CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

ORAL REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TRACEY CROUCH and HAZEL BLEARS

SIR EDWARD LEIGH, ROBERT FLELLO, FIONA BRUCE, ANDREW TURNER, JOHN PUGH and SIR GERALD HOWARTH

JOHN BARON, GRAHAME M MORRIS, ERIC OLLERENSHAW, JACK LOPRESTI and REBECCA HARRIS

HENRY SMITH

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 27 January 2015

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

David Anderson

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

Mr Nigel Evans

John Hemming

Pete Wishart

Hazel Blears and Tracey Crouch made representations.

Hazel Blears: May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee? Tracey and I have been here on a couple of previous occasions and you have been really generous in allocating us time to debate dementia over the whole parliamentary Session. The Back-Bench debates have really helped us to make significant progress on a cross-party basis in both raising the issues and getting practical action.

The reason that we have come today is because we are nearing the end of the Session but we do not want to take our foot off the pedal. We are working together through the all-party dementia group-we have a meeting of it tomorrow-on a manifesto ask for all parties to look at what we can do to keep the energy moving to tackle what is the biggest global health challenge that any of us will face over the next 20, 30 or 40 years.

We have a number of specific asks around research. Research into dementia is tiny in comparison with that into diseases such as cancer, and certainly research into living well with dementia is way down the agenda. At the G8 last year the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State gave an undertaking to me that they would press just as hard on the social research side as they would on the pharma side, and we absolutely need to hold them to that promise.

There are clear issues around the difficulty that people with dementia, their carers and their families face in negotiating the social care system. We are talking about a single point of referral so that people can access the services on offer. We are talking about increasing the rate of diagnosis, which has increased in the past two years: when we first came in front of the Committee it was about 40%. We are now looking at well over 50% or 55%, and there is a Government commitment to 66%. We would like to see it go to 75%, so we can keep the pressure on.

Q1 Chair: All of these will be very interesting debating points when the debate comes, but you have asked for a six-hour full-day debate.

Tracey Crouch: We would be very happy with three hours. We appreciate there is a lot of pressure on Back-Bench business. If I may, Chair, briefly say, it has been a year since the G8 summit and I think Members are keen to hear about the legacy from that landmark event. We also do not have a dementia strategy any more in the UK. This is an issue that affects, or will affect, over 1 million people. That is many of our constituents. I know that emotion does not come into this when we talk about allocating time within the parliamentary timetable, but, as you will be aware, Hazel has been a complete stalwart on this issue for many years-an absolute champion-and she is stepping down at the next election. I think it would be a fantastic opportunity to provide a bit of legacy. I appreciate that emotion does not come into it, but I think that it would be an incredibly nice way to thank Hazel for all the work she has done on dementia.

Oliver Colvile: First of all, I have put my name to this, so I think I should declare that. I think this is an incredibly important issue. Secondly, I do promise that if I am able to speak in the debate, I will not stand in front of Tracey, because she gained a bit of notoriety on YouTube by sitting directly behind me and crossing and uncrossing her legs, where she got nicknamed "Sexy Legs".

Tracey Crouch: Thank you, Oliver.

Oliver Colvile: I think it is important, as well, though, that we expand these numbers.

Chair: Thank you, that is very important.

Q2 John Hemming: It depends on how much time we get, but there is the eternal issue of the extent to which it is possible to do three hours in Westminster Hall. You are definitely into refusing that-I can tell. We will put you down as: "Will refuse Westminster Hall."

Tracey Crouch: We definitely think that this is an issue that is worthy of the Chamber and that, given the sheer number of our constituents and their families that experience dementia or come into contact with dementia, and the fact that there are very substantive issues that still need to be raised with the Government and pressed for, whoever the next Government might be, I think that it is one we want to be in the Chamber.

John Hemming: That is a no.

Hazel Blears: When we have done the previous debates, they have been really well attended, and there are lots of Members who have an interest in this area. It is not a kind of niche issue. It is very much a mainstream issue.

Q3 Chair: It may be that we do have a lot of time in the run-up to the general election, in which case you would be confident to fill six hours, would you, if you had it?

Tracey Crouch: With the number of MPs that have expressed an interest and have very good dementia services in their own constituencies that they wish to champion, I think we could possibly do that.

