Welcome to this meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will consider applications from colleagues for debates in Westminster Hall and the Chamber on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The first application is from Edward Morello, on the Independent Water Commission’s final report. The request is for a debate in the Chamber or Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning. Over to you.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to all the Committee for the opportunity to present this application. I thank my co-sponsors on both sides of the House for the cross-party support this debate has secured. The publication of the Independent Water Commission’s report, released just days before Parliament rose for the summer recess, represents a major moment for the water sector, and for all of us who have campaigned to clean up our rivers and seas. Its recommendations include a national water strategy, new public health targets in water law, a new regulator and strong regional planning, all of which are significant and overdue. Members, however, have not had the opportunity to properly scrutinise the report in Parliament. That is deeply concerning, given how many of us were elected on the promise to restore trust in our water systems, end sewage pollution and protect our natural environment. The fact that this application has cross-party support shows the depth of concern among Members, but also constituents. Public pressure has never been stronger. More than 30,000 citizens submitted evidence to the commission—an extraordinary level of public engagement. Although the commission’s report is a step forward, many campaigners, experts and Members of the House believe that further action will be needed if we are to meet the scale of the challenge. Questions remain about the future of failing water companies, the use of special administration measures, and how we embed public benefit as a core principle of regulation and governance. The forthcoming Government White Paper on water reform will be an important moment to address those questions, but before it is published, Parliament must have the chance to debate the commission’s findings in full. We owe it to the public to ensure that the strongest possible reforms are taken forward—reforms that restore trust, protect public health and secure the long-term future of our water systems. The debate would give Members across the House the opportunity to highlight where the commission’s recommendations must go further, to press for accountability from regulators and water companies and to help shape a water strategy that is fit for the future. With so many communities living with polluted rivers and unsafe bathing waters, and collapsing public confidence, this presents an opportunity to show that Parliament is listening and ready to act.

As it is an application for a Tuesday, which would be the answering Department?

I assume it would be DEFRA.

Okay. If we allocate it for a Tuesday, it has to be when they are answering, just to be clear. Any questions from colleagues?

Even though you have indicated that your preference would be a Tuesday, would you accept a Thursday debate, or are you really keen on having it on a Tuesday?

I will take a steer from the Committee as to what is most appropriate. The key element is that MPs get an opportunity to debate this.

There is a long queue for the Chamber, and we have already been advised that, after this Thursday, we will not get time for the following two Thursdays, and then the Budget debate starts the week after that. We will not get time in the Chamber anytime soon. Do you have any idea when the White Paper you mentioned will be released?

No, I do not believe so, but I will caveat that by saying that my parliamentary assistant is on leave this week, so I am very much flying blind on a lot of this.

That is fine. It is just that, for our purposes, if something is time-sensitive, we try to fit it in when we can. Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.

I appreciate it. Thank you all. Euan Stainbank and Jim Allister made representations.

The next application is from Euan Stainbank and Jim Allister on the state of UK bus manufacturing. This is for a Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday morning.

Thank you very much, Chair. This is an application for a Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday morning. The UK bus manufacturing industry is at a critical juncture. The most important thing is that we cannot keep sending so many of our orders, especially for electric vehicles, to China. We are losing market share rapidly to the Chinese—that went up to 30% from 10% in the last two years—and we are losing suppliers and jobs. Switch Mobility, the third largest UK-based manufacturer, no longer operates in the UK, to the best of my knowledge, and in the last year there have been two consultations on jobs in Scotland at Alexander Dennis, some of which straddles my constituency. At the same time, we are seeing record public transport funding coming from the UK Government. The pipeline of orders across the next 10 years will be publicised by DFT next month. This simply cannot be a shopping list for the Chinese bus manufacturers BYD and Yutong. There is also an incredibly valuable role for these jobs in the communities in which the factories are contained, with 20% higher salaries compared with the import and distribution roles that we would be left with if China kills our domestic industry, and with 3.25 jobs are created on average for every one directly created within the sector. I know how vital that is to my community. The trends in the market have been pushed in part by the state of the market, but also by of poorly designed public procurement at this stage. If we look at TfL, 36% of their known orders have come from BYD. For the ZEBRA 2 scheme, which I believe was in England and Wales, 37% of orders were from Yutong. Staggeringly, in the Scottish Government's recent ScotZEB 2 scheme, 67% of orders came from Yutong, with less than 20% going to Scotland’s sole manufacturer. There is legislation such as the Bus Services Act, and through oral questions we have been able to indirectly put this case to Ministers across different Departments, but it would be very pleasant if we were able to address the Minister at DFT directly on this. Members across constituencies, whether from Ballymena, Scarborough or Falkirk, should have the opportunity to put this case to Ministers, especially as the recent industrial crisis we have seen around us in Scotland should not be the canary in the coalmine for our industry. Thank you, Chair.

