Backbench Business Committee
Representations: Backbench Debates
Tuesday 31 January 2023
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 31 January 2023.
Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Kevin Foster; Patricia Gibson; Nigel Mills; Wendy Morton.
Questions 1-24
Representations made
I: Wendy Morton
II: Karin Smyth
III: Amy Callaghan
IV: Chris Skidmore
Wendy Morton made representations.
Q1 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have a number of applications in front of us this afternoon. Sadly, it looks like we may be disturbed by a Division in the House, so we will try to rattle through these as fast as we possibly can.
The first application is from our very own Committee member Wendy Morton, but we are still quorate as a Committee and Wendy will take no part in the determination of the application. It is on brownfield-first and protecting our precious green belt. Wendy, over to you.
Wendy Morton: Thank you, Chair. My rationale for bringing this application forward now is very much focused on the “State of Brownfield 2022” report that was recently released by the CPRE. It identifies a number of brownfield sites suitable for development that have not been developed. The other reason for making the application now is that I believe it is very timely given that the NPPF is currently under consultation and the levelling-up Bill is currently in the House of Lords.
The reason that I also focus on protecting the green belt is that the two issues are linked. There is considerable interest across the House in protecting the green belt and the idea of having a brownfield-first policy, while also seeking to develop that much-needed housing that we all understand that many of our constituents—many at the younger end of the generation spectrum—are looking for. I genuinely believe that we can have a rounded debate covering these topics.
I am keeping it brief, but I am happy to answer any questions that members of the Committee may have.
Q2 Chair: Thank you very much. Am I right in thinking that this is an application for a Westminster Hall debate?
Wendy Morton: It is indeed, and I am completely flexible on dates—whenever you have availability.
Chair: Thank you very much. Questions, colleagues?
Q3 Bob Blackman: Would you prefer a Tuesday or a Thursday, if you were offered the choice?
Wendy Morton: I would always prefer a Tuesday, but I would happily take a Thursday.
Chair: That is very kind of you. Any further questions, colleagues? Right, so it is an application for a Westminster Hall debate. You have the requisite number of speakers on the application. That’s fine, Wendy. That’s much appreciated. Thank you very much indeed.
Karin Smyth made representations.
Q4 Chair: Karin, you have application on the subject of St Patrick’s day. Over to you, please.
Karin Smyth: Thank you. I am here as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain. I am also vice-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I am the child of Irish immigrants and feel very strongly about that. I am privileged to be here to be able to bring together the history and our deep roots across these islands, which we particularly do on the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, at a difficult time for relationships across the islands.
To celebrate our mutual respect and interest in Ireland and the Irish in Britain, it would be really good to have a celebration around St Patrick’s day, which is obviously on 17 March, to acknowledge and celebrate the contribution of Irish people to the culture and society of the United Kingdom. It would bring attention to the importance of that crucial relationship, our co-dependence, and our difference now, in and out of the European Union. And it would allow us to celebrate, as I spoke of myself in a debate many years ago, that St Patrick, in his movement—we do not know from whence he came—across Wales, somewhere up the west coast of England, possibly even Scotland, and back through to Ireland, symbolises the travel and movement of people for thousands and thousands of years across these islands.
In that spirit, I think we would have a really good debate about the contribution but also the real politics between us now—what we share and what unites us, rather than what divides us. Particularly running up to the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, I think it would be a really powerful message from this House if we could have that debate in the Chamber.
Q5 Chair: Karin, the number of names that you have on the application is a bit light for a Chamber debate, unless I have read that wrong somewhere. For a Chamber debate, we would normally be looking for about 15 names. Given the time span—it is a live application—you can add additional names. I must admit, being a member of the Tyneside Irish Centre in Newcastle, that I have some sympathy towards the application because I certainly intend to be in that particular establishment on 17 March.
Karin Smyth: My apologies. That is my naiveté on the debate going forward from my office. I do apologise. I will certainly be able to get more if that is appropriate, Chair.
Chair: Thank you very much.
Q6 Nigel Mills: Clearly there is no objection to this debate, but you referenced the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We will be in recess on the actual anniversary, so I guess it would have been attractive to have a debate just before or after recess commemorating that hugely important peace deal. Do you think that that debate should be part of the one you are proposing, or should we look to do that on a different day? Is there demand for two slightly overlapping debates?
