Welcome to this meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will be considering applications from colleagues for debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. The first application we are considering is from Julie Minns. This is for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate on either a Tuesday or a Thursday on the role of the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit during the second world war. Over to you to present, Julie.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much to the Committee for asking me to present to you. I would like to present, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of 27 other Members of the House of Commons, drawn from four political parties, the request for a debate to consider the role of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit during the second world war. I think we all feel it is timely, not only as we approach the 80th anniversary of the war, but because there has been a campaign run by a number of people who feel that the PRU’s role in history has not been recognised. That campaign is moving to a successful conclusion that will see it finally get a memorial placed here in Westminster; we are just awaiting confirmation from the Royal Parks that they are happy to site that. It would be a timely debate. It is also worth sharing a little bit about the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. This unit captured more than 26 million images of enemy positions during the second world war. The planes they flew in were not like other aircraft; they were stripped back entirely, including of armour, and were equipped with cameras. They were not allowed to have unnecessary equipment, including radios. All that was in order to save weight and increase their range for surveying enemy positions. Despite their incredible bravery, which included 510 gallantry awards, the unit are largely unrecognised. They were drawn from 24 different nations and include four people from my own constituency, as well as people from constituencies right across the UK, including those who would have been resident in your constituency at the time, Chair. Some 195 women also served in the PRU. We sadly only know the fate of just over 1,400 of those who served, but they suffered 45% casualties. That is believed to be the highest rate of casualties of any unit in the second world war. In conclusion, I believe that, as we move towards the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, now would be extraordinarily timely and right to pay due tribute to this this little recognised but hugely important unit and their service to our country 80 years ago.

Thank you, Julie, for that presentation. You may know that in a previous Parliament we have had requests for debates on this subject—I cannot remember whether we actually had a debate on it, but certainly it is something I remember receiving applications for. We always like to help as much as we can. If we were able to offer you, for example, 8 May in Westminster Hall, would that be acceptable to you?

On 8 May itself, Chair, I will be in my constituency at VE day celebrations. I have been asked to lay a wreath, so regretfully I cannot—although that would have been fantastic timing.

We always like to help. Can I just clarify that if, for example, we allocated a Tuesday, it would be Defence answering?

I believe it would be Defence, yes, with the veterans Minister.

We have to allocate it when the relevant Department is answering.

I believe it would be the veterans Minister.

Are there any other questions from colleagues? No. Thank you, Julie; the Clerks will be in touch in due course. Helen Hayes made representations.

Next up is Helen Hayes, with a request for a debate in the Chamber on Windrush day 2025. Helen, over to you.

Thank you. I will ask colleagues if they have any other questions, but in terms of the date, obviously we do not know whether we will be allocated time around that. To my recollection, 22 June is a Sunday, so is it preferable to do it on the Thursday before or the Thursday afterwards?

You are really well supported in bringing this debate forward, but a bit short of Opposition names—you only have two Opposition Members. Have you brought any other names with you of Members who are willing to support this application?

Could you send those to the Clerks? Ideally, to get a debate in the Chamber, we would like to see at least seven Opposition names on any application, so you would need five more.

Helen, as Jess says, if you can supply the extra names—they can be drawn from any of the Opposition parties—that would be very helpful for us to allocate time in the Chamber for the debate.

Next up is Dr Peter Prinsley with an application for a debate on the funding of the BBC World Service, either in the Chamber, or in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or a Thursday. Please make your case.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The future funding of the BBC World Service is an issue that attracts serious interest across the House, from MPs of all different parties. I submitted the application with 17 signatures, but since then I have had a further 14 MPs declare an interest in speaking in the debate, so I now have more than 30 declarations of support—18 Labour, 8 Lib Dem, three Conservatives, one Independent and one Green. There is an enormous degree of enthusiasm across parties for a full debate on the matter, and certainly enough to merit a debate in the Chamber, I believe. It is an important issue; in an era of growing media polarisation and disinformation, the World Service has never been more critical or more relevant to the work of Parliament. Across the world, hostile states invest heavily to shape public opinion. Russia and China alone spend an estimated £6 billion to £8 billion to expand their media reach across Africa, Asia and the middle east. They win trust and shape narratives, often at the expense of democratic values. The BBC World Service stands almost alone in its global reach and reputation for trust, enhancing Britain’s reputation abroad. Some 62% of influential global audiences say that consuming BBC content makes them view the UK more positively. That is a valuable asset in a world increasingly consumed by information warfare. In Afghanistan, the World Service still reaches a quarter of the adult population and is the only international broadcaster operating inside the country. In Lebanon, following the closure of BBC Arabic radio, Russian-backed media now broadcast on the same frequency. Without sustainable funding, the UK risks surrendering vital ground to authoritarian influence abroad. As such, it is very worrying to hear about painful cuts being forced on this organisation—130 job losses, at a time when hostile actors threaten to expand their reach. This matter should absolutely be debated here in Parliament, and I hope it will be possible to have this debate.