I very much endorse what Euan has said. In my constituency of North Antrim, Wrightbus is the major manufacturing employer. Theirs has been a story of recovery from almost disappearing, but we are fearful that, with the Chinese challenge and inadequate protections within procurement, the good times we are presently experiencing in Ballymena could quickly disappear. We always need to stay ahead of the game, so a debate in which these issues can be laid out before the Minister, particularly in relation to the Chinese challenge, is vital. There is also the opportunity with clean-energy buses to increasingly reconfigure old or mid-age diesel buses to electric. That is a facility that Wrightbus has, not in Ballymena but elsewhere. It is an opportunity, but it is also a challenge, and it is a challenge that we need to keep ahead of.

As it is an application for a Tuesday, which is the answering Department you expect to answer to the debate?

The Department for Transport.

Transport, not Business?

I think that there is interest. We have been raising this with multiple Departments, but the Department for Transport would be the most relevant.

We have to allocate it when that Department is answering in the rota. They answer on different weeks, so we need to understand. Okay, it is transport. Are there any other questions from colleagues?

Just to declare my interest, Chair.

Do you need to declare what that interest is?

I signed it.

Oh, you signed it. I thought that was what it was.

I am just trying to understand the aim of this. Is it to try to fix the procurement? Are you looking at preferential treatment for British manufacturers? China is obviously always going to undercut us, and I completely agree with you that that is terrible and leaves us vulnerable. I agree with the Chair that it would probably be DBT, because they are the ones that cover the actual procurement cycle, as opposed to the ones buying from people. What is the aim? Is it just to highlight the issue?

I have also sought assurances from the Cabinet Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Scotland Office at the same time, so I am aware that a lot of Departments are working across this. One of the three principal aims articulated in the application is to look at the pipeline of orders, which I think is the most urgent challenge. On that basis, it would be a request for the DFT.

The ones that are being ordered now?

Yes. That is the work that the DFT are carrying forward in November, and why we are putting this application forward urgently.

There could be future debates with the Department for Business on how we fix procurement.

I am more than happy to come back for the next one.

Let me ask the same question I asked with the previous application: are you married to a Tuesday, or would you be flexible in accepting a Thursday?

There is a clear preference for a Tuesday over a Thursday, considering the interest of colleagues from at least three parts of the United Kingdom in bus manufacturing.

That is absolutely fine, and a legitimate reason to want a Tuesday. It is just worth asking.

Thank you. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. John Slinger made representations.

Next up is John Slinger with a request once again for a Westminster Hall Tuesday debate, on strengthening community cohesion.

