UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC

HOUSE OF COMMONS

ORAL REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2015

MR ROBIN WALKER AND MR GRAHAM STUART

ADAM AFRIYIE

GLYN DAVIES AND ALBERT OWEN

TIM LOUGHTON

MR JOHN BARON, JACK LOPRESTI, RICHARD DRAX, MR PHILIP HOLLOBONE, MR JAMES CLAPPISON, MR DAI HAVARD AND JIM SHANNON

MARIA MILLER, MRS CAROLINE SPELMAN AND CAROLINE DINENAGE

SIR GEORGE YOUNG

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 24 February 2015

Members present:

John Hemming (Chair)

Sir David Amess

Mr David Anderson

Bob Blackman

Oliver Colvile

Ian Mearns

Mr Robin Walker and Mr Graham Stuart made representations.

Q1 Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a bit of a time and quorum problem, so we are going to have to motor a bit. Apologies for that and for starting late. Adam Afriyie is first on the list, but he is at the back. Rather than move people around, what is your debate, Robin and Graham?

Mr Walker: This is basically a chase-up of a debate that was pitched for before the recess, on fairer funding for schools. We now have 62 supporters for the debate and, with the parties having announced their various policies in terms of school funding, it is more urgent than ever.

Q2 Chair: Thank you for pointing that out. Can we move to Adam now? [Interruption.] Well, it was a novel hijacking of the Committee! We now have Adam Afriyie on the Thames valley technology sector.

Adam Afriyie made representations.

Adam Afriyie: This is a straight-bat debate. It is for MPs in the Thames valley. Clearly, the M4 corridor is a massive boost for the UK economy in terms of technology. The local enterprise partnership works along the same lines. We have not had a debate on this economic powerhouse for quite some time, and as we approach the election in particular, I think that it would probably be appropriate to have a 90-minute debate, in which MPs are able to raise their concerns, but without a substantive motion. However, I will take guidance from the Committee on the appropriate length of time. Clearly, we could speak for hours, but 90 minutes, I think, would be appropriate.

Sir David Amess: You have answered all our questions.

Chair: Exactly. You have answered all our questions. There are no questions from the Committee. It was an excellent presentation. We do not know whether we have a 90-minute Tuesday debate at the moment so we cannot come back to you directly.

Sir David Amess: We will let you know.

Chair: Yes, we will let you know.

Adam Afriyie: Chair, I trust you.

Chair: We have a lot of debates to cram in and very little time, which is difficult.

Glyn Davies and Albert Owen made representations.

Q3 Chair: Glyn, a Welsh debate?

Glyn Davies: Thank you, Chair. I am joined by my good friend the Member for Ynys Môn. I could have been joined by a lot of other people-I have discussed it with them, and this is a cross-party request. Jonathan Edwards of Plaid Cymru would have liked to be here, as would Mark Williams and Roger Williams, as well as Conservative colleagues; Paul Murphy would have been here, but is ill today.

We want a three-hour debate on a Thursday in the Chamber-a St David’s day debate. That is what we are looking for. Traditionally, there always was a St David’s day debate. It was changed because it was anticipated that it would come under the remit of the Backbench Business Committee. This year it is important for Wales that we have the annual St David’s day debate-there has always been one, and we would like that tradition to continue, but this year it is particularly important because on St David’s day the Secretary of State will be making an announcement about the next steps of devolution. That is very significant.

It is important that the debate should be in the Chamber because this is not simply important to Welsh MPs. Devolution to Wales is a very important issue for English MPs as well, so it would not be appropriate at this particular time for the debate to be held in the Welsh Grand Committee. It should be a debate in the Chamber.

Q4 Mr Anderson: To clarify, you are asking for three hours in the Chamber and not, as it says on the form, 90 minutes in either the Chamber or Westminster Hall?

Glyn Davies: That is what we would like, but if we cannot have three hours in the Chamber the reserve position will be what is on the form.

Albert Owen: We will take any slot as close to St David’s day as possible. This has been going for decades.

Q5 Chair: So timing is more important than length or location?

Albert Owen: Absolutely. Post the referendum we have had big debates on Scotland and England, and Northern Ireland has its own half day. It is only appropriate in the United Kingdom that Wales has its slot.

Q6 Ian Mearns: The one thing I would say to both of you is that you have left it a bit late for an application for a debate as soon as possible after Sunday-Sunday is St David’s day, isn’t it? You have left it a bit late to get the slot.

Albert Owen: We shouldn’t have had a week off last week.

Mr Anderson: Can you do Sunday?

Ian Mearns: The point I am making is that we already have quite a healthy list of debates waiting to happen and you are putting in a new application asking for as soon as possible after next Sunday. You may have to wait a little longer than that.

Sir David Amess: He is a hard man.

Chair: Oliver has been sitting patiently waiting to speak.

