Welcome to the last meeting of the Backbench Business Committee in 2025, at which we will be considering applications for debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, namely on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The first application is from Sarah Pochin, for a debate in the Chamber on access to further education. Sarah, please introduce your application.

Thank you.

I declare an interest as I have signed the application.

Sarah, you put forward a compelling case, but it encompasses a whole range of further education—FE colleges, sixth forms and skills. For a debate in the Chamber, it might be worth focusing a little more and having a substantive motion to accompany your request. Can I suggest, if the Committee is minded to agree, that you discuss with the Clerks how to refine the motion?

One thing I would say is the very long queue for debates in the Chamber. As Martin said, priority is given to those with a motion attached, on the simple basis that they have to be debated in the Chamber and cannot be debated in Westminster Hall. At the moment, on the order we are going, it is unlikely you would get a debate until around Easter.

I declare an interest as a former teacher. This is a hugely important issue and I understand why you want a Chamber debate. Would you take a Westminster Hall debate if it were to come earlier, or would you rather wait for the Chamber?

Okay. The request is in, it goes in the queue, and the Clerks will be in touch with you when your number comes up, effectively.

Next up is our season ticket holder, Jim Shannon, with a request for a debate on red-flagging delays for breast cancer assessments and treatment across the UK. The application is for a debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning.

Chairman and fellow Members, this is an important issue. Whenever I have asked Members in the Chamber what they would be interested in, there are specific issues in Northern Ireland, but I found this was an issue across every constituency. Everyone says they could tell me about at least half a dozen cases right now. This is a massive issue. Obviously, it would require a Health Minister to reply. On the numbers, we have three Lib Dems, two Conservatives, five Labour, one independent, two Reform and three Unionists from Northern Ireland. Everybody told me that the 62-day standard from urgent GP referral to treatment is frequently missed across the United Kingdom. In England, only half of the urgently referred patients who are ultimately diagnosed with cancer receive a diagnosis within the 28-day faster diagnosis standard. In Northern Ireland, we cannot get anywhere near that. The primary cause of delay is the demand for testing and care outstripping capacity, compounded by staff shortages in areas such as radiology and oncology. Some places on the mainland do meet the targets, but there are many others where it just does not happen. The reports of inconsistencies and a postcode lottery when it comes to how red-flag referrals are handled have caused incredible concern for ladies. I will give one quick example: in the Northern trust—just one trust back home—32 women were red-flagged within a five-month period. Three of the women had to wait for more than eight weeks to see a consultant, nine others are still waiting, and one has been waiting for more than 10 weeks. One poor wee lady was told, “You are in the queue and there are 80,000 women ahead of you.” MPs tell me that there is the same problem across the mainland UK. They want to highlight this, and we feel it is incredibly important. The fact that we have so many different parties and supporters is my reason for asking for the debate. Ladies need to have the red-flag referral carried out within a short 28-day period, and not be left forever, which seems to be what happens.

Thank you, Jim. In our waiting list for Westminster Hall we already have a debate on secondary breast cancer. Is there merit in combining the two applications, so that we can make sure that you get what you wish to say in with what the other proposers wish to say?

I would be happy to have the debate heard, and if we can combine the two to make one debate—

I am sure that if the debate takes place on secondary breast cancer, you will put in to speak anyway.

Does the Pope have red socks? Yes, of course—there is absolutely no doubt about that.

Jim, if you do not choose to combine with the other debate for whatever reason, would you be prepared to have a more neutral title, such as breast cancer assessments and treatments?

I do not see any reason why not, Martin. We both desire the same goal, so let’s just do it.

We have statistics for the debates the Committee has allocated, and you have been allocated 14 in this Parliament, which is just under 10% of all the debates allocated by the Committee. You have three on our waiting list, and you turned down an offer for a debate on Thursday 8 January. Given our backlog, if you choose to proceed, are you content to wait until May 2026 for this debate?

Sorry, you mentioned that I turned one down in January. I didn’t turn it down—I accepted it.

That is the information we have.

Is that the Myanmar one?

You rejected the second slot in Westminster Hall on 8 January.

I did?

You did, and I have had that very clearly confirmed.

Okay. I will have to check that out, because they asked me and I said, “Yes, let’s take it.” If there has been a mix-up, I will clarify that.

The thrust of the question is that there is a long wait for debates, so you would be looking into spring next year to get a slot.

I am happy to combine the debates if that helps.

