Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2007.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Good morning. I wish first to ask everyone to ensure that mobile phones and pagers are either switched off or on silent mode.

Today is quite an historic occasion. For the first time, a Public Bill Committee will be hearing oral evidence on a Bill. So that everyone is clear about what is happening, I shall briefly explain what is proposed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on which debate is limited to half an hour. We shall then proceed to debate a motion to report to the House the written evidence that the Committee receives and a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions.

When the Committee has agreed its lines of questioning, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will commence. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence this week before reverting to the more familiar proceedings of clause-by-clause scrutiny at subsequent sittings.

We come now to the programme motion, debate on which may continue for up to half an hour. I call the Minister.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 30th January) meet—

(a) at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 30th January;

(b) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 1st February;

(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 6th February;

(d) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th February;

(e) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 20th February;

(f) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 22nd February;

(g) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 27th February;

(h) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 1st March;

(i) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 6th March;

(j) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th March;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table;

TABLE

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Good morning, Mr. Benton, to you and members of the Committee. I wish first to endorse many of the remarks made by the Minister. It is indeed a pleasure to work under your chairmanship at the historic start to proceedings on the Bill. We are all looking forward to seeing how it will work. As Lord Cope said in his recent note that he sent round about the new procedure:

“The new process is not described as an experiment, but it is recognised that the system may need modification in the light of experience.”

We are in the happy position of being the first people to provide some of that experience on which modification might be based.

The decision to modernise legislative proceedings and to improve the way in which a Committee informed itself of what was before it through the process of taking evidence was warmly welcomed by the House when the Modernisation Committee reported after the matter was debated in November. We are pleased to be able to start the process that the Minister has outlined.

Now comes the historic “but” moment. We have recognised over the years that, whereas consensus is incredibly important, the danger of being over-consensual is that we miss things. We believe that it is our job to assist the process of modification by pointing out things that could be improved and by putting a little bit of grit in the oyster, which I intend to do. I shall come to that in a second.

I add to my welcomes by saying what a great pleasure it will be to work with the Minister. He and I have known each other for many years, and I regard him as a highly capable colleague with a great interest in and knowledge of the subject. I look forward to representing the Conservatives while he applies his skill to outlining the Government’s measures. In that spirit, I am sure that when we suggest changes that he knows need to be made, he will agree and ask his colleagues to do the same.

Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab) indicated dissent.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The Whip shakes his head, as is his wont. He would be in trouble with the Whips’ union if he did not. We are looking forward to the debate on this interesting topic.

I turn to our slight concern about the programme motion and the reason why the Conservatives object to it. It is a bit rushed. We all know that calling witnesses, particularly to give oral evidence, was always going to involve a squeeze in the parliamentary legislative procedure, but it is necessary to get it off and running well in the first place, and we are not certain that that has happened.

In order for there to be sensible consideration of who ought to give evidence and to give witnesses time to rearrange their diaries accordingly, a certain amount of time is necessary. We are concerned that that has not been given. Progress was unduly hasty from Second Reading to the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, which is meant to make such decisions, and to this first Committee sitting. Second Reading was last Monday, the Programming Sub-Committee met on Thursday and here we are on Tuesday expecting people to be ready to come and give evidence.

Our point is that further consideration might have helped us. The Minister is right to say that a range of witnesses will be attending today and on Thursday, but there could have been more. Further time might have allowed the Committee to consider adding one or two. Our suggested witnesses included London Councils, which will be appearing; the parliamentary boundary commission, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities for their experience of regionalisation; Professor Michael Chisholm, to whom the Clerks’ briefing notes to the House referred for his work on the costs involved in local government reorganisation; Professor Tony Travers, who I suspect needs no introduction because of his knowledge of local government finance; Gordon Keymer, the head of the Local Government Association, who will be appearing this afternoon; and Michael Lyons, whose knowledge of local government finance is second only to that of Tony Travers.

Michael Lyons could have enlightened us about the continuing debate about which cart comes before which horse—whether we should be listening to him about the financial structure of local government or to others about the structure of local government to which he will apply his financial structure. There has been an interesting debate that could cut both ways, but it might have been enlightening to listen to what he thought and probe him with questions about the financial structure. Our point is that it is difficult now to decide on two-tier and unitary structure issues without knowing precisely what financial regime will be operating shortly.

