Backbench Business

Representations: Backbench Business

Tuesday 24 Jan 2017

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 24 Jan 2017.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Kevin Foster; Gavin Newlands; Mr David Nuttall; Jess Phillips; William Wragg.

Questions 1-16

I: Meg Hillier and Norman Lamb.

II: Sir Julian Brazier, Sir Gerald Howarth, Danny Kinahan and Mr Iain Duncan Smith.

III: Sir Eric Pickles and Joan Ryan.

Written evidence from witnesses:

– [Add names of witnesses and hyperlink to submissions]

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to this sitting of the Backbench Business Committee. Four applications have been tabled for this afternoon. The first applicant is not with us at the moment, and second on the list is Meg Hillier. Would you like to come forward, Meg, and make your application? It is about budgets for health and social care, and Meg is joined by Norman Lamb.

Meg Hillier and Norman Lamb made representations.

              Meg Hillier: Thank you very much, Chair and Committee, for allowing us to come and present today. I am here with Norman Lamb MP, but I am speaking also on behalf of two other Select Committee Chairs and their Committees. I chair the Public Accounts Committee. The Chair of the Health Committee, Sarah Wollaston, is in Committee at the moment, as is Clive Betts, who chairs—[Interruption.]

Chair: I’m sorry, Meg. Could people cut down on the chatter in the Public Gallery, please? The acoustics in these rooms are quite difficult, and I must admit that if there is a bit of a hubbub, I find it difficult to hear what the applicants are saying. Thank you very much.

              Meg Hillier: To recap, Chair, I am here representing not just myself and the Public Accounts Committee, but the Chairs of the Health Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee. Both Dr Sarah Wollaston and Clive Betts are on Committee business right now; that is why they are unable to be here. We are supported by others, including Norman Lamb, who will say a few words in a moment.

In short, we have been raising concerns about health and social care funding through our individual Committees and jointly for some time. In the last calendar year, 11 Public Accounts Committee reports raised issues about how funding is meeting, or not meeting, demand in the national health service, among other things. The Health Committee of course looks at a wide range of issues. That includes looking very closely at the finances of the national health service. The Communities and Local Government Committee is finalising its work on financing social care and expects to report on that around March. We have raised these issues individually with Ministers and civil servants. We have raised the matters jointly, as three Select Committee Chairs, in the Liaison Committee and through letters. Norman Lamb will talk about an initiative that he has been active in as well. However, we have been getting what you might call shallow answers back, and we think it is time we had a detailed debate in the Commons on the budgets.

To give a bit more background, we have also been working with Charles Walker and the Procedure Committee to see whether we can get an estimates day debate that actually allows us to debate the finances. As you probably know, under the current rules, we are ruled out from discussing detailed areas of the budget. We are simultaneously exploring that option, but we will not get the full constitutional change in time for this year. We are looking at having an estimates day on which we debate a number of the reports that I have just mentioned. We would lay those, as Select Committees, in the House, which would enable us to have a broad discussion on the reports.

If the Backbench Business Committee gave us a slot in late February or early March, we would have the chance to debate on the Floor of the House and discuss the details of the budget for health and social care, and, very importantly, there would be a Minister before the House, having to answer on the detail of the budget, which is not something that routinely happens or is easy to engineer, despite the fact that we debate the estimates in theory every year. It is actually more of a general debate, and we are ruled out from discussing the money. We think it is really important that we have that, so that the public and parliamentarians can see exactly what the issues are in relation to NHS funding. I will now hand over to Norman Lamb, who is going to add to what I have said.

Norman Lamb: A couple of weeks ago I brought together a cross-party group of eight Conservative MPs, eight Labour MPs and seven Lib Dems—getting together equal numbers is more challenging these days—to call on the Government to establish what we called an NHS and care convention, to work towards an agreed, long-term sustainable settlement for the health and care system. I should add that since then, I have had four more Conservative MPs come forward to express support, and there has been further support on the Labour party as well. There has been a demonstration of cross-party interest and concern about this issue. I asked the Prime Minister in PMQs if she would meet us. She agreed to, and that is an advance, but this is an issue of such resonance with so much of the country that Parliament ought to be debating it, so I strongly support what Meg said.

