Welcome to this Backbench Business Committee meeting where we will be considering seven applications for debates in either the Chamber or Westminster Hall. The first of those applications is from Wera Hobhouse, on the cost of energy.

Thank you very much, Chair. You have seen my debate application, but I can summarise. One of the most important topics we have discussed in not only the previous Parliament but this one is, of course, the cost of energy, because it impacts households and the cost of living, and also because we need to get to net zero, so there will be many more costs coming our way. It has lots of implications also, such as for the societal costs of hosting infrastructure if we want a grid built out in the way the Government propose. This application would allow Members of all sorts of political persuasions to contribute on what the cost of energy actually is, and to talk about whether we can decouple gas and electricity prices, because currently the failure to do so makes the price of energy very high. I know the Government are considering that. There are a number of very important issues that can be covered by Members from across the political divide, and I think it would make for a very interesting discussion that will also interest constituents.

Thank you for the application. Your request is for a 90-minute debate on a Tuesday in Westminster Hall. The first time we have available when the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is answering is Tuesday 11 February. Would you be able to take that if it is offered?

I am happy with that.

Obviously it is a fantastic debate, on a subject you always talk about—clearly you are passionate about it—but for this to happen you need more Labour Members: you need a 50:50 split. As a Backbench Business Committee, we should probably do better at getting out there and telling people that. Week in, week out we are getting these debates and having two people from the Government side.

I have acquired a few more.

You beat me to it—even better.

I was warned. In fact, I should have known that the Government usually want to have a bigger number of Government MPs signing an application, and I am sorry that I had not conveyed that to my member of staff.

If you have the names, could you read them out?

The additional names are Alex Sobel and Tim Roca.

That has shut me up.

You only need eight speakers. Any other questions, colleagues? No. The Clerks will be in touch. Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you. Do you want my piece of paper with the additional names?

if you would give that to the Clerks, it would be very helpful.   Gideon Amos and Melanie Onn made representations.

The next application is from Gideon Amos and is entitled “Saving Post Offices”. We gently suggest that it should be retitled as “The future of local post office services” to make it a more neutral title, but please present your application.

I am more than happy with the revised title. The proposal has widespread cross-party support. There are 115 post offices that are being considered for closure at the moment, so it affects communities across the country. There are suggestions that many of those post offices will be reformatted—there might be franchise operations—but the example I have given from my constituency shows that that is not entirely reliable. Wellington, which is a town of 15,000 people, does not have a post office at all, so imagine the delight of residents when they heard that a building was being opened with “Post Office” written above the door. It turned out to be a banking hub that does not provide post office services; that is the particular angle on this subject that I am concerned about. The residents of Wellington were obviously rather confused, having seen a post office building going up that does not provide any post office services. That is one issue, but communities around the country are facing the potential loss of their post office. Post offices are still really important community services. We should be looking at bringing them together with banking hubs and perhaps other community services. I have seven or eight Labour Members of Parliament and a Democratic Unionist, a Conservative and several Liberal Democrats. I hope that that meets the cross-party test. There are more names that I could have added to the list. I am happy to answer any questions.

Your application is for a general Chamber debate. Obviously, Chamber time is precious and you might well wish to put in a divisible motion on the subject—that is up to you. Our first available slot is the second debate on Thursday 30 January. Would you take that if it was offered to you?

I would take that with gratitude. I am just checking that there is no particular reason why it could not be the afternoon of Thursday 30 January—no, I am more than happy.

Are there any questions from colleagues?

I also wanted to say that Melanie Onn is here supporting the application.

Is there anything you would like to add to the application, Melanie?

It is a wide-ranging debate on an issue that affects constituencies all over the country. It is highly appropriate for the Backbench Business Committee, and if we can debate it on the Floor of the House, I think it would bring due prominence to people’s concerns.

Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch shortly.   Ben Maguire made representations.

The next application is from Ben Maguire for a debate on rural crime—I am assuming it is to oppose or combat rural crime.

