- Minutes of Evidence13022015

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2015

KEITH VAZ

DEREK TWIGG

SIR TONY BALDRY

GEOFFREY CLIFTON-BROWN

PAUL BURSTOW and MR CHARLES WALKER

SIR NICK HARVEY and GUY OPPERMAN

JOHN McDONNELL and SIR BOB RUSSELL

JOHN McDONNELL

JOHN McDONNELL and DR EILIDH WHITEFORD

MR TIM YEO

MARGARET BECKETT, JEREMY CORBYN, SIR NICK HARVEY and DR JULIAN LEWIS

MEG HILLIER

BOB BLACKMAN

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 10 February 2015

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Sir David Amess

Bob Blackman

John Hemming

Ian Mearns

Keith Vaz made representations.

Q1 Chair: I mentioned earlier that we have never had so many applications-13, and we are going to try to get through them in an hour-so if we cut you short, it is not because you are not interesting, but because we need to get through everybody. Keith, you have an application for a general debate in the Chamber for 90 minutes on Yemen.

Keith Vaz: Yes, I have. In the interests of compromise, I am happy to reduce the time needed for the debate if it helps the Committee to make a decision because there are so many applications.

Those who wish to take part and those who support me include George Galloway, Martin Horwood, Tim Loughton, Valerie Vaz and Sammy Wilson. They have all said that they want to participate and will speak briefly in the debate.

I draw to the Committee’s attention that we have never really had a debate on Yemen. We have had urgent questions and there have been questions to the Foreign Minister, but a full-fledged non-Adjournment debate has never taken place. I have to declare an interest. I was born in Yemen, along with Valerie Vaz; actually, she is slightly older than me so it was not at the same time-[Laughter.] She’s not here. Are these conversations recorded?

Chair: They are broadcast. She will find out.

Keith Vaz: She will.

The situation in Yemen has now become critical. The Houthis have taken over the presidential palace. We do not know where the President and the Prime Minister are. Yemen is crucial not just because of its pivotal role in the middle east and the Gulf, but because, as we found out, a number of foreign fighters go from our country, Spain and other parts of Europe to Yemen where they train. Of the two brothers who were responsible for the atrocities in Paris, one had been to Yemen for training. This is happening on a very regular basis. It is not just a foreign policy debate; it is also about domestic issues. It is important that we should have an opportunity to hear from Ministers and give other colleagues the opportunity to speak briefly in that debate.

Q2 Chair: Keith, I appreciate the importance of the debate and everything that you have said about not having had a proper debate about this before, but as we have serious constraints on time and it is a general debate, would you consider at all having the debate in Westminster Hall? We are quite rich in time there at the moment and we have nothing in the Chamber.

Keith Vaz: Yes, I am very happy to hold it in Westminster Hall.

Chair: Fantastic.

Derek Twigg made representations.

Q3 Chair: This is on an e-petition that has reached 100,000 signatures.

Derek Twigg: Yes, Chair. This is on Harvey’s law, which members of the Committee might have been lobbied about by constituents. To cut a long story short, a constituent came to see me following an incident in which her friend’s dog was run over but the owner did not know; they spent months searching for the dog and spent many thousands of pounds. This obviously caused great distress.

Some 300 dogs are killed each year on Highways Agency-operated roads, although that number is probably a massive underestimate. It is compulsory for dogs to be chipped now. Procedures were in place, and a number of areas in the Highways Agency network had scanners to scan dogs, but they decided not to do that. I wrote to the Minister, who said that they are phasing that out and that it would not really help in the future.

Given the size of the e-petition-the number of people who have signed it and the amount of support that there is-I hope that the Committee will give it some consideration. I do not personally have any direct interest because I do not own a dog and never have done, but clearly many people have great affection and love for their pets-cats as well as dogs-and so many people have pets in this country that it is quite an important issue that deserves some time to be discussed in the House.

Q4 Chair: Because it is an e-petition of 100,000 signatures, you automatically get allocated Westminster Hall for three hours on a Monday. At the moment, we do not have anything scheduled so it is between you and the Clerks to negotiate which Monday would be best. You can take the campaign group into account, so you can schedule that ahead if you want.

