Welcome to the meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will be considering applications from colleagues for debates in the main Chamber and Westminster Hall. The first application is from Ruth Cadbury, Rebecca Smith and Steff Aquarone for a debate on transport accessibility for disabled people. This is for a debate in the Chamber, with a motion attached. Ruth, please introduce the debate.

Do you want to have this debate before the strategy is announced to try to influence it, or in response to whatever comes out of it?

I will say that we have a long waiting list, which is why I am asking the question. Do any of your colleagues wish to add anything?

If I may, I would reinforce that the representation here from the Committee reflects the broader interest in the subject area, as our Chair has said.

A large number, possibly a majority, of the signatories to this application identify as disabled themselves, and I know there is a strong interest from a number of Members in speaking about their own experiences in addition to constituency campaigns and casework.

I think this is an important issue. We all recognise, through our postbag, that people want more progress on this. It is not party political at all, so I think it will bring people together, which can be the real power of Backbench Business debates.

Any questions from colleagues? No. All right, the Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. James Naish made representations.

Next up is James Naish with an application for a debate on the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities. This is for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday. Over to you, James.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for hearing from me today. I am here to request time, as just described, for a debate on universities being required to have a statutory duty of care towards their students. A number of universities do not deem this to be necessary, but I believe it is important that Parliament scrutinises the matter. I am fortunate to be the MP for Bob and Maggie Abrahart, who have been campaigning tirelessly on this issue since the tragic loss of their daughter Natasha, a student at the University of Bristol who died in 2018. A court established in 2022 that the university contributed to her death, and opened the possibility that universities may owe their students a duty of care, but without a statutory framework, it is hard to firmly establish that duty, and Parliament and the courts each look to the other for clarity. That is why a debate would be valuable. Bodies from employers to schools do have a statutory duty of care toward people in their institution, and at a time when many young people across the country are struggling with their mental health, it is questionable that universities do not have to meet the same standard of care. Members of the public are surprised when they are told about this. Tragically, over 1,000 higher education students died by suicide between 2016 and 2023, and in 2023 the death rate was about six per 100,000. Every single death is one too many. The question is what universities and we as parliamentarians can do to address that. It is vital that universities do their bit to ensure the safety of their students, especially in the light of the mental health crisis I just described, and Parliament has a duty to consider this as well. This subject has been debated by previous Parliaments, but not since the 2024 general election. Historically, the debates have received good cross-party support and interest. In the light of the number of young people going to university, and tragic cases such as Natasha’s, I think it is important that Members consider ways to protect students and to ensure that universities meet obligations on wellbeing, including through a statutory duty of care. I hope the Committee will consider this application favourably.

Because the application is for a Tuesday, I have to ask formally which Department should answer the debate. I assume it is the Department for Education.

Yes, that Department responded in previous debates on the subject.

Okay. Thank you. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Luke Murphy made representations.

The next application is from Luke Murphy for a general debate in the Chamber on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen.

Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee, for hearing this application. I seek this debate to mark the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth on 16 December 1775. We are asking for a three-hour debate on a Thursday, ideally 11 or 18 December, to coincide as closely as possible with the anniversary. Why does this matter? Jane Austen is one of Britain’s greatest writers and a trailblazing woman whose voice still resonates today. Born in Steventon, in my constituency, she spent her first 25 years there, drafting “Sense and Sensibility” and “Pride and Prejudice”. Her novels gave women agency at a time when they had little in law or society as a whole. Through her books, she exposed the economic realities of marriage in regency England, yet offered heroines who insisted on respect and equality. She was a woman ahead of her time. She also reshaped the English novel, perfecting a narrative style that allowed readers to see the world through her heroines’ eyes, pioneering a realism that influenced writers from Virginia Woolf to authors today. Jane Austen’s cultural and economic impact endures. This year alone, more than 92,000 copies of her novels were sold in the UK. Her name draws visitors from all over the world, including fans from America and many other countries, to Hampshire, Bath and Winchester, sustaining heritage and tourism across the country. Globally, her works underpin an industry of films, adaptations and scholarship that contributes to Britain’s cultural exports. The 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth is already being marked by others in exhibitions, documentaries and new books. I believe that Parliament should play its role by recognising her impact at home and abroad. This is not a constituency or partisan request; Members across the House support this bid, and 15 Members from three parties have signed up, with seven from the Labour party, three Conservatives and five Liberal Democrat colleagues backing the application. We think this debate belongs in the Chamber, although we would obviously consider Westminster Hall if the Committee considers that more appropriate. For 250 years, Jane Austen has shaped how we tell stories and see ourselves, and how Britain is seen abroad. We believe that a debate would give Parliament the chance to properly honour her as a writer, a trailblazer for women and a cornerstone of Britain’s cultural legacy.

