CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

ORAL REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 3 MARCH 2015

SIR ALAN HASELHURST and CRISPIN BLUNT

MARY MACLEOD and KATY CLARK

KATY CLARK

JOHN MCDONNELL, SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY AND JEREMY CORBYN

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 3 March 2015

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Mr David Anderson

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

John Hemming

Ian Mearns

Sir Alan Haselhurst and Crispin Blunt made representations.

Q1 Chair: Is this a bid for a Commonwealth day anniversary debate?

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Yes, this is something I have tried to establish while I have been CPA branch chairman, and I gave added impetus to it when I was international chairman. I have tried to encourage all those Parliaments and Assemblies that haven’t thought of doing it to do it, so we are waking up the public in various parts of the Commonwealth to the fact that the Commonwealth exists and what it is about in various ways.

If we are granted the slot, it will be an opportunity to raise current issues. Various things have happened. There are currently problems in the Maldives, and there has been a change of regime in Sri Lanka, which is of interest. There is a spat between Norfolk Island and the Government of Australia about the island’s future administration. We will also have a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting this year, and the Maltese hosts are looking to reshape the meeting. We are pressing to have more of a formal role for parliamentarians. It is all very well Heads of Government coming to certain conclusions and then dispersing, but there should be a role for parliamentarians to see how these things are working out in practice in their own countries. There are many issues connected to the Commonwealth that help us to keep the whole idea of the Commonwealth alive.

Crispin Blunt: The other flank of the Commonwealth is its rather indifferent human rights record as an organisation. A debate would be an opportunity to expose the fact that, for example, three quarters of the Commonwealth’s jurisdictions still criminalise same-sex relations. That is an area where the Commonwealth, and particularly the UK through its contribution to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, could begin to open the eyes of our fellow parliamentarians in other jurisdictions. A debate on Commonwealth day, or anything that raises the profile of the Commonwealth, could help the position of minorities in all Commonwealth jurisdictions who are not protected by human rights in the way that we would expect in a family of nations such as the Commonwealth, coming from the background of law that it does.

Q2 Chair: Our only problem with this is the very limited amount of time that we have available between now and Dissolution. Commonwealth day is on Monday 9 March, so you would want something on or around that day, is that right?

Sir Alan Haselhurst: We were looking towards 12 March, if that is in your gift.

Q3 Chair: And it is 90 minutes. If you will leave it with us-

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Of course. We are pleading continuity.

Chair: It is like a jigsaw now. We will see what we have available, and then we will try to slot things in.

Q4Bob Blackman: Would you turn down a slot if it were offered for 9 March, Commonwealth day, because other activities are going on?

Sir Alan Haselhurst: I don’t think we would turn it down at all. There are other things happening, like the Commonwealth day service in Westminster Abbey and the reception at Marlborough House, as it were, which might cause some people to be distracted. But rather than not having the opportunity to debate it in the House, we would certainly grasp it.

Chair: Okay. We will do our very best.

Mary Macleod and Katy Clark made representations.

Q5 Chair: So this is a debate on violence against women and girls, in the Chamber for 90 minutes or three hours?

Mary Macleod: Yes, please, Chair. This is helping celebrate international women’s day. I know you are debating it this week, but what we have organised for 12 March is for lots of sixth-form girls to come and shadow their MPs for the day in the House of Commons, to inspire the next generation, maybe to take a political role. We wanted to have something on the day that affects all of our constituents, and something that the girls would be interested to listen to.

For me, violence against women and girls is a local, national and international issue across every community in every society. In the UK, two women a week are killed by a partner or former partner. The issue affects men and women, which is why it is important that we have men supporting this debate as well. It is completely cross-party, given the number of MPs and parliamentarians participating in the day. I tested it out by taking William Hague to one of my schools recently and talking about the issue of violence against women and girls to see whether it was a topic that the pupils related to. There were about 200 of them aged 14 to 16, and they were really engaged in it as a topic.

What is worrying for that generation is that the statistics are not improving or changing. The issue affects one in four women and one in six men; lots of our constituents are affected by this. If we can help inspire that younger generation to say no to domestic abuse of any sort and perhaps to be part of a campaign to resolve it and reduce the number of cases coming forward, we could have a real impact on them and make a difference in our communities.

Q6 Chair: So it is important that it is on 12 March.

Mary Macleod: Yes.

Q7Chair: As I said, we still have a vast number of things and a very limited amount of time, so we will try to fit as much in as we possibly can. If it were not possible to schedule this, would it be possible to make the points that you want to raise in the debate on international women’s day, under the more general umbrella of that debate?

Mary Macleod: Some of those points could be made in the general international women’s day debate. This is slightly different in that it addresses one specific issue that affects so many people in society. We are trying to build a real campaign in the next generation by saying, "If you take this up and work with this campaign, you can change things for years to come." It is still such a major issue in society.

Q8 Oliver Colvile: I assume that you are aware of Operation Encompass, which is in Devon and Cornwall and is about domestic violence. To my mind, domestic violence is a very important issue in all of this, so it is incredibly important that we can highlight that kind of issue.

Mary Macleod: Absolutely. For example, Jack Lopresti said that he wanted to talk about sexual violence in conflict, so the defence and conflict side of things. There is a whole range of issues from a local to an international level in terms of violence against women and girls. It is such a prevalent issue that I really want us to engage with the next generation and try and get them to help fight the battle, too.

Q9 Bob Blackman: This is a general debate and you have ticked only having it in the Chamber. Natascha has already outlined the problems on time. Would you accept a debate in Westminster Hall on the day you want as opposed to not having a debate at all?

Mary Macleod: Yes.

Chair: That is very helpful.

Katy Clark made representations.

