CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

Tuesday 25 November 2014

MR JOHN WHITTINGDALE

SIR RICHARD OTTAWAY

MARK HUNTER

GERAINT DAVIES

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations made before the

Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 25 November 2014

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Mr David Anderson

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

John Hemming

Mr John Whittingdale made representations.

Mr Whittingdale: In a sense, I am disappointed that I have had to come to you, because the issue that I am keen should be debated, and preferably on the Floor of the House for at least half a day, is Ukraine and UK relations with Russia, which is obviously one of the greatest issues of global security. It is almost a year to the day since the shooting started in the Maidan, Independence square, in Kiev. Since then, we have seen the Russian annexation of Crimea and the occupation of parts of eastern Ukraine. There is a real risk that the Russians are considering further military intervention to try to establish a land corridor from eastern Ukraine to Crimea. We know that there have been heavy troop build-ups beyond what was there already. That featured in the Prime Minister’s statement last week on the G20 and it dominated the G20 discussion and the questions to the Prime Minister afterwards, yet the last time that the House was able to debate it was in September, when it was part of a debate on Ukraine, north Africa and the middle east. During that debate, hon. Members were restricted to five minutes; there was huge demand to speak.

When I approached members of the all-party British-Ukraine group to ask whether they would support this application, all of them immediately said yes. Eighteen hon. Members have now indicated their interest, and that’s just those who I know have an interest in this issue. I suspect that were you able to give us a debate, it would attract interest right across the House. I suspect that even my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, Sir Richard Ottaway, who is sitting behind me, might want to take part.

Q1 Chair: My only question is whether three hours would be long enough, because the last debate that we had was also for three hours, which was why hon. Members were so restricted.

Mr Whittingdale: And they covered a huge range of issues. Ideally, we would have a full day, but frankly we will take three hours, because it is essential that we have a chance to debate the issue and I know that there is, obviously, pressure.

The only thing that I would add, if you were looking to find a time when we could have the debate, is that I am away next Thursday, 4 December, and, without wishing to pre-empt your decision of course, I have just received a message that David Lidington, the Minister, is also away on Thursday 4 but is available on Thursday 11, and I am available on Thursday 11, so that would be the perfect time.

Chair: That’s very helpful to know; thank you.

Q2 Mr Anderson: I have just two things to ask, John. First, despite what you have said about how many people are interested, there are no Liberal Democrat names down, and obviously the more interest we can get, the better it is for us to judge. Also, notwithstanding what you just said about the dates, you have not put down a substantive motion. Are you opposed to Westminster Hall? We all understand the significance of the debate, but from our point of view, we have almost run out of time. We have a sheet here with about eight things on it, we have six more to decide on today and we don’t control the time that we have, but we do know that we don’t have much time left. Are you saying no to Westminster Hall?

Mr Whittingdale: I am not saying no. I am saying that I think that there is a very strong case for the Chamber, because the truth is that this debate will get quite a lot of international attention. Obviously, it is a matter that affects not just this country, but the whole of the west. The debate will get a lot of attention in Ukraine, and I suspect that it will get quite a lot of attention in Russia. To demonstrate how seriously we are taking this issue, the Chamber sends a message that nowhere else does.

I take your point about the Liberals. Simon Hughes was the vice-chairman of the group, but of course has now joined the Government. A Liberal has not come with me on any of my recent visits, but I am sure that there are plenty of Liberals who would take an interest in the issue.

Q3 Chair: That’s great; thank you very much. We will make our decision later, so we’ll let you know. We definitely have 4 December, which you have ruled yourself out of, and we have 11 December provisionally, so we won’t be scheduling for that until next week; you won’t hear anything until next week.

Mr Whittingdale: I understand. My convenience is less important, but I think that the Minister responsible being able to answer the debate is quite important, so that points very much to the 11th. Thank you very much.

Sir Richard Ottaway made representations.

