UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 14 JANUARY 2014

SIMON DANCZUK and MRS ANNE MAIN

MR ADRIAN BAILEY, MR BRIAN BINLEY and PAUL BLOMFIELD

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 14 January 2014

Members present:

John Hemming (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Mr David Anderson

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

Ian Mearns

Alec Shelbrooke

In the absence of the Chair, John Hemming was called to the Chair.

Simon Danczuk and Mrs Anne Main made representations.

Q1 Chair: Thank you for coming. You are here to make a bid for a debate on Bangladesh. This is obviously an issue I know well because I am concerned about it, but perhaps you will introduce it to the Committee.

Simon Danczuk: The Committee may be aware that there was a general election in Bangladesh on 5 January, earlier this month. There was a lot of violence, strikes and upheaval in the run-up to the election, which was marred by a number of controversies, not least some polling stations being set on fire and people not turning out to vote, so turnout was exceptionally low. The opposition parties in Bangladesh refused to take part in the elections, so although there was an election, there is little electoral mandate for the Awami League, which is holding on to power there.

There is real relevance to the United Kingdom, because obviously Bangladesh is a member of the Commonwealth and we spend around £250 million a year in aid there. Around 500,000 Bangladeshis live in the United Kingdom, and many British companies have interests and production companies in Bangladesh. What is going on there at the moment is relevant, and the problems undoubtedly affect the region. The European Union, the USA and Canada have already condemned the situation and suggested that the elections need to be rerun. There are obviously worries that Bangladesh could become a failed state and, over time, open to extremism. You will not be surprised to hear that a number of us are keen to have a debate on the issue in Parliament.

I will hand over to Anne to say more.

Q2 Mrs Main: Simon and I went on an all-party parliamentary group fact-finding visit which looked into the garment industry after the collapse of Rana Plaza. Since the political unrest, orders for the garment industry have dropped by over 4%. Many British companies trade in Bangladesh and I was disheartened to see in Saturday’s edition of The Daily Telegraph that our High Commission has announced the freezing and removal of aid for two major projects-£55 million for one and a £12 million underspend on another, which will not now be committed because of the political instability. Some 30% of our aid budget goes directly to the Government and, given their fragility and the lack of democratic accountability, I have tried to table an urgent question to the Department for International Development to ask what is happening with our aid projects, which ones they were and what did the announcements mean. I believe that the big picture would be of great interest to many MPs who have a large Bangladeshi diaspora and also to businesses that trade with Bangladesh, such as Next, Monsoon, Marks and Spencer, Primark, Tesco, Asda-there are so many.

There is an urgency because we are not sure what will happen next. There were no observers from the EU or Britain at the election because, for the first time ever, Bangladesh declined those observations, so we are very unsure about the current situation, but we know that many human rights agencies have said that Bangladesh is, unfortunately, turning into a bit of a basket case, with many human rights abuses.

Q3 Oliver Colvile: May I ask what you are aiming to get out having this debate?

Simon Danczuk: Certainly to raise the profile. There has been a Government statement, but not to the House and it is important that the Commons has a chance to debate and discuss what is going on in Bangladesh because it is so relevant to the United Kingdom. It is about raising the profile, and also ultimately about creating some sort of pressure to try to get a better situation in Bangladesh, but obviously that cannot be done just by the United Kingdom.

Q4 Oliver Colvile: Apart from yourselves, who else is willing to sign up to this debate?

Simon Danczuk: In terms of the submission that we made, there was a limited number of people on it, but the number of speakers would be much greater than that, there is no doubt about it. We would anticipate 20 to 30 speakers, I would have thought.

Mrs Main: Yes, the APPG is very active in this area. We went over to Bangladesh and produced our first ever report, which we submitted to DFID. One of its highlights was that political instability would jeopardise our funding. We give about £1.6 billion in aid to Bangladesh, and given the ring-fenced funding, it is an important debate to have: how worthy our funding is, where it is being used and, with the instability of the country, whether or not we should still be giving that funding, because we cannot really say whether it is going to the right causes or not.

Q5 Bob Blackman: I have a couple of quick questions, so that I understand the issue. You have asked for a 90-minute debate. Simon, you just said there are potentially 20 speakers. That would limit you to three minutes per speaker, allowing for an introduction, so would you like to reconsider your 90 minutes to be potentially three hours? You said that the debate could be held in either Westminster Hall or the Chamber, and we certainly have time to allocate in Westminster Hall quite easily and readily. Would you accept a Westminster Hall allocation?

Simon Danczuk: Yes. In answer to your first question, I have not done the maths, so I apologise. I have clearly got it wrong. I think there will be a need for more than 90 minutes. You are right to point that out. We are prepared to accept either location. The speediness of the debate is probably more important than where it takes place. I do not know what Anne thinks.

Mrs Main: The announcements on the aid budgets were only made on Saturday, so that has added a whole new dimension to the subject, which I think would generate a different set of interests for other people.

Q6 Chair: The Committee is in an unusual situation, because we have had a debate drop out for Thursday. Would it be possible to have a debate on Thursday?

Mrs Main: We were made aware that that might be the case. How long is the debate for?

Chair: Obviously, we have had a debate drop out, so if you wanted a three hour debate or less on Thursday, you could have a three hour debate or less on Thursday.

Mrs Main: Yes.

Chair: You would be happy with that?

Mrs Main: As I said, I tried to table an urgent question on Monday and I really think the House needs to hear from us.

Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr Adrian Bailey, Paul Blomfield and Mr Brian Binley made representations.