Meg Hillier: Because we are trying to explore both options, we may be able to return a day to the Backbench Business Committee, if we got the estimates day, but we feel that the issue is so important that we cannot risk waiting and finding that there is no opportunity to debate it. The other thing I didn’t mention was that in the last financial year, the Department of Health laid its accounts on the very last day that Parliament sat in the summer and had to go through extraordinary measures to make the books balance. As a Committee, we are looking very closely at that. The timeliness of the debate is particularly important, so that we get to discuss and debate the budget at that particular point in the financial year.

Q2                Kevin Foster: To be clear, although my name is attached, it is probably because I am a member of the PAC, rather than because I specifically support the application, given my role on this Committee.

Normally when we look at general debates or debates with substantive motions, those with substantive motions get priority for the Chamber. I feel that you would probably prefer to be in the Chamber rather than Westminster Hall. Why would the debate be suitable for the Chamber, even though it is fundamentally a “This House has considered” motion?

Meg Hillier: We do not want to tie all colleagues down to a particular position. In the spirit of some of the joint work we have been doing, we want to flag up that there is a real concern and that we want to work together jointly, rather than pinning ourselves down to a policy position. But you are absolutely right, Mr Foster: we want to debate this matter on the Floor of the House because it is of such national significance. [Interruption.]

Chair: I am afraid that there is a Division. We will reconvene in about 10 minutes.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Chair: We were in the throes of members of the Committee asking questions.

Q3                Bob Blackman: This is obviously a very important issue. You have quite rightly pointed out that the Procedure Committee is looking at estimates procedures as well. Mr Nuttall and I sit on the Procedure Committee, so we well understand the issues concerned. The main issue for us, in terms of the debate, is the exact timing. You said that it would be at the end of February or the beginning of March. The other possibility is of having an earlier debate in Westminster Hall, to tease out what the Government may say or do—to put the Minister’s feet to the fire, as it were, and to test this out first. I wonder if you would possibly consider a two-stage process, namely a Westminster Hall debate to explore some of the issues and, possibly, if you don’t get the answers you would like, coming back for a substantive motion debate at maybe the end of February or the beginning of March—or even later, if that suits?

Meg Hillier: That isn’t something I had particularly considered. We are itching to get some answers to some of the questions. I have a letter here that I wrote to the Prime Minister with a lot of the evidence our Committee has collected. We have all the evidence. We wouldn’t be averse to that. However, because of the national importance of, and interest in, this, and the number of Members who are interested—our Select Committee members obviously have an interest, but many others from all parties are interested—I think we would get a reasonably good turnout in the Chamber.

We are also exploring the estimates day model, although we won’t get that constitutional change in time this year. We hope that this could presage the annual event that is proper debate on estimates. It might not be health every year; one would hope that, at some point in the future, things will have been resolved. The PAC had a session on education yesterday, for instance, and the challenges that are coming from there. We hope it will be, if you like, the vanguard of debates on the budget. That is really one of the reasons we are doing this, as well as its being on health. There is a kind of two-pronged issue there.

Mr Blackman, we wouldn’t be averse to that, if it is the best the Committee can offer. I think it is a significant enough issue to be on the Floor of the House.

Q4                Bob Blackman: The key point is that Chamber time is precious, as you will appreciate, but also that those applications with divisible motions have to be taken in the Chamber, whereas general debates can take place in Westminster Hall, because obviously there would not be a vote at the end. That gives us time for people that have pressed applications—there is a queue of applications to be heard in the Chamber—so that we can actually apportion the time appropriately. That is why I suggest it might be a different way forward.

              Meg Hillier: Obviously that will be for the Committee to decide. What I will just say is that we do need to do this sometime in February or March, ahead of the end of this financial year. Late February or early March would be the optimal time to get our views in and also to find out close enough to when the Government will know what it is doing with the budget for the NHS for this forthcoming year.

Q5                Chair: In essence, Meg and Norman, we as a Committee have to weigh things up. We have to determine whether the subject matter is worthy of debate and whether it has the relevant amount of support to make it an effective debate, and then we have to try to gain time in the Chamber or Westminster Hall to allow the debate to happen. The one thing I would counsel is that, in light of recent developments, the Chamber time we are likely to get in the near future may well be more limited than it has been recently.

              Meg Hillier: We will bear that in mind.

Chair: Thank you very much for your application. Next up we have Danny Kinahan and the subject of the application is the prosecution of UK security forces.