Derek Twigg: That would be helpful. Thank you.

Sir Tony Baldry made representations.

Q5 Chair: Welcome.

Sir Tony Baldry: I will not detain the Committee long because this is such a compelling application that it speaks for itself. [Laughter.]

This is an unusual Parliament, being a five-year fixed-term Parliament and we know when the general election will be. Quite a large number of us are standing down. This application is a suggestion from Jack Straw, Malcolm Bruce and me, representing long-serving colleagues in each of the major parties who have served periods in Government and in Opposition. The intention is to have a Hansard Society-type debate with those of us who are standing down reflecting on the evolution of Parliament. During our time, we have seen the Select Committee system introduced and develop. We could discuss the tensions between the need for the Government to get their business through and for Government and Opposition Back Benchers properly to scrutinise the Executive, and how that works in Parliament and so forth.

The Speaker is giving a reception on 10 March for colleagues who are standing down, so our submission was-it has the support of the Leader of the House, who is standing down and I think would want to respond to the debate-that if the Committee was minded and allowed it, to have it on the last part of Tuesday 10 March for a three-hour debate in the main Chamber. This is not a valedictory, "I’m really sad we no longer have all night sittings and it was great having a bacon sandwich," kind of debate. I hope the debate will be reported in the Hansard Society or be something that Lord Norton of Louth would see as being useful for future students, and will have sensible contributions from our experiences over a period of time here.

Q6 Chair: Thank you very much. 10 March is a Tuesday so we will have to discuss that with the usual channels to see if they will allocate us some time on that day. We will see about that.

Sir Tony Baldry: I have sort of rolled the pitch with the usual channels and my general impression is that they would be amenable.

Chair: Thank you, and thank you for keeping it so brief.

Q7 Ian Mearns: Have you worked out, Sir Tony, how many years of parliamentary experience are leaving at the end of this term?

Sir Tony Baldry: I think it is almost a millennium really. It is almost 100 years between Jack, Malcolm Bruce and me.

Q8 Ian Mearns: The last time I counted, more than 80 MPs were standing down. I would guess that was 1,000 years of parliamentary experience.

Sir Tony Baldry: That itself may be an issue for debate-why so many are standing down, and particularly why so many younger men and women who have been younger Ministers are going almost immediately after they become Ministers.

Chair: Thank you very much.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown made representations.

Q9 Chair: This is an application for a general debate on planning and the national planning policy framework in the Chamber for three hours?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Madam Chair, thank you very much for this opportunity to address your Committee on this issue; it is the first time I have appeared before the Committee. As you say, this is a request for a full debate on planning and the operation of the national planning policy framework. My application is supported by 15 Members cross-party; 100% of the Members I asked have signed up to the debate, and all of them will speak.

I am aware that we had a debate on this subject in December on a report from a Select Committee, but every time we have a planning debate, either in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, it is over-subscribed, because the issue concerns urban, suburban and rural Members. We all know that we need more houses, but the contentious question is where to build them. For me and, I suspect, many other hon. Members from across the political spectrum, this is the biggest single issue that our constituents contact us about. Time is running out before the general election, and our constituents expect Parliament to provide ample time to debate this highly contentious issue.

On a personal note, I am one of very few chartered surveyors in this House, and I have professional expertise in the field, so I can bring real knowledge to the subject, which is often difficult and sometimes technical. I very much hope that your Committee will grant this request for a debate, either in Westminster Hall or, preferably, in the main Chamber.

Chair: Fantastic. It is very helpful to hear you say that you would think about Westminster Hall. I have a quick question from Ian Mearns.

Q10 Ian Mearns: Geoffrey, you have said, quite rightly, that this is a cross-party application, but I can spot only one Labour Member. Would it be possible for you to try to broaden it out a little bit?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have no doubt that it would be, if I asked other Labour Members. It is a question of the time available and who you see. I only asked John, but I have no doubt that if I had asked other Labour Members, I would have got many more.

Q11 Ian Mearns: You would not have to come back to us, but it would be useful from our perspective if you could get additional names and pass them to the Clerk.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I will happily do that. Thank you very much, Chair.

Chair: Thank you.