Sir Richard Ottaway: Sorry to continue the foreign affairs theme, particularly after you have given out debates on Palestine and Iran, both of which I participated in, but this is really a bid from the Foreign Affairs Committee to have a debate about Gibraltar on a substantive motion in the Chamber. We have an unwelcome situation now where Spain, an EU and NATO partner, is, as a matter of foreign policy, deliberately trying to undermine the economy of a British overseas territory, and is doing so successfully-when we went there, the economy was down by 10% as a result of the operations on the border, which effectively slow the flow of people in and out of Spain. We published our report, and I was allowed to make a statement about it on the Floor of the House in early July. The Minister, David Lidington, said that they wanted to give the Spanish Government six months to get its act in order, which would therefore be 1 January.

I hope you will allow the debate, which calls on the Government to review its policy towards Spain on Gibraltar. The report called for a tougher line on Spain, and indeed the possibility of some action-not retaliatory action, but if they want something, we can be just as difficult as they are being. I hope you will accede to the new request.

Q4 Chair: In terms of timing, you just mentioned January. Is this a debate that you would like us to schedule in the new year?

Sir Richard Ottaway: John Whittingdale has told me something I did not know, which is that David Lidington is not available on 4 December. David Lidington would be replying to this, so the situation is the same.

The Foreign Affairs Committee is meant to be going to Hong Kong the week after, which takes us up to the recess, so perhaps I could invite you to consider me for the first slot that you have in the new year.

Chair: That’s really helpful. Oliver, did you want to add something?

Q5 Oliver Colvile: Only that you may be aware that I ran a campaign to try to get Gibraltar the George Cross for its bravery and its commitment to the United Kingdom and the Crown, which I think is important. This will be very helpful in giving my campaign a much needed boost.

Sir Richard Ottaway: Indeed, Mr Colvile. You are a signatory of this application.

Q6 Chair: The only thing, as this is for a three-hour debate, is the number of people you have confirmed as taking part. Given that it will not be until the new year, it would really help us if you could get a few more Opposition Members to put their names down and send those through to us. We would ideally like to see at least 15 people confirm that they will take part in the debate. That is simply so that we are confident that the debate will last the three hours-I am sure it will, but that just gives us that confidence. If we are looking at the first slot in January, that gives you plenty of time.

Sir Richard Ottaway: Noted.

Chair: Thank you very much.

Mark Hunter made representations.

Mark Hunter: I outline the case at this point, do I?

Q7 Chair: Oh, I am sorry-is this your first time here?

Mark Hunter: Yes, it is. I am in your capable hands, Chair.

Chair: I am so sorry.

Mark Hunter: That is quite all right. I have been otherwise occupied

for the past four and a half years.

Q8 Chair: You have. You are very welcome back to the real world. You have sent in your pro forma that says what it is you are after, which is a 90-minute debate on pre-school and nursery staff paediatric first aid training. We allocate a specific slot in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning, which is a 90-minute slot. Is that something that you are looking at bidding for?

Mark Hunter: Yes, that would be acceptable.

Q9 Chair: Brilliant. If you could just give us a brief outline of what the debate is, that would be great.

Mark Hunter: As it says on the application, it is about the requirement for paediatric first aid training. The application for the debate comes from the very tragic case in my own constituency of a couple called Joanne and Dan Thompson, whose daughter Millie tragically died when she was attending a private nursery in my constituency, not far from their home. The child had very sadly choked to death while she was at the nursery, and at that point in time the nursery did not have a qualified paediatric first aid trained nurse on duty. The nursery did have one, but she was not there on the day.

The question is really about the requirement. As the parents see it-it is a view that I and I think others share-most parents approaching a nursery and sending children of that age would assume, rightly or wrongly, that staff would be required to be trained in paediatric first aid. I don’t need to explain to the Committee that that is a very different qualification from general first aid training.