Thank you. You have said you would take a Westminster Hall debate, which is obviously up to you to consider. Would that be a Thursday or a Tuesday? The Tuesday morning one is at 9.30 am, and on Thursdays we get two debates guaranteed in Westminster Hall.

A Thursday would be great, but as close as possible to the anniversary would be ideal.

Okay.

I am avoiding making the joke that you did not get Alison Bennett to sign. That is a “Pride and Prejudice” joke—but don't worry.

That is the kind of joke you can make in the Chamber when we debate Austen’s legacy.

Thank you for speaking with so much sense and sensibility.

With lots of pride and no prejudice, I will leave you.

Thank you for your application. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Richard Quigley made representations.

Right, next up is Richard Quigley with a request for a debate on protecting children from domestic abuse. Once again, this is a request for a three-hour Chamber debate.

Thank you Chair, and thanks to the Committee for granting me the time to present this application. In the year ending March 2024, Women’s Aid estimated that over 1.8 million children in England experienced domestic abuse, yet fewer than one in 10 of those children received any support through a refuge or a community-based service. Governments of all colours have sought to protect children who experience domestic abuse. In 2021, the introduction of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act required that children be automatically recognised as legal victims of parental domestic abuse in their own right. The last explicit debate on children of domestic abuse was 2020, before the Act was passed. In theory, that legislation should mean that courts are able to provide children in abusive households with access to support. In practice, however, that support remains limited in scale and inconsistent in reach. The debate I am applying for seeks to bring attention to this critical gap in support for children surviving abuse. The debate is relevant to the Government’s pledge to halve violence against women and girls within a decade and would follow the opinion of many experts in the sector by calling for the Government’s pledge to be widened to halving violence against women and children within a decade. This debate is also timely, as Women’s Aid published its report “Nineteen More Child Homicides” in June. That report should never have had to be written. It found that between 2015 and 2024, 19 children were killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse after being granted contact with an adult by the courts, agencies, parents or guardians. I would like to table this debate in honour of those 19 children who could and should have been better protected. Lastly, I put on record my thanks to Women’s Aid for its support in preparing this application. I note to the Committee our preference for a debate during the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence between 25 November and 10 December this year.

Thank you for the application. I noticed that it is for a general debate. We have a long queue of requests for debates in the Chamber. Would you take a Westminster Hall debate?

Yes, either way around; absolutely.

Okay. Thank you. Does that apply to a Tuesday and a Thursday?

Ideally a Tuesday, if that is okay.

So it would be a Tuesday morning. Just to be clear, what would the answering Department be? We have to fit it to the answering Department.

That is a very good question. I imagine it would be Education.

It is a good question, because obviously this applies to—

Is the equalities Minister in Education?

No, I think they are in the Home Office.

It would probably be the Home Office then.

So you would be looking for the equalities Minister to answer the debate?

Yes, I think so.

It could be the Foreign Office too, because it is not just the UK; it is beyond. It is for you to let us know.

I will let you know, Chair. It is actually a really good question. It fits into the strategy about violence against women and girls, so it is probably Home Office, but let me check and I will come back to you.

Any other questions from colleagues? No. Thank you very much, Richard. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. If you could come back to the Clerks and say what the answering Department would be, that would be very helpful. Danny Beales made representations.

Danny Beales is up next with a request for a debate on community audiology. This is for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on either a Tuesday or a Thursday.

I thank the Chair and the Committee for hearing the application for a general debate on community audiology services or services for people who are experiencing hearing loss. Why? The issue affects a significant number of people—almost 12 million, and projected to rise to nearly 15 million by 2035. It is an issue that has a significant impact on those many millions of people’s lives in terms of their employment, ability to access services and general ability to enjoy life with their friends and family. Only around half those people are currently receiving services. That is for a variety of reasons, which we could explore in the debate. It costs the economy a significant amount of money—around £25 billion a year—which is projected to increase with the increasing scope of those affected. It is a timely discussion, because we have not discussed it much in this place recently. The last debate around hearing loss and audiology was in 2017 and the one before that was in 2004, so it is a long time. In my experience as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, we talk a lot about primary care and community care services, mental health, GPs and increasingly pharmacy and dentistry, which are important issues, but very little about hearing loss, which affects a significant amount of people. The Government’s new 10-year health plan is also a timely moment to talk about what a shift to community care could mean for audiology services. There is huge opportunity to shift audiology to community-based settings, which would increase accessibility and potentially save costs for the NHS. On that basis, I would really welcome the Committee’s support for a debate. As you said, Chair, I am very happy to be flexible about days and the location of the debate. The application received cross-party support.