Q4 Mr Evans: I suspect that most of us have had somebody in the family that has had dementia at some stage. Indeed, my uncle has just died, and he had dementia for many years. I have got no doubt at all that you can fill the six hours, but I have noticed here you say the time could be broken into a series of shorter debates. It is wide-ranging, but what does that mean?

Chair: That is just our form.

Mr Evans: Oh, is it just for us? Okay, I am sorry. In that case I would say that it is such a wide-ranging thing that people can talk about various aspects. I have got absolutely no doubt that you could fill a whole day on it. Is there likely to be a motion or is it going to be a general topic?

Tracey Crouch: We would call for a strategy, but we would make it as general as possible so that people can talk about it. One thing we have found, Mr Evans, in past debates on this issue, is that it has been actually an incredibly personal account for many people and a lot of Members of Parliament have spoken about their own experience. That has actually brought the issue out into the open for many people; and the Gallery is quite often packed as well, because a lot of people take an interest in this.

Q5 Bob Blackman: We are clearly going to be allocating time for debates, and you said in your opening remarks that you are going to produce a sort of mini-manifesto or an ask for the parties. Do you have a date for when you will publish that? Because this will be obviously quite timely then for parties potentially to respond to that if it is after that debate and is at an appropriate time.

Hazel Blears: Yes, we have a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group tomorrow, in which we will be discussing the manifesto. Then we will be submitting it straight away to all the parties and hopefully getting a positive response.

Q6 Chair: When you say straight away, in terms of timing we have 5 and 12 February and then pretty much every Thursday between now and the general election.

Hazel Blears: If we agree the manifesto tomorrow and then send it to the parties, that will be the beginning of next week. I would like to give them two or three weeks to enable them to respond properly, so I would have thought towards the end of February.

Chair: Okay. That is really helpful. Thank you.

Sir Edward Leigh, Robert Flello, Fiona Bruce, Andrew Turner, John Pugh and Sir Gerald Howarth made representations.

Q7 Chair: This is a debate on the impact of education regulations on faith schools. Initially, it was a general debate but I understand that you are now proposing to put forward a motion.

Sir Edward Leigh: Yes, I have consulted my colleagues. We think that this is such an important and topical issue that has been in the press a lot in the last month. We suggest this motion: "That this House believes Ofsted should respect the ability of faith schools to teach their core beliefs in the context of respect and toleration for others." We believe that a debate on faith schools on that motion would allow a general debate on the topic. Shall I say a couple of words about it?

Chair: Yes please.

Sir Edward Leigh: The reason why this has come to the fore is the Trojan horse scandal. Those schools were not in fact faith schools-they were secular schools-but since then Ofsted has issued regulations which require schools to promote British values. In principle, we have nothing against that. The problem is that they are now looking at faith schools through the prism of British values and there has been evidence of some aggressive questioning of faith schools and their ethos. This has come to the fore particularly in two schools, the Durham free school, which has been in the news recently and is now to be closed, and Grindon Hall Christian school.

I do not want to go on because my colleagues will want to take part, but we believe that given the large number of faith schools-hundreds of them-this would be an important debate. We have a number of people apart from ourselves who would want to take part, including David Burrowes, Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers and Jacob Rees-Mogg, so we could certainly fill three hours. If that is not possible, because we have run out of time in this Parliament to have three hours, then we would of course accept a lesser time. We know that there are people who take an alternative view to us about faith schools in the House of Commons, so it could be quite a topical, interesting and lively debate.

Q8 Chair: We do need to have the names of about 15 people for a three-hour debate.

Sir Edward Leigh: We can certainly get you 15 people.

Q9 Chair: That is great. If you could submit that to us, that is fine. As you have just mentioned, it doesn’t have to be people who agree with your point of view. If they disagree, that is great as well. It is just people who want to take part in the debate. That would be really helpful.

Robert Flello: It is also important to bear the context in mind. There are literally tens of thousands of children in the country who are educated through the faith school system, whether or not they are of the faith of the school in question. Picking up on the British values point, this is also a good opportunity for a debate about those British values that Ofsted are now using as the benchmark for our schools. This encapsulates quite well a whole series of issues and 15 speakers will be relatively easy. Two or three times that number will be the sort of number that will want to take part in this debate.

John Pugh: This is an area of policy which is fundamentally very unclear at the moment. This is topical, but there is a need to shed a little light on what Ofsted, the Government and the public are saying. I welcome the concept of having a debate where not everybody says exactly the same thing. There are certainly members of my party who take stridently different views from me on what faith schools do in our society. I welcome the opportunity for engagement.

