Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 28 February 2023

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 28 February 2023.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Kevin Foster; Patricia Gibson; Chris Green; Wendy Morton; Kate Osborne.

Questions 1-18

Representations made

I: Dame Maria Miller.

II: Sir Iain Duncan Smith.

III: Jim Shannon.

Dame Maria Miller made representations.

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have three applications in front of us this afternoon. The first is from Dame Maria Miller. The application is on the subject of Commonwealth Day.

Dame Maria Miller: Mr Mearns, can I first thank the Committee for allowing me to put forward a bid for a Backbench Business debate? I am here in my role as chair of the UK CPA branch and the request is for a Commonwealth Day debate.

In all of the years I have been in Parliament, we have had a Commonwealth Day debate annually to mark this important event, on or around Commonwealth Day. It could not be more important to have this debate this year, for a couple of reasons that I will take the Committee through.

This Commonwealth Day comes a matter of weeks before the coronation of our King, King Charles. We know that he will be the new head of the Commonwealth. Therefore, it could not be more appropriate that Parliament discusses the Commonwealth and the role of the Commonwealth around Commonwealth Day. There will be many members of the Commonwealth attending the Coronation. I hope that gives the Committee extra reasons to see this as an appropriate thing to undertake, particularly following the decades of unswerving devotion to the Commonwealth by Her late Majesty.

Secondly, it is very appropriate that we would be discussing the Commonwealth at this point, as we continue as a nation to build our relations with countries around the world for trade and particularly the establishment of free trade agreements. The debate would also give colleagues an opportunity to talk about, discuss and debate that important part of the post-Brexit landscape in the UK.

The Commonwealth obviously continues to be a hugely important part of our foreign policy and I hope that the Committee might agree that a debate this year is even more important than ever. I am very happy to take any questions.

Q2                Chair: Thank you very much indeed. I take it that the answering Department from your perspective would be the FCDO, or could there be a possibility of something else?

Dame Maria Miller: Mr Mearns, I think you are right to say that lots of Departments should have skin in the game, not least the Department for Business and Trade. In this instance, I think the Foreign Office is probably the most appropriate, because it also has a knock-on trade role in my experience.

Q3                Chair: The problem is, Maria, that if we were to offer you 13 March, which is Commonwealth Day, the FCDO aren’t the answering Department in Westminster Hall that day, unfortunately. Would you want it on that day with a different answering Department, or would you want it the following week?

Dame Maria Miller: In some rather informal discussions with Mr Blackman, we talked perhaps about the following week. Would that be the most appropriate, in order to achieve the FCDO as answering Department?

Q4                Chair: FCDO would be answering on the week beginning the 20 March—the 21 March.

Dame Maria Miller: I would be content with that.

Chair: Even though it is a week after Commonwealth Day, you would be happy with that if it was possible.

Dame Maria Miller: Absolutely. The application was for a Westminster Hall debate for three hours. I think the appetite in previous years has been such that that would be appropriate.

Q5                Chair: Well, this is the second major caveat unfortunately. We can get three-hour debates on Thursday afternoons, but on a Tuesday, we only get 90-minute slots.

Dame Maria Miller: Okay. Apologies; I made a mistake there, and it should have been for 90 minutes. I would have thought the Tuesday would have been a more popular day.

Q6                Chair: Okay. Right. That is my questions. Colleagues, any further questions? No. In that case, I am hoping that we will be able to help you in that respect. We will certainly try.

Dame Maria Miller: Mr Mearns, as ever, thank you for your support.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith made representations.

Q7                Chair: Next up is Sir Iain Duncan Smith, on the subject matter of the seizure of Russian assets. Over to you, Sir Iain.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith: Thank you very much indeed. I am back again, after not that long. I am asking the Committee to approve a debate, as stated here, on the seizure of Russian assets. Interestingly, just before I came in here about an hour ago, Liam Byrne called me and said that he was planning to apply for a debate on the reconstruction of Ukraine, which was all about assets. It may have no connection at all, but I think it does. He said, “If you were to attain this debate, I would not then put an application in, because I think this debate could cover both subjects.” There is a UN conference coming to London, and therefore they both fit in.

To that point, I would say that this was already the subject of a ten-minute rule Bill, which the Government rather arbitrarily slapped down last Friday, refusing to allow it to go any further. It would have had some kind of debate, but it now does not. You will see from the names that we have that this is an issue that crosses all spectrums of all parties. It is a subject that we have been pressing to debate in Parliament, but the Government are refusing point blank to allow this debate to take place. I am told that the Government’s explanation for that is that it is too complicated. Debating is not complicated; it is decision making that is complicated, and that is what Governments are meant to do.