Paul Burstow and Mr Charles Walker made representations.

Q12 Chair: Welcome.

Paul Burstow: Kevan Jones sends his apologies for not being here. He fully supports our application.

Parliament has debated mental health in general debates on a number of occasions over the past five years. They have tended to be very broadly based debates. In our application, we have chosen to narrow it down to the issues around mental health and employment, and particularly unemployment.

Q13 Chair: Before you go on, Paul, on your form, you do not say whether you have a substantive motion, whether this is a general debate, or whether you have specific topics that you want a vote on.

Paul Burstow: To answer those questions: a general debate, and we are open to it being in either Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, to enable the issues to be aired before the general election. The point is that people with mental health problems are more disadvantaged when it comes to labour market participation than those with any other disability. There are a number of evidence-based actions that could be taken, and there are some pilots going on. It would be a good opportunity to air the issues, test the progress that the Government have made and press the importance and priority that should be attached to this.

Q14 Chair: That is brilliant. Do you want to add anything, Charles?

Mr Walker: Just to say that if you have a diagnosis of psychosis/ schizophrenia, your chances of being employed are about 10%, and therefore your chances of being unemployed are 90%. Also, your life expectancy is reduced by 15 years, so there are some big issues at stake.

Q15 Chair: Are you after a three-hour debate or a 90-minute debate?

Paul Burstow: I think we could muster enough people for a three-hour debate, but again, if you have time constraints, a 90-minute debate would be acceptable. I am sure that we could get the necessary numbers for a good three-hour debate.

Chair: Fantastic. Thank you.

Guy Opperman and Sir Nick Harvey made representations.

Q16 Chair: Could we have Mr Robin Walker, Sir Nick Harvey, Nic Dakin and Mr Graham Stuart?

Guy Opperman: You could, if they were all here.

Chair: Your name isn’t on here.

Guy Opperman: I know, because today-it is a bit like "Stars in their Eyes"-I am Robin Walker; I am channelling my inner Worcester. I apologise for the absence of Nic Dakin and Graham Stuart, but the two of us are amply able to present this request.

You have heard some outstanding representations for a debate, but this is the quality one. First,we top everybody on numbers. We have on our list 60 people who put their names forward. Secondly, we think we have the quality of numbers, because our Labour Members include such august individuals as a Labour Whip-it is quite rare that a Whip actually puts their name to something-as well as Dennis Skinner and Graham Allen, two very shy types who have no reason to make any representations. And we are cross-party on all matters.

The serious points are that the motion we put forward is a specific one: "Given the continued fiscal pressure on the schools budget in the next Parliament, this House believes that the speedy implementation of a fair and transparent funding formula is more urgent than ever." That applies to all parties, whatever their decisions are in relation to education funding come the next election.

We have debated the issue on one occasion in the past, in Westminster Hall for 90 minutes. The fundamental difficulty we have is that with 60 persons wishing to sign the motion at the moment, and we are comfortable that we can get above 100, our original suggested time says 90 minutes and I think that is very, very optimistic. Given that we have 60 people already, and on a cross-party basis, and given that this is one of the lead issues at the next election, we believe that we need three hours.

Q17 Chair: Did you want to add anything?

Sir Nick Harvey: Not really, except that flat cash for schools in the next Parliament will in practice be a very tough settlement, and the sooner that these issues are discussed ahead of that, the better.

Q18 Chair: The motion, as it is written, is a votable motion. You have put Chamber or Westminster Hall, but if it is not a general debate, that debars Westminster Hall obviously.

Guy Opperman: Indeed. We would far prefer the Chamber, because we have never had an education debate in the Chamber in this Parliament. There was one in Westminster Hall for 90 minutes several years ago, and we feel that this is a main Chamber debate for three hours.

Q19 Chair: But if we were not able to give you the Chamber, would you take Westminster Hall? We are really sandwiched up against the general election now. If the only time that we had available was Westminster Hall for three hours, would you accept that?

Guy Opperman: We will take what we are given, obviously. The difficulty is that we are very keen to get a substantive motion, because the purpose of the debate is to bind or put pressure on whoever wins the election, and to show the cross-party feeling that there should be fairness and transparency in education funding. It does not matter who wins the election; the point is that going into that election, there is a cross-party approach to that, hence why the motion is quite important.