Oliver Colvile: I should declare an interest, namely that I am a school governor of a Church of England primary school. It is important that I ensure that that is on the record.

Q10 John Hemming: I should declare that I tabled an early-day motion expressing similar concerns some time ago. The issue is important. If you have got a motion, you need the Chamber, but were it possible to have a general debate in Westminster Hall, would you refuse that?

Robert Flello: Yes, I think we need a motion. The issue would not be one for a general debate. I think we would want a proper debate on the Floor of the House for three hours with a voteable motion.

John Pugh: To be fair, I think these issues have already been aired in a number of different Westminster Hall debates.

Q11 Chair: Do you know how well attended the Westminster Hall debates have been?

Robert Flello: Very well attended. The last one I took part in had a time limit on speeches.

Q12 Chair: And was that a one and a half hour debate?

Robert Flello: Yes, it would have been.

Q13 Bob Blackman: May I clarify the purpose behind the debate slightly? You have talked about what is taught in schools and the challenges that Ofsted is making with inspections, but the other issues of concern that have been raised with me are the admissions criteria and the funding for faith schools on the basis of how they are delivering education. Is that part of your scope? That would obviously change the extent of the debate.

John Pugh: It would necessarily fall within the scope, would it not?

Sir Gerald Howarth: May I just add something in support of what John Pugh has just said, because it is very important? In discussions I have had with the Secretary of State, there appears to be some confusion on whether it is the Secretary of State or Ofsted who is in the driving seat. Therefore, it is important that we have the opportunity to clarify who is in charge of the policy. We are only in the foothills, it seems to me, of public concern on this, and timeliness is therefore imperative. We need to address this matter quickly and give the Government the opportunity to indicate just where their policy is on it, as well as giving that opportunity to others who do not share our views.

Sir Edward Leigh: You asked about admissions and funding, but that is as well as the whole ethos and what is on the curriculum-another colleague, Fiona Bruce, is joining us, and she also wants to take part in the debate. The whole issue around funding and closure is important. I am told that it is a real issue in the city of Durham following the closure of this school. We are not just talking about ethos and aggressive questioning; we are talking about whether certain faith schools will exist at all. It could be a wide-ranging and important debate.

Q14 Pete Wishart: I was going to raise the issue about Westminster Hall. It has been noted how well attended the debates have been there on a Thursday afternoon. It is something that should be considered, but I know we can be a bit more generous with time. I ask that you make it clear in your motion that it is about faith schools in England only, because Ofsted has no locus in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have a different range of issues when it comes to faith schools in Scotland. I am certain that you will make that absolutely apparent in any motion that comes forward.

Robert Flello: Yes, it will be.

Q15 Chair: That is an important point. Thank you very much. In terms of timing, at the moment we have quite a bit of time. We have 5 February, 12 February and we are also looking at 26 February, after the February recess. On timing, you were saying that there was quite an urgency for this debate. If we were to allocate something on 5 February or 12 February, would that be a problem for any of you?

Sir Edward Leigh: We are thinking that we would like to have a debate in this Parliament, but we do not want to hold you to a particular date. Would that be Thursday 5 February?

Q16 Chair: It is always Thursdays.

Sir Edward Leigh: It might be a slight problem for me if that is the only date available, but I do not want to hold up the debate. For me, 12 February or 26 February would be better.

Q17 Chair: That is fine. It is good to know.

Fiona Bruce: My Select Committee, the International Development Committee, is away on 5 February and 12 February, unfortunately. While I very much support the application, I could not speak on those dates.

Chair: Okay, that is great. Thank you very much for coming.

Mr John Baron, Grahame M. Morris, Eric Ollerenshaw, Jack Lopresti and Rebecca Harris made representations.

Q18 Chair: Your application is on improving cancer outcomes for a Chamber or Westminster Hall debate for three hours.

Mr Baron: Yes. Thank you for considering our application. The case, very briefly, is that in 10 years’ time 50% of the population will have or have had cancer. It is increasingly prevalent and yet we are still falling well behind average survival rates. To put that into context, if we matched European averages-we are not talking about the best rates-we could save an additional 5,000 lives a year.

