CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 15 JULY 2014

MR DAVID WARD, MR DAVE NUTTALL and ANDREW STEPHENSON

SARAH NEWTON

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 15 July 2014

Members present:

John Hemming (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

Mr Nigel Evans

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

Mr Ward, Mr Nuttall and Andrew Stephenson made representations.

Q1 Chair: I should register an interest as I am down as one of the supporters of your debate.

Mr Ward: I am sure that will not in any way influence you.

Q2 Chair: The Committee has to make a decision and we have a mass of people who want debates who have already been before us.

Mr Ward: Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you. I won’t teach people what I know they already know about the situation in Kashmir. It has been a constant source of misery over many years to many people. In the region of 500,000 to 600,000 Indian Army troops are in the area on a permanent basis. It is an area of tension and some 500,000 people have died there in the past 60 or so years.

Q3 Chair: We are focused on what sort of debate you want and why you want it.

Mr Ward: I am going to do two things. On why, I am hoping to convince you that this is an important subject, and then I am going to do, "Why now?" This is why I think it is an important subject: 3 million members of the Indian/Pakistani community; 100,000 Kashmiris in Bradford. The reason why I think it is important now to have a debate of this kind is, first of all, it is three years since we had a debate in the Chamber on this crucially important subject.

As you know, it is considered by many to be the forgotten conflict, and we believe that it needs to be debated simply because it has not been for such a long period of time, during which a lot of things have happened. We have also got a new Indian Government, and it has been quite aggressive in terms of its stance towards Kashmir. We believe that it is opening up a whole new area of uncertainty, which we believe is not simply of importance to those living in that area but is of international consequence. You are talking about two nuclear powers facing each other. We do believe it is worthy of a debate, because of its international dimensions as well.

We also think it is very important to look again at the uncertainty about article 370, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir, but recently, through members of the new Government, the BJP, there have been talks about the abrogation or revocation of 370. That, in itself, could be a source of great tension and conflict in the area.

We are seeking a debate on a motion which really stems from a petition that many of you may have signed. Certainly, we have got 40 MPs who have signed the petition.

Q4 Chair: Is that 40 who want to speak?

Mr Ward: I believe that there will be far more than 40 if we manage to get a debate. That’s 40 who have signed the petition. It has also been signed by 10 MEPs-these are all cross-party supporters-but also 50,000 members of the public have signed the petition. It is on a substantive motion, which is the one that was on the petition.

Q5 Chair: Do you want to read that out for the record?

Mr Ward: Yes: "This House believes that the ongoing Kashmir dispute is a threat to regional and global peace; further that the dispute is causing insecurity, instability and human rights violations; and further that the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be given the right to self-determination."

Chair: Right. I think that is a very good explanation. Does anyone on the Committee have any questions?

Q6 Mr Amess: Why is David Nuttall not sitting with you? Have you two fallen out or something? [Interruption.]

Chair: We will consider you sitting at the front. That’s easiest.

Mr Nuttall: There’s no name plate.

Chair: Any questions from colleagues?

Q7 Bob Blackman: Obviously, I understand the issues; I don’t want to get into the debate about the topic. On the urgency of the particular item, you have mentioned the Indian Government, but you will appreciate that we’ve got a large number of applicants for a limited amount of time. Therefore, we need to consider what is the most urgent priority. Clearly, we’ve got September to allocate; we’ve got beyond the conference recess. So getting an idea of the urgency of the item would be helpful for all of us.

Mr Ward: It is very important very early on in the new Indian Government for this Parliament to be representing the views of parliamentarians and also so many members of the British public on what could be, potentially on an international stage, an extremely difficult and dangerous situation. So, really, I think the very early message needs to be sent out from our Parliament to the Indian Government and, indeed, the Pakistan Government about the seriousness of what we view as the potential conflict, particularly from the new Government and the revocation of 370.

Q8 Mr Amess: We used to have regular debates on this, but it is such a long time that I didn’t even realise we’d had one this Parliament. You say it was three years ago.

Mr Ward: It was in November 2011.

Mr Nuttall: I think it was a wider debate than just Kashmir at the time, wasn’t it? It was more about human rights in Sri Lanka as well. So it included Kashmir, but it was not exclusive.

Mr Ward: I think that the actual wording was something to do with human rights abuses on the Indian subcontinent. This debate would be more focused.

Q9 Chair: You have actually got at least the right number of names, because you’ve got 16 names down officially, and you need 15. So that’s satisfied.

There is one other question, which is: would you refuse Westminster Hall? Obviously, you’ve got a motion; you couldn’t have a motion in Westminster Hall, so would you refuse Westminster Hall, because we may only be able to offer that, depending on pressures? We wouldn’t be able to offer it today anyway.

Mr Ward: I think it would be foolish to refuse that offer if it was made. As I say, there are 3 million members of the Indian and Pakistani community. I think it warrants a Chamber debate, but we would not refuse-

Q10 Chair: So, in terms of the urgency, rather than, say, waiting until December, you would accept Westminster Hall earlier rather than later?

Mr Ward: We would welcome that, yes.

Q11 Bob Blackman: One final point. You say that 50,000 people have signed the e-petition. When is it due to close?

Mr Ward: We are still carrying on with that petition-

Q12 Bob Blackman: The reason I mention it is that if it gets to 100,000 signatures, it will trigger an automatic debate in Westminster Hall. So, the issue is how long that e-petition has been going and how long it would be.

Mr Ward: This is not an e-petition; this is actually on bits of paper.

Chair: Okay. Thank you very much. Very good indeed.

