UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

PROPOSALS FOR BACKBENCH DEBATES

IAN AUSTIN, DR JULIAN HUPPERT and STEVE BRINE

YASMIN QURESHI, NICK DE BOIS and JACOB REES-MOGG

ROGER WILLIAMS, GLYN DAVIES, JIM SHANNON and MRS MARY GLINDON

NICK SMITH

PAULINE LATHAM

RT HON ALISTAIR BURT AND JIM SHANNON

RT HON MICHAEL MEACHER

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Made before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 8 July 2014

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

Mr Nigel Evans

John Hemming

Chair: Before we start, I have asked Ian’s group to go first simply because they need to be away. Is anybody else in a desperate hurry?

Roger Williams: There is an Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee meeting and several people here are involved in that.

Nick Smith: I can wait a bit longer.

Q1 Chair: It is all credit.

The other thing is that we have all day on 17 July and then a pre-recess Adjournment debate on 22 July. We have more applications for time than I have ever seen before, so it will be really difficult to make a decision. If it is at all possible for your debate to take place in September, we have plenty of time then and I would be really appreciative if that is what you could apply for. If it is really urgent, please let us know why it is so desperately urgent. If we can keep things brief, that would be even better.

Ian Austin, Dr Julian Huppert and Steve Brine made representations.

Ian Austin: We would like to apply for a debate in the main Chamber in September so that we can scrutinise Government progress on the recommendations in last year’s "Get Britain Cycling" report from the all-party cycling group. I am the co-chair of the group along with Julian Huppert and our vice-chair Steve Brine. We are supported by MPs from all parties. It would be the third debate on cycling. In 2012, there was a debate in Westminster Hall in which more than 70 MPs took part. Last year, over 100 MPs took part in a debate in the main Chamber and tens of thousands of members of the public e-mailed MPs encouraging them to do so. We would like a debate in September because the Government are due to report in August or September on the progress that they promised to make on implementing our recommendations. A debate on this subject would be timely for that reason.

Q2 Chair: Did you want to add anything?

Dr Huppert: Just that with the Tour de France having just finished its UK stages yesterday and with the Tour of Britain happening around that time, there is a salience to doing it in September. We would be able to get another large turnout of Members and there is a lot of interest from the public. We could also make a significant difference to Government policy in the area.

Steve Brine: The Committee has been supportive of this cause over this Parliament and this is about unfinished business. We were hugely successful and well-supported in the "Get Britain Cycling" report. The inquiry was a massive piece of work with huge interest from MPs and constituents. This is about holding the Government to their word. We moved them a long way during this Parliament and now want to finish the job.

Q3 Mr Amess: I can see what is in it for Cambridge, but I am not so sure about Dudley and Winchester. My only point is about whether the debate will be balanced and will deal with cyclists on the pavement, who are increasingly becoming a nuisance. I just want a tiny bit of balance.

Ian Austin: The first thing I would say is that 3.5 million people across the country cycle every week. Millions of people watched the Tour de France yesterday and the total was 5 million over the weekend, which shows how keen people across Britain are about cycling. All the issues-cycling on the pavement, red lights-were raised in previous debates. I am very clear that everybody who uses the roads should obey the law and I would use the debate to say that.

Mr Amess: Wonderful.

Q4 Oliver Colvile: I should declare an interest in that I helped to write the report and I hope that I participated in both debates, too. The matter is important because, as I understand it, a journalist from The Times is still in a coma. We need to ensure that pressure is placed upon the Government to ensure that cycling is safer. I would be very supportive of this move and trying to do it in September when, frankly, an awful lot of people might be up in Scotland participating in a referendum would be an ideal opportunity.

Chair: Excellent.

Q5 John Hemming: Obviously, the challenge for the Committee is that we currently have one time to allocate before the recess and then we have lots and lots and lots of people wanting debates. Therefore, it is important for us to know who is willing to accept Westminster Hall without a motion. I know that you had a slot in Westminster Hall before, but if you were only offered Westminster Hall, would you refuse that and hope that maybe in six months’ time you would-

Steve Brine: We couldn’t fit in. It was simply the case that people were standing. I had never seen Westminster Hall with a queue, but when we had our debate, people were queuing to sit in. That gives you an indication-

Q6 John Hemming: So your argument is that it has to be the Chamber.