We thought that hearing from Christopher Booker from The Sunday Telegraph might have been interesting, with his knowledge of the Standards Board and of ethics in particular, about which he has written extensively. We thought that Health Link might be involved, and it will be appearing. We suggested a think tank called Involve, as well as the Socialist Health Association in order to see whether it still had any chums among Labour Members.

Only in the last couple of days, we all received an e-mail from Gill Morgan of the NHS Confederation. Her absence is a potentially serious hole in our deliberations. If we had had a little more time, perhaps we would have thought of calling the NHS Confederation to give us its experience and wisdom, particularly concerning part 11 of the Bill and the issues of patient and public involvement. The possibility also arises that we might see Gill Morgan later in the Committee. I note that the guide given to us by the Chairman of Ways and Means includes a paragraph that states:

“Although the Committee is expected to take oral evidence at the start of its proceedings, there is no procedural reason why it may not return to evidence-taking later in its consideration of the Bill.”

Bearing in mind that the Bill is neatly drawn into local government and public health elements, it might be convenient to retain some flexibility in how we handle it, and to consider at some later stage whether Gill Morgan and the NHS Confederation might come along.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Chairman of Ways of Means has also made that recommendation to the Leader of the House. I think it is a good idea, and it follows on from what my hon. Friend was saying, although I am not sure, with the new procedure, whether I can say Alistair Burt, or whether I am supposed to refer to my hon. Friend. Perhaps Mr. Benton will give us a lead on the matter.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Stick to the conventions.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Select Committee conventions?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

The hon. Gentleman should refer to hon. Members.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Of course. However, for those who are watching the new procedure, I point out that, on Select Committees, we refer to each other by name.

My hon. Friend made a point about the delay. The Chairman of Ways and Means, in a letter to the Leader of the House said that it would be a good idea to have at least two weekends’ gap between the Programming Sub-Committee and the first Committee sitting. That would have enabled us to have time to invite more people along, and to have a fuller discussion in the Programming Sub-Committee about who can come along to give evidence. I agree with my hon. Friend that, although it is a good idea, things that get done in a rush are not always satisfactory.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is the reason why we are raising this procedural point. The House agrees that the innovation is important, and we want to get it right. I hope that, in future, notice is taken of the timing issues.

In his note, Lord Cope makes reference to the need to think ahead. He states:

“The timing will be very tight, particularly between second reading and decisions about who is to give evidence and for how long. Lobbyists and MPs involved will have to think ahead.”

We make those points because the rush that my hon. Friend described suggests that the Committee might not have thought ahead quite as much as it should have done. Notwithstanding that, and although we have our complaints, the Committee should proceed in the way in which the Government have suggested. However, if the Government note our concerns and pass them back through the usual channels, problems can be avoided in the future.

On the programming of the Committee, we asked for 22 sittings. However, after evidence is taken, we will have 16 sittings. The broad split that the Government have in mind for discussing the Bill is fine, and we will accommodate it—it is pretty much in line with our thinking. There may be a little bit of flexibility either way, but we intend to take the measure through Committee as the Government have suggested. That gives us plenty of time to examine the Bill as we would wish, and to make our objections. We hope that the spirit that we are taking towards the Committee shows that when we divide the Committee, the concerns we raise are genuine and serious. We will not play games in the Committee. We will put forward the issues that matter and vote on them accordingly. Within that framework, we are looking forward to dealing with the witnesses and the substance of the Bill in the right spirit.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I start by welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. We are looking forward to working with you and other members of the Committee over the next few weeks.

On the new process, the Liberal Democrats strongly support the additional element of procedure in the Committee. We hope that it will turn out to be a profitable process for this Committee, and that it can be developed on future occasions to be still more effective. It is clearly sensible that we have access to expert and practitioner advice on some of the key elements of the Bill, and we are looking forward to working through that process.