Chair: Brilliant. That is very clear.

We now have John McDonnell times three-this is a first for us, a triple application. Which one would you like to do first?

John McDonnell: Can we do the future of local newspapers, as Bob is here?

John McDonnell and Sir Bob Russell made representations.

Chair: This is an application on the future of local newspapers, for a general debate for three hours.

John McDonnell: Can I say at the outset that we are willing to take 90 minutes if that helps you in some way? Some people will recall that we had a debate on the future of local newspapers two years ago in Westminster Hall, which was absolutely packed out. Since then, as all of you will know, local newspapers have been deteriorating. There have been large numbers of closures, such as the Harrow Observer, and we have listed a number here. I am the secretary of the NUJ group and we approached the Minister, Ed Vaizey. We held a seminar in November, where we invited the newspaper publishers in and had a cross-sector discussion. Since then, unfortunately, there have been even further cutbacks. What we want to do is have a further debate, review where we are, report back on that seminar, look at what actions can be taken by Government and others to try and save what local newspapers we have, and also look at the future.

It is cross-party. As you can see, the Chair of the Select Committee, John Whittingdale, is supporting us; as well as Bob and myself, a large number of MPs are willing to participate. We have given more names in today. I do not doubt that we will fill Westminster Hall to capacity in terms of those wanting to participate. It is a critical issue now; we are at a critical stage in the future of the newspaper industry.

Q20 Chair: Sir Bob, did you want to add anything?

Sir Bob Russell: I endorse everything that John has said. The situation is very serious for our democratic processes and local democracy. When I started out as a junior reporter 50 years ago, the penetration of local newspapers through doors in the neighbourhood would be nudging 100%-I do not exaggerate. It was very rare to find a household that did not have the local newspaper. Now it is 20% to 25% or even less. I would suggest that that has a serious impact on our democratic way of life and local accountability, whether of Members of Parliament or councillors. We are in danger of the electorate being deprived of local information that is impartial. It is all very well having social media, but social media is not impartial.

Q21 Chair: Thank you very much. That is a pretty straightforward application so we will try to schedule as much time as we can. I was present at that Westminster Hall debate and it was absolutely packed. Shall we do dog meat cruelty next, John?

John McDonnell made representations.

John McDonnell: The reason that this application is here is that there has been a significant campaign in the community; a huge Twitter storm has been going on. We held a briefing session a fortnight ago, which a large number of MPs turned up to. The opportunity of having a photograph with Dame Judi Dench might well have attracted them, but there you are. We brought this forward because there is a large amount of community interest, and the timing is significant.

Discussions are taking place in Vietnam and Korea at the moment about introducing legislation to clamp down on the dog meat trade. We have had the support of Government Ministers at our briefings and in some of the representations that we have been making to try to work with the groups in those countries to assist them in bringing forward legislation. We are nearly there in Vietnam, so this would be a critical time to have the debate.

You can see the list of supporters. There are many more besides, which we submitted today. I am happy to have a 90-minute debate. If we cannot have the Chamber, we are willing to fall back on Westminster Hall, but given the popular support, the Chamber would be ideal.

Q22 Chair: Sure. That is fine. There is an early-day motion on this as well.

John McDonnell: Yes, there are 140 names on the early-day motion so far. That reflects the popular lobbying that has been going on from the community.

Q23 Chair: We have, in the past, scheduled early-day motions. That might be something that we could look at, so that is great. Thank you very much.

Unless there are any other questions, we can go straight into the effects of welfare reform on sick and disabled people.

John McDonnell and Dr Eilidh Whiteford made representations.

John McDonnell: You will recall that, 18 months ago, we had a debate as a result of the WOW petition, which I think secured about 130,000 names in the end. A number of you were involved in that debate. As the motion sets out, that was about trying to get a cumulative impact assessment of all the various Government reforms and changes on people with disabilities. That motion was carried without opposition at the time, but 18 months on, we still have not had that assessment. There is a growing concern that the issue needs to be debated before the end of this Parliament. The time pressure is simply "before the end of this Parliament" but I think it is important that we reflect or respond to the popular demand on that issue. It has not been addressed in Government or elsewhere.