Steve Brine: It just suggests that.

Q7 John Hemming: Basically, you have not used the standard form, and had you done so, those questions would have been more directly addressed.

Ian Austin: I am sorry; that was my administrative-

John Hemming: That is not in itself a problem, but much that we accept that lots of people would like to speak, we have a rule that you must have a number of names listed.

Ian Austin: I think I have provided almost 20 names to the officials.

Chair: And they are cross-party.

John Hemming: That is great.

Ian Austin: The truth is that if you look at the last two debates, I don’t think there have been any Westminster Hall debates or Backbench Business Committee debates in the main Chamber that have attracted such huge numbers of Members, and such a huge response from people outside. It shows that this House is focusing on issues of huge public concern.

Q8 Bob Blackman: How will you get a balanced debate, because by the sound of it, everyone will be speaking about the benefits of cycling, improvements and so on? Is there anyone who will speak to the contrary?

Ian Austin: There are controversial issues, such as the use of helmets and the sorts of things that Mr Amess has raised. The debate will be about scrutinising the Government’s progress on their commitment in the wake of the "Get Britain Cycling" report. I don’t think by any means that the debate will just be one of 100 MPs queuing up to say the same thing, or being all in agreement. The last two debates resulted in the Government making some clear commitments and announcements, but we want them to go further, and we want to scrutinise what will be in the report published in August. It is fair to say that there are concerns out there in the cycling world about how far the Government will go.

Dr Huppert: Just to say that there are matters of disagreement and concerns that could be addressed. Just today, Cambridge has agreed to segregated facilities, so cyclists will not be on pavements or in the road-that is a way forward to address Mr Amess’s points. There is controversy over many things, and there is a lot of debate within the cycling community. We cannot guarantee which Members will show up to speak, but I would expect a fairly good discussion rather than just sheer agreement.

Chair: Thank you very much for that and for being so brief. We will let you know probably in September about what we have scheduled.

Ian Austin: I am very grateful, and thank you for letting us go first.

Yasmin Qureshi, Nick de Bois and Jacob Rees-Mogg made representations.

Q9 Chair: This is an application for a debate in the Chamber of either 90 minutes or three hours on oral hormone pregnancy tests.

Yasmin Qureshi: That is correct. At least 20 Members have indicated that they will speak. We want the debate in the main Chamber because there is a motion and ideally we would call for a vote on it.

Q10 Chair: Could you read the text of the motion for the record?

Yasmin Qureshi: Yes. Basically, our motion says that between 1953 and 1975 thousands of children were born with deformities because their mothers took Primodos. We are asking for full disclosure of the documents relating to its use and we want "the Secretary of State to set up an independent panel to examine these documents."

Ideally, we would prefer the debate to be held in July, but if not, we are happy to take a slot in September. We would prefer July because in the past month or two there has been quite a lot of publicity about the drug in The Times and the Telegraph. Three weeks ago, Sky covered the issue for the entire Wednesday. Recently, I have also asked two questions of the Prime Minister on the issue. We think that at this moment in time it is very much in the Government’s mind, and it is a very topical issue. It is really important because we have documents that will show that there seems to have been a complete failure on the part of the Committee on Safety of Medicines to deal with this issue at the time, because many GPs and consultants raised the fact that that drug might be causing deformities, and nothing was done about it at all. A lot of those victims are now into their 50s. A lot of them are very unwell. They need redress for the injustice that has happened to them.

I am supported by my two colleagues, Nick de Bois and Jacob Rees-Mogg, and I would ask them to say a few words.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I understand that this matter came to my attention through a constituent coming to see me, and that Primodos does seem to have caused deformities in some children, and that the United States has taken a rather different approach from the United Kingdom, and that there seems to be information available there that is not available here, and that therefore some form of inquiry ought to take place to try and establish whether the United States has better information, and whether there is something that ought to be put right in this country.

