Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 30 January 2024

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 30 January 2024.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Kevin Foster; Patricia Gibson; Nigel Mills; Wendy Morton.

Questions 1-18

Representations made

I: Stephen Crabb and Ben Lake

II: Apsana Begum

III: William Wragg

IV: Peter Aldous

V: Alicia Kearns

Stephen Crabb and Ben Lake made representations.

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon and welcome. We have five applications this afternoon. I apologise to everyone for my absence last week; I was on an Education Committee visit to the Netherlands and France. The first application is from Stephen Crabb and it is for a general debate in the Chamber on Welsh affairs. Stephen, over to you.

              Stephen Crabb: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You will be aware, with St David’s day fast approaching on 1 March, that it has become customary to hold a debate—it used to be in Government time but in more recent years it has become the convention that it should be done through the Backbench Business Committee—on Welsh affairs to allow MPs from across Wales to participate in a general debate about issues affecting their constituents and the Principality more widely. This year, it will obviously be the last St David’s day debate in this Parliament, with many issues at the top of Welsh MPs’ minds—not least the looming crisis at Port Talbot, with Tata’s decision to cut 3,000 jobs from its plant there, and many other issues that are pressing for Welsh MPs. On behalf of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which I chair, I am leading the application for the St David’s day debate this year. I am sorry that my colleague Ben Lake has not been able to join me yet to participate in this presentation, but you can rest assured that the application has full support across the parties on the Select Committee, and of course among other MPs representing Welsh constituencies.

Q2                Kevin Foster: Looking at the application, there are only three Opposition names. I don’t think you would find it particularly difficult to find more Opposition names. We usually look for four. That is the only minor point I would pick up. Other than that, the point is quite well made.

              Stephen Crabb: Those were the names of Members who were at a particular Select Committee meeting that we jotted down, but rest assured there would be very strong support—from Opposition MPs in particular, I would suggest—on this St David’s day.

Q3                Chair: This year St David’s day is on a Friday.

              Stephen Crabb: It is?

Chair: It is. So if we were to be allocated time on Thursday the 29th, would you be able to accept that?

              Stephen Crabb: I would say that would be ideal timing—before rather than after the event. I can’t remember how it has been done in the past, but if it was possible to have a full afternoon that would be very well received, particularly because it would be the last St David’s day debate ahead of the election. A number of Welsh MPs won’t be back in the new Parliament, so I think it will make for an interesting debate. [Interruption.] I am joined, right on cue, by my colleague on the Select Committee, Ben Lake.

              Ben Lake: Diolch, Chair. Thank you very much to the Committee.

Patricia Gibson: You’ll be back.

              Ben Lake: I apologise for my lateness—a prior meeting overran.     I fully support the application. I am very grateful to the Committee for your support in previous years in granting such a debate. It is a unique opportunity for the Welsh Members of the House of Commons to raise matters of great importance to Wales. As my colleague, the Chair of the Select Committee, has no doubt explained, in the next Parliament there will be fewer Welsh MPs as a result of the boundary changes, so it would be wonderful if we were able to go out with a bang, as it were. I am very keen to support the application.

Bob Blackman: We would expect 15 speakers for what would normally be a half-day debate. At the moment, you have eight. For a full day, we would be looking at 30-odd speakers. You will, I am sure, understand that there is quite a long queue for the Chamber anyway. We will get two debates that day.

Q4                Chair: The request for a full afternoon was a tad optimistic. I would counsel you that the Budget debate is scheduled for the following week. The Thursday of that week will not be Backbench Business; it will be the first full day of the Budget debate. That means that you would be looking at it being a fortnight before you get another debate in.

              Stephen Crabb: Understood, Mr Chairman. I am always an optimist, but I know how long my colleagues from Wales like to speak. [Laughter.] That is a particular national trait that we share.

Q5                Chair: I would never want to comment about the garrulousness of our Welsh colleagues. Thank you very much for the application.

Apsana Begum made representations.

Q6                Chair: Next up, we have Apsana Begum with an application on humanitarian aid and children in Gaza.

