Welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. The first application on our list is from Emily Darlington on upcoming replenishments of the Gavi Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This is for a general debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or a Thursday.

Thank you to the Committee for asking me to come and present. Those of you that are aware of the UK’s long history in both developing and leading the very innovative Gavi Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria will know that we are now at the point in the cycle where we talk about what role the UK will play in those. We have had some fantastic developments through that, not least the uptake of vaccines, which is a huge area of biosecurity for us as a nation, as well as an economic issue within those countries and allows the stem of the tide of illegal migrants. We are also five years away from the end of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which the UK has signed up to. Health, just like our health mission, underpins everything we do in the UK. The health mission and these three innovative health funds are what underpins the ability to deliver on those sustainable development goals, which I know all of us as parliamentarians feel very strongly about. A debate on this subject—you will see that people from right across the political spectrum want to speak—will allow us to look back at the UK’s success and to talk about the challenges of the UK's role in the future of these programmes, as well as the changing nature of our understanding of pandemics, health crises and health insecurity. That is my two-minute pitch.

That is fine. You have the requisite number of speakers, which is always helpful. I assume that the answering Department for this would be Health and Social Care. Is that correct?

Yes, or FCDO. It could be either, but it is my understanding that it is the overseas development assistance money through the Department of Health and Social Care that has the most interaction. But the Department may decide to handle it differently.

The reason I ask is that for a Tuesday allocation, we have to allocate when the answering Department is the correct one. Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.   Alex Sobel made representations.

The next application is from Alex Sobel on the implications of cold and damp homes at a United for Warm Homes debate. This is an application for a Westminster Hall debate on a Thursday afternoon.

Thank you for having me before your Committee again, Mr. Blackman. We had a very successful debate from our last application on proportional representation, so hopefully this will be another day of success. I am asking for a debate on the implications of cold and damp homes. The current housing energy crisis in the UK has reached a critical point, affecting millions of people across the country, with an estimated 9.6 million households at risk of living in cold, damp and energy-inefficient homes. It is clear that this issue is no longer a distant concern, but an urgent, everyday reality for many families. The issue is of paramount importance due to its far-reaching impact on public health, with rising cold-related illnesses and the exacerbation of health inequalities. Additionally, the burden of rising energy costs weighs heavily on the most vulnerable members of society, particularly low-income households unable to afford necessary home insulation and energy efficiency improvements. The joint report by Friends of the Earth and The Institute for Health Equity, “Left Out in the Cold: the hidden health costs of Britain’s cold homes”, highlights the magnitude of the crisis and the pressing need for comprehensive Government action. The report emphasises that households in energy crisis hotspots are disproportionately impacted by energy inefficiency, further entrenching social inequalities. The scale of the problem demands a strategic and sustainable response that not only addresses energy and efficiency, but improves the living conditions of millions of people. The report estimates that addressing the issue will require a minimum investment of £6 billion annually for the next decade, underscoring the long-term financial commitments required to ensure that all households can live in safe and energy-efficient homes. This debate has critical importance, transcends party lines and has cross-party support. The housing and energy crisis is not a political issue; it is a human issue—one that affects individuals and families across the political spectrum. That is why I am asking the Backbench Business Committee to hold a debate. I am looking for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall in March.

Do colleagues have any questions? We are all happy. Thank you, Alex. The Clerks will be in touch in due course.   Melanie Onn, Jess Asato and Linsey Farnsworth made representations.

Our next application is from Melanie Onn. It is for a debate on access to NHS dentistry. It is an application for the Chamber.

Thank you for inviting me to put my case to you for a debate on access to NHS dentistry, Mr Blackman. We have not had a debate on NHS dentistry since the Government made further announcements last month on the pledge they made during the general election to deal with the 700,000 extra urgent appointments. There is continued concern amongst parliamentarians that, despite the pledges, the stats are not necessarily reflecting the implementation of the policies quickly enough. We last had a debate on dentistry four or five months ago, so the landscape should have changed significantly with the announcements that have been made. It remains a big concern for constituents up and down the country. That does not exclude Scotland, which can come and participate, because even though it is a devolved matter it is a broad debate on NHS dentistry. The issue that people cannot get registered remains, and it looks as though 50% of adults in England will never, in their lifetime, see an NHS dentist, so the need to continue the pressure on the Government remains. We have had some good support from colleagues across the House in bringing this to you for consideration.

Do either of your colleagues wish to add anything?

There are many reasons why this debate is important. Obviously, access to healthcare is particularly important throughout the country, but there is also a social equity situation here, because those that can afford to pay for dentistry will get dental care, and there is a whole tranche of society for whom that will not be possible. So, there is a real need to have an urgent debate as quickly as possible on the progress that the Government are or are not making on this.