Nick de Bois: My colleagues have outlined our case for seeking a public debate. I think it is in the interests and character of the House that it has never hesitated to examine publicly and ask questions that constituents rightly want asked on the Floor of the House. There are many strong suggestions that this issue has affected not just the lives of the mothers but, most tragically, their offspring, and this seems an appropriate case for us to bring to the Floor of the House.

Q11 Mr Amess: Yasmin, I know this is the campaign you have been leading. And this isn’t thalidomide?

Yasmin Qureshi: This is not thalidomide; this is a different drug. This is Primodos.

Q12 Mr Amess: You are not getting anywhere with the manufacturers, are you-holding them to account?

Yasmin Qureshi: Not at this stage.

Q13 Mr Evans: This is clearly a hugely serious issue. This may not go against you having a debate on the Floor of the House, but do you think this may be something that the Health Committee would be better looking into, in order that you could get the answers that you need, rather than just a general debate?

Yasmin Qureshi: Our idea is to have the debate so that the issues are aired, so that a lot of the information that we have can be drawn to the attention of the Ministers. I think that is a better way forward than the Health Committee, because at the end of the day we are also asking for something-for the Government to set up an independent panel.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I did discuss with Yasmin whether it was possible to have a motion that established a House of Commons Committee formally to look into this issue, which of course is possible with a debate on a motion, as was done with the banking inquiry. It may be a bit early to do that as a House of Commons inquiry before the House has had a chance to debate the issue fully and get to understand it better, but I think the ability to establish House of Commons Committees specifically to look into issues is a very good and powerful weapon that the House has.

Q14 Bob Blackman: Would this be the first debate on this topic? Has there been an official response from the Government to the requests yet?

Yasmin Qureshi: I started dealing with this campaign almost two years ago, and I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary about these issues and got a standard blank answer-"not interested." Recently I had a discussion with one of the Health Ministers, Daniel Poulter. Again, we did not seem to get very far. It is fair to say that since my raising the matter at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister has agreed to meet me tomorrow-for about 20 minutes-to discuss it, but obviously in 20 minutes we will not have a chance fully to address and deal with the issues. There are thousands of documents that need to be-

Q15 Bob Blackman: We do not want to go into the ins and outs of the inquiry. I am looking at whether a debate takes place and why. Given that there has not been a debate on this issue, would it not be better that you have a debate in Westminster Hall and get a response from the Government, and then, if you don’t get the response you want, proceed to the Chamber and get a votable motion there? That might be a better tactic to achieve what you want.

Nick de Bois: I would have been inclined to agree with you but in my early inquiries into this I discovered a long history of written questions to Ministers that go way before this Government. Frankly, in my opinion, those questions have just had stonewalled answers. I think it is time to hold Ministers to account on the Floor of the Chamber, where we can also articulate the constituents’ living experiences and concerns as well.

Q16 Bob Blackman: Okay, but you could do that in Westminster Hall and get a response from the Government on the record, and then decide to take it further. That is my point.

Nick de Bois: No. Conceivably you could do that, but actually what I think we would need, because we realise this is such a significant issue, is to be given the possibility of asking a question to divide on.

Q17 John Hemming: I am not sure that necessarily people would disagree with the motion anyway. The challenge is the volume of requests that the Committee has and the limited number of facilities. You have used the standard form, so you have not ticked the box for Westminster Hall. In refusing the option of Westminster Hall there could potentially be quite a delay.

Yasmin Qureshi: I know you have many important debates that people want to speak on. In my opinion, of the number of issues that have really affected people across the country, we are talking about 1.5 million women who were potentially exposed to this drug. We know at the moment there may be 1,000 victims, actually more, because as the campaign is going I am getting regular e-mails from across the country from ladies telling of their experiences. This is really a mega issue and needs to be debated properly in the main Chamber.

Q18 Chair: The issue that John raised is very important. We have never had so many requests for very limited times. It may be that the only option that is available is Westminster Hall. We only have 17 July, the pre-recess Adjournment debate, when you can raise it anyway. We do have some Westminster Hall time. I want to pursue the point made by Nigel about the Health Committee. Have you been to the Health Committee or spoken to them to see if they could do an inquiry into this?