Jim, your most recent debate was on World COPD Day on Thursday 20 November, and there was not a great turnout of people to speak—probably because it was a Thursday. I notice that you have asked for a Tuesday for this debate, which may deal with this question. Are you confident that the majority of people on the application form—there are always reasons why some cannot—will participate in the debate?

I am confident because of the responses to me in relation to the requests for the debate. The anxiety that these people raise with me indicates that this is a massive issue for them. The fact that there is already a debate on secondary breast cancer, and that this one is equally of interest, is hopefully an indication. Tuesday is always a better day because people are here. Let’s be honest: Thursday is the graveyard shift. That is just how life is. Many people are heading for home on Thursdays—as soon as my debate is over, I am away to catch a plane as well. I will check about that one on 8 January. I am not sure what happened there, but let me check it out, please.

Please do, because we have to allocate the time accordingly when we come to the private session. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course, particularly about merging those two debates, I suspect. Thank you. Bambos Charalambous made representations.

The next application is from Bambos Charalambous for a debate on the United Nations International Day of Education. The request is for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on either a Tuesday morning or a Thursday afternoon. Bambos, over to you.

Thank you. I am chair of the APPG on global education. Since I submitted the application a further two people—David Reed and Janet Daby—have added their names to it. International Day of Education is 24 January, which falls on a Saturday this year. There is an error in the application: my preferred date is Thursday 22 January, but I put 23 January. Apologies for that. Sustainable development goal 4 seeks to ensure that, by 2030, all girls and boys are completing free, equitable and quality primary education. At the moment, over 250 million children in the world are not in education. Some of that is because of conflict; some of it is because of natural disasters. There is also a huge shortage of teachers internationally, with 44 million teachers projected to be needed by 2030 to provide the education. Currently, the UK funds the Global Partnership for Education and Education Cannot Wait. Those two organisations are due to have their replenishments in 2026, so this will probably be the last opportunity to debate education before any commitment from the UK Government for both those funds. We are seeking to have a debate in which we can raise the issues we are concerned about. Bearing in mind the Government’s cut to overseas development aid, we are concerned that funding for education globally will see a very serious effect. We are seeking to have the debate to try to make the Government aware of our concerns were there to be any cuts to international funding for education and, in particular, girls’ education, because there is a huge decline in girls’ education in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere. Those are the reasons why we are seeking the debate. There is cross-party support. We are in your hands: ideally, we would like the debate to be as close as possible to 24 January, but we will take whichever date the Committee provides. It is a Westminster Hall debate; we are not seeking a debate in the Chamber.

I appreciate that there is a specific day for this—24 January—but, as you have heard, there is a long wait. How important is the specific day for you? Are you willing to wait for potentially a month or so?

I understand the pressures that the Backbench Business Committee is under. We will happily take the debate whenever time is available. I just wanted to refer to that date as the reason for the debate. If it was a few weeks later, that would not be a problem.

Do you aspire to have the FCDO respond to the debate, because it has that international education focus?

Yes, that’s right, because it is the UN International Day of Education.

Thank you very much for your presentation. The Clerks will be in touch with you when we know the schedule and whether we can allocate the time. Thanks, Bambos. Bradley Thomas made representations.

This application is from Bradley Thomas and for a debate on protecting high streets from unlawful storefronts and expanding support for their revitalisation. The request is for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning. Bradley, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the Committee for allowing me to come before you. Hopefully this one is quite straightforward, because it is on something that affects all our constituencies. High streets across the country are much loved, but they are changing. They are more than a place to shop—they are a barometer of the economic and social vitality of our places. I and, I know, other Members view them as the intersection on a Venn diagram of so many different policy areas. This is not just about shops and retail; it is about crime, confidence in policing, immigration, money laundering, and the fertility of the economy to drive entrepreneurship and aspiration. They are under an immense amount of pressure. Here are some stats that are quite compelling. Public concern is quite clear: 79% of Britons are concerned about the overall decline of their high streets, 72% are worried about littering and fly-tipping, 64% are concerned about crime and violence, and 84% are worried about high prices and the long-term vitality of high streets in their current form. The public are quite concerned, as are many MPs, about the quality of the offer on high streets. Some 65% say that there are not enough good-quality shopping options. An increasing number of people are concerned about low-quality retail, such as vape shops, barber shops and nail bars. There are some statistics from the National Crime Agency that back up our concerns. It estimates that more than £100 billion is laundered each year in the UK, with around £12 billion generated in illicit cash. Quite often, low-grade retail, if I can call it that, is responsible. It is quite often the literal shop front for the proliferation of this illicit cash. We know from other agencies that quite often these store fronts are used to exploit drug trafficking, theft and wider organised crime that takes place across not just UK but the world. This is something that affects every single one of our constituents and every single one of our constituencies. It is there in plain sight. My objective in seeking this debate is to raise the profile and give more Members an opportunity to make the case for how we can revitalise town centres. While this is a multifaceted policy area that really cuts across Government, with the Treasury, the Home Office, the MHCLG and other Departments all having a stake in it, I would expect that an MHCLG Minister would respond to the debate. I hope that the widespread cross-party support for this debate, and what we are seeing in our own constituencies and probably in our own mailbags, speaks for itself and that you will look favourably upon this application.