Cancer is at a crucial crossroads. The Government’s health reforms have affected how cancer patients are treated. There has been good and bad. The good is that we have now got the cancer outcomes and one-year figures up in lights, broken down by clinical commissioning group, which should encourage earlier diagnosis. On the downside, we have concerns about the de-listing of cancer treatments from the cancer drugs fund and uncertainty about that whole issue.

I sit in front of you as chairman of the all-party group on cancer, but perhaps I should make the point that we have come here as APPG cancer chairmen. Those who cannot be here have certainly expressed their support, as you can see from the 20 names that we have submitted, in an attempt to obtain the debate. In other words, this is not just the all-party group on cancer but the other cancer APPGs as well and, as you can see from the names, we have cross-party support.

We have not had such a cancer debate for at least a year. We have had specific cancer debates in Westminster Hall, which have been well attended, but I have no doubt that this debate would be very well attended. In particular if it was a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, we would have no trouble in filling that time and asking a series of questions for clarity, which is what we want. The debate is also well supported by the cancer charities.

Q19 Chair: Yes. That is interesting because about a year ago we had an application specifically from a breast cancer charity that we refused on the basis that it was just one cancer charity. We welcome the fact that you have come under the umbrella of all the cancer APPGs.

Mr Baron: Absolutely. I will be cheeky in suggesting that because we are coming together as all the all-party groups on cancers-breast, bowel, prostate or whatever-I would expect this to be a very well attended debate covering a wide range of issues. That is why the topic is broad but important. It is a pertinent question.

Q20 Chair: Does anyone else want to add anything?

Grahame M. Morris: I wish to stress the topicality of the debate. John mentioned some of the recent announcements such as those about the cancer treatment funds, and there is the involvement of Lawrence Dallaglio in promoting the availability of advanced radiotherapy. In policy terms, the political parties are establishing their offerings, so this might be an opportunity to look at and present that in more detail. I think that a lot of people from both sides of the House would wish to participate.

Eric Ollerenshaw: In terms of topicality, as Grahame mentioned, whoever becomes the next Government will have to sort out the cancer drugs fund and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence situation. In a sense, as John said, there have been great advances, but I speak as the chairman of the all-party group on pancreatic cancer, on which no advances have been made for 40 years. Today, 24 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 23 of them will die within six months. There has been no improvement in that statistic for 40 years. On the other hand, there is talk of genomes, radiotherapy and all the rest of it and people say that we are on the edge of a cancer revolution. Therefore, this debate is topical for pancreatic cancer in particular, but I suggest that it is topical across the piece.

Jack Lopresti: For me, it is a very personal subject. A year ago I was being blasted with radiotherapy and having chemo and I had surgery, but I came through that very well. I am clear and in fine health. I have not really been willing to discuss or tell people my story up until now, but there are things that I want to put out there in the public domain for my constituents and for other people-things like my initial misdiagnosis, mistakes which were made and medical records which were clearly inaccurate. I would like to put that on the record, not only as a warning that this should not go on but to say to people who are facing this journey that you can come to the end of it and get on with things afterwards. I know that it is not just about me, but that is what I am looking for.

Chair: Thank you.

Rebecca Harris: I am chair of the brain tumour APPG. Like pancreatic cancer, brain tumours are now a major killer, particularly of young people under 40. Medical advances have been very poor in it, and there are a huge number of different cancers. It is a question whether, as we are driving towards cancer targets, some of the difficult or more complicated cancers are going to be avoided in order to pick the low-hanging fruit. I want to bring that up the agenda as well.

Chair: That is really useful. Thank you very much. As I said, we have 5 February, 12 February and it looks like 26 February as well. We will let you know as and when, but thank you for bringing that to us.

Henry Smith made representations.

Q21 Chair: It is good to go last because you can say why your bid is so much better than all the ones that have gone before, with no one else here.

Henry Smith: Absolutely. I am very grateful for the opportunity. Good afternoon to the Committee. As you can see, I am all on my lonesome here, and I do not think that it is because of my choice of aftershave. Support has been e-mailed in from a number of colleagues. I should declare an interest: I am chairman of the county APPG and a former leader of a county council. We are calling for this debate in the light of the very current issue of and discussions about English devolution.

The case that the counties are making is that, certainly in terms of service delivery and a long record of democratic accountability, county councils and county unitary authorities across England have capacity. There has previously been a lot of focus on city regions, and rightly so. But the counties make up 86% of the land area of England and 47% of the population. They are responsible for delivering the most strategic services-things like highways, social care, education, emergency services and so forth. In the context of the English devolution debate, this is therefore an important element to discuss.