You have applied for a Tuesday; I assume Culture, Media and Sport would be the answering Department?

Yes.

Are there any questions from colleagues? Is there any time sensitivity about this debate, Peter?

Not particularly, although those 130 job losses are presently threatened. The whole thing is a very live issue. I know you do not have the gift of all the time in the world, but the sooner we do this, the quicker we can put pressure on the powers that be to try to preserve this thing.

Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch. Jim Shannon made representations.

Next up is our season ticket holder, Jim Shannon, applying for a debate on World Asthma Day in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or a Thursday for 90 minutes. Jim, World Asthma Day is 6 May. I think we will struggle to accommodate the anniversary.

It would be a miracle. I understand that. I have just been too busy, and I have not been able to get the papers in in time—they should have been in last week. But that is by the way. Why have we asked for this debate? I have always had an interest in asthma, because my second boy was born with asthma. It is one of those personal things that you have in your life, where you understand what asthma means. Fortunately enough, the asthma has basically left my second son, but he ended up with a bit of psoriasis—“You lose one, you get the other,” type of thing, which is part of the problem. I chair the APPG for respiratory health, and our membership was keen to be involved in this debate. We all know the issues in relation to asthma. It affects people from a very early age and in adult life as well. There have been some new rules coming in to do with asthma and the blue sprays—they want to make them green-orientated, if that is the right way to put it. That is part of life and a thing that they live with, so there have been changes there as well, but we are always trying to ensure that the blue sprays they have do not affect the object, which is to make people better. We have managed to get a fairly cross-party section of people to speak, with about 12 Members altogether: four from Labour, four from the Conservatives, TUV, SNP and two from my own party. We are keen to get the opportunity whenever it can be accommodated.

As it is a Tuesday application, I assume that Health would be the answering Department?

If it is possible, yes.

Are there any questions from colleagues?

No questions? Yes? No? Good.

Jim, as always, the Clerks will be in touch with you. As I say, it is unlikely that we will be in a position to offer a debate within the timeframe you might have hoped.

Some time in May would be okay. Lovely. Thank you so much. Alberto Costa and Matt Western made representations.

The final application this afternoon is a joint one from Alberto Costa and Matt Western on planning policy for quarries. This is a request for a Tuesday debate in Westminster Hall. Over to you, Alberto.

Good afternoon, Chair, and good afternoon to all the Committee members. Thank you for inviting me and Matt to make a few short submissions before you about this issue. I am applying for this debate because of serious and growing concerns about how quarry developments in England are planned and regulated, particularly regarding air quality and public health impacts. With the Labour Government’s ambitious targets of building many more homes and concomitant infrastructure, there is undoubtedly a need for aggregates and other minerals from quarries, so this issue is going to impact on many MPs’ constituencies. At present, developers are working from guidance that is outdated, scientifically questionable and increasingly incompatible with the Government’s own commitments under the Environment Act 2021 and the “Clean Air Strategy 2019”. If I may give an example, the current application of a 250-metre screening distance for particulate matter from a quarry does not reflect the latest evidence about how far dangerous PM2.5 particles can travel. This poses significant risks to communities living near quarry sites. If members of the Committee have seen on Netflix “Toxic Town”, which was released this year and written by the screenwriter for “Adolescence”, they will know that it tells the story of the demolition of the Corby steelworks and the toxic dust and airborne pollutants that led to birth defects and severe health impacts in the surrounding community. Cases like this should bring a sharp focus for all of us to the issue of airborne toxins, their long-term health impacts and the emerging data that links exposure to airborne toxins, such as silica dust, to serious outcomes, including developmental disorders, respiratory illness and, most worrying of all, cancer. The current framework, as I have mentioned, is outdated. It not only puts public health at risk, but undermines confidence in the entire planning system. We desperately need updated and authoritative air quality guidance, to ensure that new developments are properly assessed and that residents are properly protected. I think there is a strong case to bring quarry operations under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, as there are clear parallels between quarries and major construction sites in terms of environmental risks, safety hazards and dust generation. As I mentioned, the Labour Government are rightly prioritising building new homes, and introducing new measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We can expect, therefore, increased demand for these raw aggregate and mineral materials, and this means more quarry proposals will be pushed on communities across our country. We need quarries, but effective regulation of quarrying and the health of residents living near quarries are much more urgent. Including quarrying within the scope of the CDM regulations would create stronger, clearer obligations in relation to hazard management, risk assessments and environmental accountability. What happens to quarries after extraction is a concern, too. I think, Matt, you talked about this in the Bill that you proposed. Walleys Quarry in Staffordshire is a case that should concern us all. It is a former clay quarry turned landfill site. Nearby residents were exposed to dangerous hydrogen sulphide emissions for months. Thousands complained of health problems such as headaches, sore throats and exacerbated respiratory conditions. But enforcement came too late. I would like to acknowledge the efforts, which I have mentioned, by Matt Western, in the last Parliament through his private Member’s Bill, which sought to require air quality considerations to be embedded much earlier and more robustly in the planning system. This matter is now overdue, and because of the Government’s ambitious plans, it has come to the fore. If the Committee can indulge us, I would like to turn to Matt to make a few comments as well.