Thank you, Mr Blackman, and thank you to the Committee for hearing this. At business questions on 16 October, I praised people in my constituency for their successful Diwali celebration and asked if a debate on strengthening community cohesion might be secured. The Leader of the House was very positive in his response and encouraged me to apply to your good selves. I have had significant cross-party support for my application. The reason I am bringing this forward is that I believe that the diversity of our country and each of our constituencies is a strength, not a weakness. There is far more that unites than divides us. However, of late, there have been concerning developments, which have exposed the fact that the politics of division can be an attractive tool for garnering popular support. Even in the last few weeks, I have noticed a palpable sense, when I am on the doorsteps, of people being increasingly concerned about the rhetoric. It is having an impact on the way that people are behaving towards people of ethnic minority backgrounds in my constituency. I have said in the Chamber that 99.99% of parliamentarians and other elected representatives go into politics to make a positive change. Therefore, at this moment in the life of our nation, a greater effort is needed by all in positions of authority to strengthen social cohesion. I think that a debate will enable MPs to reach out to their constituencies, organisations, charities and, most importantly, ordinary members of the public and get their views. Any remarks I would make in framing the debate, if I were to be successful, would frame it around measures that reach out across party political boundaries and, indeed, boundaries of all kinds. In summary, a debate would be an opportunity to explore the issues around how best to strengthen community cohesion; to share best practice and inspire action among colleagues; to encourage the Government and political parties to go further; and, ultimately, to galvanise action and policy development on what I think we can all agree is the important issue of how we best go about strengthening community cohesion.

Thank you. The obvious question, because you have requested a Tuesday debate, is which Department would be the answering Department?

I believe it would be MHCLG.

That is what I thought. That is fine. Any questions from colleagues? No? The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Catherine West made representations. Q15        Chair: Next up is Catherine West. This is another Westminster Hall request, for a debate on onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry for jobs, skills and prosperity. This request is for a debate on either a Tuesday or a Thursday.

Yes. A Tuesday afternoon, if possible, Chair.

Just to be clear, the debate times we get to allocate are Tuesday 9.30 am to 11.00 am and Thursday afternoon—at the moment, we have 1.30 pm to 3 pm, or 3 pm to 4.30 pm.

I will alter that to Thursday—that might be clearer. Thank you, Chair. Since I last made representations to your Committee, I have been elected to the Treasury Committee, which meets on a Tuesday morning.

Congratulations!

The motion for the debate would be that this House has considered the potential of onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry for jobs, skills and prosperity. The answering Department would likely be the Department for Business and Trade. The rapid rise of fast fashion has encouraged outsourcing and offshoring, but growing awareness of the environmental and social costs in fashion has sparked a revival in the UK industry. Today, the Government have a chance to support slow, ethical fashion and to invest in home-grown talent and skills. Fashion and textiles manufacturing in Britain could be a key driver of economic growth, and onshoring could potentially unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs and £1.2 billion in tax receipts, according to the UK Fashion and Textile Association. On military uniforms, for example, Britain is a global leader in camouflage fabric production, yet the vast majority of military uniforms are manufactured abroad. There is no up-to-date information available on this issue, but as of 2013 just 6% of UK military uniforms were made in the UK. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to prioritise ethical sourcing and local manufacturing. I have the support of 10 other MPs, with an even split between the Government and the Opposition.

Thank you. That was a very comprehensive application. Any questions from colleagues?

That was fascinating.

It was very interesting. What I always say about this Committee is that you find out more from the applications than you ever find out in other realms of life. Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Sonia Kumar made representations.

Next up is Sonia Kumar with a request for a debate in the Chamber on allied health professionals.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thanks to the Committee for looking at my application. As stated in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a physiotherapist, so I am one of those allied health professionals. The first thing I would ask the Committee is, do you even know what an allied health professional is? The majority of the time, people do not know what the 14 professions are. They include speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, paramedics, podiatrists and many others. AHPs are around a third of the clinical workforce—185,000 staff across the NHS—yet not many people know that this is an umbrella term, or the importance of AHPs. I have just been to the Library, and I believe that this issue has never been debated before; there have never even been small debates in Westminster Hall. So I think it needs to have the privilege of being debated in the Chamber, so that we can discuss what the specialties are, and their importance for diagnostics, healthcare and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is particularly important, because the first thing anybody who has an operation will need, post-op, is rehabilitation of some sort. This is not just something to do with health; it is across all sectors across the NHS—instead of getting your diagnostics through radiography. I believe that this debate needs to be in the Chamber. I would like it to be on a Tuesday because colleagues sometimes need to get off on a Thursday, and I want as many people to contribute as possible. I have 41 signatures, and that is cross-party. As you can see, there is a lot of support for this debate. Obviously, the Department of Health and Social Care would be answering Department.