Mr Bailey: May I start with an apology? You earlier mentioned the three-hour debate on Thursday. We applied for this particular debate last week and to my astonishment were offered Thursday. Unfortunately, I had to turn it down, because I am committed to speak at a conference and, as the Chair of the Committee that would lead the debate, it would have been difficult for me to participate. Perhaps, unusually, I start with an apology and follow it up with a plea to have an early debate. I understand the implicit contradiction in those two approaches.

May I outline the reason for this request? The issues surrounding payday lenders and the impact upon personal debt in this country have been around for some time and been the subject of a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who is present. The Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills held an inquiry in the last quarter of last year, and we reported on 20 December with a range of recommendations covering all the relevant issues. It got considerable national publicity-in fact, if it had not been for the Apollo theatre roof collapsing, it would probably have been the lead story on that day. But we felt that over and above this, it was necessary to take the report to the Floor of the Chamber to emphasise the importance of the issues and the robustness of the approach needed.

The reason for the timing is that the Financial Conduct Authority is due to take over the regulatory regime of this particular matter in April this year. It has carried out a consultation, which has now concluded, but will draw up its recommendations before April. We particularly wished for the Select Committee report and the work that was done on it to be highlighted prior to the FCA constructing its regulatory regime. So that is the mood behind the timing of this. If I could just invite my colleague on my right to perhaps add one or two issues about the report.

Mr Binley: I hope you have noticed, Mr Chairman, he is on the right of me. Paul Blomfield: Brian will be reminding me of this many times in Committee.

Mr Binley: I will indeed.

Paul Blomfield: Simply to support Adrian’s point on two counts in particular-first, there is a unique window for this debate at the moment because the FCA is currently thinking about the responses it has received to its consultation and will not be announcing the outcome until April, so for the House to have a significant debate at this time is important; secondly, there is the cross-party basis of this. The report reflects many of the issues that were raised in my Bill, which incidentally had more Government supporters than Opposition supporters. Indeed the Charter on payday lending, which has more than 100 Members supporting it, includes Members from every single party represented in the House. There is very broad support and, I am sure, a strong appetite to raise the different concerns because there has been a lot of discussion about single issues such as the capping credit, but actually a more multi-layered intervention is more appropriate. That is reflected in the Select Committee report.

Mr Binley: It is a very consensual Committee, and this is where this matter comes from of course, to this Select Committee. I might tell you that it is not all bad about payday lending. It is more balanced perhaps than many people might think from some of the matters that have emerged. None the less, there is a real need for more caring regulation, and by caring I mean caring on behalf of some of the customers of the payday loans scenario. Finally, I do believe that Select Committees need to count for more in this place, and I think if you were to grant a debate in the Chamber, you would be helping in that process. I think that strengthens the parliamentary procedure in this country.

Q7 Mr Amess: So, Adrian, just for my own information, who was first on this issue-your Select Committee or Stella Creasy?

Mr Bailey: I think the issue probably predates Stella Creasy. In fact, I remember it being debated in a Finance Bill introduced by the previous Government and I had the "experience", in inverted commas, of sitting on the Bill Committee. The issue of interest rate caps was long debated then, and it was actually rejected by the previous Government. So, shall we say, the issues that were taken up by Stella Creasy and, of course, subsequently by Paul in his private Member’s Bill, have actually been around for a long time. I think what has happened is that the huge growth in payday lenders, and the consequences of their activities, have brought this issue to the fore. Now the fact that the FCA is taking over the regulatory regime is a very good opportunity for the Commons to have its input.

Q8 Bob Blackman: There is the process for Select Committees to have a 20-minute slot to announce their reports. The other issue that I would raise is that you have asked for a general debate, which suggests that there will be a whole range of issues raised without a votable motion, but you specifically asked for a debate in the Chamber. We have a lot of slots available for Westminster Hall. Would a Westminster Hall slot be applicable in the event that we do not have slots in the Chamber, given the priority in terms of time, as opposed to not being allocated time at all? I appreciate the issues of time here.

Mr Bailey: I would not turn down any slot. However, I would just make two points in support of the Chamber. First, this is a debate that we hope will influence the FCA and as such, rightly or wrongly, a debate that takes place on the Floor of the House with the opportunity of the whole House participating, would reinforce the robustness of the arguments put forward. Secondly, it is a debate about a Select Committee report, and is part of a broader agenda and argument about enhancing the role and impact of Select Committees. That is more likely to be enhanced by a debate on the Floor of the House.

Q9 Alec Shelbrooke: You have six Members down-although I think you said that you had more supporting Members-and, following on from David, I am surprised to see that Stella Creasy’s name is not down. Although it is an emotive topic and I hope you would get the three hours, how many other names do you have to support the debate? Obviously our concern is whether we can get a three-hour debate in the Chamber.

Mr Bailey: Can I just make something clear? This is a Back-Bench business debate, and Stella Creasy is now on the Front Bench.

Q10 Alec Shelbrooke: That’s fair enough-I didn’t know that. But there is still the question about supporting Members.

Mr Bailey: We just put down members of the Committee. I have here an application with, I think, a further 23 names.

Alec Shelbrooke: That’s fine.

Mr Binley: Might I tell you that we didn’t invite Mr Vaz to comment, either?

Q11 Chair: Just to clarify, we have guidance that for a three-hour debate we would like at least 15 names, so it would be nice to have those.

Mr Bailey: I can hand you the full list if you like.

Chair: If you could just hand that in now, that would be perfect. Thank you very much.