I am very much playing second fiddle to Alberto on this. In 2019 I held an Adjournment debate on the issue of a particular sand and gravel quarry that was being proposed a couple of hundred metres south of a village. What I spoke to, as I did subsequently in 2022 or 2023 in a ten-minute rule Bill, was the proximity of such quarries to settlement, and sizeable settlement. In particular, we have to bear in mind that you have gases, odours and micro-particulates. With sand and gravel quarries, you get airborne silicates, which can be extremely damaging to young people and children, as the silicates are ingested and are extremely damaging to the pulmonary system. It is something that has been talked about several times in the past, but without as much traction as I think it deserves. There is a lot of academic research that supports the need to have greater distance between these quarries and urban settlement, so I am sure that there would be significant support for it. There are many such proposed quarries and these have come up previously. It is both well supported and particularly of the moment.

Can I just clarify, because it is a Tuesday application, which is the answering Department?

The answering Department would be the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, as it is responsible for planning policy for minerals, which is set out in the national planning policy framework.

That’s fine—obviously, we have to allocate the debate for a Tuesday when it is the answering Department.

Just quickly, I think this is a very important issue. As you were talking, I remembered a tragic case of a young lad from my constituency who decided to go swimming in a quarry and was killed. Should part of the debate also consider the safety of quarries after they have been used? In that case, it was obviously a terrible thing to happen.

Yes is the answer. As I touched upon, some quarries are converted into landfill sites, which in itself can generate further particulates. The issue of swimming in quarries is one I long remember. For those old enough, in the 1970s there were public broadcasts about the dangers of swimming in quarries, which people like me, from Glasgow, never paid attention to. It is indeed an important matter; with the scree that falls off, it is very easy to go into extremely deep water. So yes, I would take that on board. Thank you.

I also think it is a really important debate. Obviously, I can come along to the debate, but I would want to talk about the future need for quarries. When we are seeing some of the largest housing developers, such as Vistry, going towards timber framing, which is going to require fewer quarries, is there scope to discuss whether we need more quarries and can look elsewhere at alternatives for building that are more environmentally friendly? That is just a comment, more than anything else.

Can I make a comment on that? This is something that I discussed at length previously. There are modern methods of construction that have less environmental impact, and they can be cheaper as well, so these are things that should be considered. In fact, the Chair and I were on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and it is something that we looked into at the time. The question is not so much whether we need aggregates, which of course we do and I am not disputing that. It is about proximity. For example, a quarry that used to be in my constituency prior to the redrawing of boundaries was one of six sites being considered in south Warwickshire. My argument was that it was right next to a village, with a primary school to the south, and it is not the correct option to be pursuing. Of course, the developers want it in certain places because it is less travel time for them. I absolutely support the point. It is about developing a policy, and that is what I think will come out of this debate.

Might I add a connected comment? I have noticed two things: Tarmac is one of the largest companies, certainly in the UK, and one of the challenges that communities have and MPs have faced is trying to find mineral experts who are willing to support the MP or campaign groups about this information. They are frightened of taking instructions from MPs or campaigning groups, because they are frightened of losing any business from Tarmac. Another issue that I want to raise is that there is effectively a monopoly on our quarrying system, and it is extremely difficult to get mineral experts who can back up the concerns that communities express on this. That is why this debate is so important.

That is very helpful. Any further questions from anyone else? No. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Thank you Chair, and thanks to the Committee.

That concludes the public business of the Committee. The Committee will now go into private session to consider the applications and allocation of time. Order.