Yasmin Qureshi: I have not spoken to them, the main reason being that I think a proper Government inquiry has much more power and it would be more likely that the victims would get some kind of redress sooner rather than later. This has been going on for well over 30 years. It was raised in Parliament in the ’80s and nothing was done. As has been said, victims have been stonewalled on it. We are talking about thousands and thousands of victims with deformities.

Q19 Mr Evans: The reason I was coming at it from that point of view is because I want to see answers to these issues, too, because it would affect all of our constituencies. I was thinking that if Sarah Wollaston took this up as an issue and looked into it, her Committee could make a recommendation to Government that there is a full inquiry into this issue. That would be more hard-hitting than a call for it from the Chamber. That is the only reason that I put it in those terms.

Yasmin Qureshi: I understand. I think it is important, as has been said, that the experiences of the victims and their children have to be told. The country at large needs to know, so that these things do not happen again.

Mr Evans: Absolutely.

Q20 Chair: We will leave it there. We will look at all of those issues that have been raised. When we are in private session we will try to help you raise those issues in the best forum. It does not mean that you cannot have several bites at the cherry. It does not mean that while a Select Committee inquiry is going on, we cannot have a debate in Parliament. We will look at all of that.

Yasmin Qureshi: I am happy to accept a date in September or October; I do not mind the date. I am just saying July if it is possible but otherwise September or October.

John Hemming: July is impossible.

Chair: We will look at it. Thank you very much.

Roger Williams, Glyn Davies, Jim Shannon and Mrs Mary Glindon made representations.

Q21 Chair: This is a general debate in the Chamber for three hours on food, fraud and dodgy deals.

Roger Williams: I thank the Committee for allowing us to make this presentation. The topic, "Food fraud and dodgy deals" was not my idea; it was Laura Sandys idea, but unfortunately she is not here today.

Food fraud is the issue. Food fraud and adulteration is as old as the history of time and it has been going on for ever. What makes it particularly topical at the moment, following on from the horsemeat scandal, is that the Elliott report will be published soon into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks. We would be looking for a debate in September at the earliest; preferably in the House and for three hours.

Food fraud is an offence against the consumer, so it affects everybody in this country. It is of financial importance too, because people make a lot of money out of putting cheap ingredients into what purports to be genuine food. It can be dangerous for consumers as well. Anne McIntosh, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee asked in business questions whether time for a debate could be made available on the Floor of the House, but the Leader of the House suggested that we make an application to the Backbench Business Committee, so here we are. There is considerable cross-party support; two short debates in Westminster Hall attracted a good range of the usual suspects who enjoy debating these things. I have a list of 21 MPs who would wish to be involved.

Q22 Chair: When you say "involved", are those 21 MPs certain to take part in the debate, or are they people who think it is a good idea to have the debate?

Roger Williams: I think they have made a commitment to be involved in it. I cannot speak entirely for them, but that is my understanding.

Jim Shannon: From a Northern Ireland perspective, food manufacture and food processing is massive. Two thirds of what we manufacture goes out of Northern Ireland. It is very important to us to have sustainable and responsible food manufacture. We want to put on the record how important that is. I think this debate would attract many MPs from across all four regions.

Mrs Glindon: On the question you just asked, I want to say that when Roger sent out the e-mail, he did ask people to indicate whether they would be interested in taking part in a debate, not simply supporting this request today.

Glyn Davies: I support the debate. My roots are the same as Roger’s in rural Wales, which was at the heart of the horsemeat scandal. I am quite close to that. I have just realised the sheer scale and the implications of that for the entire beef industry in Britain, and there is still a case. Linked to this debate will inevitably be the whole issue of labelling-it will be the Elliott review, but the whole issue of food labelling attracts a massive amount of interest. We have 21 people signed up to this, but I feel pretty sure the issue will be significant to a lot more.

Q23 John Hemming: We ask people whether they will accept Westminster Hall, because I know that when we get to October and we have some time, we will still have a massive queue of people wanting debates, and anyone who is willing to accept Westminster Hall is much more likely to get a debate. At the moment, you have not ticked Westminster Hall, so we will put on the record that you would not accept it.

Roger Williams: I hope you will give us some bonus points for using the approved form.