Q7 Oliver Colvile: Bore da.

Glyn Davies: Bore da-sorry, prynhawn da.

Oliver Colvile: It’s the only piece of Welsh I know. I quite understand that you want to talk about Wales and how very important that is, but I want to ascertain what it is that you want to come out of it eventually. Secondly, although it is impossible for us to do it this year, we don’t ever seem to have a debate on St George’s day, either, and I think we should most certainly be looking for a St George’s day debate as well.

Glyn Davies: The crucial point I would make is that, rather like with the Scottish referendum, big changes in devolution apply to England as well as Wales. That is why it would be more appropriate in the Chamber than in a Committee.

This is a big statement. The Secretary of State is making a cross-party statement and publishing a Command Paper on 1 March, or as near to that as possible. There will be a big change, and I feel that the Floor of the House is the place to debate that before it is widely debated elsewhere.

Albert Owen: Just briefly, we lost the status of having Government time for Welsh debates; we have to apply to the Backbench Business Committee now. There are many cross-border issues that we do not get the opportunity to raise in questions on the Floor of the House, so this is the ideal opportunity.

Q8 Oliver Colvile: When did that stop?

Albert Owen: In this Parliament. [Interruption.] Just to say, I would love to have a St George’s day debate, because we could still talk about cross-border issues.

Q9 Chair: I am not sure that Parliament will be in existence at St George’s day this year. I am sorry about the fact that we are a bit rushed, but we have difficulties getting through all the business before we lose our quorum. Thank you very much for your presentation. You will accept Westminster Hall, or whatever? There is no problem there?

Glyn Davies: Absolutely.

Tim Loughton made representations.

Tim Loughton: I am supported by a cast of thousands who cannot be here today. I wish to call for a debate about the relationship between the police and children. We have a very modest ask. We would be more than happy with a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall. The all-party parliamentary group on children produced a comprehensive report last year after 18 months of study, raising a whole lot of problems with the lack of trust between children and young people and the police such as the higher incidence of stop and search, criminality among children in care and so on. Since then, there have been some changes, including different treatment of 17-year-olds taken into custody, but there is still an awful lot more to do, so we feel that a high-profile debate in the House would flag up the situation and show an awful lot of young people who lack trust in the police that it is being taken seriously by the Government and Parliament.

Q10 Chair: We ask for seven to eight names for a 90-minute debate. You have five names here, I think. You mentioned a cast of thousands; have we got any more names among those thousands?

Tim Loughton: I can certainly find you some more. It was done in a hurry.

Q11 Chair: We will need the names for that. You will accept Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, and you are happy to take 90 minutes in Westminster Hall, which makes a debate more possible, but we do not know time availability and so on at the moment. Is everyone happy? Thanks. Again, apologies for the speed of the process.

Mr John Baron, Jack Lopresti, Richard Drax, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr James Clappison, Mr Dai Havard and Jim Shannon made representations.

Mr Baron: I thank the Committee for allowing us to make this application. Very briefly, given the time constraints, the Government made a commitment at the NATO summit to spend 2% of GDP on defence, yet despite continual attempts to get clarification and confirmation of that, we have not yet had it confirmed at the Dispatch Box. Yesterday in defence questions, at least four ex-Defence Ministers tried to press the Government on it, and there was no straight answer.

This comes at a time of heightened tensions. Just before the weekend, the Secretary of State quite rightly described Russia, for example, as presenting a clear and present danger. Many of us both inside and outside Parliament believe that defence has been neglected, and we feel that the time has now come for Parliament to make its view known via a substantive motion and vote. I think this is particularly important as we head into the general election.

You will see, in summary, that we have a good collection of names from across the parties. We have filled the box, and there are many more who would support this debate. I welcome your questions, unless any colleagues particularly want to make any points.

Q12 Chair: You have asked for a six-hour debate, but that is difficult; you need a three-hour debate. You have made a very good case, with the right number of names, for a debate in the Chamber, so there is no issue in terms of ticking all the boxes. You would accept three hours, but you need a motion?

Mr Baron: We would accept three hours, and we would put it to a substantive motion and a vote. We would give Parliament an absolute opportunity to make its views known.

Q13 Chair: I will read out the motion for the record: "That this House believes that defence spending should be set at a minimum of 2% of GDP in accordance with our NATO commitment." Are you happy with that?

Mr Baron: Yes.

Mr Havard: May I add one thing from the Select Committee on Defence? We have consistently called for this, and for it to be properly considered. There is a debate on Monday on the estimates, which may confuse your thinking. That debate is about the estimates now and possibly for the defence and security review; it is about current expenditure within current limits and so on. This debate is about intent and the future. That is the difference between the two. They do not clash with one another.

Chair: That is an important point.

Maria Miller, Mrs Caroline Spelman and Caroline Dinenage made representations.