You have indicated that 21 Members would like to speak in this debate. Is 90 minutes in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning enough?

I would hope it would be enough. It is probably quite common that a lot of points would be repeated, and I am mindful that not every Member who supports an application will show up to these debates. I am trying to be realistic in my expectations at the same time.

Debates must be neutrally worded. The title of your debate is fairly long-winded, if I may say so. Would you consider streamlining it to something on the lines of “Government support for removing unlawful storefronts and regenerating local high streets”—although that is equally long winded?

I would support either long-winded title.

Obviously, your debate title covers unlawful store fronts. Are you content that the sub judice rules apply here? You and other Members in this debate must not mention those examples where there are legal challenges going on. You are aware of that?

Yes. I would not expect myself or other Members to mention specifics. It is about the general state of high streets and the general set of conditions that are leading to their change.

As the sponsor of the debate, you need to communicate that to anyone who is likely to come along and speak, just to be clear. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course when we know the schedule. We obviously have to rely on the schedule to find a slot of a Tuesday morning with the relevant answering Department. Maya Ellis made representations.

The next application is from Maya Ellis. This is a request for a debate on Valentine’s day—great subject—and a request for a three-hour debate in the Chamber. Over to you, Maya.

Thank you, Chair and Committee, for listening to me today. I guess the driving force for this debate comes from the fact that we increasingly live in a very divisive society, and learning to disagree well is a skill that is less and less widespread. Nowhere do we need to practise to disagree well more than in our relationships, particularly our romantic ones. We have talked a lot in the last few years about the role of boys in society, and about how we support boys and men. However, most of us who are adults have probably grown up with more stereotypical relationships and influences in the past, and we now have to learn to act in a more progressive world. This debate is to look at healthy relationships and how Government policy can support them, and how they then impact on Government policy and society as well. As to why I am specifically going for Valentine’s day, my co-signatories and I are all very passionate about political engagement. This is a real opportunity to link to a cultural moment, in order to allow MPs to amplify how policy is relevant to members of the public across numerous Departments and parts of Government. We all know how hard it is to engage constituents in politics; we have all had people on the doorstep saying, “I don’t do politics”. I think Valentine’s day is an opportunity to show them, on a day that I think 60% of people say that they celebrate, how politics and policy relates to them. We have spoken to news media and social media influencers, who are keen to support us on this and really amplify some of the discussions that we have within the debate. Again, I think it is a really good opportunity to get the message out there about how policy is relevant to all our constituents. Regarding some of the policy areas and issues that my co-signatories and I are keen to raise in the debate, it could cover violence against women and girls, violence within relationships and the work we are doing to try to improve that. It could also cover parenting and parental leave, and how changes in parental leave policy could support healthy relationships. We could also discuss financial security and the cost of living, and the capacity of families to balance work alongside caring opportunities. That links into childcare policy, child development policy, school attendance, work and productivity, and wellbeing. Finally, there is the issue of how children learn. We have the new relationships guidance that comes into force in schools in September 2026. These are all areas that I am really keen for people to highlight within a discussion on equality and healthy relationships. To my understanding, there has never been a debate on the specific topic of how Government policy can support the creation of equitable relationships and the impact that equal relationships can have on the economy, our health and our society as a whole. We have backing from 38 Members from across the House. That shows there are a lot of people who want to support this application and bring together all these policy areas to talk about how, critically, healthy relationships are affected by policy and can contribute to a better society. Healthy romantic and platonic relationships are hopefully a part of all our lives, yet it is taken for granted that people know how to have them. So, I would be delighted if we could have the opportunity to discuss this issue in a Backbench Business debate. Thank you.