Q24 John Hemming: Using the approved form definitely gets bonus points. I have been on the Committee, along with the Chair, since it was created and the difficulty is that we have never had so many requests and so little time.

Roger Williams: We understand that, but we believe the topic is of particular importance.

Q25 John Hemming: All topics are important.

Roger Williams: If we had ticked Westminster Hall, you would have given us Westminster Hall.

Q26 John Hemming: We would not have given you Westminster Hall, because we do not have it to give at the moment.

Q27 Chair: On Westminster Hall, you heard the application for the cycling debate earlier. We put the cycling debate initially in Westminster Hall. It was so full that they came back to us and said they really needed the Chamber, so we then scheduled another debate in the Chamber. What John was saying was absolutely right. It means you can have something in Westminster Hall and then come back to us and say, "We really need a motion; we need more time; and we need more people." Then we could schedule something in the Chamber afterwards.
At the moment, everything is so short because we are coming up to recess. Once we get into October/November, it will be much more fluid, so it may be worth just doing something in Westminster Hall now and then having something else later.

Roger Williams: I would only say it is because of the Elliott report, which we anticipate coming out shortly.

Q28 Chair: When is that?

Roger Williams: Rumours go round this place a lot, but we would like to see it perhaps before the end of recess. A debate in September would be appropriate timing.

Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Nick Smith made representations.

Chair: Thank you for your patience.

Nick Smith: Thank you ever so much.

Q29 Chair: You want a debate on physical inactivity in the UK and you have asked for 90 minutes in the Chamber.

Nick Smith: Yes. I have bags of supporters for this important debate about physical inactivity and public health. There was a recent parliamentary round table on the issue, which was well-attended. Inactivity shortens a person’s lifespan by up to five years, here in the UK. We found out that, according to the World Health Organisation, it is the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality. There was recently a report called "The Global Burden of Disease Study", which says that, in the UK, we have the highest levels of obesity and overweight people than anywhere in western Europe, except Iceland and Malta. So it is a big issue across the UK. Lots of different Departments are affected.

The key supporters, who would normally be with me today but are, unfortunately, in Select Committees or chairing all-party groups, include Tracey Crouch, who some of you may know coaches a girl’s football team, Kevin Barron, former Chair of the Health Committee, Gerry Sutcliffe, former Sports Minister, and Ming Campbell, who was an international athlete. So there is bags of cross-party support for this issue.

Chair: Brilliant. Thank you.

Q30 John Hemming: Do you want to guess my question?

Nick Smith: Go on.

John Hemming: Everyone else knows what it is. You have not ticked Westminster Hall, which will mean a much longer wait. If you had a debate in Westminster Hall, you could have a much earlier debate. Are you willing retrospectively to tick Westminster Hall.

Nick Smith: My preference would be the Chamber, of course.

John Hemming: I know, but the challenge for the Committee is slotting everybody in.

Nick Smith: Hearing some of the difficulties you have got, I would be happy to wait until September and, at a push, accept Westminster Hall, if that is what you decide. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you very much. I think we have everything here, so that is great.

Q31 Oliver Colvile: What do you want to achieve out of this? Do you want the Government to set out what pressure they will bring to bear on the United Nations, and the like?

Nick Smith: Good question. It is a cross-departmental topic, so it would be great to grab the attention of the Department of Health and the Department for Education, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport-and to encourage more general practitioner support for this; better school support; and to raise awareness of the topic in the round.

Everybody around this table knows about the public health dangers of obesity and it is something that we have to grapple with.

Chair: Thank you. We are unlikely to schedule anything beyond the 17th today, so it may be a while before you hear about what we have scheduled. Thank you.

Nick Smith: Thanks for your time, everybody.

Pauline Latham made representations.

Pauline Latham: You have had all my documentation, I assume.

Chair: Yes. It is on refugee camps and you want 90 minutes in either Westminster Hall or the Chamber.

Pauline Latham: Yes, but it could not be next Thursday, and I am not here in September for two weeks, because I am having surgery. Obviously you have a lot of pressure on the Chamber. I am happy for it even to go to October. I do not mind when it is.

