhaps they could check while we talk among ourselves.

That is really useful. We have that regular slot every week so that might work quite well.

Q5 John Hemming: So is it an application for 21 January?

Mr Walker: Ideally yes. That would suit best.

Q6 Chair: We also have Thursday slots sometimes and we have end-of-the-day slots.

Mr Walker: Because the subject is relatively complex and not a cut-and-dried matter, it is quite important that we try to get 90 minutes for it, but if a Thursday slot or an end-of-the-day slot were available, that would be fine.

Robin James (Committee Clerk): Unfortunately, BIS are not answering that week.

Mr Walker: If BIS are not answering that week, would Treasury be possible, because I suspect it may be Treasury who would have to answer rather than BIS?

Damian Hinds: Yes, because it is a regulation of finance issue.

Robin James (Committee Clerk): Treasury are answering that week.

Q7 Chair: That might work quite well. The other option is this coming Monday, which may be too soon for you. At the end of the day we expect the business to stop early and there may be up to two hours, but that is not guaranteed. From experience, we have gone down to half an hour, which obviously would then not be enough.

Ian Mearns: You are really selling it, Chairman.

Mr Walker: It is not sounding that enticing at the moment.

Q8 Chair: If we banner that under HMT, that might work. Do you want to add anything?

Damian Hinds: Not really, but just in case this is any extra comfort for the Committee, these are subjects which, as you know, Chair, a lot of colleagues have strong views on. Quite often, with debt and so on, you get this frustration that it is the preserve of the regulatory agencies. This is a good opportunity for Parliament to express a will. I think the regulatory agencies will probably welcome knowing what Parliament is saying; it would help them in their deliberations.

Chair: Excellent. Thank you for coming in.

Sheila Gilmore made representations.

Sheila Gilmore: I am not sure how you pitch this, with starting this process from scratch.

Q9 Chair: It is really helpful for you to come in, because this is the first time that we are piloting these 90-minute slots, for which you have just heard an application. Again, it depends on whether Transport is set for answering in that week-which it is. Your application is for the 90-minute slot and on HS2?

Sheila Gilmore: Yes, on the basis of getting a debate that is not so much about the detail of the hybrid Bill and so on, which presumably we will be moving into at some point in the next year. That will be a very detailed debate on the existing plans and route and the nitty-gritty of that. What I had in mind was something more general on the economic benefits of HS2, the plans for the future and how it could be expanded towards the north and ultimately-hopefully-Scotland, and why we should be progressing this.

Obviously, there are a lot of strong and different views on this, so I think a lot of people would want to get involved and welcome the opportunity to have further debate. It comes up regularly at things like Transport questions, but that is not a very good way of getting into more of the detail, because we are obviously constrained by the format.

Chair: It is definitely something that has an opposing point of view, so there will definitely be a debate.

Q10 Alec Shelbrooke: Chair, I don’t know whether you will slap me down on this, because this is a punt in the dark, being my first time here. My question would be, is 90 minutes too short a debate? Should it be a three-hour debate on the Floor? Every debate we have had on HS2 has had a five-minute time limit on speakers on the Floor of the House for three hours. I think a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall is too short a time on that particular subject. Should it be on the Floor of the House?

Chair: That is a very good question.

Sheila Gilmore: That is fair comment. You are probably right. It is one of those times when you have no lack of contributors, whereas with other issues, there is sometimes an anxiety that people do not actually roll in on the day.

Q11 John Hemming: We do know that lots of people would want to speak on this. One of the difficulties, however, is that we need to have a process whereby an application becomes valid at a certain point. Normally, we ask for more Members, although this is for Westminster Hall. We haven’t discussed this yet, and obviously for the short, 90-minute debates we don’t need that many people, but as far as I know, we have not previously accepted any application with only one name on it. The fact is, this is an application for a specific date, when I don’t think there is another application, but I don’t know yet.

Q12 Pete Wishart: That was my point-that there was only your name. I presume that there are other people you have spoken to who are interested?

Sheila Gilmore: Obviously, there are other people interested. In some ways, this has come about because I put in an application last time round to the general system when Transport came up for the draw, some time in December. It was not drawn for that. This is the new process, and, as I said, I was not sure how the Committee was going to handle it. Normally, for Westminster Hall with these Adjournment debates you simply put in something in your own name. You have probably talked to a few people and felt that there was interest.

Pete Wishart: No, actually.

Q13 Ian Mearns: At the moment, Sheila, what we have in front of us is an application where the title is High Speed 2. I think, if I am right-please correct me if I am wrong-you are looking at a much more focused debate on the economic benefits or otherwise of HS2. I think the problem is that if we leave the title as it is, High Speed 2, it opens it up to a broader spectrum of the debate involving the route, the vagaries of the tourism benefits of having a tunnel which is two thirds of the way from London to Birmingham, which is great for tourists; they look out of the window-all of those things. Not that I am at all a HS2 sceptic-which I am. Personally, I would welcome a debate about the general economic benefits or otherwise of HS2, but I think you need to focus the title on that.

Q14 Chair: This is the first day that we are hearing bids for this 90-minute pilot slot. Normally, you would just put in your name and a short title like this and that is how it would be done. But the question from this Committee for you is whether you might want to consider that, even if you narrow it down to the economic benefits of HS2, you might be better off finding some more supporting Members and people who would definitely speak for and against the title and then come to us with something for the Chamber or a longer slot in Westminster Hall. We would definitely consider that.

Q15 Oliver Colvile: First, thank you very much for coming to see us. What is your ultimate objective in all this? Do you just want to have a broad debate or do you want to have a vote at the end of it?