Danny Kinahan, Sir Gerald Howarth, Mr Iain Duncan Smith and Sir Julian Brazier and made representations.

              Danny Kinahan: Thank you very much, Mr Mearns. I thank the Committee for letting me come forward today. The subject is very topical and extremely important at the moment. I have some 17 signatories to the debate. I was looking for a three-hour debate and, if possible, for a debate as soon as possible, given the circumstances in Northern Ireland. I have left it open to include the security services anywhere—Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever we have been—because I think it is absolutely right that the security forces are always treated the same.

I know that we have to be aware of the Northern Ireland institutions not working at the moment, and legacy is very much one of the critical issues there, but a drip-drip effect is continually feeding through the local newspapers there, showing one side of the argument, and it is very important that we put all sides of the argument here. There are many points to be debated, and I think we will have a good, heated debate because not everyone agrees which way we should go forward. There are those who think we should have an amnesty; there are those who think we should not. There are cases going forward at the moment that are just being brought forward because the European legal system has told us that we did not look at them properly, so we are starting right at the beginning with all cases.

Should we be looking at all cases? Should we not be looking at just those that have good evidence? Should we be looking so that there is no equivalence between soldiers and paramilitaries and terrorists? There is a mass of different things that are going through, so I am asking for a chance for everyone to have a say. The heart of our society are the soldiers, the security forces and the police, who are serving all of us here, and I think that at the moment no one is really representing them. There are those who need to be able to put the cases. That is where I am coming from; there are many more points to it. The newspapers are leading on it and I would like to make sure that the MPs have the chance to have their say.

              Sir Gerald Howarth: I strongly support that. It is true that the newspapers are running campaigns, and there is always a risk that Parliament is slightly behind the drag curve on these matters. It is, of course, the historic responsibility of us in this House to redress grievances. That is what Parliament was established for 750 years ago and I believe that this is a real case where there is a very genuine grievance that needs the attention of Parliament.

Northern Ireland, of course, is the No. 1 feature in this matter. I have constituents in Aldershot who served in Northern Ireland. They are in their 70s and have long since retired, not only from the Army but from their subsequent occupations. They are sitting at home wondering if they too are going to get a knock on the door at 6 o’clock in the morning and be dragged off to Northern Ireland to go and answer charges that were dismissed in the past, for events that took place nearly half a century ago. I believe this to be a fundamental miscarriage of justice. I do not believe that the matter can simply be left to the law enforcement agencies and the prosecuting authorities. I think this goes to the heart of public policy and it is therefore absolutely essential—not just desirable—that Parliament has an opportunity to discuss it.

As Mr Kinahan said, there are two sides—two views—to this and it is entirely appropriate that the views should be heard. I get emails from former soldiers—from across the country, not just my constituency—saying, “Thank you for speaking up about our concerns.” They are in real fear and their lives are being very adversely affected. As Mr Kinahan says, this is not just about Northern Ireland. Troops have recently served in some pretty bloody conflicts in the Middle East and they, too, are worried about what the Iraq historic allegations tribunals will come up with. Mr Phil Shiner, a lawyer, was going around trying to hoover up business for his law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, and he has now admitted that he paid people. I put it to the Committee that this is a very serious matter, and I hope you will grant us the debate.

Mr Duncan Smith: I only wanted to appear here to back up the cry. I served in Northern Ireland a long time ago and I remember categorically the nature of it. I remember many soldiers having to make marginal decisions in short order. I lived in a car park for three months and never had a dry stitch of clothing on me, nor did any of the men. These were very trying and difficult times. My slight concern is not so much about someone who has done palpable wrong being dealt with, but that so much of this stuff was looked at and dealt with, and people were then told there was nothing to answer for. Now it looks like it is all going to be raked up all over again. My real question, in support of the application, is why we here would not want to ask what the extent is, how far this goes and where is the balance of this. There is a human interest in all this. Is there a moment in some of these cases where we simply draw a line and say, “Enough is enough”? I don’t know, but unless Parliament debates it, it has no say.

We have already seen one of the more shameful incidents—the ambulance-chasing lawyers with regard to what went on in Iraq. I would hate to think that we would end up with much the same process in all these other areas. We have a duty of care for, in particular, soldiers, sailors and airmen and women, because they can’t speak and defend themselves. They put their lives on the line for us, but they require us to make sure that we protect their lives and reputations. It is important for us to make sure that there is the necessary due diligence and that we come to a conclusion about how far this goes and the extent of these things. Therefore I would support the debate wholeheartedly. 