Q32 Chair: That is really helpful for us. Thank you. It is also really helpful for us to have such advance notice, so that we can slot things in, so that’s great. Do you want to speak very briefly about the refugee camps?

Pauline Latham: I have been to the one that is not in Syria but that many Syrian refugees go to, and I have been to ones in Africa. The difference in the quality of refugee camps is incredible. The refugee camp that the Syrians are in is state of the art-they even have a credit card that they use at a supermarket that has been put in for them, and they are allowed to choose their food. In Africa, they are not-they are given food parcels daily.

It seems to me that if we are looking at refugees who are in a very difficult situation in their life, we should be making it as simple as possible for them and giving them as much dignity as possible. If we can do it in one country, would should be able to do it everywhere. Just because the people in Syria have demanded better health services in the refugee camp because they are better educated, that does not mean that, because they are poor, African people should put up with a much worse situation than educated people. That is basically what I want to say, but I know that others will have different views.

Q33 Chair: We have available the 9.30 am to 11 am slot in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday, which used to be one of the slots that went in the ballot but is now allocated by us. That is 90 minutes. Would that be something you would consider?

Pauline Latham: Yes. I am happy to be flexible because I have been waiting to do it for a long time. I am happy to fit in because I know that you have a lot of pressure on the time that you have allowed.

Chair: That is really helpful. Thank you very much.

Rt Hon. Alistair Burt and Jim Shannon made representations.

Q34 Chair: We are making an exception for you, because we appreciate the fact that we are coming up to the end of term and you have applied for a specific date.

Alistair Burt: I have.

Q35 Chair: We normally ask people to fill in this pro forma, more so that they know what it is we are looking for rather than because we are very strict.

Alistair Burt: No, you are right; forgive me for doing it this way. I do apologise.

Q36 Chair: No problem at all. You have applied for 17 July for a debate on the middle east and north Africa.

Alistair Burt: Yes, Chair. The reason for doing so is the obvious urgency in terms of what is happening in the region. We are all very familiar with the background to the region, but things have changed even in the past couple of weeks. If Parliament does not have an opportunity to discuss the middle east before a lengthy recess, that might leave some people outside thinking that we are not concentrating on a major issue of world affairs with a direct impact on us.

In terms of urgency, I picked out the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant in the Syria and Iraq region. That of course connects with UK citizens who have gone abroad to fight and have sent videos about their circumstances back to the United Kingdom. There is also the change in the nature of the situation between Israel and the Palestinian territories because of the recent murders of young men on both sides of that conflict and the risk that that has produced of an increasing move towards arms on both sides, which could be disastrous. There are other issues in the region as well, including the situation in Egypt, where a British journalist has been sentenced in absentia. All those are issues of urgency in a situation with which we are all reasonably familiar. I am very conscious that what is said about the middle east in Westminster-specifically in the Chamber-does resonate around the area. I very much hope that the House will get an opportunity for many Members to contribute.

I have listed supporters on the back of the letter. You will see not only seniority in colleagues who believe that we should have a debate, but also that a well-known variety of views about issues in the middle east are reflected. Each major party is represented, together with Jim Shannon, who is with me and has a particular interest in matters of religious tolerance. The list shows the colleagues who believe that it would be worth while to have the debate.

Q37 Chair: Jim, do you want to add anything?

Jim Shannon: I would like to say very quickly, Chair, that I believe it is a subject that has been of great interest to Parliament over the last period of time-we have taken great interest in religious persecution, freedom of expression and equalities, much of that focused on the middle east. We had an opportunity to visit Egypt recently and we feel that it is strategically placed in relation to middle east affairs. Around Egypt you have all the countries where there is controversy, terrorist activity and suppression of freedom in many spheres. I believe this is a subject of some interest to us all in the House and what happens there affects us all. It is not just the price of oil; it is much more than that. It is people’s lives and how we can best ensure that we play a constructive role in Egypt and the middle east. I feel that it a subject that many people will contribute to from right across the UK.