Sheila Gilmore: I think a broad debate, because I am not convinced that all the issues around benefits or disbenefits have been explored fully enough. At this stage, there are a lot of different views, even across parties. You sometimes want a forum where people feel comfortable to make their position, rather than more constrained, perhaps, by a vote.

Q16 Chair: Are you happy to pursue that-that you just want to have an hour and a half slot in Westminster Hall? Is that what you are applying for-Tuesday 14?

Sheila Gilmore: That is what I am applying for.

Q17 Chair: And you are not interested in widening that out into a different application? The other option is that you can come back after that and say it was so oversubscribed nobody got a word in edgeways, because there were too many people, and use that as a way of applying for a much longer debate in the Chamber. You could do that.

Sheila Gilmore: Okay.

Chair: Brilliant. Thank you.

Robin James (Committee Clerk): May I suggest "Economic Effects" rather than "Economic Benefits" as a title?

Chair: Yes. The title will be "Economic Effects of HS2" rather than just HS2.

Sheila Gilmore: Yes.

Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much, Sheila.

Mr Robert Buckland and Meg Munn made representations.

Q18 Chair: This is an application for a general debate in the Chamber on child neglect and criminal law?

Mr Buckland: Specifically, reform of the criminal law of child neglect, Chair. I am grateful that Meg Munn is here to support me. May we please assume that Paul Goggins would have been with us today?

Chair: Yes.

Mr Buckland: He moved an amendment on this very issue in the Crime and Courts Bill when it was in Committee, and I know he was very committed to this issue. He would have been with us, no doubt, and wanting to be in the mesothelioma debate as well.

Mark Williams cannot be with us today. He sent his specific apologies because of the flooding disaster that has hit his constituency; he has to be there. I have listed the supporting Members who wish to take part in the debate. There are two additions-Mike Thornton and Andrea Leadsom-which to my calculation gives us the requisite number to merit an application for a three-hour debate in the main Chamber.

This was an issue that would have been debated further this Session if time had been available for Mark Williams’s private Member’s Bill on reform of the criminal law of child neglect. Sadly, as we know-such is the case with many of these proposals-it did not reach fruition. Therefore there is, in my submission, a genuine interest and a genuine need to debate this issue. It is currently in to consultation with third-party stakeholders, but we have not had a chance in this Session of Parliament to debate what is an increasingly important issue. Those are my submissions. I do not know whether Meg wants to add anything.

Meg Munn: I think Robert has made the case around the law change. I think I would want to just put the case why this is an important issue that Parliament should be seen to be debating.

It is the subject of a campaign by Action for Children, but from the point of view of professionals working in this area, and particularly the social work profession, it is an area where there have been increases; not necessarily the number of children but the proportion of children on the child protection register, for example, who are under the neglect category is the highest.

There is no definition in law of emotional neglect. The way we look at neglect now is very different from what was considered neglectful in 1868 when the current law was put forward. So I am interested in the practical impact of this and the need for Members across political parties to be debating this issue and seeing it as something that is very important.

Q19 Chair: We have got a long list of debates that are kind of cued up, but after we go into private session, we will be allocating; certainly we have a whole day on Thursday 16 January. I don’t know whether you heard me say that on 13 January, on Monday, there is an end-of-day slot that we anticipate will be two hours-but it could be a lot less. Your debate sounds like the sort of thing where you do want to have a protected three hours rather than have something risky.

Mr Buckland: Yes, I think we do, bearing in mind the interest in the subject.

Chair: Then we have provisionally got 23 January. So either on 16 January or 23 January-would you have a problem with either of those dates, if we were to allocate those?

Mr Buckland: Can I just briefly consult?

Q20 Oliver Colvile: Can you also explain, in 1868 were children allowed to go up chimneys?

Mr Buckland: Not quite. I think the good Tory Lord Shaftesbury dealt with that in the 1840s, but the law was updated in 1933 without any updating of the 1868 definition of neglect, and as a former criminal practitioner who used to use section 1 of the 1933 Act, I can tell you it is inadequate to reflect emotional abuse, as Meg Munn has rightly said.

Q21 Alec Shelbrooke: Obviously you have said a general debate is considered, but, on a topic where I assume you are looking for a change in the law, is it not something that would be a votable debate?

Mr Buckland: Fair question, Mr Shelbrooke. Because there is a consultation going on with third-party stakeholders I think it would be better to have a considered motion, but specifically on the issue of the reform of the criminal law, so that it can be an informed part of that consultation process, in effect. The Minister then will have to respond, and we as MPs are getting our only chance to take part in what we hope will be a precursor to a review of the law.

Q22 Ian Mearns: Chair, you will see that I am actually listed as one of the supporting Members; but I am aware that debate on this issue has moved on quite significantly in the last 18 months or so, with a significant number of children’s organisations coming on board that were not originally on board. In fact, there had been earlier disagreements between different children’s charities and social work professionals about this issue.

I think the debate has moved on to a significant extent, although there are still disagreements. There are some people out there who still believe that, for instance, what is required has been covered to a certain extent by the Children Act, but I personally would disagree. I think there are differences of opinion that could generate a decent debate on this issue.

Mr Buckland: indicated assent.

Chair: Can I just say that we have had a number of occasions when people have brought us a general debate just to test out the boundaries of where they want to go and then come back with something more specific. If, then, out of that debate came an issue that overarched everything else, there would be no reason why you could not then come back to us and say, "We had this very good general debate but we really want to have a debate around this specific votable motion." That would be open to you.

Mr Buckland: Very well. Thank you, Chair.

Q23 Chair: Did you have a chance to look at the dates?

Mr Buckland: Yes. I have no impediment.

Chair: Okay. Brilliant. That is really helpful. Thank you very much.