Thanks very much, Chair. I thank you and the other Committee members for having me today and for considering my application. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, and today I am seeking a debate on rural crime, which is an issue of growing concern for communities across the UK, such as mine in North Cornwall. Rural crime costs our communities £52.8 million. It increased by almost 4.5% in 2023, according to the NFU’s “Rural Crime Report 2024”. It includes things from the theft of farm machinery and livestock to drug trafficking by county lines gangs, which has been raised by Members of all parties in the House of Commons. These crimes devastate rural communities not just financially but socially, leaving lots of our residents feeling completely unsafe. The debate I am applying for will provide Members from across the House with an opportunity to address the impact on the livelihoods and safety of their rural constituents, and hopefully suggest practical solutions to strengthen rural policing, particularly with an emphasis on strategy. As you will see in my application, I have secured a 50-50 split between Government and Opposition parties for sponsor Members. Although I am flexible on the potential dates for the debate, I kindly request that it be scheduled within the next month, if possible, given the urgency of this issue and given that it directly affects my and many other constituents. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. Your application is for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday or Thursday. We always like to oblige. The first available slot we have is Thursday 30 January, and it would be the second debate in Westminster Hall. If that is offered, will you be able to accept it?

Yes, that should be fine.

Thank you. Any questions, colleagues? No. Thank you very much, Ben. The Clerks will be in touch.   Bambos Charalambous made representations.

We move on to Bambos Charalambous, with a request for a debate on “Debt in the Jubilee Year 2025”.

The year 2025 is a jubilee year, and this is of great significance to many Christian organisations that are interested in debt relief—particularly CAFOD and Christian Aid, but also organisations like Debt Justice—so I am seeking a debate to look at the issue of global debt and how it affects low-income developing countries, and particularly the issue of private creditors, who are a significant part of the debt that is affecting many nations. For example, in Africa, about 40% of the debt is owed to private creditors. This is one issue that has not previously been addressed and it would be welcome for it to have an airing. There was a success on debt relief in the year 2000, the last jubilee year when this was raised. This is something of great importance that does need to be looked at. We need to look at what the issues are in relation to some of the low-income developing countries that are debt-distressed. The G20 have identified this as an area they want to focus on. I think it would benefit from having an airing in a Backbench Business debate, and that is what I am seeking to secure today.

Your application is for either a three-hour debate in the main Chamber or a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on a Thursday. We have also a suggested redraft of the title, which would be “Debt Cancellation for Low-income Countries”. That probably makes it clearer for people, with respect. We would potentially be able to offer you a slot on Thursday 6 February in Westminster Hall, and it would be the second debate. Would that be acceptable to you?

That would, yes.

Are there any other questions from colleagues? No; everyone is happy. Thank you very much, Bambos. The Clerks will be in touch.   Rebecca Long Bailey, Liz Jarvis and Sir Julian Lewis made representations.

The next application is a joint application from Rebecca Long Bailey, Sir John Hayes, Liz Jarvis and Sir Julian Lewis. It is a request for a debate on financial redress for 1950s women impacted by the DWP maladministration of state pension age changes—otherwise known as WASPI women.

Thank you, Mr Blackman, for making time to hear our application; I thank members of the Committee also. I am sure this does not need an explanation, but for many years, many women born in the 1950s have been campaigning against not being informed about changes to their state pension age. There has been a lot of activity in Parliament over the last few years on this issue. There are a number of different campaign groups representing the women. WASPI is of course one of them. The concerns that many Members across this House have are these. You will probably be aware of an investigation by the independent ombudsman into a limited number of cases. Last year, they reported to Parliament, stating that they were of the view that the Department for Work and Pensions was guilty of maladministration, and they made a selection of recommendations to provide the women affected with some mechanism of redress. The new Government responded to that report in December, just before Christmas, accepting the findings of maladministration and apologising to the women, which was very welcome, but they did not offer a mechanism of redress, nor a debate in Parliament on the issue. That is what Members who have supported the application are asking for: simply to be able to represent the cases of their constituents to the Government in Parliament, to examine the various permutations that might be available in terms of redress, and to find a way forward for the Government and Members across the House in order to give these women the justice they deserve. My colleagues may wish to add to my comments.

It is really important that the women get heard properly via their representatives in Parliament. Although we had a Westminster Hall debate last week, it was very rushed and there was hardly time for anyone to speak. It is important that we do right by these women and give them the opportunity to have their voices heard.

I was one of the few who was fortunate enough to be able to speak in that Westminster Hall debate. I have seldom, if ever, seen Westminster Hall so overcrowded. I think there were about 50 colleagues crammed in there. People were literally perching on windowsills. In the end, there was a two-minute guideline time limit, which I fear I exceeded slightly, and still the vast majority could not get in. I would particularly put in a plea that this would be a longish debate in the main Chamber, but also earlier in the week, rather than on a Thursday. I am sure people will want to have a vote if they possibly can, and that might make it easier to effect a vote. I appreciate that that may not be integral to the decision you make, but it is worth bearing in mind that it would be good to have a debate on this particular subject, which seems to have so much appeal and so much interest, at a time when the maximum number of colleagues are present in Westminster.

Obviously, we do not control what time the Government allocates to us. Generally speaking, we get Thursday afternoons, as you know, but the Government have been allocating Monday afternoons as well. We just do not know. The first available slot that we think we are going to have is Thursday 13 February, which would be the last day before the recess—but it would be the first debate that afternoon. Without second-guessing what the Committee may have to say, it may well be that, given the number of speakers, we extend the time from a normal three-hour debate to allow everyone to have their say, but I do not want to prejudge. As there was a Westminster Hall debate, you will need a divisible motion for us to allocate this debate to the Chamber. What is your reaction to 13 February?

A Monday would be preferable, but I appreciate that you do not control the diary—so as soon as possible would be preferable. Allowing the longer time period is definitely welcome, so thank you for that. The debate will need sufficient time for Members to be able to make the case for the various options that could be available to the Government, and two-minute speeches do not allow for that level of detail, unfortunately.

We would like to see those people who did not get a chance to speak in the Westminster Hall debate getting the chance to speak in the Chamber, with priority given to them in the speaking order, but that is for the Speaker’s Office, as you know.

It is obviously a really important issue and Members did not have enough time to speak last time. Is the aim of this debate to allow as many people to speak as possible? Having it in Westminster Hall allows allotted time, whereas debates in the Chamber sometimes get squashed down and condensed. Do you want more people to speak, or do you want it in the Chamber for gravitas? That is what I am trying to ask.

We want more people to speak and for those speakers to be given longer time slots. There are two reasons why people will want to speak in the Chamber: to raise the particular cases of their constituents and to outline the options that could be available to the Government. These are financial options—very detailed ones—or options involving mediation. Unfortunately, you need more time than a few minutes to go into the detail.

That is fair. Over the last couple of weeks we have seen debates cancelled, squashed and condensed in the Chamber because of how things roll over. That might be something for the Committee to think about. Your preference is time, then?

Yes.

There is also the issue of salience. Rebecca may correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think there was any coverage at all of the Westminster Hall debate, even though it was so well attended and many strong feelings were expressed. I do not recall that there was any coverage on the radio that evening, for example.

It is often up to the proposers of the debate to make that happen. [Interruption.] We have a Division in the House now. The Clerks will be in touch with you about the potential day. We do not yet know which days we will get that week, if any, but that is the date we think we will get.

Thanks so much; we really appreciate your help.

I am afraid we are going to have to suspend. We think there are three votes. We will come back after the last one. Sitting suspended. On resuming— Lloyd Hatton made representations.

The Committee reconvenes to hear the last two applications before us. The first is from Lloyd Hatton, on “Undue influence: strengthening the rules around political finance”. It is a request for a three-hour debate in the Chamber, with a divisible motion. Over to you, Lloyd.

Thank you, Mr Blackman. I am sure members of the Committee have read the suggested substantive motion, and can see that I hope with this debate to cover a range of important topics relating to political finance in our democracy. It touches on the opaque funding of political parties, where it is not clear who the donor is because of the structures used, and issues around donations leading to undue influence over an individual or political party. I also want the debate to touch on the regulatory side of things by looking at the Electoral Commission, the power that it has and perhaps the powers that it needs to be granted so that it can be an effective watchdog when it comes to political finance. We also want to look at permissible donations, which have been a topical issue—who are permissible donors and who are not, and how some individuals might seek to bend or use loopholes in the existing legal framework to become a permissible donor, such as by using companies based here in the UK. That is the last point the motion touches on. It would certainly be quite a varied and broad debate that covers a number of important technical issues relating to political finance. The main reason for the debate is that it is topical: this issue received a great deal of news coverage over the Christmas and new year period. I think it is something on which a full and open debate in the Commons would be welcome. I also think it is interesting that there is a cross-party belief that the current system is not fit for purpose. I would not suggest that everyone agrees on what should replace it, but that is why a debate is important. That is also why a number of Members, from a breadth of parties, have indicated that they would like to participate in the debate. We have a former Leader of the Opposition, former Cabinet members and a range of Back Benchers from different political parties. There is clearly a sense in the Commons that this issue is ripe for discussion, and that we need to consider how we can update and refresh our legal and regulatory framework in relation to the financing of our political parties. Finally, I would say—I have touched on this in my application—that public trust on this issue is very low, and I think the public would welcome a frank, robust, dignified debate on the topic. This is not a political barb, and it is not about going after one party or individual. All parties have made mistakes and had previous scandals in this area. It is not about going after one party or individual; it is about accepting that trust is low, accepting that the current system is not fit for purpose and talking about where we go next.

The application is for a Chamber debate. At the moment, we are not sure when we are going to get Chamber time, and it is likely to be after the recess—just to set your expectation levels. One suggestion is that we redraft the title, so that it is “Political finance rules”, which might be more straightforward title. The title needs to be neutral, rather than suggesting “strengthening”. My personal suggestion is to tweak the motion around the amount that companies could give—in other words, that the amount should not exceed the profits they make. My point is that if a company is, shall we say, a worldwide company that is operating in the UK, donations should not exceed the amount of profit it makes in the UK, rather than using a UK company to channel money from overseas into our system.

I think that would be fine. We could certainly broaden it to include that. It is about not either/or, but both. I completely agree.

It is just a tweak at the end of your motion. Just a suggestion—it is your motion.

I will take that away, but I am sure it would be absolutely fine. I am completely fine with the title. The motion does the talking about what we are debating, so the title is not by any means important.

Any questions from colleagues?

I have a comment. Thank you, Lloyd, for a comprehensive application. I have done two myself and I am guilty of not putting a lot in the application, but you have given a lot of detail, which is really useful.

Thank you. I should stress that I am a member of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, and their support has been invaluable. They have helped with previous applications on SLAPPS, for example, and they certainly help to set out issues in a clear and informed way.

Take the credit, Lloyd: it was your work.

I couldn’t possibly.

Thank you very much, Lloyd. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.   Martin Vickers and Melanie Onn made representations.

The final application is from a member of the Committee, Martin Vickers, supported by Melanie Onn. As Martin is a member of the Committee, he will not take part in the deliberations on the application, but he will obviously present it. The application is for a debate on improving rail services with open-access operators. The request is for a Westminster Hall debate on either a Tuesday or a Thursday.

Perhaps I should make a declaration of interest. I do not know whether it is relevant, but I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rail. This is a national issue, and a local one for Melanie and me. On the east coast, open-access operators compete with the main operator, which is LNER. Members who are familiar with the east coast will be aware that operators such as Lumo, Grand Central and particularly Hull Trains have opened up new destinations and provided competition, which has kept LNER services up to a good standard. The other reason why open-access operators should be allowed more freedom to access the network is that they provide services to new destinations. We have seen that on the east coast with services through to Huddersfield, Halifax, Sunderland, Hartlepool and many others. Hull Trains is a good example because they have done for the north bank of the Humber what we would like an operator to do for the south bank. They have dramatically improved transport connections, which encourages economic development and growth—a key Government target. I hope the Committee will recognise the opportunities that open access provides, and grant this opportunity to give it an airing.

Melanie, anything to add?

This is an east coast issue that is particularly relevant to the northern Lincolnshire area, but lots of other places also have transport access issues. I think it will generate quite a lot of interest and discussion about general transport issues, accessibility and economic benefits. Hopefully the debate will get a good showing, and I think it would be a good use of Westminster Hall time.

The first available slot for Westminster Hall is Thursday 6 February, which would be the first slot at 1.30 pm. If the Committee offers that to you, would you be able to accept it?

Yes.

Thank you. Any questions?

Absolutely, yes. I know there is an open-access operator application at the moment for the west country, and we have had constant complaints in the Chamber over the years about Avanti on the west coast. Some competition for them, in the same way as LNER have had, and Virgin and various other operators before them, is an opportunity for improvement to services as well as new destinations.

Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch shortly. That concludes the public business. We have received all the applications. The Committee will now go into private session to consider them.