I want to speak up on behalf of children’s oral health. If we don’t get it right for children, adults will be living with lifelong issues to do with their teeth. We know that many children, even though they should be accessing NHS dental care, are not at this time doing so.

Any questions?

I wish to declare an interest. I have signed the application. I naturally wanted to give some cross-party support to my Member of Parliament.

Thank you very much, Mr Vickers; it is appreciated.

Thank you. The Clerks will be in touch in due course.   Caroline Voaden made representations.

The next application is from Caroline Voaden on residential estate management companies. This is an application for a Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday morning.

Thank you for calling me to present this application for a debate on estate management companies, Mr Blackman. Across the country, many tenants and homeowners, both leaseholders and freeholders, live on residential estates that are looked after by estate management companies. These companies are responsible for looking after shared areas and facilities, including roads, play areas and open spaces that are not owned or looked after by the local authority. Residents are contributing towards maintenance and upkeep by paying service charges that can fluctuate on a yearly basis at the discretion of the management company. I know that, like me, Members of Parliament from across the House have received a great deal of communication from constituents who are concerned about the actions and services provided by these companies. Common complaints include unreasonably high service charges, with increases year on year, limited transparency around what services are included and the providers that are chosen, poor communication regarding charges and the services provided, a lack of response when issues are raised, contract amendments imposed on residents without discussion, and difficulties for residents who want to find a new management company—or, indeed, take over the management themselves. Freeholders and leaseholders have both raised concerns about the actions of these companies, and many feel that they do not have control over their own homes. While the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act regulates estate management and strengthens residents’ rights, freeholders will still not share the same rights as leaseholders, such as a statutory right to take over the estate management. Last year, along with many Liberal Democrat colleagues, I met the managing director and other executives from FirstPort, which is the largest company in the industry and one of the most complained about—we know that other parties have also met with them—and we shared a range of concerns with them. While FirstPort are one of the worst-offending companies, my colleagues and I have all received complaints about a huge number of management companies, showing the extent of the problem. The issues are so widespread that the term “fleecehold” has been coined to describe agreements with such companies that include unfair or unreasonable terms. This debate will give Members of Parliament the opportunity to raise constituents’ concerns and to share suggestions for how legislation could be shaped to better support them. Since submitting the application, even more Members have confirmed their support for the debate, showing the great strength of feeling across the House on this matter. I therefore hope that you will grant us this debate on residential estate management companies.

Just to confirm, because it is for a Tuesday morning, the answering Department would be MHCLG; is that correct?

Yes.

Are there any questions from colleagues?

No is the short answer, but I think that that has just come out; we have not looked again at it since we put this application in.

Part of the problem is that, it will be harder for residents who are currently leaseholders to become freeholders. New flats will be sold as freehold rather than leasehold, but there will be an ongoing problem with all of those—

Anyone else? No? In that case, the Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.

Thank you very much. Ian Lavery and Esther McVey made representations

The next application is from Ian Lavery on high street banking closures and banking hubs, and it is an application for a debate in the Chamber. Welcome, Ian.

Thanks, Mr Blackman, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to present the case for a Backbench Business debate in the Chamber on the high street banking closures and banking hubs. I think we had two debates on that last week; I had one for 30 minutes in Westminster Hall on this very issue, and there was an Adjournment debate initiated by a Conservative Member as well. Lots of people want to discuss this issue and have the opportunity to put forward their views on what is really, in my view—and of others who signed this form—the fact that high street banks are disappearing weekly. British Banking Association figures show that there were more than 21,000 branches on the high street in 1986. At the beginning of 2025, there were fewer than 5,000. There are many high streets, particularly in smaller communities, without any banking facilities whatsoever. I think everybody would accept that probably most people in this room will use a mobile phone, or maybe a tablet or a laptop, rather than going to the local bank—if, indeed, you are lucky enough to have one on the high street—but that does not cater for everybody. There are huge issues for frail, disabled and elderly people accessing banking facilities, sometimes three or four miles from where they live. One of the problems is the Financial Conduct Authority. The legislation they place on the business link is too rigid; it really is. It is inflexible. We believe that needs to be reviewed. The business hub, although fantastic for many communities if you can get one—again, the criteria are inflexible. In my constituency, we were knocked back for one in Bedlington. A bank was closing, and the shortest distance to the nearest bank was 0.1 km out. Therefore, it was too close. That is probably about from here to where you are sitting, Mr Blackman. The contributions were great. This is absolutely a cross-party issue. We have got a whole number of people. We asked people last week, in a very short space of time, whether they would be interested in a full debate. I think we have got at least double, if not treble, the number of people who signed this application form. I think a debate is much needed. We need a proper debate on this issue, because it affects almost every constituency in the country—rural, metropolitan or urban. Esther McVey is here to support the application.

Is there anything you want to add, Esther?