I have two questions, Chairman. First, that was a very cross-cutting number of—[Interruption.] We have some competition from outside. As I was saying, you touched on a cross-cutting range of policy areas there. Which Government Department do you envisage answering?

The ideal would be to have the Minister for Women and Equalities; that would be great. However, I talked about a number of areas there. The Justice Department, regarding the issue of violence against women and girls, would be an option. In theory, it could be the Department for Business and Trade on parental leave, or even the Department for Education regarding relationship guidance and education. However, the equalities Minister would be ideal, because they obviously cover off how all those policy areas apply to equality and equal relationships.

You may have heard in respect of the previous application that procedurally debate titles must relate to official ministerial responsibilities—I was very surprised to learn that the Government are not responsible for Valentine’s day, and it is not clear how equality in healthy relationships refers to a Government policy or programme. Could you perhaps think of an alternative debate title that explicitly engages a specific Government responsibility, such as “Valentine’s day and Government policy on supporting healthy and stable relationships”?

We are very happy to adapt the title so that it encompasses that requirement.

Thank you very much. [Interruption.] I think we are competing against the farming protests outside. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. There is a long waiting list, but I am sure we will endeavour, because of the timing issue, to see whether we can slot this debate in around February.

Brilliant. Thank you very much. Sir Iain Duncan Smith made representations.

Our final application this afternoon is for a debate in the Chamber on strengthening the credibility of Magnitsky sanctions. This has a divisible motion attached to it.

This debate has the support of 18 Members; we probably would have had more, but we came forward with it as a result of other actions that have taken place in the Chamber that were unsatisfactory. Those actions have been unsatisfactory for a while, as you will know, on many occasions. The idea is that this House is concerned that serious human rights abuses, including crimes against humanity and torture, together with widespread great corruption, continue to escalate in an increasingly unstable global environment. That breaks down into some critical points. I think we are at a critical juncture right now. We have the issue of Ukraine now being pressed into an agreement of sorts, whatever that may turn out to be, but there are still huge question marks about what happens to the money that was frozen and who is going to pay for reparations. There is also the instinctive and almost institutional reluctance of the Foreign Office, no matter who is in government, to sanction anybody if they can avoid it. There is the whole issue, for example, of people such Ryan Cornelius, a British citizen, who has been held for 19 years—some of that in solitary confinement—by the UAE. The UAE want to invest money in the UK, yet the UAE are guilty of pumping money into the RSF in Sudan. If they were not paying money to Sudan, there would be no war in Sudan. We discovered through another source that they are also—this is what this is all about—shipping minerals, and particularly gold, to Russia. Gold and minerals mined in Sudan under the RSF are being shipped to support the Russian war effort. These are bits that you now need to target individuals for. The UAE is part of that problem, but others are too. We look across the board at what is happening with all the totalitarian states now beginning to call the shots. The Magnitsky sanctions were put there for a reason and we do not use them enough. This debate, by the way, has been requested by a number of colleagues, not all of whom are on this list. I think it is time that Back Benchers got after the Government Departments on this issue, because it has been shocking. If we do not do it now, and do it pretty soon, these Departments will get away with it and we get fob-off answers, as we get constantly, about why they do not talk about sanctions. We need to force them to come to the House. As I say, this application is signed by Members across parties. The debate is not aimed at this particular Government; it is aimed at successive Governments who have gone down this road and have refused to answer for this. I think it is about as urgent as any debate can possibly be at the moment. As I say, it did not take me long to get 18 signatures to it.

Iain, your application refers to potential legal proceedings. You are obviously aware of the House’s sub judice rules. Do you think they would restrict the debate? Would Members taking part have to be mindful of them?

No. How can you be? They are not in place. They are not going ahead. There is this whole issue about the money that exists that is sitting in Euroclear in Belgium, which is now being decided by the EU and I hope they make their minds up on this one, but we have similar money sitting in London. Whatever happens with Russia, the truth is that many people will need sanctioning. The reality is that, if we do not secure money in these areas, that will be snapped back by Russia and we will never see any reparations for the ghastly war that they have conducted. I mentioned the UAE, but it is high time that we simply put our foot down and said, “We’re not prepared to start dealing with people who behave in the way that the UAE has been behaving, by creating a war in Sudan, and by taking and stealing essentially the minerals and gold that were owned originally by the Sudanese.” There is a huge amount of this in Sudan; the reason for the war is to do with that, and they are using that to support a Government already engaged in a war. I think Parliament—the Commons—has a chance to speak, as it should do, for the people and tell Governments, “All right, fine, but we’re not prepared to take this constant fob-off idea that we do not talk about sanctions.” It is time we got on with it and we started sanctioning some people. We have simply failed to do it, I have to tell you. If I sound a bit angry and urgent, it is because I damn well am.