              Apsana Begum: Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you to the Committee for providing me with the opportunity to make my case. I propose a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall. If you will allow, Chair, I will present a few salient points, in two areas, on my reasons for making this application.

The first area is the humanitarian crisis for children in Gaza and the disproportionate impact that war has on children overall. As we know, children are the most impacted in situations of war. I believe that our moral, legal and strategic imperative as human beings is to protect children from the effects of conflict. That is widely understood across the international community.

The second area is that of aid reaching children. There are widespread reports that aid simply is not getting to the children who are in urgent need in Gaza. For example, the UN Children’s Fund, UNICEF, has requested $168.3 million to support the response in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in 2024 alone and has reported a funding gap of 32%. Likewise, other non-governmental organisations and aid agencies such as Save The Children have had an emergency alert about the situation facing children in Gaza for some time.

I could expand on those points, but I think it is important, in the time that I have, to highlight the fact that I have cross-party support. I have the support of Conservative, SNP and Lib Dem Back-Bench colleagues. They include members of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group. I also have the support of an MP from another party, whose relatives are directly impacted by the humanitarian situation, and by colleagues who previously served on the Front Bench and now serve as Back Benchers.

I am not aware of a debate on this having been proposed to or accepted by the Committee. I have specifically proposed a Westminster Hall debate. That is in part due to the demand that I understand there is for debates in the Chamber.

My application preceded the political developments at the weekend in relation to the pause in funding to UNRWA but, from the conversations I have had since then, I believe that support for a debate in this area has expanded and increased among Back Benchers, not least because the recent political developments have brought aid to the forefront of the minds of people in the UK and across the world.

I am happy to answer questions, having presented my case.

Q7                Kevin Foster: First, I will put my cards on the table: it is a well-made application. The only thought that came to my mind is that you are looking for 90 minutes but, at the moment, 12 people are seeking to contribute, and I imagine it could attract quite a number of people wishing to speak and express a number of views; you touched on a number of people with direct links to the subject.

Do you think 90 minutes will be enough? I know that we are normally pushed for time, but when it is Westminster Hall, perhaps that is less the case, at times. Would there be enough interest to sustain a three-hour debate, for example, if we were able to grant that?

              Apsana Begum: I think there is support. I was trying to seek support in writing. Since I made the application, I have had a few more responses from people across other parties who support the application. There are a number of different areas in which Back-Bench colleagues in particular are seeking to have debates in regard to the situation in Gaza. I have specifically chosen to focus on this one particular area, which has become incredibly topical in the last few days. At the moment, I think 90 minutes is sufficient. Given the timeliness of the matter and the pressing debates on aid, it would be a missed opportunity if some time was not secured to debate this, even outside the Chamber.

Q8                Bob Blackman: You ticked both Tuesday and Thursday on the form as potential times for a Westminster Hall debate, which we can obviously allocate. On a point of clarification, I assume it would be FCDO that would be the answering Department.

              Apsana Begum: That is correct. Just to answer your question, I submitted a newer version immediately afterwards because I realised I selected the wrong one, but I did select the Thursday for 90 minutes, which is my first preference.

Q9                Bob Blackman: If the Committee is so minded, could you have the debate in Westminster Hall next week on Thursday?

              Apsana Begum: Yes.

Chair: That would be Thursday 8 February.

Thank you. It is lovely to see you and thank you for coming along.

William Wragg made representations.

Chair: William is an erstwhile member of the Committee—welcome back, William.

              Mr Wragg: Thank you, Chair. It is marvellous to be before this august Committee this afternoon.

Q10            Chair: Your application this afternoon is on swift and fair access to redress. Let right be done!

              Mr Wragg: Indeed, as we all came here to do. I think we would all agree with that. The subject is timely and topical for the obvious reasons around the Horizon/Post Office scandal, but includes the various redress schemes that have been set up in the recent past, for various scandals, whether Windrush, contaminated blood or banking products. The schemes share common deficiencies, and this would be an opportunity for Members with a particular interest in those scandals and subsequent redress schemes to air the complexities and sometimes the outright inadequacy of such schemes. We all have experience of this as constituency MPs.