Sarah Newton made representations.

Mr Amess: You are on your own.

Chair: Yes, but Sarah has lots and lots of names.

Sarah Newton: My colleagues are here in spirit. They send their apologies.

You have received the application, so I will just highlight a few points. I can see that you are very pressed on time, so you want to know what the particular urgency is. Well, as you know, there is a huge amount of public interest in the health of bees and pollinators in our country, and there has been a very large scale campaign led by Friends of the Earth and the WI, which has really raised public awareness about the importance of bees to our economy, and about the poor health and the potential demise of bees.

The Government have responded positively with a strategy, which they have consulted widely on, and it should be published in September. So I think a debate in October, after we get back from the conferences and when the Government have published this strategy, would be really timely, to ensure that the considerable number of people who contributed to that strategy is really taken on board, and to debate the strategy and its implementation. So, I think October would be good.

I managed to secure a 30-minute Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, but it was on the end of term one-day Whip, so only four other MPs came to speak. However, it was just a 30-minute debate, so that shows a level of interest. The number of people who said they would definitely speak in this debate is with you, so-

Q13 Bob Blackman: Sarah, we have every sympathy with the debate topic, but looking at the 26 names of Members you have who may wish to speak, you have asked for a 90-minute debate, which means three minutes per person to speak, if they all want to speak, and 12 minutes for both Front-Bench spokesmen to get their say. If you have really got 26 people who are going to speak, 90 minutes doesn’t seem long enough. While you are right that we are pressed for time, we also want to ensure that if people want to speak on a particular topic, there is a reasonable amount of time for them to do so. If it is really 26 Members who are going to speak, I think we will want to accommodate them somehow. Are you clear it is really that number?

Sarah Newton: Yes. I asked them specifically to sign that it was not just to support having a debate but that they would want to speak in the debate. However, we know the life of an MP. Of those MPs, one of them has become a Minister today, so they won’t be able to speak, and then you will have people at constituency events or they will have to be on a Bill Committee. I think we are realistic that although people sign up in good faith to say they want to speak, inevitably some of them, given the day-

Q14 Bob Blackman: There is another issue. Obviously, I can understand the topic, but how big a debate will this be? Will there be people speaking to the contrary on this subject?

Sarah Newton: Until we see the published strategy, it is hard to say, but I imagine there will be people who want to seek clarification, and push further. It is an overarching strategy, so it is right from landowners, planning, farming-there are all sorts of issues there. And I imagine some people will want to talk about particular aspects where they feel the strategy could go further, or they will want to illustrate really good practice in their part of the world to help the Government to produce guidance and guidelines, for example for farmers as to how they might better use their land in a more bee-friendly pollinator way. I think a general debate is fine. I certainly do not think there is any need for a divisible motion, but I think there will be some contention. Yes, I do.

Q15 Mr Amess: Sarah, you are being perfectly serious? There is a Government strategy on pollination?

Sarah Newton: Yes. The reason is that if we allow bees and other pollinators to decline at the rate they are, the cost of human and mechanical pollination will be literally billions of pounds to our economy. It is a serious threat to food production in our country, so it is taken very seriously.

Q16 Mr Amess: This is a thing that was raised at Prime Minister’s questions?

Sarah Newton: It is often raised. It is very popular. Bees are an iconic species; people tend to love them. We are a nation of garden lovers, and people who garden are very interested in the natural environment and the important role that pollinators play in their own food production.

Q17 Mr Amess: So we are now going to be telling bees what to do.

Sarah Newton: This is really all about making sure that we are enabling habitats where they can survive and thrive, researching diseases that are affecting them at the moment, like varroa mite and colony collapse, and farming in a way that enables bees and pollinators to have a habitat alongside the commercial production of agriculture. The Government have done really well to come up with an overarching strategy, and I and others have been advocating for it.

The issue was brought to attention by the banning of particular substances used by farmers in all sorts of production. The substances were banned because research in the EU found that they were damaging to bee health. That brought the issue to a head in Parliament, and the Government then acted to produce the strategy, which as I said is due to be published. I checked with Lord de Mauley, and he absolutely intends for it to be published in September, so October will be a really good time to debate it.

Q18 Mr Evans: When was the last time it was debated in Parliament?

Sarah Newton: In March last year, but it was in my Westminster Hall Adjournment debate. It often comes up in DEFRA questions, and even Prime Minister’s questions. Concerns about bee health and pollination come up in all sorts of different debates.

Mr Evans: When it first came about years ago, it almost drew sniggers-"Oh, it’s only bees"-but it is quite amazing what a campaign has been waged on this.

Mr Amess: So you are part of all this, are you?

Mr Evans: Yes. It’s hugely important, actually.

Sarah Newton: It does engage. Think about the fish fight campaign and the amount of engagement with the public in Parliament. This is an issue which has tens of thousands of people in our country, from all walks of life and from urban areas to rural areas, united in a cause which they feel passionate about. This is a great example of how Parliament could show that it is debating and involved in something that actually matters to the lives of a lot of people.

Q19 Chair: Thank you very much for a very helpful and flexible presentation. I notice on the application that we also have Westminster Hall on a Tuesday, if the subject matter fits with the ministerial response. You are flexible for all of these, basically?

Sarah Newton: Absolutely. Given the scale of popular support for this outside Parliament, it would be great to have it in the Chamber like the fish fight debate, which was incredibly powerful and well-supported. It would be ideal to have it in the Chamber.

Q20 Chair: It depends on what time we’ve got.

Sarah Newton: It obviously depends on your other choices.

Chair: Thank you very much indeed.