The Conservative spokesman said that we on this Committee are pioneers, but I think that perhaps we are more like guinea pigs. The Government have tried hard, but if we are to be guinea pigs, can we have a bit more lettuce and a bit less grit next time? There is scope to improve the process. I do not blame anybody. We are pioneers—there were no protocols or process and we have had to make the best of things. Nevertheless, I hope that the opportunity will be taken, behind the scenes, to consider the lessons learned by all those involved on how the new process should be commissioned and initiated.

I support the point made by the Chairman of Ways and Means in his initial proposal that there should be two weekends-worth of thinking time—a clear week—between Second Reading and plunging into the process. The speed with which we have begun the Committee stage is the reason why my third colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, is not here. He is away on a parliamentary visit and it was not possible for him to reorganise his schedule in the time available.

My party looks forward to working on the Bill with other colleagues in the Committee. We have some major issues that we shall bring to the attention of the Committee, but I echo the words of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman—we do not intend either to waste the Committee’s time or to involve ourselves in unnecessary controversy. We want to see a much improved Bill, and we shall work constructively to achieve that.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

I too welcome the new procedure, but I have one or two questions about the decisions that have been made—including on how they have been made—which I ask in the spirit of wishing to improve the process. For example, how were the witnesses selected, and why was not the Committee involved in that?

It might be difficult for the Committee to be involved, and some organisation in advance might be needed, but I should like to know how the selection was made. Today, for example, the Local Government Association will appear before us, quite rightly. The LGA represents all strands of local government, yet we will have a part repeat in respect of district councils, and a further repeat in respect of another part of local government with London Councils, so we have three bites of the same cherry taking up witness time today. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said that he had a huge list of possible witnesses, yet time will be taken up considering LGA work in those three separate bites. This evening we shall hear from Health Link, but we do not have time for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. That was the body that set up patients forums, so it would have been reasonable to hear from it. We need to learn some lessons on that.

There is another important point to do with administration. There has been little time to prepare and to read the brief. We shall do our best, but I rescued my papers from the post room at 8 o’clock yesterday evening; they were about to be posted to Bedford. Without the co-operation of the post service in the House that would not have helped me a great deal.

I mention those points not in a negative, critical manner but in a constructive one, in the hope that we shall do better in future.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

The points that the hon. Gentleman makes are well taken. We are all on a learning curve. His remarks are duly noted and I am sure that they will be taken on board. That is far as I can go at the moment.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I thank all those who have commented, including the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. Perhaps in the future he could be not quite so kind and flattering.

The Government take the procedures seriously. We have proposed a number of modernisation steps in relation to the way in which we legislate, and inevitably changes cause problems and difficulties, but they bed in over time. I think that the House consensus is that the changes we have made have been improvements. I know that the Opposition have some principled objections to programming, which I understand. For our part, the Executive have to bear in mind some real-world issues, including those to do with financial years. It is a question of balance.

The Bill’s First Reading was on 12 December, so we moved quickly from White Paper to Bill. We also published a White Paper implementation plan. We did that deliberately because local government had asked us to move ahead quickly after an exhaustive period of genuine consultation. I hope that the LGA, when it gives evidence, will acknowledge that. By the end of the period, we were criticised for having too much consultation. To reiterate the point made by the Modernisation Committee, the witnesses appearing before the Committee are not the only evidence givers available. All of us who have served on Bill Committees know that there is sometimes an exhaustive amount of briefing and lobbying. Nowadays such communications tend to come by e-mail, but people used to come to our weekend advice surgeries to lobby. It would not be fair to give the impression that anybody has been excluded from access to the Committee. A number of organisations have been mentioned. We have had the Bill since before December. I understand the point about the two weekends’ gap, but, to be fair to the Government, the Bill has been published for a number of weeks.

Specifically on the timing, we have tried to balance time and the necessity of making progress. I appreciate that the Opposition asked for slightly more sittings, but as a member of the ex-Whips union, I think that the Whips on both sides have been sensible in their approach and that we have a good schedule. As for the list of organisations, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford made a very sensible point about involving the Committee in inviting and deciding on witnesses. Obviously the timing of this Committee—it being the first one to use the new procedure—has made that difficult. The House voted that Bills introduced after Christmas 2006 should be subject to the new procedure. This Bill was introduced before Christmas 2006 but it is the first to be subject to the procedure. I am not sure whether we are guinea pigs or pilots, but the Government are using the new procedure now as a gesture of goodwill and transparency. We did not have to under the resolution of the House, so I hope that the Committee will bear with us.