The call for the debate has cross-party support from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Conservative colleagues. There would be the opportunity and the scope for a good debate because, while the issue of devolution is something that many parties want to talk about, there is quite a wide range of opinions on the solutions for devolution to England. I think that there could be quite a lively debate as a result of this motion.

Q22 Chair: Could you read out the motion, just for the record?

Henry Smith: Absolutely. It reads: "This House believes that there is a compelling case for an English devolution settlement for the counties that make up 86% of England’s land mass. This should include devolved powers, budgets and accountability for a range of Whitehall budgets and public services to secure increased economic input, ensure public service improvements and enhance local democratic accountability. Moreover, this House recognises that county council and county unitary authorities are the most effective vehicles to exercise these new powers, hold the newly devolved budgets and provide effective democratic scrutiny."

Q23 Chair: You have asked for 90 minutes. We could maybe slot you in at the end of a day, but I think you might need a bit more time than 90 minutes, especially with this number of names.

Henry Smith: That is very generous of you. I think that we could fill more than 90 minutes, and I would certainly appreciate that, but I know that there is a lot of pressure. Certainly, from hearing the earlier submissions, some very worthwhile cases are being put to the Backbench Business Committee, so we do not want to be greedy.

Q24 Bob Blackman: You have a reasonable number of speakers, but actually it is not a very balanced debate. I know it is difficult to get Opposition Members from some of the counties, but I think it would be helpful. If you look at the list here, there are a lot of Conservative speakers and not many others. I think it would be very helpful to get a more balanced view so that we can have a balanced debate.

Henry Smith: You are right that the election returns from county areas tend to be more favourable to the Conservative party than those from metropolitan areas, but we will certainly make more of an effort to appeal to Labour Members of Parliament in particular to put themselves forward for the debate. The secretariat of the all-party parliamentary group is the County Councils Network, an all-party group within the Local Government Association, so I am sure that we could encourage greater participation.

Q25 Pete Wishart: I very much support this; I think it is a really good idea. The only worry that I have-maybe you can answer this-is that the subject is not more open and broad than devolution in England. You seem to be very prescriptive about your solution, which is devolution to the counties. Wouldn’t you get more interest if it were a general debate on devolution within England, so that other ideas and concepts could be put forward?

Henry Smith: That is a very good point. I think the reason why we have been stressing county devolution is that a lot has already happened in terms of city devolution. The Manchester city region, for example, is already well advanced and developed, yet that is not reflected in the non-metropolitan areas. Obviously, London has had devolved government for some considerable time now. We seek to redress that imbalance between county and metropolitan.

Q26 Oliver Colvile: As you know, I represent a city unitary authority. How would that fit into this debate about the counties? While I think we should do more, frankly, Plymouth does not do masses of stuff with the counties unless it is on strategic planning issues. I am not quite sure how that would fit in.

Henry Smith: The counties have quite a good record, because they are in multi-tier areas of partnership working. I think there is an important debate to be had on how city unitaries that join a county such as Devon to Plymouth could have greater partnership working in a devolved settlement. I would hope that, although colleagues might not represent a county area in terms of their constituency, it would still be relevant for them to take part in the debate.

I point out as well that the membership of the counties all-party parliamentary group and the County Councils Network, and indeed those sponsoring this debate, represent not just county councils in the traditional multi-tier sense, but also, since the last local government reorganisation, some of the counties that became unitaries.

Q27 Oliver Colvile: Like Cornwall?

Henry Smith: Cornwall is a classic example. They have a unitary experience but are traditionally a county.

Q28 Chair: Thank you. We do need to have more Labour names on this, but if you can supply those, then that is absolutely fine.

Henry Smith: I will go away and lobby your colleagues.

Q29 Chair: Is there any date that you couldn’t do? We have basically got pretty much every Thursday between now and the general election. We have 5 February, 12 February, 26 February and most Thursdays.

Henry Smith: I can be quite flexible with that. Again, I appreciate the pressure of business on the Committee. I think any time in February would be ideal. Perhaps, if I need to go away and rustle up some Labour Members, a later date might be helpful.

Q30 Chair: That’s great. Thank you very much, and thanks for your patience.

Henry Smith: It is always fascinating listening to Back Benchers.