One of the issues here is obviously that, as you quite rightly say, a peace deal is almost being forced upon Ukraine. Obviously, we had a debate on Ukraine’s position quite recently—as an emergency, effectively. The Committee’s waiting list is very long at the moment; if it just went according to the natural order in which the applications were made, it would be after Easter before this was heard. What is your case for bringing this forward as a priority, compared with the many other issues that Back Benchers feel very passionately about?

Well, I hope the comments I have made already tell you the urgency of this. The problem we have is that things may move—things may happen soon—and we may lose the chance to go after individuals to sanction them if we do not do it early. If we wait until after Easter to point out the failings of Government agencies in this matter, and Parliament’s demand for greater action to be taken, who knows what position we will be in by then? In my personal view, things will be a lot worse if Ukraine is forced into some ghastly arrangement, but that is not what I am arguing here; I am arguing that individuals in every one of those countries need to be sanctioned by the British Government. We are way behind the US on this. I did a debate in the last Parliament where two of us read out the list of American sanctions versus the people sanctioned by Britain—we have not done it. Take the Jimmy Lai case, for example. The urgency of that is that Jimmy Lai is facing sentencing in January. The problem is that we have sanctioned absolutely nobody in Hong Kong. It is an abominable position for us to be in, when we ran that place, and our agreement on Hong Kong—not the American agreement; it is our agreement, the Sino-British agreement—is being traduced and has basically been ripped apart. Not one of those senior people has been sanctioned. America has sanctioned them all. What are we doing? Absolutely nothing. I would say that the last Government was as guilty as the Government today, because they both let the Foreign Office and other Departments dictate to them where they should go. The Government need to report back to this place and say, “We’re going to take action.”

Debate titles must be worded as neutrally as possible; would you be content with “Effectiveness of Magnitsky-style sanctions for serious human rights abuses”?

We are basically creating an explanatory note with respect to the statement here on the front page. I would probably want to stretch the wording a wee bit more than that, but it does not have to be much more; it needs to have a focus. Everybody will know what this debate is all about. But we need to vote on this if we can, or at least force the Government to face the possibility of facing a vote and that we are discontented with their behaviour over Magnitsky sanctions. That is the message we need to send loud and clear to the Government, and, through them, to the officials in the Departments, who I think are the drag anchor on so much of this.

People are obviously keen not to have the debate, but it has been a very interesting pitch. Why is there this inertia in the FCDO?

I think there is something peculiar about our whole system. I mean, I was in Government for a while; if you are not careful, Governments try to make no fast decisions. But the truth is that there are times when you need to make speedy decisions. We are under threat in this country from this alliance of totalitarian states, which is growing in front of us right now. Europe is trying to find a way to come together in defence terms, as the other arm of NATO. We don’t know what America will do. We are in a very unstable period. We need to be able to say to the Government, “You must use the tools available to start warning people that they don’t just get away with these sorts of actions—these failures and these brutalities that they carry out.” We can do that now. When you are in a Department, the officials there—particularly in the Foreign Office, I think—are imbued with this idea of making sure that, on the one hand, and on the other hand, things all balance out. The trouble with that is that we are past that process now; that is fine when things can take time, but we do not have the time. As I said earlier, what did we debate yesterday in the House? The UAE and Sudan. The UAE is terribly guilty, now, of creating the most appalling brutality in Sudan. If you took the UAE out of Sudan, there would be no war in Sudan; there would be no RSF. These brutal actions need us to go after these people, to go after the Russians who are involved in this and to go after those in China engaged in breaking the human rights requirements of any nation and incarcerating this one individual—Jimmy Lai. But, more than that, it is about who else is going down this road, and warning them that they will not be coming for great days out in London or other places; they will simply be sanctioned and they will not be able to come. That is what this is all about. Urgency on Magnitsky sanctions is the real debate I am asking for. They are a tool that, for some reason, we keep in the box and do not use.

Thank you very much, Iain. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course when we know what time we have and when.

That is very good of you, Mr Blackman.

Thank you very much, Iain. That concludes the public business of the Committee. The Committee will now retire to consider the applications in private and allocate appropriate time.