I fully endorse what Ian said there about the number of people who not only wanted to intervene, but wanted to make a speech but could not in the 30-minute debate that Ian had. The outcry from the public is growing, whether that is towns or the high street and small businesses. Yes, it is individuals, and yes, it is the elderly, but actually it is the business community that are crying out. It is not as though the banks are struggling businesses that need to restructure. For example, HSBC’s profit after tax for last year was £29 billion. The banks are not servicing the public. We all now have to pretty much have a bank account to survive. They’re not servicing the public, and there needs to be a reason why they are not. Like I said, the public outcry is great. We, as the centre of democracy, need to hold these institutions to account.

You have had a Westminster Hall debate on this particular issue.

Thirty minutes.

Yes, but just bear with me. In order to accord with the rules of the House, we would have to have a motion attached to this, instead of it being a general debate—a divisible motion, which you would need to construct just so that we bring this in order. I am sure you will not have any problem in constructing one, but I just point that out to you.

I declare an interest in this application. I just want to emphasise what you have both said, which is that more people than were able to wanted to speak in the 30-minute debate. I think it is very important that we consider the impact on older people who really use cash and the impact that these bank closures are having on them, and the lack of accessibility to banking hubs.

Welcome to our new member, Jonathan Davies.

Thank you. It is my first day on this Committee. If you are looking for a motion, it might be an interesting or useful subject to ask that the Government undertake a review of how successful the banking hubs have been. Some people in my constituency have told me that, actually, the breadth of the service is perhaps not adequate for what they need. I think you would have a lot of support for that in the House, given that the then Government stood by the banks following the banking crisis; now we need the banks to stand by our communities.

Thank you. I would comment that it is not just cash that people are after; it is often the advice and applications for loans and so on, which are now done over the phone, which makes them very awkward for a lot of people to access. The Clerks will be in touch with you. If you would kindly supply the divisible motion, that will bring the application into order and it will join our list for the Chamber, which is long and growing.   John Milne made representations.

The next application is from John Milne, on safety regulations in the construction and planning of battery energy storage sites. It is an application for a debate in the main Chamber on a very important topic. Over to you, John.

The Grenfell fire killed 72 people and will cost untold millions in remedial building costs. Essentially, it was wholly preventable and caused by poor regulatory standards. We stand in exactly the same place with BESS units, or battery energy storage systems. Ten years from now, there will be a major accident because there are no clear national guidelines and many of these units are being built to inadequate standards. Lithium ion batteries burn in a completely different way from normal batteries, and require very different design standards and fire service reaction. There was a terrible fire in Liverpool, where they did all the wrong things. Currently, there are over 1,100 applications—building site applications—across the UK, so this issue is very widespread. I am sure that most MPs are unaware of them in their own constituency, but this is a major issue. We can act now. Largely, the industry would welcome regulation, because companies are being undercut by the worst suppliers right now. It is relatively easy to do and it does not cost a whole lot on the construction, if it is done in advance, as opposed to remedial works in the future. I am trying to draw attention to this issue, so that we can get a regulatory change.

Is this debate intended to have a motion attached to it?

It could do.

Obviously, it would help if there was a motion attached, in terms of securing a debate in the main Chamber. I declare my interest as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue; the APPG has had a lot of briefings on this particular issue.

In your view, would this also make a Westminster Hall debate?

I have gone for the main Chamber, partly because it is a very national issue and I intend to make MPs aware of these sites in their constituencies, but also because this is something that I am really looking for legislation on, or action on. I am really trying to draw attention to it, because it cuts across different Departments. That is one of the reasons why it has not been acted on before. Also, it is a bit technical. People are not aware of it, but it is a really big issue. If you talked about Grenfell building regulations 15 years ago, nobody would have been very interested, but look what happened.

I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the APPG.

John makes an interesting point about this issue covering many different Departments. We had a battery fire in my constituency, at the local processing recycling centre, which caused havoc for days. There is a repeated concern that the same could happen again, because the protections are not in place at that site. It is a local authority-funded recycling centre and they are arguing that there is no capacity to make the improvements necessary on the site unless it is moved.

Absolutely. And it is an important consideration that these storage systems play a very important part in our renewable energy ambitions. If we do nothing now and we let things happen, in 10 years’ time there will be an accident. Everyone will say, “Oh my God, they are all unsafe.” And it will have a terrific effect on the industry—a very negative effect, which is very much against the Government’s net zero ambitions. It is relatively simple and cheap to avert that by action now.

Okay. I don’t want to write motions on the hoof, but you could quite easily construct a motion that would ensure that this definitely required a main Chamber debate around the introduction of appropriate safety regulations to cover such sites. But it is in your hands, because it is your application.

Absolutely.

He does not have to, no, but—

I am happy to add a motion.

Are there any other questions, or comments? No. Thank you, John. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. This application will join our long list of applications.

