UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

TUESDAY 22 OCTOBER 2013

DR JULIAN HUPPERT

MR ROBERT BUCKLAND, CHARLIE ELPHICKE AND JULIAN SMITH

FIONA MACTAGGART

MRS MADELEINE MOON, PAUL BURSTOW AND JAMES MORRIS

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 22 October 2013

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Anderson

Bob Blackman

John Hemming

Ian Mearns

Dr Julian Huppert made representations.

Q1 Chair: Could we have Julian Huppert please? Hello Julian. You are not back for cycling.

Dr Huppert: Not this time. Different subject.

Q2 Chair: Can you tell us what you are applying for?

Dr Huppert: Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to see you all again. I am here to ask for a half-day debate in the Chamber about oversight of the intelligence and security services, joined by Tom Watson, who sends his apologies, and Dominic Raab. In Tom’s case, train issues have been slightly problematic, but they are both very sorry. It is a cross-party effort.

I am sure that the Committee does not need reminding of the high level of interest there has been in the UK and overseas, partly based on the Snowden leaks and revelations about the GCHQ and the NSA, but also to do with the Communications Data Bill that was proposed and the whole question about what data should be available and how they should be there.

The time is right to have a public debate in Parliament about this. We have had a statement, which is nothing like the same thing. This is supported by people such as Sir David Omand, who was director of GCHQ, who said: "My feeling is that staff in the intelligence agencies would welcome deeper but more informed oversight, not least to protect their reputation"; and Dame Stella Rimington, who used to run MI5-

Q3 Chair: Julian, before you go into the detail of the debate, we are obviously very interested in the detail of the debate, but we are more interested in the fact that you want three hours in the Chamber. Do you have a votable motion?

Dr Huppert: We thought that it would be more appropriate not to have a votable motion and give Members the chance to express their opinions. There are a range of opinions on each different side of the discussion. I would expect to hear those well argued from each space.

Q4 Chair: Just before I open this up to the rest of the Committee, you are aware that, at 4.30 pm today, there is a debate in Westminster Hall discussing this.

Dr Huppert: I am aware of that. In fact, I was talking to another Julian-Julian Smith-whose debate it is. That is on a very specific issue. I didn’t speak to him about the overall issue, and I think he and I would take different perspectives on it. I don’t want to speak for him, but he indicated that he would be very interested in coming along to this sort of debate.

Chair: All I am saying is, you might want to go along and enlist some more support. For three hours, with three Members on the list, that is not really enough people.

Q5 John Hemming: There is also the question of whether Westminster Hall would be refused. We have no time at the moment, so would Westminster Hall be refused if we had it?

Dr Huppert: I would want to talk to Tom and Dominic about that. This is an issue that is being heavily debated in the US and Germany at parliamentary levels. I think there would be enough interest to have it in the Chamber. I would want to think about Westminster Hall as an option.

Q6 John Hemming: It is an important issue, but we need to sort out what you fit in the time, given the debate today as well.

Dr Huppert: I appreciate that concern.

Chair: That is very important. We have absolutely no time next week at all.

Q7 Bob Blackman: Going back to your proposal, what about the people who might be speaking against you? Clearly, you have cross-party support for the proposal, but what about getting a different sort of debate with people who might have objections to what you have to say?

Dr Huppert: I think there will be a number of people who want to argue the other side-[Interruption.] Voices off here. Dr Julian Lewis. There are a number of people who have been involved in this. What we are asking for is that debate.

Q8 Bob Blackman: Can I suggest, in addition to getting people who would support your debate, getting people who would oppose you during the debate to be sponsors of the proposal as well? That adds to the fact that we would have a good debate that would be balanced on both sides.

Dr Huppert: I am happy to have a look at that. I obviously did not do that with cycling; we did not have many voices against. I do not think that there will be a shortage of people wishing to contribute.

