Backbench Business Committee
Representations: Backbench Business
Tuesday 6 February 2024
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 6 February 2024.
Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Kevin Foster; Patricia Gibson; Chris Green; Wendy Morton.
Questions 1 - 15
Representations made
I: Selaine Saxby
II: Jim Shannon
Selaine Saxby made representations.
Q1 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have two applications in front of us this afternoon. The first is from the Member with us, Selaine Saxby—good afternoon and welcome. Your application this afternoon, Selaine, is on fiscal support for tourism and hospitality in coastal areas. Please tell us why you want a debate on that subject.
Selaine Saxby: As somebody who represents a beautiful coastal constituency that is highly dependent on its tourist industry, I am aware that significant Government support has gone into tourism and hospitality in the autumn statement with business rates. However, because of the hours that tourism and hospitality businesses are open—significantly longer than most shops—the increase in the national living wage in particular has caused a real headache for those sectors. They are therefore looking for some sort of balance—employment allowances might be one area.
There has been an ongoing campaign to look at VAT within the tourism and hospitality sectors, which is particularly exacerbated around the coast. We have recruitment and housing issues in places like Devon and Cornwall, on top of all the other tourism issues. That is why I have focused on tourism around the coast, because it does behave slightly differently, in that there isn’t the availability of staff or properties for staff to live in—there are many elements.
We’ve been working alongside UK Hospitality, which is gravely concerned. I was inundated with calls from my hospitality sector on the afternoon of the autumn statement saying, “This is a huge extra cost for us. Yes, we entirely agree our staff should be paid more, but the cost for the hospitality sector, where pubs are open at least 80 hours—obviously hotels are open even longer—is very great, so what more can we do?”
What we are seeing in my constituency is that these businesses have contracted their hours. While they may have managed to remain open, instead of being open seven days a week, they are open for five days, or three. They are not serving food all the time because they cannot afford or cannot find a chef.
While I recognise there has been much support already in this area, what we are seeing on the coast does raises alarm bells. We need a little bit more help to make sure those fabulous seaside locations still have a warm pub, a fabulous restaurant and a great hotel available when you come on holiday to us.
Chair: Thank you very much. Questions please, colleagues.
Q2 Bob Blackman: You have ticked the boxes for both Westminster Hall and the Chamber. In our private discussions we have just been alluding to the fact that the first opportunity for a debate is likely going to be 25 April.
Selaine Saxby: Is that in the Chamber?
Bob Blackman: In the Chamber.
Selaine Saxby: We’d take Westminster Hall to get in ahead of the Budget.
Bob Blackman: We could give you Westminster Hall on the week we come back from recess.
Selaine Saxby: On the Tuesday or the Thursday?
Bob Blackman: The Thursday.
Selaine Saxby: Are there any Tuesday slots? I am just aware that a lot of coastal MPs like me are dashing back to their constituencies to enjoy their coastlines.
Q3 Bob Blackman: Which Department will be answering?
Selaine Saxby: We would love to see the Treasury.
Q4 Bob Blackman: There is a slot on 5 March, the day before the Budget.
Selaine Saxby: That’s probably a bit late.
Bob Blackman: A bit late to influence the Budget.
Selaine Saxby: We’d best take the first one you’re able to give us then.
Q5 Chair: That is the sad fact. When we come back from the February recess, the Chamber is already pre-allocated with applications that were received weeks and weeks ago.
Selaine Saxby: I understand.
Chair: Those two weeks immediately after the February recess are already allocated. Then on Thursday 7 March, that would be part of the Budget debate, as the Budget will be on 6 March. We are told by the Government that debates on supplementary estimates could well be on Thursday 14 March. I am afraid that one of the things we have to do occasionally is allocate time for the Liaison Committee to have debates, and they have requested Thursday 21 March. That would then take us to after the recess. If you’d accept wise counsel—if I can do such a thing—I suggest accepting the first Thursday that you are back from the February recess.
Selaine Saxby: I will take wise counsel.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed. That is much appreciated.
Jim Shannon made representations.
Q6 Chair: Next up, just making sure his season ticket is up to date, we have Mr Jim Shannon. Jim, you are very welcome; it is good to see you. You have put in an application for Government compensation for WASPI women relating to pensions. “WASPI” is the name of the campaign, and I think we would struggle to include it in the official debate title that would appear on the agenda paper. Give us the pitch, Jim, please.
Jim Shannon: I am very happy to change it, if that is the best way of doing it. The issue is that what we refer to as the WASPI women in my constituency have come to me. I see people on the Committee who have also campaigned heavily for them. I don’t think the fact that this issue has been debated in the Chamber before takes away from the hurt that my constituents feel. They remind me of that all the time. I always take their comments on board, and I do feel quite strongly about this.
We have added a number of extra names—the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills always very positively reminds me that we must have Conservatives on it. I have added four Conservatives, by the way, as well as another Labour Member and more DUP. Altogether, we have 15 Members who have added their support.
You know where I come from, Mr Chairman. I am always very conscious of fairness and equity. I am very conscious that the ladies who were born in the ’50s faced significant changes to their state pension at short notice. Some of the ones I meet in my constituency have disabilities and have had a hard working life, and they find themselves in financial hardship and insecurity in their retirement years. There are others who just feel that they have been hard done by. Physical disability may not be a real issue for them, but they have financial commitments, whether to their mortgages or their families—their children or their grandchildren. Many of them wish to help their families, as all parents do for their children.
This debate would be an opportunity to express, on behalf of those ladies, the legal and moral obligation and the positive societal impact. I believe it is unfair for the burden of policy changes to fall solely on the shoulders of those I refer to as the WASPI women. These women have worked hard throughout their lives with the expectation of receiving their state pension at a certain age, only to have the goalposts moved with insufficient notice. They had already made plans and commitments based on their original pension age, so sudden changes can disrupt their financial stability and retirement plans.