I appreciate that, Chair.   Deirdre Costigan made representations.

The next request is from Adam Jogee, for an application for a Chamber debate on St Patrick’s day 2025.

That is correct, Chair. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme today. He is unable to be here as he is away at the moment, but I will endeavour to give his words weight on his behalf—and of course I will do it in an Irish accent, which he could not have delivered. “Mr Blackman and members of the Committee, I would like to apologise for not being able to appear before you this afternoon. As it happens, I am currently on a visit with the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee and so, as you hear this, I am in meetings in Belfast. I of course mean no discourtesy to the Committee in this. I am grateful to my hon. Friend from Ealing Southall, a signatory to this application, for appearing before you in my place. As my application sets out, we are asking for a debate to mark St Patrick’s day 2025 and have the support of a large number of colleagues from across the House who have put their names to it, from newly elected colleagues to a former Secretary of State, from the current Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee to one of her predecessors. Since my application was submitted, I have been notified that Mr Luke Taylor, Mr Noah Law, Ms Rupa Huq, Ms Joani Reid and the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Mr Gavin Robinson, have put their names to this application. That further demonstrates the wide reach of this application and the growing support for it from colleagues across the House. We saw the successful debate to mark St David’s Day and we envisage this debate, if approved, doing exactly the same thing. Ahead of this important day of celebration for people across the United Kingdom, in the Republic of Ireland and, significantly, people in Northern Ireland, such a debate will allow Members to promote the strong relationships between Ireland and the United Kingdom, allow colleagues to unpick a number of issues affecting the British-Irish relationship, celebrate the close bonds between Britain and Ireland and all their peoples and raise issues affecting the Irish community in Britain. We saw that very successful, oversubscribed and time-limited debate to mark St David’s Day. And so the signatories to this application hope that members of the Committee will look favourably on the application. There is obviously a time-sensitive nature to the application, and so we would be grateful if this could be kept in mind to be as close to 17 March as possible. Thank you.” I am willing to answer any questions I can.

One of the concerns, obviously, is to get this debate as close to St Patrick’s day as we can. Because of previous allocations, the first date we could offer it to you would be Thursday 27 March, which I know is after the event, but as close as we could offer it—unless the Government were to offer a debate in Government time, of course, which they could if they chose. But that would be the first time that we would be able to do that. Would that be acceptable to you, if the Committee is minded to do it?

I think it would be acceptable, yes.

Any other questions or comments? No? Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch with you and Adam in due course.

Thank you—I am very grateful for your consideration.   Dame Siobhain McDonagh and Charlie Maynard made representations

Last, but by no means least, Siobhain McDonagh on a debate on research and treatment of brain tumours. This is once again a request for a debate in the Chamber with a divisible motion.

I am here with my colleague Charlie Maynard from the Liberal Democrats; we share a personal and a political devotion to this particular subject. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of under-40s in this country. It is little known, but they are also the biggest killer of children. Out of 29 comparable countries, we come 22nd in our treatment of people with brain tumours. Some 16,000 people a year are diagnosed with a brain tumour and 3,200 are diagnosed with the worst form of brain tumour, a glioblastoma, which we both know about. The treatment and availability of drug trials are woeful. Only 3% of brain tumour patients ever get access to a trial. The total access to trial for other cancers is an average of 7.5%. There has been no improvement in the treatment of glioblastoma in 30 years. The National Institute for Health and Care Research, an NHS body, was granted £40 million for brain tumour research in 2017, after the death of Dame Tessa Jowell, but it is still to spend it. We need the spotlight of the Commons to look at why that is the case. The NHS has a drug-repurposing service, and the only drug it has attempted to repurpose has been into breast cancer, so why are brain tumours ignored? If we cannot talk about it, who will?

Charlie, do you want to add anything?

I will be very brief. Of the £40 million that this House put aside, less than £13 million has been spent, seven years on. We really want to get to the bottom of that because it is not doing anybody any good by just sitting in a bank account. We need some answers about how it will be spent fast on useful research.

I don’t want to get into the debate, but it beggars belief that, given the requirement for treatment and equipment, which I know is very expensive, that has not been acquired. Anyway, that is a matter for the debate. Colleagues, any questions about the debate?

I just want to thank you both for bringing this application to us on a very important issue that is clearly very personal.

Thank you very much. The challenge for us will be, as you mentioned in the application, that March is the month. It is unlikely that we will be able to allocate it during March, so it will join the queue of debates. Are there any other deadlines or sensitive dates around?

No. We would just be grateful for the time and the opportunity to put pressure on organisations that, to date, have been pretty impervious to our efforts.

I understand. Thank you very much. If there are no other questions or comments, the Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. That concludes the public sitting of our Committee. The Committee will now retire to consider the applications that have been made and the allocation of time for debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall.