Welcome to this meeting of the Backbench Business Committee. We will be considering requests for debates, both in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. First up, we have an application from Alice Macdonald on the impact of conflict on women and girls. Over to you, Alice.

Thank you very much for seeing me. I have proposed this debate, and we have the support of 22 Members from a range of parties across the House. I think I would have got more with a bit more time, but you know how it can be sometimes. We are seeing armed conflict ramp up across the globe, and that has heightened the risk that women and girls face. There are three main reasons why I am putting in for the debate. First, it is very topical, with what is happening right now in Syria and in other conflicts, including in Gaza, the middle east and Afghanistan. There is strong interest across the House. We cover this element in lots of different debates on the broader subjects. It is very timely, and it is very relevant as the UK Government have a key role to play. I will touch on a couple of the figures. We know that women and girls are impacted disproportionately in conflict. Some 612 million women and girls live within 50 km of the conflicts that have been recorded most recently, which is a 50% increase on 10 years ago. There are lots of ways in which conflict impacts women and girls, including violence and abuse, physical and sexual. In Sudan, we have seen reports of rape increasing exponentially; the UN has labelled it as disastrous. There is also an impact on opportunity, particularly for girls who are kept out of school even more in conflict situations. More than a quarter of the girls who are out of school around the world are in conflict or crisis-affected countries. There is also the emotional distress, and there are many immediate and knock-on effects. I will mention some examples. Afghanistan in particular, given the recent Taliban ban on medical education, shows what happens in conflict situations in the most egregious cases; there is interest in discussing that in the House. I have mentioned Sudan. There are no safe spaces now in Gaza for survivors of gender-based violence. As well as looking at the acute effects, the debate would also provide space to talk about the role of women in peace processes and peace building, in line in UN Security Council resolution 1325. The previous Government had the national action plan on women, peace and security; recently this Government have appointed Minister Collins as the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict. There is a lot to discuss in relation to Government policy, both on what we can do here and on what we can do with international partners to put pressure on. Those are the main reasons why I would like a debate. I have put in an application for both the Chamber and Westminster Hall; I think there is probably enough interest for a Chamber debate, but I will take your steer on what would be most appropriate.

Thank you, Alice. As you say, you have put in an application for Westminster Hall and the Chamber. The first available opportunity we can offer you is a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday 9 January. Given the range of speakers you have, it is likely to fill up that time. Would that be acceptable to you?

Yes.

Okay. There are no other questions from colleagues and everyone is happy, so thank you very much. Mr Alistair Carmichael made representations.

We now move on to Alistair Carmichael. Alistair, you are requesting a debate on Government support for the marine renewables industry.

Yes. This is not the first time we have gone round this course, as you will know. We are talking about tidal and wave power within the marine renewables sector, as opposed to offshore wind power, which I suppose would qualify under the general title but is not specifically what we are talking about. We had at least two debates on the subject in the last Parliament, and they were both well attended. It is very much a developing sector. It is not quite at the point of commercialisation yet, but we have had it included in the last two allocation rounds for contracts for difference. This is due in large part, certainly in relation to the first time in the AR4, to the parliamentary pressure that we were able to generate at the time of COP26. I am keen to maintain that so that we can get this over the line. The split that we have is five Labour MPs, including the Chair of the Select Committee; one Scottish Nationalist; one Plaid; one Conservative; and one Democratic Unionist, who is sitting right behind me. The process of recruitment will continue. Candidly, we are in that space where I think we could probably fill a three-hour debate. We would overfill a 90-minute debate. I certainly intend to carry on recruiting Members, perhaps more from the official Opposition. I think we could certainly fill the time. It is a significant area, and it would be very useful at this stage of the allocation round process to get something on record from the Minister, hence the application that we have.

Your application is for a Chamber debate. You have hit the numbers, but would you consider a Westminster Hall debate?

Of course, yes.

We could potentially offer you 16 January and allow you the full time, as opposed to having a second debate.

What matters to me, and what I think matters to most people, is that we have something on record from the Minister, rather than the place in which the Minister sees it. If we could have 16 January, I would be very happy to take that, and I would promise best endeavours. I am reasonably confident that those who have signed up will turn up on the day, and we will do our best to recruit a few extra. You can never have too many.

Any questions, colleagues?

Absolutely. We would be very happy to have them; in fact, if you give me their names, I will also recruit them for the APPG, which I happen to chair.

Thank you very much. Jim Shannon made representations.

Third up is our season ticket holder, Jim Shannon, on innovation in the field of rare retinal disease.

Thank you very much, Chairman and Committee, for allowing me to come here and ask for this debate. This last while, I have raised a couple of health issues that are almost niche. This is another one. The first five names on the list, along with me, are MPs with a specific interest in this subject—mostly because of constituents, although one of them probably has a personal interest. I have been able to add to the list one Conservative, one independent, one Plaid Cymru, two Labour and one Ulster Unionist Member; the Clerk has the other names. I think we are up to 12 now. Why is it important? Although this is a niche debate, 25,000 people are living in the UK with inherited retinal disease. It has a cost to the NHS of some £523.3 million. That is hard to believe, but it gives an idea of the cost. I am a great believer, as others are, in diagnosing early, responding early, and trying to help people if we can. The burden is on individuals, their families and the health system in wider society. The existing standard of care for IRDs is limited. Through this debate, I want to raise the profile, raise awareness and have everyone’s individual comments heard—the first five names on the list, anyway, on their own behalf and that of their constituents. The NICE HST programme is fighting for people living with rare retinal diseases. I am not here to be critical—you know that that is not my form, Chairman—but I think we need to have this on the desk of the Minister responsible. I think it is going to be Andrew Gwynne; I spoke to Andrew this morning and he said he thought it might be one that he would be coming to. Some Members who were at a debate this morning on musculoskeletal disease were very keen to be involved as well. The 2024 rare diseases action plan, I believe, presents a timely opportunity for these concerns to be addressed, so it is really relevant now and come the new year. NICE has recently shared its plans for the HST criteria review; it had some concerns that it may be too narrow and may not deliver what it hoped. While being ever positive in my contributions and about the contributions of others, I hope that the Minister can come back with a positive spin on the debate to ensure specialist care, treatment and drugs. The debate will therefore provide an opportunity to consider how the NICE review can ensure that patients living with rare inherited retinal diseases are not left behind. If we want one thing from this debate, it is for the Minister—who I am confident will be positive in his response, by the way—to ensure that we are not left behind. That is why I am requesting the debate. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Jim. There are two things from me. First, you have applied for Tuesday slot in Westminster Hall. I am assuming that it is the Department of Health and Social Care that will be answering.

Yes. I spoke to Andrew Gwynne this morning; he said, “That’ll be mine—I’ll be replying to that.”

Secondly, you have six names on the list at the moment, but I think you have supplied some more.

I have added another six—a Conservative, another two from Labour, one from Plaid Cymru, another independent and an Ulster Unionist, Robin Swann, who was the Health Minister in Northern Ireland—so I am hopeful. We had a debate a wee while ago on rare diseases. Again, it was a niche subject, but the people who have these diseases deserve the right to have their requests to the NHS heard. I have found the Ministers to be incredibly helpful, and I am confident that the Minister will be helpful once again.

Any questions, colleagues?

As Jim has just pointed out, it is an opportunity to highlight something that is rare. I am sure we have all experienced people coming to our surgeries with something that is exceptional and that we have never heard of. An opportunity to debate these rare diseases, illnesses and so on puts them on the political agenda. I think that is good.

That is probably the main purpose that we are trying to achieve. I think it would be helpful.

Jim, you mentioned that the Minister would be Andrew Gwynne.

I was in Westminster Hall this morning for the musculoskeletal disease debate, and I was speaking to some of the people who were there, to ascertain their support for this debate. Andrew said, “Are you going to the Backbench Business Committee?” I said, “I am indeed, this afternoon.” He said, “What are you asking for?” I said, “It’s going to be on rare retinal disease.” He said, “That’s my subject; I’ll be the Minister answering.” That is the only reason I can say that: because he told me.

The reason I ask is that I think the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee starts in our first week back, so I just wonder whether the Minister will be available. Do you know what happens in those instances, Chair?

Well, it is not for me to tell anybody what to do, Mr Chairman, but if it is at half-past 9 in the morning, he may not be available. He is the Minister.

In any case, we will not be in a position to offer the debate straight away. It will join the queue.

I think the Bill is on for quite a few weeks, Chair.

Yes, it could be. Thank you very much, Jim. The Clerks will be in touch when we have time to allocate.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Our last applicant, unfortunately, is not able to attend, so we will close our formal business and go into private session to consider the requests.