With that in mind, I am obligated as the MP for Strangford to do that on behalf of my constituents, who have asked me to come here. The list of Members who have added their names—new Members and more long-term Members—indicates to me that they have the same concerns.
With that, Mr Chairman, I leave my case with you. I always try to work alongside you, and if the title needs to change, please change it. I know where I am coming from: I am here on behalf of my constituents, who want a result. I am obligated to come here and do that. Where else do I do that but in this place, right here?
Q7 Chair: Indeed; thank you very much, Jim. To try to help, a suggested title for the debate would be, “Compensation for women affected by state pension age changes”.
Jim Shannon: Yes, okay. That’s grand.
Q8 Patricia Gibson: Jim, we were talking before about the ombudsman’s report, which you will probably be aware is due by the end of March—perhaps even by the middle of March, depending on what timeline you are looking at. I suppose we were just wondering whether you want to have it before that, to try to put the case one last time, or whether you would prefer to have it after, to debate issues arising from whatever findings the ombudsman may or may not make.
Jim Shannon: Personally, I would probably want it before, and then if it doesn’t work out the way I want, I will get another one in for afterwards, so we will get it on both sides. That is how I feel about it.
Chair: Thank you very much, Jim. Any further questions, colleagues?
Q9 Bob Blackman: At the moment, your application has only five names on it.
Chair: He has added some.
Jim Shannon: I have 15 names. I am sorry; it was my fault. I always remember what you told me, and I made it my business to get another four Conservatives and Labour Members, more of my colleagues, SNP, too, and Caroline Lucas from the Greens.
Q10 Chair: Did I hear you say, Jim, that you have 14 in total now? Is that right?
Wendy Morton: Fifteen.
Jim Shannon: Fifteen.
Chair: Fifteen.
Jim Shannon: I can leave this with you, by the way, if that is helpful.
Chair: That’s very kind, thank you. Very helpful.
Patricia Gibson: Do you think on the day more people would turn up for that debate than are signed up?
Q11 Bob Blackman: I don’t know if you heard the interchange we had before, but time in the Chamber means that the earliest this would get debated would be the end of April. For Westminster Hall, we can offer the Thursday we come back after recess, which would be 22 February.
Jim Shannon: Do we have any possibility of a Tuesday? I just ask because, Chairman, I am very conscious of what my colleagues in the Chamber tell me about Thursday debates. I am just asking, and I am mindful of what the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has said there.
Bob Blackman: The earliest we can allocate a Tuesday, assuming the Treasury would answer, would be 5 March. The risk is that—
Chair: It could be DWP.
Bob Blackman: If it’s DWP, it answers on the following week.
Chair: It’s up to the Government who they put up.
Bob Blackman: If it’s a Tuesday, it has to be the answering Department.
Patricia Gibson: I have to say, I have attended every single WASPI debate, and there have been many, and it is always the DWP that answers—always.
Bob Blackman: I’m sure, but at the end of the day, the Treasury—
Chair: That would be 12 March, I believe.
Q12 Bob Blackman: That would be 12 March.
Jim Shannon: That would still work in with the ombudsman’s report.
Q13 Chair: Jim, if you are willing to take that Thursday, there would be nothing to stop you coming back once that ombudsman’s report had been published, looking for another debate then. By the way, given its importance—it is an ombudsman’s ruling, and that can go either way from the perspective of the people who have put in a request from the ombudsman—it could well be that we might try and secure some Chamber time for you after Easter. I can imagine that being very popular by then. I would counsel you to try to take the earliest opportunity that you can in order to get this aired before that ombudsman’s report is published.
Jim Shannon: The options for that again, Chairman, are the first Thursday after we come back and the—
Q14 Bob Blackman: Basically, it’s Thursday 22 February or, alternatively, Tuesday 12 March. One of the risks would be, depending on what the ombudsman says, if the findings are adverse— In fact, irrespective of whether they are adverse or against the WASPI women, I suspect the Government will either have to make a statement in the House or be summoned for an urgent question. In that case, a debate will be held. If the ombudsman has adverse findings against the Government, the Government will need to stage a debate about what they are going to do about it. The risk for you, in terms of your application, is that it could get overtaken by the ombudsman’s report being released.
Jim Shannon: But isn’t the ombudsman’s report going to be at the end of March?
Chair: We’re not sure.
Patricia Gibson: The timeline they have given is the end of March, perhaps the middle, but these things are always subject to change.
Chair: Yes, they are fluid.
Jim Shannon: Is 12 March a Tuesday?
Bob Blackman: It’s a Tuesday. The risk for you in terms of your application is that the ombudsman’s report is released and therefore your debate is overtaken by events, basically.
Chair: What I would suggest, Jim, is let’s not debate about dates and times now. I think you need to take that away and think about it. There is an offer there of 22 February. The other option would be moving it back to 12 March, and I have a sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind that it might just fall foul of other events.
Patricia Gibson: If your debate was called “State pension age”, it would mean that, whatever happens, there is something to debate. You can debate the report and its findings, you can debate whether it is adverse or not, and you can debate what was said and what the impact is, not just for the women but for the pensions system.
Chair: That would be a substantially different application, though. The title we are suggesting would be “Compensation for women affected by state pension age changes”. If you then had just a general debate about—
Patricia Gibson: If you had a debate on state pension age changes, it would still be pertinent, regardless of what the ombudsman said.
Q15 Chair: I do not think it fulfils the application that Jim has put in, though.
Jim Shannon: Can I come back to you on that? I will leave the names with you.
Chair: Yes; thank you. We will now go into private session.