Lovely. Thank you very much. The list of supporters is very comprehensive—if they all actually turn up to speak—

I hope they will.

They will get about two minutes each, but that is another matter. I urge you to urge the Leader of the House to allocate the Committee more time so that we could enable this debate to take place, because there is a big queue of debates, to put it mildly. Do colleagues have any questions?

You just mentioned that you would really like to have this debate in the Chamber, but you also said that you would like to have it on a Tuesday, and those two things cannot happen—

Oh, sorry—obviously, it would have to be on a Thursday.

Okay; that is good to know. So you are happy to have it on a Thursday. And your preference would be the Chamber?

Yes, please, if possible.

I just want to say that I have signed this one, Chair. I am very keen.

Very keen—that is what we like to hear. Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Josh Newbury made representations.

The final request today is from Josh Newbury for a debate on International Men’s Day. This is a request for a debate in the Chamber. Over to you, Josh.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you all for having me in for my first outing in front of this Committee. This is a request for a debate on International Men’s Day, which is an annual event observed in 80 countries, including, of course, the UK. International Men’s Day has been debated in the House for nine consecutive years now. It was most iconically led by Philip Davies, the former Member for Shipley, who you will remember, Chair. Although I might take a slightly different approach to the debate than he did, the beauty of such a debate is that it allows Members to touch on a huge range of topics and talk about how they pertain to men in particular. Obviously, I declare an interest as a man. This year, public interest has been particularly high, especially following the Netflix series “Adolescence”, which has sparked a renewed national conversation around the challenges and expectations facing boys and men today. Hopefully we will be able to get a debate in the week commencing 17 November, as International Men’s Day falls on 19 November. Such a debate offers a vital opportunity for us to reflect on the positive contribution of men and boys to their families, communities and workplaces and to society at large. A debate also provides a platform to examine the complex and often overlooked issues that affect men across a wide range of subjects. For example, in health, as you all know, we have persistently high suicide rates among men, rising levels of addiction, and gender-specific conditions such as prostate cancer. In the economy at large, we face tough questions about male unemployment, the future of vocational training and the impact of AI on traditionally male-dominated sectors. In education, the attainment gap is persistent, and there are notable imbalances within the teaching workforce. If we look at business, we have conversations around flexible working and paternity leave. Just yesterday, we had a debate in Westminster Hall about parental leave that was hugely oversubscribed, so I am sure that many Members will want to use this debate to talk about that issue further. In home affairs, men obviously have a crucial role to play in tackling violence against women and girls, which is something that is close to all our hearts. Also, men are disproportionately affected by certain types of crime and are over-represented in the criminal justice system. Of course, we could look across any departmental area and there would be something for Members to discuss. For me, it is important to say that such a debate is not a departure from our commitment to gender equality; it is actually an expression of it. By engaging with the issues facing men and boys today, we will strengthen our collective efforts to ensure that everybody flourishes in society. The application has received 45 signatures from across the House, and I suspect that there would be heavy interest in the debate, as there has been for the last nine years. It would be fantastic for us to be able to mark the 10th anniversary of the first debate, and I am honoured to be the sponsoring Member on this occasion. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the application. Without prejudging, if the Committee were able to allocate you time in the Chamber on 20 November, would you be able to take it?

I believe that I would, yes; I have that week free for this.

That is not a commitment, by the way; that is just asking if you can take that time. We are very short on Chamber time, as we explained earlier. Any questions from colleagues? No? Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, everybody.

The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. That concludes the public business of the Committee. The Committee will now go into private session to consider the applications.