Q24 John Hemming: Obviously the Committee has to decide on scheduling and priorities. You have presented three different proposals. Do you have an order of priority?

John McDonnell: No, I would not want to judge between the three, quite honestly. I do not think that that is appropriate for me to do because a large number of other Members have supported the application.

Q25 Chair: I think also, certainly on the WOW petition, the Committee has been discussing scheduling debates that are then carried and following them up if there is no action.

John McDonnell: If there has been no action, which there has not. That is the sense of frustration, really-that we need to debate this again and bring it back to the House.

Q26 Chair: That is something that we all take very seriously. Dr Whiteford, did you want to add something?

Dr Whiteford: No, it’s okay. I am conscious that your time is precious.

Chair: We’re doing better than we normally do, actually.

Mr Tim Yeo made representations.

Q27 Chair: This is an application for a three-hour general debate on low-carbon electricity generation.

Mr Yeo: Yes, it is. Forgive me, it is the first time that I have made an application, so if I don’t do it quite right, correct me.

I think there’s a lot of interest in a variety of technologies, which include, obviously, wind, solar, various marine technologies and nuclear, which are controversial in policy terms at national level. There is a row about the cost of supporting renewable energy, a row about the cost of nuclear energy, and a lot of planning disputes in overall planning terms about things like onshore wind; but the reason why I think the debate will appeal to a large number of Members is that they are also very controversial in local terms as well. Therefore, two months before an election, the chance to raise constituency concerns on these subjects seems to me very valuable and would be widely welcomed.

During the debate two weeks ago on amendments to the Infrastructure Bill, I was very conscious of the number of colleagues who were trying to speak. During the first group of amendments, which included fracking and shale gas, there were 30 Members standing up after the Minister spoke, only three of whom had time to get in, so there was a lot of unmet demand for a debate on this subject.

Q28 Chair: That is actually quite an important point. That is part of the reason why this Committee exists: to give Members an opportunity to raise issues at another point. So, yes, that is very important. In terms of time, you have said three hours.

Mr Yeo: We did.

Q29 Chair: It is not on a substantive motion; it is just a general debate.

Mr Yeo: Correct.

Q30 Chair: Is it absolutely essential that it is in the Chamber?

Mr Yeo: It is obviously desirable, because I think that’s where people would like to make their points. I don’t know whether it is possible, but if it has a better chance if it comes on a substantive motion, there won’t be any trouble getting people who have signed in support to agree to that. If we cannot get the Chamber, then obviously we will take something else as consolation.

Q31 Chair: If it is in the Chamber for three hours, I think we would probably need a few more names, just to make sure that it does actually go for three hours. I am sure it will; I am sure there will be a lot of interest in it, but if we could just have a few names, that would be brilliant.

Mr Yeo: Okay. How soon would you need those?

Q32 Chair: As soon as possible, really. Our scheduling decisions this week are quite far ahead. We have got Thursday 26 February and Thursday 5 March-they are quite far ahead.

Mr Yeo: Okay. So if I e-mail you some names this afternoon, that would be helpful, would it?

Q33 Chair: That would be fantastic.

Mr Yeo: Good.

Chair: That’s great. Thank you very much.

Margaret Beckett, Dr Julian Lewis, Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Nick Harvey made representations.

Q34 Chair: Welcome, all of you.

Margaret Beckett: Basically, Chair, we are seeking a three-hour debate in the Chamber-non-binding, a general debate. The timing is for two reasons. First of all, in April/May the next meeting of the non-proliferation treaty review body will take place. It happens every five years, so we are coming up to that crucial period.

The second reason for putting in the application now is that, only last week, the representatives of the P5-the five nuclear weapons states-met in London, as part of an ongoing process of conversation and discussion. That is actually a process that we in this country initiated, after the review conference in 2005, I think. It is something which is ongoing. The P5 have issued a good statement. They have had discussions, not only among themselves. This is the sixth of these meetings. As I say, we initiated it. They have also had discussions with non-nuclear weapons states and members of civil society, so they are drawing in a greater and greater group into these discussions.