The list of organisations and individuals that we have to consult in local government is exhaustive. It is perhaps unfortunate from my point of view that the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill should be the first to be subject to such scrutiny. The organisations that my colleagues and I meet in consultation over local government would fill a telephone directory—I mean that literally. We have to strike a balance.

The usual channels are the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who made some suggestions. I understand that the Opposition have proposed an on the whole distinguished list of people to give evidence. I have read and seen submissions from all of them apart from Christopher Booker, whose cuttings I read on Monday morning. To be fair, I can often learn things from him, although he is perhaps one of the more zealous commentators.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove questioned whether we were guinea pigs or pilots. I suppose that we are both. Is it possible to be both a guinea pig and a pilot? I would not get on a plane being flown by a guinea pig, but we would be lucky if we could get on any plane tomorrow.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I think that that indicates the hon. Gentleman and his party’s victim status. We regard ourselves as pioneers and they regard themselves as guinea pigs.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Having said that, they will probably define themselves as both now.

I should like to draw Committee members’ attention to an important passage in the Members’ guidance on the new Public Bill Committees, published by the Library. The Modernisation Committee’s report, “The Legislative Process”, which proposed evidence-taking powers, says that those are intended

“to enable the Members who will be going through the bill in detail to inform themselves about its contents and to give the Minister a chance to respond to questions from the Committee, a process which is likely to be more fruitful that a series of debates on ‘probing’ amendments.”

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I wish to ask a question through you, Mr. Benton, because I am not quite sure how probing amendments will e dealt with. Clearly, the idea is potentially to reduce the number of probing amendments. I assume that you have the power, when amendments are tabled, to determine whether their substance has already been extensively discussed during the evidence-taking process.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I imagine that, subject to legal guidance to the contrary, the usual protocol will be observed. In other words, if there has been adequate discussion and coverage of any given matter, the Chairman has discretion to say, “This has been adequately discussed,” as, for example, when dealing with clause stand part, and it is felt that the whole clause has, in general, been adequately discussed. I imagine that the same flexibility will be available, subject to any legal advice to the contrary.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Thank you, Mr. Benton.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Benton; I also thank my hon. Friend for the intervention that drew it out.

It is perhaps worth saying that, as was always the case in Standing Committees, it is open to the Committee to sit beyond 7 o’clock, if that is decided on. The Committee may recall that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I were both members of the Standing Committee dealing with the minimum wage, which had the longest sitting of a Standing Committee in the history of Parliament. The former hon. Member for Solihull wrote a book about that—

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

During it.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not take my punchlines. Seriously, though, we do give time to debate. We as a Government believe that we have built up a consensus for the major measures in the Bill.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Will the Minister consider again the good point made by the hon. Member for Bedford, about how to involve the majority of Committee members in decisions on witnesses? Either we recommend that it is not the Programming Sub-Committee that makes the decisions on witnesses, but the Committee as a whole—which might be uncomfortable—or the usual channels give a commitment that, before the Programming Sub-Committee meets, discussions will be held with those who are anticipated to be Committee members so that their expertise may be brought in. Although the process was designed to ensure that the usual channels and the hon. Members leading on Bills for their parties would contribute to the selection of witnesses, that excludes the expertise of hon. Members brought on to the Committee because they are interested in and have knowledge about the area. Either that should be formally recognised in the process of involving witnesses—it could be accommodated if there were two weekends between the decision being made and asking them—or, if that cannot be done, the usual channels should give a commitment to involve Committee members in the process.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. One would have to consider the guidance from the House on oral evidence, which says that

“The witness programme will be agreed through the usual channels, in consultation with the Bill team.”

However, I undertake to consider the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I now call the Minister to move the motion to report written evidence. This is a formality whereby any written evidence that the Committee accepts enjoys the benefit of parliamentary privilege.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Copies of any memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee room.