Maria Miller: We are here today to ask for a debate on international women’s day. It has become a strong tradition in the House for us to mark international women’s day, and in the run-up to the general election, it is particularly important especially when young British women are being enticed into terrorist activities overseas. Today’s report from the IMF shows the inequalities that women still face around the world in participating in the labour market. All these things underline why, today more than ever, we need to show our support in the Houses of Parliament for international women’s day.

We would like a debate in the main Chamber. Last year, there was some criticism when the debate was put into Westminster Hall. It is important that we show our endorsement and support for this important international event.

Q14 Chair: Thank you very much. You tick the boxes in terms of the number of names. Are you happy with Westminster Hall or the main Chamber? Westminster Hall is ticked.

Maria Miller: I think that was a mistake, and I apologise. Last year, as the Committee will remember, there was some criticism that the debate was put into Westminster Hall. Obviously, such a debate is better than nothing, but we should be underlining our support by having a debate in the main Chamber.

Q15 Mr Anderson: Obviously, 5 March would be ideal. If it was the week after, would that be a problem?

Maria Miller: I understand your thinking. I can hear that you have a lot of pressure on next Thursday. It is important to try to have the debate before the event itself, because it shows that the House endorses this important event. I fear that the following Thursday, although better than nothing, would be a little after the event, which may not send out the best message for a Parliament that still has only 20% women Members. We perhaps need to underline the importance of this issue a little more.

Chair: Thank you for your presentation. As you can see, we have a lot of very worthy issues to discuss. What you cannot see is that we have very little time. We will see what we can do.

Sir David Amess: They are particularly worthy.

Q16 Chair: They are. Various procedural things have been satisfied, so there is no issue there. It is just a matter of trying to work out what to do.

Mrs Spelman: May I add that, now that the UK spends 0.7% of GDP on international development, it is a beacon to the world in that regard? Taxpayers’ money is going on empowering women in the developing world, and a debate would give us a really good opportunity to reinforce to taxpayers and constituents how their money can be used to eradicate poverty among women.

Chair: Thank you very much. I hope we can deliver what you want.
Sir George Young made representations.

Sir George Young: I want to pitch for something totally different and groundbreaking: a valedictory debate on the last Thursday the House sits, when those who are standing down can make retirement or resignation speeches. I have contacted 80 colleagues I believe to be standing down, although that is a moving target. Forty have replied, and 30 would like to take part-14 Conservative, 12 Labour, three Liberal Democrat and one Welsh nat. Six would like to take part, but they are not available, and two might take part if they feel like it.

On the last Thursday, colleagues who are fighting the next election may not particularly want to be here. Opportunities for influencing the Government in a debate are severely constrained. This debate seemed a good way of enabling those who are retiring to make whatever modest contribution they want in a dignified and structured way before they disappear.

Sir David Amess: Although I am the one who kicked up a row about the end-of-term debate, I think this is a very good idea. I agree with George that, as a future innovation, it makes common sense.

Q17 Chair: The only difficulty is knowing when the last day is. Do we know that at this stage?

Sir George Young:I would pitch for Thursday 26 March.

Chair: It sounds reasonable to me.

Oliver Colvile: It is an incredibly good idea. Congratulations on coming up with it in the first place.

Q18 Chair: The Committee discussed the idea in advance and was very positive about it.

Sir George Young:I am very grateful.

Mr Graham Stuart made representations.

Mr Stuart: Robin is master of it, but nearly 60 colleagues support the request for a debate on school funding. Obviously, the funding formula for schools is absolutely critical for the future of the nation. The way that money is used and distributed at a time of austerity is actually more important than at a time of plenty. Labour and the Conservatives have come out with their spending plans. It is so important that we have a discussion on it. The electorate are then able to judge properly what the impacts will be on future funding for their children and local schools. It has very broad support and is an important issue. We would very much like your support.

Q19 Sir David Amess: Would that include the funding of grammar schools?

Mr Stuart: It would include the funding of all schools. It is about the fair funding of schools across England.

Q20 Bob Blackman: According to our list, there is a motion attached to the debate. Is that correct?

Mr Stuart: I am grateful to you for asking me technical questions about this.

Q21 Bob Blackman: There is a reason for that. If a motion is attached to the debate, it has to be held in the Chamber. If no motion is attached to it, we have flexibility over whether it is in the Chamber or Westminster Hall.

Mr Stuart: Forgive me, I genuinely do not know. I did not think that I was going to be able to be here. I came to support Robin.

Q22 Chair: Thank you for your further representations. On our list, it is already green.

Adam Afriyie made representations.

Q23 Bob Blackman: May I ask one question? There are potentially end-of-day opportunities. Would you be available on Monday 9 March?

Adam Afriyie: Yes, I should think so. My application is supported by every MP in the Thames valley.

Chair: I think that we have finished presentations and need to move into private session.