I am pretty confident that the FCO would welcome such a debate, perhaps not least because I see in the statement that the P5 said that they intend to make a joint statement at the review conference. I think that’s the first time that has happened. Also, they gave a briefing to the others-the non-nuclear weapons states and civil society-about how they were planning to approach the conference.

It could be quite a turning point, for obvious reasons. It looks as if-she said with great caution-the Iran talks are going better, but nobody can be comfortable about the situation in Ukraine, which gave up its nuclear weapons. There have been discussions going on about a conference on a nuclear-free zone in the middle east, although that is not really going anywhere, as far as we can see. So there is a huge amount going on.

All the nuclear weapon states are now saying this is the process they want to strengthen and they want to continue as a suitable path to multilateral nuclear disarmament. We have been key players in that, and we cannot trace a debate in the House on the NPT since the last NPT meeting. On Trident, on nuclear weapons, yes; on the NPT, I don’t think so.

Q35 Chair: So the deadline is before 28 April, but the sooner, the better.

Margaret Beckett: Absolutely, yes.

Jeremy Corbyn: I support absolutely everything that Margaret said. The effect of a lot of parliamentary questions about the NPT has been that the Foreign Office has opened up much more on this. The P5 meeting was good. The fact that the P5 meeting invited a lot of other countries to come was good. I had a long meeting with the Mexican delegation when they were here.

I think that we need a debate about the NPT and Britain’s role in it and the middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone issue, which is huge: it could potentially destabilise the conference or it could be the success of the conference. That could absolutely go either way, but a debate seems absolutely essential to me in the short period between now and the Dissolution of this Parliament, because unless there is a change in the five-year cycle, the NPT review will for ever take place during a general election period here. There is nothing we can do about that, but the very least we can do is give the Foreign Office Ministers a very good chance to explain to the House what we are doing.

Many of us also wish to raise issues about nuclear weapons-free zones and obviously, Ukraine, Iran and the middle east are going to come into it. As one who has attended most NPT PrepComs as well as the conference itself-I will be going again this year-the contribution of our Parliament to this is very important.

Dr Lewis: You probably have the entire range of views on nuclear non-proliferation before you-

Jeremy Corbyn: You and I are on different sides on this one?

Dr Lewis: Just this once. We all feel that there is a good case to be made for any and every point along that spectrum. We have had a number of debates in recent times, as has been said, on the defence and deterrence side of things, and it is only fair and proper that there should be a debate on the disarmament and non-proliferation aspect as well. If the defence and deterrence debates are anything to go by, most people who take the trouble to watch those or read them after the event would agree that they generate more light than heat, and that is not always the case in complex arguments relating to international affairs. So I am very happy to support Margaret and her team.

Q36 Chair: Great. Nick?

Sir Nick Harvey: Just to underline the point that by the time the new Parliament is assembled and firing on all cylinders, it will be too late. This takes place during Dissolution, so if Parliament wants to express a view, we need to do it beforehand.

Q37 Chair: That is very important. The other thing to say is before the existence of this Committee, there were far more defence days. That has been a loser in terms of this Committee’s existence, so I would be very keen to do something on this. That was a very full explanation and I appreciate that deadline, but as you have seen, there are quite a lot of applications. We will do the best that we can.

Margaret Beckett: If we could possibly have a Tuesday, that would be a great help. We are fortunate enough to have quite a large number of former Foreign Secretaries and Defence Secretaries and so on around. Quite a number of them have full diaries, and Tuesdays are always easier for people.

Q38 Chair: We have Tuesday 24th. We have only got 90 minutes, but we are expecting that to be a bit longer. That is an end-of-day slot.

Margaret Beckett: Well. So you are saying that it would formally be 90 minutes, but we might get the three hours out of it.

Q39 Chair: It could be. Things are collapsing very early these days.

Margaret Beckett: I noticed.

Jeremy Corbyn: So if we encourage colleagues to be quiet on all the other issues, we can get our three hours. Is that what you are saying? Is that the deal you are offering? [Laughter.]