The key thing is that there is a very large swell of opinion that we should get a debate. We have these assets sitting here. They are all frozen. We already know now that there is going to be a tremendous requirement to invest back into Ukraine. There needs to be a reason why the Government will not look at this. The Americans and others are looking at this, but we seem to be dragging our feet.

I think this is one of those moments when this Committee is capable of pushing the Government to look at something that Back Benchers want, but that the Government do not want to debate at all. I think that is an important feature.

Q8                Kevin Foster: Thank you for the application. Given the comments you have just made, are you thinking of a general “This House has considered” motion, or one that expresses an opinion?

Sir Iain Duncan Smith: I am happy to have “This House considers” because individuals will express their opinions. I am happy to be guided if you think it is better the other way.

Q9                Kevin Foster: The only reason why I want to explore this slightly is that, if it is something where we feel there is reticence to debate and give the House an opportunity to take a decision or express an opinion, but where Back Benchers may have a strong view, one option is to do “This House agrees”, “approves”, or “wishes”. That expresses an opinion on the motion. However, it means that it cannot go into Westminster Hall; it has to go into the main Chamber if it expresses an actual opinion. That is something you may wish to consider. I have a second point that I will come to in a moment.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith: I would be happy to do that. Personally, I would love to have it expressed as an opinion. I am always guided by the Committee insofar as what seems most applicable. I never need to be tempted very far down this road at all. My heart starts at that place, but my head keeps me somewhere back. There is an idea that it is sometimes better to just let the House have a chance to debate it and give the Government an opinion. The Government therefore have to react to that, which will be important.

Q10            Bob Blackman: As a general debate, one of the problems we have is that Chamber time is very limited.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith: I understand that.

Q11            Bob Blackman: We have to give priority to debates that have a motion attached to them. At the moment, we have no time before the Easter recess to allocate debates in the Chamber. That is partly because we have the Budget coming up, which knocks out at least one day of our allocation.

However, there is the opportunity of a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall, if you would consider that? That would get you a debate on the record, and so on. My understanding from talking to the Whips about Sir Chris Bryant’s private Member’s Bill, is that the Government are concerned about property rights and getting the detail correct. While we all respect Sir Chris Bryant, he may not have everything dotted and crossed in the right places, and therefore we could infringe on all sorts of property rights. That is why the Government will want to consider very carefully what happens to seized assets; you could unseize them, but once you’ve disbursed them, it is a bit difficult to undisburse them. It is likely the Government will continue to block the private Member’s Bill.

              Sir Iain Duncan Smith: To respond to your first point, I said earlier that I am quite happy to make it a more specific motion in that sense. That is not a problem to me—I am guided on that, if that helps at all. After all, his ten-minute rule Bill was very specific, so it is certainly proper to do that. It did say seizure of Russian assets and support for Ukraine, so the two are in his ten-minute rule Bill anyway.

With regard to the Government’s position, I myself sat in Government for a while, and I know that the Government always want to be cautious—quite right too, because these are big decisions. There are lots of ways they can specify in this area, though, for what reason and under war conditions there is a whole series of things they can do, which need to be explained in the course of the debate, because they are blocking it without explanation—this explanation that, with respect to Mr Blackman, has been given now, is of course the standard objection. These things are complicated, but, at the same time, achievable. That is how you define why and when there is a seizure. It doesn’t necessarily mean you impinge on everybody’s money that is then frozen. You can put particular conditions around it and then move to that.

We would like to persuade the Government that there is flexibility to do that. It would certainly send a staggering message back to all those characters involved, such as the oligarchs and so on, who made hay here in London and whose money flows through the City of London, but also to others who might be thinking about that in countries such as Iran, North Korea and those other countries that are turning out to be very dodgy and very difficult and also, often, are giving their money away through difficult circumstances to others who have no right to it. All that sort of stuff, I think, sends a much wider message that the UK leads on this, rather than follows.

Q12            Bob Blackman: Okay. The point is that we could allocate Thursday 16 March for a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall. Otherwise, I suspect you will be waiting until after the Easter recess. It depends on your priority in terms of the timeframe. The other issue is that even if Chris Bryant’s Bill were to be blessed by the Government, it is extremely unlikely to become law, because of all the issues around timing of getting it through the whole process between the Commons and the Lords—

Sir Iain Duncan Smith: Yes. With respect, the purpose of this debate would be to get the Government to think carefully about introducing legislation themselves. I don’t for one moment think that Chris Bryant’s Bill—well, with Back-Bench Bills like this, it is normally a very complicated area. But the Government should then understand that there is a wealth of support for this move from the Back Benches, which may inform their view on whether or not they should try to do something more. I think that is the key to this debate.