As a consequence of the tragic death of their daughter, Millie, the family set up Millie’s Trust, which campaigns to raise the profile of the requirement for paediatric first aid training and now employs people, through the trust’s funds, to train nursery teachers in paediatric first aid. I know through other questions I have asked that the House of Commons nursery and crèche has staff trained in paediatric first aid care, but it appears that this is not an experience broadly shared across the spectrum, so the idea is to raise the profile of the issue. The family visited Ed Timpson when he was the relevant Minister; his civil servants are working on this matter. I gather that since the latest reshuffle it has now passed to Sam Gyimah, who has also agreed to meet them. It is really just about trying to raise the profile of the issue and see what else the Government and other relevant authorities might be able to do to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again.

Chair: That’s fantastic, thank you.

Q10 Mr Anderson: I start by saying that this is something I completely agree with. I used to represent nursery staff, so I come from that angle, but we have to decide on the weight and merits of individual cases. You have got only four Liberal Democrat Members and no cross-party support. You need to give us some more Members; that is the only thing I would say.

Mark Hunter: You will appreciate that I wasn’t that familiar with the procedures here; I didn’t realise how many names I needed to get together. I put Bob Russell because he is chair of the all-party group on first aid and he is very interested. I should have said that the family have also approached all the local MPs-I understand that Ann Coffey in Stockport and Andrew Gwynne in Denton and Reddish have met them and are sympathetic. I shall certainly make it my business to attract more all-party support; thank you for the comment.

Q11 John Hemming: Although the application says there are only 10,000 names on the petition, there are over 100,000 now. Because there are 100,000, you automatically qualify for a Monday. Are you okay with a Monday?

Mark Hunter: Yes; as long as I can give the family time to arrange their visit. I don’t suppose there’s any likelihood it would be next Monday anyway, but they will want to come down.

John Hemming: Well, it could be next Monday. So, basically, not next Monday, but a Monday would be okay?

Mark Hunter: A Monday would be fine.

Q12 Chair: I know it is because this is your first time here, but if you could get around some other Members and get wider cross-party support-next Monday is taken with another e-petition anyway-this would be an ideal debate for an e-petition Monday, which gives up you three full hours, and you can plan that quite far ahead. The facility is only there for e-petitions that reach 100,000 signatures. It would not otherwise be used, so it gives you some time to plan this properly. You might look at doing something in the new year-that would be fine as well. If you can do it over the next couple of weeks, that is also good.

Mark Hunter: Given the initial indications I got back from people I have spoken to, I suggested to the family that I thought there was every likelihood it might happen before Christmas. I would be keen to do that if at all possible.

Chair: 8 December or 15 December are the next dates.

Mark Hunter: You say I can have 8 December if I can get more signatures? If that is the case, I can certainly do that.

Chair: You don’t need more signatures, but I think it would help you if you got more cross-party support; it would be a livelier debate if you get more people to take part and it is a demonstration that the subject has cross-party support in the House. You could talk to the Clerks about that.

Mark Hunter: Thank you.

Geraint Davies made representations.

Q13 Chair: You have been here before, haven’t you?

Geraint Davies: Yes, I have.

Q14 Chair: So you know the drill.

Geraint Davies: First, in terms of the importance of the issue, people will be aware that there’s widespread concern about the US-EU proposed free trade agreement. In fact, 930,000 people across Europe have signed a petition raising concerns about the rules that will be applied, which are being negotiated behind closed doors. These rules would enable multinational companies to sue democratically elected Governments when they pass laws which undermine profit streams and revenues from trade, or when they pass laws which protect citizens and workers.

For example, Philip Morris is trying to fine Uruguay and Australia hundreds of millions of pounds regarding packaging. Lone Pine Resources, a big fracking company, is suing the Canadian Government over a moratorium on fracking in Quebec. Energy companies in Europe are suing Argentina over a price freeze, and Dutch insurers are suing Slovakia for reversing some of the health privatisation-

Q15 Chair: Geraint, you will be able to go into all those details in the debate; what we are interested in is the substantive motion of the debate. It would be very helpful if you could read out the text of the motion for the record.