Chair: You do have the option of saying that you would not be interested in anything less than two hours, if it is only two hours and drops below that, and we could have maybe something else in our back pockets. That might be something to look at. Other than that, we are just not very flexible-we are completely dependent on what the Government give us-but if you leave that with us, we will see what is available.

Margaret Beckett: Thank you.

Meg Hillier made representations.

Q40 Chair: Meg Hillier, thank you very much for your patience. This is an application on digital democracy and opening up Parliament, and it is a for general debate in the Chamber or Westminster Hall for two hours.

Meg Hillier: That is right. We could probably settle for 90 minutes, because I appreciate your timing. To give you the background, I was privileged to be asked by the Speaker, along with Robert Halfon MP, to be a member of the Digital Democracy Commission. That reported after a year’s work. A majority of the other commissioners were from outside Parliament. We looked at opening up Parliament to make it easier for people to understand Parliament, building very much on the work of this Committee but also looking at some of the digital aspects.

There are two reasons why I think it is very important that we debate this issue before the election. First, it was an initiative of the Speaker about the House of Commons in particular, but with wider parliamentary ramifications; it therefore really should be considered by the House. Secondly, our method involved a lot of outreach, and we got people to give evidence in interesting ways, so it is important that they see that their evidence is taken on by Parliament. The third reason is that there are issues that eventually either the House of Commons will vote on or a Committee will have to agree on. One, for example, is our proposal in the Commission report that when we vote we should swipe our smartcards through so the voting results are instantly available. The paper exercise can take several hours and can prevent our votes from being made available to the public until the system has been gone through. That is one example.

Because my time is short, I will not go into the whole report, but you are very welcome to see it. Because it was about digital democracy, our approach was very much an online one, but we now think that it would be very helpful to have this debate. I have additional names to add in. I will not read them all out to you now. Robert Halfon is a PPS, so he cannot sponsor a debate, but he would be keen to speak as another commissioner.

Q41 Chair: Sure. I have one question. You said two hours, but would 90 minutes be sufficient?

Meg Hillier: Because of your time constraints and the need to ensure that it is debated, we would settle for 90 minutes and we would settle for Westminster Hall.

Chair: That’s wonderful.

Q42 Ian Mearns: You said that you don’t want to read the names out, and we don’t want to listen to you reading the names out, but roughly how many MPs have you got?

Meg Hillier: I have got 10 or 11 at the moment. There are many Members who participated in the report, so if they are available there is a lot of interest and strong feelings both ways.

Chair: That’s great. Thank you very much for that.

Bob Blackman made representations.

Q43 Chair: We have another application, which is Bob Blackman, whom I have left to the end. The applicants are Bob Blackman, Fabian Hamilton and Stephen Lloyd, and it is on Equitable Life.

Bob Blackman: Apologies. Fabian and Stephen are not able to be with us today, which is why I said that you should put me to the end so everyone else could be seen.

Essentially, the APPG for justice for Equitable Life policyholders is one of the largest, if not the largest, all-party groups, with more than 220 members. A large number of individuals were badly affected by the scandal. I will not go into the scandal-people will be clear about that. The Government set up a compensation scheme, but the reality is that it is only a limited amount of money, and only a limited number of policyholders have been compensated either fully or, in some cases, at all.

There are two aspects to the debate that we are asking for. One is on the progress of the compensation payments-who has been paid, why, and on what basis. That has been very difficult to get out of the Treasury in our meetings and discussions. The second element is that, given that the original estimate of the compensation due is £5.2 billion, and given that the Government’s provision is just over £1 billion of compensation, there is clearly a huge gap. We want all political parties before the general election to say what they will do about that gap. Large numbers of those individuals have been left, through no fault of their own, in a parlous financial position, and we deem it right that they should be fully compensated.

Clearly, the decision was taken that the public finances could not afford that at the time, but as the public finances improve and the economy recovers, further compensation should be paid to the individuals who have suffered. That is our contention. It would be an open debate-you will see that we have got speakers from across the House, and I think a large number of other people will want to contribute as well because large numbers of constituents are covered by the scheme.

Chair: Okay. That’s great. Any questions? No. That’s fantastic. That was a record session, so thank you very much for your endurance. We will finish there.