Chair: I will say that we will not really consider this as an option until you provide us with a lot more names. It would be helpful, as Bob has said, if you could provide us with some names of those people who are opposed. Especially since it is a general debate, that should not be a problem. You don’t need to come back again. If you could just send that to our Clerks, that would be really helpful. Thank you.

Charlie Elphicke, Julian Smith and Robert Buckland made representations.

Q9 Chair: Charlie, you are a PPS, I understand. Last week we told Tessa Munt who is also a PPS that she was welcome to adorn the presentation. As this is for Back Benchers we will note your support.

Mr Buckland: I suppose it is a bit like the Court of Appeal and being asked to deliver the judgment. It is a matter for you and the Committee. The debate would be about the water industry and a general debate on concerns relating to the state of the water industry in England at the moment. The debate is supported by more than 10 Conservative colleagues and Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues as well.

Q10 Chair: How many?

Mr Buckland: I have 15 Conservatives in total and Members from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties as well. I have their names here if you want more particularity.

Q11 Chair: Yes, please. If you could pass those over to us that would be great.

Mr Buckland: I shall do.

I shall deal briefly with this using the bullet points. Why is this debate needed for reasons of public concern? In a nutshell: rising water bills. Water bills are rising. They have increased by 40% over the last few years. There is falling real investment in the industry by the water companies. There is tax avoidance by the water companies, many of whom do not pay any tax at all. Excess profits are being made by them. There are excessive boardroom pay rises and there is excessive debt leveraging. Many are now 100% mortgaged which makes the industry a risky prospect for further investment and is a vicious circle.

Q12 Chair: Again, this is all detail for the debate itself. You want to have three hours in the Chamber?

Mr Buckland: Yes, please.

Q13 Chair: On a votable motion or a general debate?

Mr Buckland: A general debate.

Q14 John Hemming: You refuse Westminster Hall?

Mr Buckland: I would not out of hand but I think it is important. We are still waiting for the Second Reading of the Water Bill. It has had its First Reading. We are yet to see the detail. It is important that we use the Chamber as a means to try to force the pace on a piece of legislation that we all want to see. The question I am sure you are going to ask is, why now? Families are hard pressed at the moment on utility bills and water bills will be part of their budgeting. The Ofwat pricing review for the period 2015-2020 is going on at the moment and there is, for example, hot debate between Ofwat and Thames Water about their policy. I have already mentioned the Water Bill coming to the House and the importance of having a well timed debate in the Chamber to add to the context of the debate.

Q15 Chair: We generally get Thursdays, as you are aware. They are generally unwhipped. I think for a three-hour debate and what Bob was just talking about as well-having people oppose what you are proposing on both sides of the House-it would be helpful if we could get some more demonstration of interest in the debate.

Mr Buckland: Can I give you an example? There are many colleagues from across the country. Mr Smith is a Yorkshire MP. Mr Elphicke is a south-east MP. I represent a part of the Thames Water area. There would be hot debate about the Thames tunnel which is being proposed by Thames Water. Some Members very much support it; many others steadfastly oppose it. There would be quite an interesting debate on that. There are plenty of other examples of infrastructure projects across the country which excite similar divisions between MPs and regions. I would predict that it would not be one of those cosy consensuses. I think it would be a debate of contrasts.

Q16 John Hemming: The cost of living is a critical issue but we have no time to allocate next week. We will not be allocating anything today. Because this is an important issue that affects the cost of living, it might be worth your while thinking about the one and a half hour Westminster Hall slot, just to get this issue on the agenda at an earlier rather than a later stage.

Julian Smith: Am I allowed to be a speaking adornment?

Q17 Chair: Are you a PPS too?

Julian Smith: Yes. [Interruption.] I respect the limits on time, but the challenges being faced by constituents because of the non-payment of tax by water companies and the rise in bills are huge. There will be lots of people wanting to say that the Government should do more, and there will be lots of people saying, "We’re doing the right thing." I think there will be lots of vigorous debate, and I genuinely believe that this is a main-stage event for the House.