What interested me in the subject was my very first surgery in 2015, when someone brought a case to me regarding the then Royal Bank of Scotland global restructuring, which triggered the Tomlinson report. We are now looking at the business banking redress scheme, which I am on record as saying is wholly inadequate, which I repeat. What lessons are learned from these scandals and injustices, which—with the best will in the world—will continue in some shape or form in different areas?

You can see from the draft substantive motion that what I am seeking to do is to bring about statutory guidance. You might think there is a contradiction in that, but rather than setting up yet another arm’s length body, which I am sceptical about, we need to put guidance in place so that the wheel does not have to be reinvented each time we come to set up bodies that seek to provide compensation. The most topical example recently shows the fragmentation of compensation frameworks. There are three separate compensation arrangements for sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal. Why? We could discuss that.

What we want to do is draw together best practice, as explained in the application. Given the breadth of scandals that have been itemised in the application, there is a great deal of cross-party interest. You will see among the sponsoring Members the leading lights who have sought to illuminate various scandals and injustices. We think it would be a timely, topical and constructive debate, and would have quite a lot of cross-party agreement, so we have made a bid for a three-hour debate in the Chamber.

Q11            Chair: Thank you very much, indeed. The only thing I would say, William, is that, unfortunately, because of the number of applications we have already dealt with and are dealing with this afternoon, and the imminent arrival of the Budget, we might struggle to get you in before Easter, but we will certainly try, if we can.

              Mr Wragg: I appreciate that entirely, not least having been a member of this Committee. I know the strictures you have to operate under.

Q12            Wendy Morton: It is obviously a broad debate and, at its heart, it seeks access to redress. In your mind, which Department do you anticipate responding?

Mr Wragg:  I assume it would be the Cabinet Office.

Chair: Anyone else? No. That’s fine. Thank you very much.

Mr Wragg: You let me off lightly, and I am grateful, Chair.

Bob Blackman: It is a good application.

Peter Aldous made representations.

Q13            Chair: Peter, your application is on the subject of Colleges Week 2024.

              Peter Aldous: Yes, and you have spotted the mistake in my application, where I said 2022 rather than 2024, so I apologise for that.

Chair: We’ll call it a covid hangover—don’t worry.

Peter Aldous: I chair the all-party group on colleges and lifelong learning and, in talking to the Association of Colleges about 10 days ago, a decision has been made to bring forward Colleges Week—based on the Love Our Colleges initiative—to the week of 26 February, to 1 March. It normally takes place in October, but they have brought it forward for, I think you might say, obvious reasons this particular year.

We would like a debate to look at the role that colleges play—and they play an important role. They are vital as far as providing technical skills for people to take up a wide variety of new jobs in emerging sectors. Increasingly, post-covid, they are also taking on the role of providing basic numeracy and language skills, which perhaps people did not acquire during covid. That is a role that colleges are taking up. There is the role of lifelong learning as well. Increasingly in recent years, colleges are absolutely vital to achieving many of our national policies. Whether that is addressing regional inequalities or levelling up, colleges are incredibly well-placed to do that. They are deeply rooted in their communities and understand what those communities need, and they play a key role in levelling up. They are also vital in eliminating those two particular economic challenges we face of the skills gap and the productivity gap.

If we look at a number of initiatives that this Government are putting forward and—dare I say—future Governments may possibly pursue in one way or another, whether that is apprenticeships, T-levels or upskilling and retraining, colleges are front and centre in helping deliver those particular policies.

Colleges face a number of challenges at the moment. There is the challenge that many sectors face of the recruitment and retention of staff. There have been improvements in the overall core funding they receive. The 2020-21 settlement was appreciated and recognised, but I think they still feel there are issues to address. Generally, colleges get on incredibly well with their colleagues in the secondary and higher education fields, but there perhaps is a feeling that there is not quite a level playing field, whether that is in staff conditions or VAT treatment.