Geraint Davies: The motion proposes: "That this House resolves that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and any associated Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny in the European Parliament and the UK Parliament." To date, this dispute settlement provision and all the rest of it are done behind closed doors. Our Minister, Lord Livingston, is able to look at these documents but not to take copies. As I mentioned, there is concern that litigious companies could take advantage of European countries that want to push forward special treatment for school provision, local suppliers or the entire industrial policy of Europe, for example. It is very broad. I have about 30 names down here and 65 Members signed an early-day motion, but it is much wider than that. The SDLP, the SNP and UKIP all support the idea of having something on TTIP.

Q16 Chair: On the names on this list, I cannot see many Tories. It is very Labour heavy, and we ask for a balance of names in order to get cross-party support. Am I wrong about the number of Tories?

Geraint Davies: Zac Goldsmith was hoping to attend but could not come along. Brian Binley is one of those who signed the early-day motion, and there are a couple of Tories on here but, in general, I think everyone is-I introduced a Bill called the International Trade Agreements (Scrutiny) Bill, which I raised when the Prime Minister came back from the G8 and said that we need more scrutiny. Incidentally, one of the issues I am sure you will be thinking about is the timing. In terms of topicality, other than the fact that this has not been talked about in Parliament since February, an obvious point is that the Prime Minister has said that we need to put "rocket boosters" under negotiations.

I understand that today the EU is making an announcement about further transparency of documentation because of widespread concern. Yesterday, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee took evidence on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership from the CBI, the TUC, 38 Degrees and World Development Movement. Last Friday, Clive Efford put forward his National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill, which explicitly drummed it in about TTIP and the need to protect the NHS. Last week, Cecilia Malmström, the European Commissioner for Trade, met up with Obama’s trade representative, Mike Froman-

Chair: I’m going to bring in Bob Blackman-

Geraint Davies: Sorry Chair, but if I could finally say, they agreed to have key negotiations on 8 and 9 December. The full negotiations will go on in the first week in February, so this is very relevant and very topical. It has very mainstream implications for the future of our industrial policy, and whether we can move from privatisation to nationalisation and back and forth.

Q17 Bob Blackman: We are at a slight risk of rehearsing the debate. We are more concerned about the timing. In terms of the timing for such a debate, obviously we have very limited time, as colleagues already pointed out. A series of debates have been requested before Christmas, but obviously there is the timing of whenever the treaty comes into operation. What is your ideal timing for the debate?

The other issue, which is rather important in this process, is that, looking down your list of people, I suggest that most of them would be rather opposed to the treaty. You do not appear to have too many people on this list who might put the other side and say that they might be in favour of the treaty. I stand to be corrected on that, but we do not want an unbalanced debate.

Geraint Davies: No, I completely agree with that. I very much agree with maximising trade between the EU and the US to generate jobs and growth. The issue is on the terms and whether it is done transparently and with scrutiny. There are a lot of Conservative colleagues who want it to go ahead in that form. I know that a number of people from across the House on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee want to see more trade, but on the right terms and agreed out in the open. The proposition being put forward is simply that we have democratic accountability and transparency, not that we do or do not have anything. I apologise that my list is slightly biased in party profile, but from talking to colleagues from all parts of the House, I know that there is a wide appetite for debate on this and for it to be in the open.

On the timing, where we are is that Mike Froman, the US negotiator, and Cecilia Malmström, the EU Trade Commissioner, are meeting on 8 and 9 December to map out exactly what they want to do in February. I think the ideal time for the debate would be January. Obviously we have got the election coming, but from the American point of view, they are saying that, given the presidential process, the primaries will be in spring 2016 and then there will be the run-in to November 2016 for the presidential elections. They want to get everything done and dusted by the end of next year, and that is why-

Chair: Geraint, I will cut you off, because John Hemming, Dave Anderson and Oliver Colvile all want to ask you burning, important questions. We will bash through.