Q18 Bob Blackman: You have given the topic as reform, infrastructure and consumer bills. That sounds to me as if you have an agenda for a motion that you could put. I think it would be helpful for us as a Committee to see a proposed motion. This sort of general debate could range hither and thither, unless you have a specific set of proposals. One of the issues will be how you get investment in the water infrastructure, for example. Where does it come from? That might be an issue. These infrastructure projects may be opposed by some.

I accept all that during the debate, but without a formalised structure of, perhaps, proposals, which might feed through to the Water Bill or be tabled as amendments when the Bill comes through, it lends itself to being a meandering debate, if you don’t mind me saying so.

Mr Buckland: All right. That has not stopped successful bids in the past.

Q19 Ian Mearns: It is all right being meandering, as long as you don’t get stuck in an oxbow lake.

Coming from a northern perspective, if you like, we have water coming out of our ears. We have Kielder reservoir, which was built for the steel and chemical industry, which largely no longer exists. I think that there is 215 billion litres of water in Kielder reservoir, for instance, which you would be welcome to come and sample at any time. It seems to me that you make a good case for renationalisation of the whole industry. Would you allow that in the debate?

Mr Buckland: I think all shades of opinion would have a chance to express their view. I am sure that that would be a view that a lot of Members would want to express. There would be an interest.

Chair: I feel an amendment to the motion.

Q20 Mr Anderson: It is 25 years next year since the privatisation of the water industry. All the utilities are being quite rightly hammered, and the water industry is getting away relatively quite well in the public view. I think that this is an important opportunity. I think the problem you might have is whether you put a motion down or not. I don’t think anyone will speak up for them. We have some relatively good examples in the north-east, but by and large, when you look at bills and everything else, as Bob said before, in questions to the former applicant, can you get anybody to argue the other side? I am not sure you will, but you might.

Julian Smith: I don’t want to provide grist to your mill, but Welsh Water is a very good example of a company doing things completely differently. I think there will be Welsh MPs who will speak about the effect on bills and of investment and of a different ownership structure.

Charlie Elphicke: There is a massive debatable issue among colleagues. You are going to have a number of Labour MPs who are going to sit there and say, "Renationalise"-

Fiona Mactaggart: Oh really?

Charlie Elphicke: There will be some. And then there will be some Tory MPs who say, "Just allow these people to do whatever they like." The Blairites will be shuffling gently into the corner because they allowed it to be completely taken over by private equity barons, and they will have to explain themselves. The Government, in between, will have to explain what they are going to do to stop the industrial tax avoidance and debt casinos that these water companies have turned into, and ensure that they put their customers first and are properly regulated.

Bob Blackman: You’ve upset everyone.

Q21 Chair: We have had most of the debate, so thank you for that.

Which Department do you PPS for?

Julian Smith: International Development.

John Hemming: Can I come back on one point? The Committee is in the unusual situation of not having any time to allocate at all. However persuasive anyone is at this meeting, we have no time to allocate.

Chair: We are going through a bit of a dearth.

John Hemming: My comment about an application for Westminster Hall was not in any way to say that it was an unimportant issue, because it is important. It is actually a very urgent issue that needs urgent raising, but we cannot offer time because we do not have it. We might have time next week, but we do not know yet. We might have time the week afterwards, but, today, we have no time.

Chair: But-hang on-are you talking about the one and a half hour slots in Westminster Hall on a Wednesday?

John Hemming: The Speaker has some slots. Do we have that? We do not have that at the moment.

Chair: We hope to have that kick in after the half-term break. If you do have a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, that would not rule you out from having a Back-Bench debate. We look at that independently, but if you have a one-and-a-half-hour debate and no one turns up, we would probably say, "No one turned up." It does not debar you.

Julian Smith: Does the fact that we have been so rigorous and dynamic in this presentation mean that we are in a good position for the future?

Chair: You have been slightly mono-party, which has let you down a bit.

Mr Anderson: If they’d had a word with me, I would have sat with them.