Q10 Chair: Katy, I have you down for pre-1975 veterans’ pensions.

Katy Clark: This is an issue that I have been involved with for quite some time as chair of the all-party group on equality for veterans. It comes from the equality for veterans campaign outside this place, which has been campaigning for some kind of recognition for those veterans from before there were proper pensions in the military service. Its members have been involved on the streets up and down the country and have collected more than 330,000 names on a traditional petition, not an e-petition. I appreciate that you do not have to take that into account, but, in a more traditional way they have collected these names to try and get this debate in Parliament. I am requesting that we try and get a debate-whether in the Chamber, which would be the ideal, or in Westminster Hall if that was not possible-to bring this case to Parliament on their behalf.

Q11 Chair: With the traditional method of petitions, we absolutely do take those into consideration. How many signatures do you have?

Katy Clark: Over 330,000. It is between 330,000 and 350,000 signatures, which I think has been handed into Downing Street in sections. I can give more information on that if it is useful.

Q12 Chair: I will just ask the Clerk whether we can use Westminster Hall on Monday for a paper petition? No. We will have a discussion and will see what we can do. The only thing that I would say is that there is you and one other Labour Member.

Mr Anderson: Me.

Chair: A very excellent Labour Member.

Katy Clark: He is quality. We have an all-party group, which, obviously, has members from each of the political parties.

There is an issue about the wording of the motion. To be honest, we are not particularly insistent on a particular form of words. This is about getting the issue debated and therefore there could be some movement on the wording. There is a form of words, which comes from the veterans who have been involved in the petition. That is their wording and what they are looking for. It asks for the recognition of the important contribution that those veterans have made. Many of them feel that the fact that they have not had a pension of any sort means that there is no recognition of their contribution.

Q13 Chair: Katy, I don’t know what else we have that may bump it, but we have available to us the 90-minute Westminster Hall slot on a Tuesday. The answering Department would be Defence?

Katy Clark: Yes.

Q14 Chair: That would be Tuesday 24 March. I think they are at 9.30 am. Is that something that would be possible?

Katy Clark: Yes.

Chair: If we can fit you in there then that is the most likely place.

John McDonnell, Sir Peter Bottomley and Jeremy Corbyn made representations.

John McDonnell: This is on the case of Shaker Aamer. Most of you will know the case. He has been detained for nearly 14 years. He is in Guantanamo Bay. He is the last British resident. He has been cleared for release twice now. The Prime Minister very helpfully raised his case with Barack Obama in January, but we still have no release date. Time is now of the essence because of the changes in Congress in particular and the debates that are going on with regard to Guantanamo. We think that we have a window of opportunity for securing his release, but it is closing very rapidly because of the political situation in the United States.

You will see that what we are asking for is a Chamber debate with a straightforward motion that reflects the views, I think, of many Members of the House. There may be some who are opposed to this, but if you look at the breadth of support from the initial range of signatories, it is cross-party, with a number of former Ministers as well, some with specialist expertise in foreign affairs. To be frank, we are quite desperate now-this campaign has been going on for so long-and despite all the clearances and the acceptance that he should be released, he is still inside.

Q15 Chair: Would you like to add anything?

Sir Peter Bottomley: First, I declare an interest in that I have been against Guantanamo Bay since it was set up and have helped or encouraged people to fund the pro bono lawyers who have been helping. I have worked with Clive Stafford Smith, who is Shaker’s lawyer, on other cases as well.

What I think is important is to be able to say in public what is know to the public-that the President of the United States wants to close Guantanamo Bay. People are being released, but this man, who is a British resident, has not been. To get the point across properly-although others may want to raise the treatment in Guantanamo and the existence of Guantanamo-the key point is that there is a man who been judged appropriate to be released. Why has he not been? Can he be please? A polite request to the United States Government to make sure it happens.

Jeremy Corbyn: Like Peter, I have worked with Clive Stafford Smith on this and many other issues and I have a lot of regard for him. Shaker was cleared for release in 2007, so we are talking of a long period when he has actually been cleared for release but still has not been. I have been involved in numerous meetings with the Foreign Office-as has the constituency MP, who cannot join us because she is a Minister-and the Foreign Office has always said that it supports the case for his release and it is pressing the US Government but is unable to say what the hold up is. President Obama has said that he is in favour of the closure of Guantanamo Bay. In fact, he said that from his first election campaign.

This man has been cleared for release. He has never seen his youngest child. He has been brutally treated, tortured recently. Even the Daily Mail ran a big story on the torture that he suffered quite recently. He has been on hunger strike. He has done all the things possible to try to bring about his release. A parliamentary debate with this huge, very wide level of support from all sides politically in Britain, saying that this man deserves to come home and this man deserves to see his children and his family is something that I think would have a big impact both here and media-wise in the United States; it would undoubtedly be a big help towards his release. John is correct-the political changes in the USA are not helpful-but we do have, apparently, the support of the UK Government, the support of the US President and we have international opinion on our side. Let us let Parliament assert itself here and bring this man home.

Q16 Mr Anderson: Given our time constraints, and I appreciate that you could speak all day, would you live with 90 minutes if you had to?

Chair: It is the votable motion that is important, rather than the debate, is it not?

Jeremy Corbyn: The issue is to get Parliament to assert itself on this issue. If it is a very short debate, it is better than no debate at all.

Q17 Chair: After this meeting, what I think we will do is to sit down with the business managers to see where we can slot bits in. If we can find any time at all then we will make it available.

Jeremy Corbyn: Please be aware of the breadth of support for this motion from a huge range of MPs of very different political views. I do not normally quote the Daily Mail.

Chair: It has been noted, Jeremy.

Oliver Colvile: Why not?

Jeremy Corbyn: How much time do you have?