Q6                Kevin Foster: I know, Mr Kinahan, that you will be aware of where my thoughts lie on some of these issues, having heard me speak in the Chamber. To focus on the application, let me ask two substantive questions. First, it just says, “Draft text of substantive motion”. A lot of what is being said would lead me to think of a potential motion that expresses an opinion, rather than a motion that says, “This House has considered”. Have you thought about putting a motion forward that actually expresses an opinion and gives people the opportunity to debate it one way or the other? Secondly, I am conscious that cases will potentially go before the court. How would this debate not tread into those areas? I agree that there is a need to debate what is going on as a matter of public policy, but how would the debate be shaped to ensure that that is the focus?

Danny Kinahan: This is how I envisage the debate: I will give my view and make my case, which is that we should be looking into why we are prosecuting and who we are prosecuting, and look at whether there are ways of drawing a line, but I don’t expect everyone else to have exactly the same views. In fact, I know that because of many debates I have been to. Twice, minor debates in Westminster Hall have touched on it and shown us the breadth and the structure. Sorry, your second point was—

Q7                Kevin Foster: The second point was more about how we kept away from individual cases. We would not want to stray and give an opportunity to talk about those, other than just to say, “This is before the court,” but I think you may have touched on that. My other point was about whether or not you wanted to make a request for a substantive motion, because that would normally get priority for Chamber time over a “This House has considered” motion.

Danny Kinahan: I wanted to open it up so everyone can give every different type of view. I know we will all be tied to cases that are going through, but there are always going to be cases going through. I think Parliamentary privilege has its place, but we have all got to be wary of what we are doing there, although I don’t think it should ever stop it. This is something that is happening now.

There is one soldier who is in his late-70s. He is ill and he has been taken to court, although there is no new evidence; there is nothing new, but because the European rules have changed, he has been pulled up. We need to discuss that. There are another two paras that are being discussed, and there are all the other cases, because they are all going to be opened up. I met one of the assistant chief constables the other day who said there are new ways of looking at evidence. If that is the case, every single case, do we want the whole of Northern Ireland’s past coming up all the time, and do we want to go into Afghanistan and so on? I just think we have to be aware of that. [Interruption.]

Q8                Chair: I am going to be very lenient and allow Sir Julian Brazier to add something if you wish.

              Sir Julian Brazier: Mr Mearns, you are extremely grateful. [Interruption.] I am extremely grateful—my dyslexia is striking. I am completely with Mr Kinahan on this. I don’t want to regurgitate the arguments he put over so well, but if I could just underline one point in answer to your point, Kevin: the point about the sub judice rule and independent cases is, we must remember, a matter for Mr Speaker, not the courts. It is his decision, and there is really quite an important precedent here.

When we had the Lee Clegg case, which I led an Adjournment debate on, and which was going through the legal system when Mr Duncan Smith and I led the campaign against what was going on in the system, Betty Boothroyd, the then Speaker, decided that we could raise the case. She negotiated with me at the beginning and made it clear how far she would let me go on it, despite the fact that it was going through the system. There is no reason why, with the Speaker’s permission, we can’t raise individual cases in the debate.

Q9                Gavin Newlands: This is clearly a hugely important issue, and it would generate a fair amount of interest across the House. In terms of the application itself, for three-hour debates the Committee generally looks for at least 15 speakers on the application, so an extra couple of names need to be added. In terms of the speakers that are currently there, I make out that there are 10 Conservatives, two Unionists and one Labour. We always try to look for applications with as much of a cross-party nature as possible. I appreciate that that is more difficult on some issues than others, but I suggest that it would be good to get a couple more Labour names on the application.

              Danny Kinahan: I have many more. I think Stephen Pound was here earlier. There is Tom Blenkinsop. Kate Hoey was here. I think I could have had 50 names there.

Q10            Gavin Newlands: If you could furnish the Clerks with names, that would be appreciated.

Danny Kinahan: We will certainly do that.

Chair: It is common procedure in here that names can be added after the application has been heard by the Committee, if it adds weight. Thank you very much indeed.

Q11            Bob Blackman: Can I explore the proposed the timing of the debate? Not in terms of its length, but when you would like it to be held. Obviously Chamber time is precious, as you will appreciate; you may have heard my questions to the previous Members.