Q18 John Hemming: Although it is an important issue-I perhaps share your view that whether it is good or bad depends on what is in the treaty-the Committee hears about lots of important issues and lots of things. The main problem that the Committee faces is a shortage of time. The motion that you are proposing is one that I think pretty well everybody in the House would vote for, because it just says that there should be scrutiny, which means that the debate could be held in Westminster Hall. If you could have it in Westminster Hall, we might be able to do it earlier, rather than later. What are your views on that?

Geraint Davies: No is the answer. The reason why is that there is a widespread interest in all communities, including business, in this.

Q19 John Hemming: It is a very big issue.

Geraint Davies: If it was stuck in a corner in Westminster Hall, it would suggest that it was not being taken seriously in my view.

Q20 John Hemming: I defend Westminster Hall.

Geraint Davies: I have nothing against Westminster Hall; I just think that this is such a wide-ranging issue. It has implications for whether Ed Miliband can call for energy freezes and whether that will be legal. It also has implications for whether the railways could be taken back or whether we could do anything. People may want or not want to do these things.

Q21 Mr Anderson: The key for me, Geraint, is the lack of scrutiny. On what John says, I have signed up to be a supporter of the debate. From what I can make out, the people who are negotiating the agreement are insisting that there is scrutiny. Is the real issue that we have not scrutinised this in the way that we should have? Is that what you are trying to get out of this debate? The later we have the debate, the less scrutiny it will have.

Geraint Davies: That is exactly right. Everyone would agree that there should be a scrutiny; the problem in a way is that there is not any scrutiny. This House should be highlighting the fact, on behalf of the people of Britain, that we are not allowed to look at this. Eurosceptics, for instance, keep on moaning about the lack of scrutiny in Europe, but there is scrutiny in Europe. There is none here. We could wake up in a situation where, for example, I put forward a Bill on expressing sugar in teaspoonfuls on product packaging. If that was passed, the sugar companies could say, "We are going to sue you for hundreds of millions of pounds, because that has undermined our profit streams." It is completely ridiculous. These things are moving forward quickly and there are concerns for all of us. Despite what people might think, I am in favour of more and more trade, but on a sensible basis, where we do not end up cutting health standards or food standards or undermining-

Chair: That is fine.

Q22 Oliver Colvile: Are you aware that in 2020, Plymouth will be commemorating the Mayflower leaving the great city to go and found the American colonies? If you are looking for further Conservative Members, you might talk to Bernard Jenkin, because he is also very much involved in the concordat that Harwich has signed with Plymouth and a number of other cities around the country that the Mayflower went to. We are looking to try to develop an event similar to the gathering that took place in Ireland for an awful lot of people who are descendants of those on the Mayflower to help to commemorate it. It may lead to a story that that was the beginning of trade between ourselves and the United States of America.

Geraint Davies: On that, we all welcome the trading relationship with our American cousins. The issue is that it is not overwhelmed by multinationals that are hitting small companies and communities either side of the Atlantic. We want to get it right for everyone and not just for Europe.

Chair: Geraint, I think the point that Oliver is trying to make is about widening cross-party support for the debate and he was indicating where you might want to start. If you want the debate in January, that actually gives you plenty of time to get some more Conservative Members. The point was also made that they do not have to support the motion. They can just want to take part in the debate itself. That is what we are interested in. It is not about people putting their name on the motion, but rather participating in the debate. You can make it clear to people that even if they want to speak against your motion, they can be in support of the debate taking place. If you can give those names to Robin or Mark between now and the recess, that would be really useful in helping us to decide what day to schedule the debate on.

Q23 Oliver Colvile: What I am saying is that I am willing to help if you would like me to do so.

Geraint Davies: I am very grateful.

Chair: I am sure that Oliver will take part.

Q24 Oliver Colvile: I will take part. I could not miss this opportunity.

Geraint Davies: That’s very nice. As John said, all the motion calls for-people may not agree with it, as you say-is transparency and scrutiny. I guess that is what our job is, so I hope that people might support that. I will get some names and come back.

Chair: Fantastic. Thank you very much.