Karin Smyth: You tempt me, Mr Mills. We certainly have a number of events around the Good Friday agreement anniversary. In putting in for St Patrick’s day, my thinking, from talking with other colleagues, was that everything unites us around that occasion. It is a very important week for Irish culture and heritage, and it lends itself to a very positive debate that people can bring all sorts of things into. As you say, the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement falls in the Easter recess, but that is something we could consider if we were not able to sort out the time.
Q7 Patricia Gibson: I would be astonished if the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement was not mentioned in or part of that debate. In terms of your being light on signatures, I notice that you have not—certainly on paper—approached the SNP. You will find a captive audience there. I myself am the child of two Irish immigrants, so although I cannot sign the application, I would be very supportive of it.
Karin Smyth: In my defence, we wanted to get the application in for last week and did it very quickly. Perhaps we were remiss in not doing that. I apologise.
Q8 Wendy Morton: I have no disagreement with this in principle at all, but I just want a bit of clarity. It will be a broad debate. Could you give us an indication of which Department you would anticipate responding?
Karin Smyth: Previously, it has moved around. When it was constitutional, it was the Cabinet Office. Last time, it was Maria Caulfield, who is a member of the Irish in Britain group, but she is in the Department of Health and Social Care. It is very broad.
Patricia Gibson: If it was Maria Caulfield last time, that would suggest it is more a Minister who is interested rather than any particular Department.
Q9 Wendy Morton: You have no specific preference.
Karin Smyth: No. With a debate on the contribution of Irish in Britain, the thinking was to move it so close to the day itself that, by keeping it broad and allowing people to bring in a number of different aspects, we would have more that unites and makes people think in a positive way about the situation, and people can bring in some of the political stuff, as well as the cultural stuff, to keep it broad. That is why I think constitutional may fit.
Wendy Morton: I can see that. Maybe we should look at who is available, and if it is not Minister Caulfield, we may have to look at the Cabinet Office.
Chair: Yes.
Patricia Gibson: Maria Caulfield is also a child of two Irish immigrants, so there are a few of us about.
Kevin Foster: If it is in the Chamber, the Government would pick who they wanted to respond.
Chair: Karin, thank you very much indeed. It is a live application, but we would appreciate you contacting the Clerks to the Committee via the Table Office and adding additional names; that would be very useful.
Karin Smyth: Thank you for that advice.
Amy Callaghan made representations.
Q10 Chair: Amy, your application this afternoon is on the subject of “VAT burn”: reform of VAT charged on sunscreen products.
Amy Callaghan: It is quite a niche subject compared with others. I am here today to request that the Backbench Business Committee grants a debate on my VAT Burn campaign to reform or, ideally, scrap the value added tax applied to sunscreen products. I note that only sunscreen products that provide a health benefit would be included in this VAT exemption.
I apply to this Committee with support from 16 Members across the House, and I also have 52 signatures on a cross-party letter to both the former and current Chancellor, of which I have copies today if anyone would like to see the names added to this.
I firmly believe that there is appetite across the House for reform of the VAT charged on sunscreen products, but even more fundamentally, there is a lack of awareness in our communities that sunscreen products are not VAT-exempt compared with other healthcare products. I see this as a chance not only to get the Government to act, but to raise awareness among our constituents, all of whom should be interested in this because we should all be protecting our skin from the sun.
Q11 Chair: Thank you very much indeed. One thing I would draw to your attention is that you only have one Conservative Member’s signature on your application.
Amy Callaghan: I have a couple more on the letter, which I can circulate to you.
Q12 Chair: That is on the letter, but would they be subscribing to the debate as well?
Amy Callaghan: They have not subscribed to the debate as of yet, but I can raise that with them.
Chair: As with the last application, that is one the things that we will be looking for as a prerequisite in terms of political balance on the application.
Amy Callaghan: Of course.
Q13 Wendy Morton: I have just one quick question. I appreciate the huge flexibility you have given us in terms of either Chamber, Westminster Hall, 90 minutes, three hours or six hours. What would your preference be?
Amy Callaghan: My preference would obviously be to have it in the Chamber, but I just think it is important to have this debate, so I would welcome any offer.
Q14 Chair: Would it be HMRC or the Department of Health that would be responding?
Amy Callaghan: HMRC. I have already met with Victoria Atkins, the Minister responsible.
Chair: If you can get some more Conservative names, you will certainly get your day in the sun, but screened, I hope—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I am terribly sorry; I do apologise.