Q38 Mr Evans: Alistair, I think it is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the debate that you are asking for. It also dovetails into what Pauline was asking for as far as refugee camps are concerned and I have been to a few of them. No doubt you have been to more than your fair share when you were a Foreign Office Minister. I suspect there would be massive interest in this debate because it is wide, covering the middle east and north Africa. To me, it is such a huge subject that it would take a whole day, not a three-hour debate in the Chamber, to even begin to address the sort of problems that you need to look at there. Have you tried any of your leverage with the Leader of the House to see if a full day could be allotted to this subject because it is so huge?

Alistair Burt: I had to weigh up the balance between being greedy for time-you are absolutely right, I could talk about this for a week, as you all know, and it could certainly fill a day-with the importance of the subject and the pressing need to get something said and for colleagues to say something before we break. I entirely accept the argument. If there was a full day going, I would be very happy to have it. I have had no indication from the Government that a full day is available between now and when we are likely to go into recess. Otherwise, of course, I think a full day would be a good thing to have. I was trying to split the difference between having enough time, which is why I am looking for three hours for colleagues, and having the urgency by having the debate before Parliament rises. However, I fully accept that we could talk for longer and it could have even more prominence.

Q39 Mr Evans: Can I just add one other thing? We are going into recess on the 22nd and what is going on in countries like Iraq, Syria and a number of other countries is hugely important. I wonder whether some sort of pressure could be put on the Government to make sure that they at least make a statement to the House before it goes into recess on the 22nd.

Alistair Burt: Well, I have my application for the House to return early due to circumstances in the middle east already in pencil, waiting in my drawer. The chance of being recalled because of something in the middle east is not low. I will certainly take your advice and speak to the powers that be, but, in the meantime, my application has to remain on the table.

Chair: Thank you.

Q40 Bob Blackman: Alistair, the subject is very important and you have a range of different speakers. Is the intention to have a divisible motion or a motion for general debate? What is your stance on that?

Alistair Burt: My thought is that the moment you introduce a divisible debate in this situation, you pile on the difficulties. There is so much going on, on which colleagues have valued views, without needing to separate colleagues by way of a motion. Have a general debate. That allows colleagues the freedom to raise all the issues that they consider important, and allows Front Benchers on each side to express an opinion about urgent things that are happening at the time.

Q41 Bob Blackman: To follow up on this point, one reason that colleagues may be pressing for a debate in Government time on a particular issue is that the Government would open, the Opposition would answer and there would be a wind-up at the end. With backbench business, it tends to be that the Government and the Opposition will speak at some stage during the debate without necessarily replying to the debate. Phasing that and getting what you are after is quite important in the process.

Alistair Burt: I would use whatever leverage I still have in this business to ask both Front Benchers to speak at the end of the debate. I made it my practice, when I was dealing with backbench business, to do that and I treated it exactly the same way as any other debate when you could get the flavour and feel of the debate and then respond. Because it was automatic practice for Front Benchers to do that, it strikes me that that should be in the ability of both Front Benches. I know that there is no guarantee, but it would be my strong wish that they handled it exactly like that, and then both Front Benchers would have an opportunity to contribute having listened to colleagues.

Q42 Mr Amess: Alistair, you have obviously been listening to the representations made by other colleagues. I am the last to want to set colleague against colleague, but am I right in suggesting that you believe that your particular issue is the most time-sensitive?

Alistair Burt: I think both that it is time-sensitive, because of the matters that are on our television screens and in the news almost daily, and also that its weight is sufficient that it ought to occupy the Chamber. I did feel a sense of urgency in bringing it forward and feel that the House should express an opinion on what is happening in the region before Parliament closes.

Q43 Oliver Colvile: Do you feel, as I do, that actually if the Government had done something rather similar to this last year, they would have had a much better understanding as to what the sense was within the House in the run-up to Syria? It might have actually helped them to identify that.

Alistair Burt: Is that the time? [Laughter.] Actually, I am very happy to answer that question. The answer to that in my own mind, Oliver, is probably no. The problem was that the Prime Minister had quite rightly committed to all of us that, if anything serious happened, he would bring the House back to talk about it. Without giving anything away, as we know the time scale was being dictated by what we all anticipated to be an American option the following weekend, so things had to be done very quickly. Accordingly, the House was asked by the Government to consider a difficult motion at very short notice. I am genuinely not sure how much preparation could have been done in advance. The attack using chemical weapons in the suburb of Damascus plainly was not and could not have been anticipated, and accordingly the speed of the response in Parliament was dictated by events, not by any wish of the Government to spring something suddenly.