Clearly, Northern Ireland Assembly elections are being held on 3 March. Do you envisage having a debate before or after the elections? Will it be considerably before the elections? I am just worried about whether we are going to have a debate in Parliament that may cause ripples in Northern Ireland, in terms of those elections.

Danny Kinahan: That is a very good question. We want it as soon as possible. We will have elections; we may then have more elections. We may have an impasse that goes on and on. These soldiers are up before the courts as we speak, and there are more coming through. Legacy will be part of it, and we all, as wise parliamentarians, have to find a way of balancing that. So, please let it be as soon as possible so that we open up the debate.

I have forgotten one key point, which is that we have to remember that, to many people, it looks as if the terrorists have benefited from the whole peace system, not the soldiers. We have to look at one of the main debates, which is the level playing field. When you’re talking about security forces, it opens it up to everyone, including the police.

Chair: Thank you very much for your application. I would just counsel that we have two Thursdays now until the mini-recess in February and, after that, time would be fairly short between then and the elections. We don’t have an awful lot of time to allocate at the moment.

Sir Eric Pickles and Joan Ryan made representations.

Q12            Chair: This is a re-hearing of a previous application on the resurrection of direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Sir Eric Pickles:  Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to resubmit this application. A number of things have happened in the intervening period.

There has been a growth in the number of Members who would like to debate this issue. As it currently stands, we have slightly in excess of 60 Members. That is growing. It breaks out roughly even between Conservative and Labour. There are two DUP Members and two Liberal Democrats.

Both myself and Joan were in Israel and Palestine just slightly before Christmas. The thing I would like to emphasise is that what we say matters. What the House of Commons says does matter out there. We have not said a thing about Israel and Palestine for a considerable amount of time. We have deliberately put the motion together so that we can have a thorough and frank debate, excluding no one’s views. I am expecting this to be a very lively debate that will attract considerable interest not just in this country but in Israel.

A number of things have happened, not least the United Nations motion and the aborted discussions in Paris on peace. We have seen over the last few days a number of housing developments agreed, both for Israel and for Palestinians, and a very large industrial complex for Palestinians agreed. We have seen the talks on a joint free trade area covering the area. We have seen agreements on the supply of water to Gaza. We have seen agreement with regard to electricity. We have even seen agreement with regard to mobile phone signals. There is, I think, something in the air. Even given the rhetoric that we have seen, there is something in the air with regard to peace.

I think it is immensely important for us to clearly state that we favour a two-state solution and that we favour direct, face-to-face negotiations between the Palestinian authorities—who, very pleasingly, the weekend before last managed to unite and get a Government of national unity. I think everything is now pointing in the direction that it is important for the House of Commons to express a view—not in a mean-spirited or partisan way, one way or the other, but rather to deal with the most important issue, which is direct talks and finding a lasting peace.

              Joan Ryan: Sorry, I have a chest infection, so I sound a little bit strange.

I would like to strongly support everything that Eric has said. It is an important point that since the general election this has not been debated on the Floor of the House. In fact, the last debate was October 2014, which was on the recognition of Palestinian statehood. I think this debate is overdue.

It is true that it is designed to be purposefully broad so that everybody can participate, whatever their view and their sympathies. It will be able to encompass all views. That is an important part of the approach.

As Sir Eric has said, there is broad cross-party support, and large numbers supporting it.

There is a clear parliamentary interest in this issue, which is signalled not only by the numbers supporting it but by the fact that last week I had a ten-minute rule Bill—Chair, you are probably aware of that—on co-existence funding for people-to-people projects between Israel and Palestine, to build constituencies for peace on the ground. That had very strong cross-party support and a good attendance in the Chamber, and 56 of my Labour colleagues had signed an open letter to the Secretary of State for International Development the month before, endorsing the fund. So I think there is a lot of support.

What Sir Eric says about our view being listened to is very much the case, and we see that with the traffic between Israel, Palestine and the UK, in the number of visits and discussions that take place, and in the number of Members who wish to visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority to understand the issue. The fact that we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council gives an added impetus to what we say and how it is listened to.

As Sir Eric has also said, we have had UN Resolution 2334, the Paris talks, the Israel-Jordan free trade zone and the Israeli-Palestine agreement to improve the west bank water supply jointly. So there is a lot going on, not just since the last debate in October 2014 but literally in recent weeks.