Amy Callaghan: No, you’re grand.
Q15 Bob Blackman: We obviously have the Budget coming up. Would you want this debate before the Budget, or after? What would your preference be?
Amy Callaghan: My intention is to launch my VAT Burn campaign on Saturday to coincide with World Cancer Day. Ideally, I would like the debate around this time to keep the momentum going. As soon as possible would be my suggestion. I do not anticipate influencing the Budget, to be perfectly honest, but I would certainly like to give it a go.
Q16 Chair: If, for instance, a slot was to become available a week on Thursday in Westminster Hall, would you be available to accept that?
Amy Callaghan: Absolutely, yes.
Chair: Okay. Thank you very much indeed.
Chris Skidmore made representations.
Q17 Chair: Lastly, but not leastly, we have Mr Chris Skidmore. Good afternoon, Chris, and welcome. Your application is on the subject of the net zero review, which I understand is a review that you’ve carried out, or you and colleagues have carried out, on behalf of the Government.
Chris Skidmore: So it was just me as chair of the independent net zero review, which was commissioned by the previous Prime Minister in September 2022. The independent review, titled “Mission Zero”, was published on 13 January. It is a 340-page report that makes 129 recommendations to Government, and it got a significant amount of coverage, not least parliamentary, both in the Chamber at Prime Minister’s questions and in the House of Lords, which debated the net zero review. Baroness Hayman had a debate in the Lords Chamber last week, which is why I am keen to ensure we have a similar treatment in the Commons Chamber. It has also been a request of celebrities such as Nigel Farage, who claims that we need a debate on the net zero review and its recommendations for the future.
Chair: That doesn’t recommend itself to me a lot—[Laughter.]
Chris Skidmore: There is a strong, I think, public interest in the report, and I am trying to sort of demonstrate that parliamentarians have an opportunity to reflect on its recommendations. I took my duty as independent chair very seriously, meeting with all political parties, going to every single devolved nation, and I am keen to make sure that that non-partisanship is reflected in the debate.
Chair: Thank you very much. Questions, colleagues?
Q18 Bob Blackman: On the subject of a non-partisan debate, every other Member on the application other than Caroline Lucas is a Conservative Member or ex-Conservative Member. What about getting speakers from other political parties?
Chris Skidmore: I have a few additional ones that came past after the deadline. We have Darren Jones, Chair of the BEIS Select Committee, Deidre Brock from the SNP, and Sarah Olney from the Liberal Democrats. I can get more names; it was just that those were the ones that came in the soonest as a result of putting out various calls on WhatsApp.
Q19 Bob Blackman: Is there any time sensitivity?
Chris Skidmore: The Government are likely to respond to the review by 31 March, which is a legal deadline that has been placed on the Government on the back of a High Court judgment on the net zero strategy. In secondary legislation, the Government have said they will reply by 31 March. Obviously, the Budget is also on 15 March, and there are several recommendations in the review that are sort of fiscal.
Q20 Chair: If it would get you a slot quite soon, would you be able to accept a week on Thursday?
Chris Skidmore: Yes, I would prioritise that.
Chair: That’s just a “for instance.” We have a number of slots, but we have a number of applications.
Chris Skidmore: I would be keen, if it was possible, to have a debate in the Chamber, just because the Lords themselves had their debate in the Chamber. Trying to show parity of interest would be important for me.
Chair: Thank you very much. Nigel.
Q21 Nigel Mills: Chris, you’ve not ticked the “declare relevant interest” box.
Chris Skidmore: Sorry, I thought I had at the top by saying that I was chair of the review. I did ask for that to be to be done when it was filled out and sent in.
Q22 Nigel Mills: I am slightly nervous about giving Backbench time for a review commissioned by the Government with the time being led by the person the Government commissioned.
Chris Skidmore: It’s not a Government review, however.
Q23 Nigel Mills: The Government commissioned it, didn’t they?
Chris Skidmore: In the same way that the Government commissioned the Stern review, the Augar review—
Q24 Nigel Mills: But none of those are Members of Parliament that get to arrange a debate on their own review, are they? I’m just slightly cautious. I’m not quite sure why I’m cautious, but—
Chris Skidmore: I think Tracey Crouch had a debate on her own review in time from the Backbench Business Committee, so I think there is precedent for this.
Chair: Okay. In that case, thank you very much indeed. We’ll now go into private session.