I now call the Minister to move the motion to permit the Committee to sit in private.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We will now hear oral evidence from representatives of the Local Government Association. I welcome the witnesses and ask them to introduce themselves.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Welcome. Before calling the first Committee Member to ask a question, I would like to remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to the provisions of the Bill.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I am interested in hearing the views of the other witnesses.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

You are not the only ones.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We shall move on to part 3, which deals with executive arrangements for England.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

But my point was to be given the option, because this is a very intimate part of local government work. I would be irked if I were told by the Government, “This is how you should do leadership, and we cannot trust you to choose your own method.” I was simply exposing the opportunity of raising a further option to give you the choice rather than the Government— [Interruption.] I can tell by the nods that people might welcome exploring that option in Committee.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We shall now move on to part 4 of the Bill, which deals with parishes.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I want to move on to co-operation of English authorities with local partners.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

It is our old friend joined-up government again.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Better left unsaid.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Can we move on to part 9 of the Bill on ethical standards?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

We also have a statutory obligation to consult.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

May we return to part 8 of the Bill, which deals with the inspection and audit of local services? There is a question on this section.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We now have a question on part 11.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

It is social care as well.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

There are no further questions from the Committee and that brings us to the end of our proceedings. May I place on the record, on this, the first of these occasions, the Committee’s thanks to the witnesses here this morning? It has been a very informative session and most helpful. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much, gentlemen,.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Jonathan Shaw.]

Written evidence to be reported to the House

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Good afternoon, Councillor Keymer. Thank you for coming. We shall go right into the question session.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Thank you.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We move to part 3, which deals with executive arrangements for England.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Thank you.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We move to part 5, which deals with the co-operation of English authorities with local partners.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Thanks very much to Councillor Keymer for highlighting that. We will be discussing that when we move on to the Bill, but it might be helpful to point out here that the community call for action process, as far as crime and policing are concerned, is covered by the Police and Justice Act 2006, which has yet to come into effect. The mechanism and process being proposed in this Bill are different, although similar in essence. The difference is that under this process it is the councillor who triggers the call for action on behalf of his or her constituents. That is the difference. The point, in other words, has been taken on board.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We will move on to part 9 which deals with ethical standards.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I think that that brings us to the end of our questions. For the record, in relation to the confusion on the precise title of Councillor Keymer, I point out to the Committee that the wording in the motion agreed to by the Committee was unchanged from that tabled by the Government in the Programming Sub-Committee. I thank you for attending, Councillor Keymer.

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. I do not say that we have wasted our time, but a lot of our time could have better spent if we had had somebody from the Association of District Councils who spoke for the whole association, rather than just the Conservative party. I am not blaming the witness that we have just heard. In fact, I am not blaming anybody, but we need to bear that in mind for the future, because we are learning as we make our way through. There are district councils that are in favour of unitary authorities, but we have not heard their point of view and I think that we should have had that.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

That is not a point of order, of course, but it is, perhaps, something for future Programming Sub-Committees to bear in mind.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Further to that, can we hold our hands up? It is perhaps part of the process of being very quick. My impression certainly was that the councillor was the chairman of the Association of District Councils. We advanced our arguments in good faith. Clearly, there was no system of checking, given the speed with which it was done, and we all worked on that basis. But there we are; we learn a bit from that. He was still jolly good though, wasn’t he? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We move on to the next group of witnesses. Perhaps the witnesses would like to identify themselves.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Thank you very much for coming. We shall start with part 4 of the Bill, which deals with parishes.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That will be helpful.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We will now move to part 5.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Thank you. What a relief.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Finally, we move to part 11 of the Bill on “Patient and public involvement in health and social care”.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Thank you. That concludes our questions. Thank you, Councillor Cockell. Mr. Pilgrim, thank you for your attendance and your testimony.

We now come to the next group of witnesses. We can see your nameplates, but would you like to introduce yourselves to the Committee?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Yes, that would be helpful.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Thank you. We shall begin with part 11 of the Bill on “Patient and public involvement in health and social care”.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Thank you. I think that that answers the question.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I would like you to supply it in a note.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Well, members of the forum. Who is saying that they are not valued and therefore will not have a potentially important forward role?

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

She is not allowed to respond.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Thank you for that. I am sure that the Minister will make that point in Committee.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

That concludes our questions. Thank you very much. On behalf of the Committee, I should like to thank you for your attendance today and for your witness.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Jonathan Shaw.]