The one thing that we do know about direct, face-to-face talks, and the reason why I think the title of this debate is right, is that the five final status issues of negotiations—including borders, the status of Jerusalem, settlements, security and Palestinian sovereignty—can only be determined in direct bilateral peace talks between Israel and Palestine. That is why that needs to be the focus of debate. Yes, we can do all we can to support building constituencies for peace and, yes, we have a very powerful voice in different world and regional forums, but at the end of the day direct, face-to-face talks will be the ones that have to grapple with the final status issues.

On that basis, and given the level of support and desire in this House, I support the request for this substantive motion to be put before the House on the Floor of the House.

Q13            Mr Nuttall: That seems to be in order, Mr Chairman. We must bear in mind that this is a re-application, isn’t it? We need to be clear about that for those who may not be aware of it. Obviously, as you both said, things have been happening. How urgent is it that we now bring this debate to the Floor of the House?

              Sir Eric Pickles: We are in the hands of the Committee. I recognise the problems that the Committee has and I am not unsympathetic to them. I do not want to butter you up too much, but you have organised a series of rather well attended and important debates on the Floor of the House, which I think is appreciated by Back Benchers.

I think there is an appetite for this debate. There was a possibility of consensus with regard to a competing debate last time, which is why we didn’t proceed. Also, there was a worry that rather a lot of people had put in for it and about whether we would be able to organise the speaking.

I think it will be well attended; I think there’ll be lots of speeches; I think there will be lots of interventions; and I think we put our trust in the Committee to find something that will be reasonable. However, this is a substantive motion, which I think deserves to be heard on the Floor of the House.

Q14            Bob Blackman: Briefly, there are two things to say. First, we have had a change of US President and Administration, with a new Secretary of State. That clearly will make a dramatic difference, whichever way they proceed. We might be mindful of waiting to see what their views are before embarking on a debate. I would welcome your views on that.

Secondly—this is much more of a practical issue in terms of the debate—you have asked for three hours. You have got 60 speakers on the list. If it is three hours, allowing for the Front Benchers to get only 10 minutes each, which is about the minimum they will get, the time for those 60 speakers is limited to two and a half hours. One of the two of you as main applicants would get 15 to 20 minutes, if that is what you choose to take. The rest of the speeches would be limited to 130 minutes. That, by my reckoning, is two minutes each.

              Sir Eric Pickles: I am prepared, as I am sure Joan is, to have a self-denying ordinance and cut our time down. Also, given the way that the Chamber always sensibly works these things out, I think we can decide between ourselves on three or four-minute speeches. We could look at interventions for people to raise things. I do not think I would want to pursue the argument that we cannot possibly have the debate because it is too popular.

Q15            Bob Blackman: I wasn’t thinking of that, Sir Eric. I was thinking that if realistically there are 60 speakers and possibly more, three hours will not be sufficient. Possibly the application should be for a full-day debate of six hours, which we have allocated on other occasions for other purposes, but it is your application, not mine.

Sir Eric Pickles: Mr Blackman, your advice has always been much valued by this Committee, I am sure, and it has been valued by me over the years. I would have absolutely no problem with a full-day debate, but I have just sat here listening to the Committee tell applicants how difficult things are. We put it to the Committee that you have done a pretty good job over the past few months of juggling the impossible and putting square pegs into round holes and no one noticing. We feel that you can do this for us.

With regard to the President of the United States and the new Secretary of State, I think it would be good to get something in now. Rather than us react, we should give them at least the view of the House of Commons.

              Joan Ryan: The thing is that the things President Trump said when he was President-elect have sparked a lot of attention on this, whatever the position might be that he takes. Given the importance of the voice of the Houses of Parliament and the Commons, I think we should lead rather than follow.

Bob Blackman: He made an announcement, for example, of a change in the location of the US embassy to the capital of Israel, Jerusalem.

Joan Ryan: So there are very important issues that could precipitate problems or talks. I think we should lead rather than follow in terms of this debate.

Sir Eric Pickles: I suppose a short way of answering it would be that we would like a whole day, but we thought we had a better chance of getting a half day, because we know the pressures. It is as simple as that.

Chair: Thank you very much for your application. That brings to an end the formal open business of the Committee.