Q13            Chair: The key question that Bob was asking was if it was about timeliness, from your perspective, would you prefer to have it earlier in Westminster Hall, or would you wait until possibly after the Easter recess?

Sir Iain Duncan Smith: I think this is so important—and I do think it is very important, because it is part of the process of grinding small on the people involved in this brutal act—that the Chamber of the House of Commons, for those of us who signed this, is really the objective. I have nothing against Westminster Hall; as the Chair will know, we have had debates there before. I just think that with this debate, we would be prepared to wait until after Easter, because it is something that will not go away.

Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Jim Shannon made representations.

Q14            Chair: Next up—ensuring that the season ticket is still valid—Mr Jim Shannon. Afternoon, Jim. Your application this afternoon is addressing the challenges facing patients with rare diseases in the United Kingdom.

Jim Shannon: First of all Mr Chairman, I thank you and the Committee members very much for giving me the opportunity to request another debate. As you and other Members will probably know, Mr Chairman, I am my party’s health spokesperson. I probably try to be involved in nearly every health debate there is.

I have met a number of the lobbying groups for rare diseases, who have suggested to me that we should have this debate. First of all, I welcome everything that the Government have done in relation to their rare diseases plan. I welcome their action plans and the positive steps that they have taken to ensure that the rare diseases framework also seeks to address four fundamental issues. Unfortunately, looking at the statistics of those with rare diseases, although rare diseases might be rare, the fact that they affect one in 17 people in the United Kingdom tells you that that there are many people who are affected.

My requests are to have the NICE deliberations on rare disease medications, probably, as one of the issues to address, and what we refer to as a disconnect between the national rare disease policy and what is actually happening on the ground. Although I very much welcome the Government’s commitment, we don’t see the action enforced on the ground in the way we would like to. One example of that in the notes we have before us is hereditary angioedema, where patients continue to experience national variation in care and limited access to specialist help. If we are going to deliver a meaningful, comprehensive and effective rare diseases plan, we have to look at rare disease care. The Government need to collaborate closely with key patient organisations, healthcare professionals and innovative industry partners.

I’m not sure whether anybody saw this on TV this morning. The reason I am up early in the morning is so I can always see the stories that break. There was a lovely mother and her wee son on this morning. The wee man had Duchenne. As you know, it is muscular wasting; it is a protein that they don’t have in the body. Eventually through time, as the child grows older he will lose the power in his arms and legs, and ultimately pass away. When it comes to innovative industry partners, the story this morning was uplifting and very heart-warming.

The lady had been able to source some lottery funding to come up with ideas to help that wee boy through Duchenne. He was a guitar player and a singer. It was really quite something to watch. She has come up with mechanical contraptions that can help him maintain his physical activity. All he wants to do is sing and play the guitar at Woodstock. What an ambition for a 14-year-old. I think it is time to have a look at the rare disease policy and see how we can sharpen it up with Government help. It is not about catching anybody out; that is never my policy. My policy is about how we make it better.

Chair: Thank you, Jim. Any questions, colleagues?

Q15            Bob Blackman: Presumably, Jim, you want a debate in Westminster Hall to be allocated?

Jim Shannon: I am happy to take whatever you allocate to me.

Q16            Bob Blackman: Is there any time pressure on the debate?

Jim Shannon: No, I will leave it with you for whenever you can do it. I will pre-warn you that I will be back next week with two debates. I have two requests to come in, so there will be a few things coming all at once. I am happy for some time in March. Is that possible?

Bob Blackman: Well, it’s very possible. We could have 9 March, is it?

Q17            Chris Green: I think today is Rare Disease Day, so it is not time-sensitive in that sense.

              Jim Shannon: No. The problem with this one, unfortunately, was that they didn’t give me enough time. Otherwise, I would have been in last week looking for some possibility of short notice, but it doesn’t matter now because Rare Disease Day has gone.

Q18            Chair: So there is a possibility of a week on Thursday, Jim, in Westminster Hall.

Jim Shannon: If that is possible, yes please.

Chair: Okay. Thank you very much indeed. That brings our public deliberations to an end. We now go into private session.