I remember saying to colleagues-on the basis that if Parliament had not been recalled and the Prime Minister had been left with his options without talking to colleagues-that there would have been the bitterest criticism of him for having gone back on something he had said under great pressure from colleagues before Parliament closed. Quite genuinely, I do not know how much could have been done in advance before colleagues were left with the very difficult decision they had on that day.

Q44 Chair: We did in fact have a debate this time last year, before we went into the recess.

Alistair Burt: And the Prime Minister was pressed and asked, "If anything happens, you will come back, won’t you?" and he said yes.

Q45 Chair: As you have heard and as you know, we are fantastically over-subscribed.

Alistair Burt: I appreciate that.

Chair: In the past we have taken a two-hour slot at the beginning of the pre-recess Adjournment debate and shortened that debate on the last day of term to four hours-in fact, that was what we did last year. If we were to give you the first two hours on Tuesday 22 July, would that be something you would consider? It is not 17 July, but would be the very last day of term.

Alistair Burt: My personal priority is to get this discussed, if possible, before the House rises. Two hours, bearing in mind what Nigel and others have said, makes it extremely tight to get any clear opinion. If both Front Benches respond in any serious manner, it becomes difficult to justify to people outside that we have had even that time. I know that you have serious problems, but I still think that three hours about splits the difference for a very big subject at a very urgent time. I wish I could help you further, but I am not sure I can.

Q46 Oliver Colvile: If you were, by good fortune following a Cabinet reshuffle, called to return to the colours, what would happen to the debate?

Alistair Burt: What a lovely thought. When the Prime Minister made that phone call, I would say, "Oh, by the way, could I just do the debate that we have scheduled for next week?" Perhaps I might answer it unless, of course, I am in another Department.

Q47 Oliver Colvile: But there are people who could-

Alistair Burt: There are enough other colleagues who feel the urgency, should that remote possibility happen. It is the motion-the subject-that is important.

Chair: We will go into private session after this and then discuss the matter and let you know.

Alistair Burt: Of course. I am really grateful that you are thinking about it this late in the day. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you for bringing it to us.

Rt Hon Michael Meacher made representations.

Q48 Chair: Are you here about the commission? We do not have a new application from you.

Mr Meacher: My understanding was that there was a bid by Steve Baker as the primary sponsor of a debate on money creation and society. I feel rather inhibited because he is not here and the other two supporting sponsors, Caroline Lucas and Douglas Carswell, are also not here. I am just wondering whether it has been withdrawn just before the meeting by an e-mail that I have never seen. I am quite prepared to make a presentation instead of Steve Baker, but I am slight inhibited.

Q49 Chair: Is there a real urgency that this has to be debated before the end of term?

Mr Meacher: No. We are talking about quantitative easing. If we can put it into words that people understand, we are talking about interest rates and banks lending to industry. All of those are very high profile at this time, but I cannot pretend-

Q50 Chair: Is this the Positive Money campaign?

Mr Meacher: Positive Money is indeed very much part of the current debate.

Q51 Chair: May I suggest that it might be a better representation if everyone got together and came back to us? We are taking representations next week, so you could even do it then.

Mr Meacher: I will certainly do that, Madam Chair. As I said, I am alarmed and a bit distressed that, having waited all this time, no one else is here and you are apparently not even aware of it. I had an e-mail from Steve Baker making it perfectly clear that he was going to present this today and asking me please to turn up in support.

Q52 Chair: I saw it last week, because we had an application for then, but they weren’t able to come last week.

Mr Meacher: That’s right, and that was why I didn’t come last week, but he did say that he was reconfiguring the motion and presenting it this week.

Q53 Chair: I have a great idea: why don’t you come back with all of them next week and you will go first?

Mr Meacher: Thank you very much indeed. Perhaps I could put down a marker that, unlike my colleagues, I made the effort.

Chair: Brilliant. Thank you very much.