As you have applied for a Tuesday, what would be the answering Department? I presume the Department of Health and Social Care.

Ideally, it would be an issue for the Department of Health and Social Care.

Thank you. Any questions? No. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Jonathan Davies made representations.

The final application for today is from a member of the Committee. Jonathan Davies has requested a debate in Westminster Hall on the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation—UNESCO. This is a request for a 90-minute debate on a Tuesday or a Thursday. By the way, for those listening, Jonathan will play no part whatsoever in the decision making on this application.

Thank you, Chair. I will obviously recuse myself from making any decisions about whether this debate is progressed. I am really pleased to be able to present this application, which has been signed by 12 Members across different parties, as well as me. This year marks the 80th anniversary since the foundation in London of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation—UNESCO. I am really pleased that one of the UK’s around 30 UNESCO world heritage sites—the Derwent valley—is in my constituency. I am also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UNESCO world heritage sites. UNESCO was formed after world war two to build peace through understanding and intellectual co-operation among communities in different nations. Arguably, that challenge is more urgent than it has been since the period in our history when it was founded. Eighty years on, UNESCO’s central mission remains pertinent to build peace not by force, but by fostering shared understanding, trust and knowledge across borders. This debate is an opportunity for Members not only to mark this important anniversary, but to speak on a number of pressing national issues that fall within the remit of UNESCO’s work. It is also a chance for us to shape the opportunities that the Government may choose to take as they further the benefits that UNESCO offers to this country. This debate will be relevant to more than 40 MPs. Across those sites in the UK, some, including my own, transcend constituency borders. The UNESCO sites include places such as the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey, but also geographic landscapes such as the Derwent valley or Hadrian’s wall. There are a number of pieces of legislation that the Government are progressing, or have begun to progress, where some thought about UNESCO’s role in those sites is essential; I am thinking about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. World heritage sites are key to the tourist economy in areas such as mine, but they are also sometimes threatened by unsympathetic development. We have seen one example in the UK where UNESCO stripped a city of its world heritage status due to a lack of consideration about the developments that were put forward in that area. These sites are also very important in respect of climate change. Sites like my own are large natural landscapes with many trees—they are important carbon sinks—but some sites around the UK are threatened by climate change, flooding and rising sea levels. It is very important that we impress upon the Government that those environmental threats must be mitigated if we are to safeguard these historic, cultural and scientific sites for future generations. World heritage sites also have a very important role to play in education. As the Government undertake their curriculum review, I am keen to impress upon them the importance of local history and understanding what is on our doorstep. I also think the sites are an important vehicle for exploring our identity—a sense of who we are, our history and what we share with others. Bringing that through education is very important. Finally, I want to talk about Britain on the world stage. We know that the Government sadly had to make cuts to the international aid budget, and while the UK still hits way above its weight in international affairs, UNESCO is a vehicle through which we can make a real impact on communities across the world without high cost. Our heritage experts are respected around the world and that knowledge and skill is so valuable to our partners in the United Nations, as well as to communities in other countries that could use our support. Some hon. Members will therefore be interested in how our UNESCO membership contributes to our role on the world stage. I would also like, through this debate, to persuade the Government to adopt a national strategy for our UNESCO world heritage sites here in the UK, as has happened in the Republic of Ireland, and to consider how that strategy sits alongside those of other countries. I hope this is a debate that the Committee will see as pertinent. I am keen that it should take place in November to coincide with the anniversary. The answering Department would be DCMS. On the application, I asked for a Tuesday or a Thursday, but my strong preference would be for a Tuesday in Westminster Hall for 90 minutes.

Lovely. Any questions?

I declare an interest. As Jonathan knows, I live at the end of Hadrian’s wall in Wallsend and I am also chair of the APPG on Hadrian’s wall, so I have a strong interest.

Thank you for declaring that. Any other questions? No. The Clerks will be in touch with you—very shortly, I suspect—about your request for this debate.

Thank you, Chair.

That concludes the public business of the Committee. The Committee will now retire to consider the applications in private.