Chair: What I mean to say is, "Yes." As John said, we will not be making any decisions, because we do not have any time at the moment, but we will let you know when we do have time. In the meantime, it would be good if you did apply for a Westminster Hall debate.

Madeleine Moon, James Morris and Paul Burstow made representations.

Mrs Moon: May I say that we are looking for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate, but certainly not next week? We have a motion that we do not think is contentious: "That this House notes concerns about current police procedures in dealing with members of the public who are suffering from mental health problems and reports of the increasing demand across the country for police assistance with incidents involving people who have mental health problems; acknowledges the dedication and hard work shown by those in the police, health and social and medical services in seeking to manage appropriately the challenges certain patients with mental health issues present; welcomes the work being undertaken by the Department for Health on the concordat to improve the treatment of people with a mental health crisis, along with recent announcements from the Secretary of State for the Home Department regarding places of safety; urges the Government to press ahead with the roll-out of triage nurses and better training for police officers when dealing with cases involving those presenting with mental health problems; and further urges the Government to take steps to clarify the respective responsibilities of the police and health services, in particular in instances involving distressing behaviour in the community and patients in psychiatric wards." I can leave a copy of the motion if that would be helpful.

Q22 Chair: We have got it. I just asked you read it for the sake of the public record. You are after a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall-

Hon. Members: You cannot have a Westminster Hall motion.

Mrs Moon: Then we will withdraw the motion.

Q23 Chair: Actually, even though it is really helpful for us to have debates that we can put into Westminster Hall, we sometimes have more time in the Chamber than we have in Westminster Hall. We have no time anywhere at all at the moment. You were saying that this was not something that you wanted to have next week. Is there a time that-

Mrs Moon: It is purely that I have to be out of the country with my Select Committee next week.

Q24 Chair: These are very important considerations. After the half-term break in the middle of November, we have access to 90-minute debates in Westminster Hall on a Wednesday, but that would obviously then be a general debate on police and mental health. Is that what you would rather, or would you rather that we kept it as a motion and looked to put it in the Chamber? Do you want to have the option?

Mrs Moon: The option would be good. To be honest, we are supplicants and are willing to-

Q25 Chair: You basically want a debate, whether it is in the Chamber or not.

Mrs Moon: We would like a debate.

Chair: That’s really helpful. That is fantastic for us. That’s great.

Q26 John Hemming: Urgency is more important than where the debate is and its length.

Mrs Moon: Yes.

Q27 Chair: But not next week. Brilliant. Do you want to add anything?

James Morris: The only thing I want to add, as chair of the all-party group on mental health, is that I think there is a massive issue of public interest around this particular debate at the moment. It is a very current issue on the ground in many Members’ constituencies. It is a particular matter for police and crime commissioners and their role in looking at strategies on the ground between the police and the health service. It is an issue of great public interest and of interest to a range of constituencies.

Paul Burstow: As an officer of the all-party group, I echo that. I emphasise the point that we need to debate this issue very much around this motion or the heading that has been offered because, although we have debated mental health in Back-Bench business time over the past year, we have not spent much, if any, time in those debates on these issues, which are really about how gaps in our primary care services result in crisis mental health issues being managed by the police, rather than by medical services. Making sure that that is addressed properly is a really important issue.

Chair: Okay.

Q28 John Hemming: While I agree that it is an important issue, the form only has the names of three Members backing it. Do you have any other names?

Mrs Moon: We have expressions of interest from members of the all-party group on mental health, and I have also had expressions of interest from people from the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention.

Q29 Chair: Could you get back to us with a list of confirmed speakers?

Mrs Moon: Yes.

Q30 Chair: It may just be the three of you and two Front Benchers, which, on an issue like this, we would like to avoid. If you could come back with some speakers, that would be really helpful.