In conclusion, the purpose of a debate would be to showcase the work that colleges do and thank them for what they do, and to highlight what more they can do with the right resources and support. I think we have a reasonable number of speakers who have come forward, and I hope that we would get more as well.

Q14            Wendy Morton: On that point about speakers, there is certainly an impressive list of names. We would normally be looking for an even split between Government and Opposition. Do you think you might be able to find a few more Opposition names to support the bid?

              Peter Aldous: Yes, I do. This is an issue that all MPs feel passionately about, whatever their party. All of them have colleges, if not in their constituencies, then probably within travelling distance of their constituencies. I would expect that imbalance to be addressed if we were to get the debate.

Q15            Chair: Peter, if you want something during Colleges Week, that is possible, but it would be a Westminster Hall debate.

              Peter Aldous: We recognise that. For the debate to take place during that week is more important than the venue, so we would accept that.

Q16            Chair: If we were able to offer you some on time on Thursday 29 February, will you be able to take that?

              Peter Aldous: Yes. It is an auspicious day, and we would be delighted to take it.

Chair: Thank you very much indeed, much appreciated.

Alicia Kearns made representations.

Q17            Chair: Last, but certainly not least, we welcome Alicia Kearns. It is good to see you again. You have an application on western Balkans security.

              Alicia Kearns: Thank you ever so much, Mr Mearns, and I thank all members of the Committee for taking the time to consider this request. The Balkans, as you know, are an area of interest to many, many Members across the House. Obviously, some former Ministers are sitting on your Committee. This application is backed by six different political parties, with a good spread within that. We have Members from very well-attended APPGs, which represent every single western Balkans country. We also have Members in the IPU visiting Albania in a few weeks’ time, and hopefully they will be able to come and participate.

Once you travel to the Balkans, you fall in love with it, but you feel very strongly that there is something not right and you want to raise your voice on it. As I touched on in my application, the situation is only getting more dangerous. Since our last debate—I recognise we were fortunate enough to have one in November 2021 thanks to this Committee—we have seen the terror attack that took place in Kosovo in September. As a result, there has been a significant increase in UK troops on the ground, so there is a direct UK interest here. The UK is aware of who committed this attack, but they have not yet released the evidence making clear that it was the Serbian Government, despite the fact that we know that it was.

In Bosnia, we see the Republika Srpska breakaway entity passing laws that are illegal and threatening to arrest the High Representative, with essentially more and more Russian and Serbian interest within the area. With Serbia, we see an increasingly irredentist party that has no interest in working with the EU, the US or the UK. In Montenegro, we have seen significant Russian interference in their democracy—so severe that we were gravely concerned that we might have had to intervene in some way. The newly appointed Speaker in Montenegro has been very vocal in his support for Putin, and says that they must do everything they can stop the recognition of Kosovo and oppose membership of NATO.

We see Serbian irredentism, we see Russian interest in causing trouble in its backyard, we see the US stepping away from this region—particularly as they go into an election year—and we see a Europe that is incredibly divided when it comes to all issues of the Balkans. The UK has a particular role, because we have withdrawn from the Quint, which was the main group pulling together peace on Kosovo. We withdrew because we were unhappy.

I would love this debate to really focus the Government’s mind on what they could be doing to change and shape policy to bring partners on board. This is not a debate for us to stand up and say, “Aren’t we doing a great job?” This is not a debate for us to look back at something else and scrutinise it. It is a chance for Parliament to have its say on how we make sure that we continue to focus, and do not take our eyes off this very vulnerable part of our world, which is—if we want to be honest—our backyard. I will not touch on this any more, because I know all of you are very aware of what is going on in the Balkans, but I would be very happy to answer any questions.

Q18            Chair: That is a good application, thank you. It is a question of when we can fit you in. From your perspective, is there any time imperative?

              Alicia Kearns: No. I am aware that you have a lot of requests for your time, so I am very happy to say that when you have time, we will happily accept it.

Chair: That is very kind of you, thank you very much indeed.