Mrs Moon: Madam Chair, could I just say that I came to this via some constituents of mine who have had particular problems? I have a young girl who has been arrested 87 times since her 18th birthday. She has a severe mental health condition and she has been imprisoned 14 times, and mental health services are not meeting her needs. Each time she is picked up and is, at huge cost, directed into the criminal justice system, because there is no way of managing her mental health condition. At some point, we have to deal with this. Each time she is more traumatised, and each time there is more risk to her overall mental health, but also to her life, because her self-harming and suicide threats are now getting to the point where this girl will die.

Q31 Chair: Okay. We absolutely appreciate the seriousness of it.

Mrs Moon: I am sure that we all have experience of this.

Chair: Thank you very much. We will let you know as soon as we have any time to allocate. Thanks for coming in.

Fiona Mactaggart made representations.

Q32 Chair: Fiona, do you want to be yourself and Frank Field at the same time?

Fiona Mactaggart: I am quite happy to be the sole representative of a large group of people.

Q33 Chair: It does happen a lot that people are detained, which we fully understand.

Fiona Mactaggart: Today is slightly more complicated because a number of people interested in this issue are also interested in the debate that is happening in the main Chamber, which I spoke in earlier. That is part of the problem.

As I said in my application, which, as you know, is supported by MPs of all parties, we believe that it would be very useful to have a debate in the main Chamber-it needs to be towards the end of this Session-to discuss the Government’s proposals for modern-day slavery legislation. Such legislation is supported by the all-party group, of which I am the chair, but the difficulty is trying to influence the content of that legislation.

We think that for a debate of this kind, a lot of members from all over the House are committed to the legislation and would want to contribute. We think that a debate of this kind could help guide that legislation. Some of the talk about it so far seems overly to focus on criminal sanctions, in my judgment, and not sufficiently on victim care. I think that if there were to be a debate, it would be clear that people from all parts of the House are concerned about the rights of victims in this, and the debate would influence what the Home Office did. That is what we want.

Q34 Chair: Fiona, you’ve put in for a three-hour debate at some point in December in the Chamber. Given that the debate is seeking to influence the content of a Bill, this would presumably be a general debate?

Fiona Mactaggart: It would be a general debate. We do not want a motion; we want many flowers blooming, and what people say needs to be in the legislation. The Government have talked about pre-legislative scrutiny, but there is quite a rush for them producing the Bill. A debate such as this could inform the Bill effectively.

Q35 John Hemming: You talk about having it in the Chamber. Does that mean that you would refuse Westminster Hall, or even a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall?

Fiona Mactaggart: I think that on this one I would certainly prefer the Chamber. Would I refuse Westminster Hall? I would have to talk to my fellow MPs.

Q36 John Hemming: Could you come back to us on that? We cannot allocate any time now.

Fiona Mactaggart: I could, yes. I understand. It would be more effective in the Chamber, but I have participated in Westminster Hall debates and I am not grand about them. I just think that, on this one, the Home Secretary is making it a flagship Bill. If the debate was in the Chamber, the issue would get the attention it requires to ensure that it influences her. That would be more difficult if it was in Westminster Hall.

Q37 Bob Blackman: You mention that you have got a lot of support, and I am sure that you have. You and Frank are the respective chairs of different all-party groups. On this form, however, you have got only five supporting Members. I wonder whether you have a further list of people who would be likely to contribute to a debate.

Fiona Mactaggart: Let me be completely honest: I had to do this quite quickly, and most of my usual suspects have suddenly turned into PPSs.

Chair: We are finding the same.

Fiona Mactaggart: So I can’t prove that to you. If I had had more time and we had not just had, "Oh sorry, I cannot do that. I’m a PPS", from 10 of the people I spoke to-

Q38 Bob Blackman: I am just suggesting that you are asking for a debate in December or late November-

Fiona Mactaggart: I am absolutely confident that if the slam dunk for you is to have 20 names from three or four different parties, I could produce that for you in the next 14 days. I just could not produce it today.

Bob Blackman: No, that is fine. It would be terribly helpful for us scheduling for the future.

Chair: That is great. Thank you very much.