Welcome to the Backbench Business Committee, where we will be considering applications for debates in both the Chamber and Westminster Hall. The first application that we are considering is from Wendy Morton requesting a 90-minute debate on transport connectivity in the midlands and north Wales in Westminster Hall, on either a Tuesday or a Thursday.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for giving me this opportunity. My rationale for bringing forward a bid for this debate is that we all accept that transport infrastructure is critical. In the west midlands, we are seeing investment in the west midlands rail hub, which could be a real game changer, not only for the west midlands and east midlands, but for Wales and beyond. I decided to focus the debate very much on the west midlands, because there is the potential for so much to go on there. I made the bid very much focusing on railways, because that is where I have a real focus—hands up, I was once Rail Minister—but actually it is equally applicable to the road network, as well as any form of transport that a west midlands MP would want to come and speak about. I appreciate that we have had the occasional debate in the Chamber on transport, but I still think there is a strong appetite for us as Back-Bench MPs to raise constituency matters and to talk about regional transport and the issue of connectivity. I believe that connectivity is about more than just connecting A to B; it is actually about creating opportunity for young people to get to work or education. People of all ages need it. I have touched on the west midlands rail hub, which is a massive financial commitment and could be a real game changer for the west midlands—I will not go into all the detail today, because it would probably bore those of you who do not live in the west midlands. From the number of people who have signed up to the debate from across the west midlands, you will appreciate that there is cross-party support for this application. I believe that I have complied with the Committee’s number requirement for cross-party support of the debate. The debate would also create an opportunity for us to talk about the city region sustainable transport settlement, and to raise the issue of the open access. A bid put in by an open-access provider has been knocked back once, but my understanding is that it is still being looked at by the operator. These are all key things for the west midlands, and for all of us as Back Benchers. That is it in a nutshell, but I am very happy to take any questions that the Committee may have.

Just before I ask other colleagues, are there any pending or particular decisions that you have to debate in time? Is there a timetable?

No, I am quite open about the timings. Obviously, the Budget is coming up at the end of the year, but there is no specific time for the debate. I am sure you have a lot of bids for time; as long as I am in the queue, not the sidings, I do not mind.

Thank you very much for the application, and the Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.   Dr Simon Opher made representations.

The next application is a request for a three-hour debate in the Chamber or a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday. The title of this debate is “That this House has considered the collapse of the healthcare system in Gaza”. We will need to redraft the title to include some suggestion of Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza.

Okay, fine—we can certainly do that. Things change quickly, and I am delighted that there is a ceasefire in Gaza. I have just come from an event that I am hosting for Médecins Sans Frontières, which does a lot of work in Gaza, so I got an up-to-the-minute account of what is happening in Gaza. During the war, healthcare workers became actual targets of violence; over 1,500 medical staff have been killed, and 185 healthcare workers have been detained. There is not a single functioning hospital in Gaza. Some of them are managing to take in some patients, but none is fully functional, and only 18 of the 36 are partially functioning. I also have a couple of other statistics that are quite alarming. They have no stock at all of 52% of the medicines and 68% of the consumables they need. The hospitals that are running are running way over capacity, so there are people lying in between beds and so on. To cut a long story short, I think the House needs to debate healthcare in Gaza and the rest of the occupied territories. There are real crises and real dangers in healthcare, and I think there are things that the British Government can do about that.

As your request is for a Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday, I am assuming that the FCDO would be the answering Department. We have to allocate it when the answering Department is due to answer debates.

Yes, I think it would be that, rather than the Department of Health and Social Care.

I just want to declare my interest as a signatory to the application.

Okay. You have a phenomenal number of potential speakers; 58 Members have indicated a desire to speak. Obviously this is a hot topic in the Chamber most weeks. If all of those people were due to speak, they would be lucky if they got two minutes each, so I hope they have been warned.

We would be happy to have it in the main Chamber, but it is often more difficult to get. Obviously, this is changing very quickly, so we need a debate quite soon.

It would join a long queue for the Chamber—that is the other issue.

Westminster Hall will be fine.

The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.

Thank you very much, Mr Blackman.   Kevin McKenna made representations.

We have two applications from Jim Shannon, who is not here at the moment, so Kevin McKenna is next. This is a request for a debate in Westminster Hall on the impacts of gambling harms on children and young people, on either a Tuesday or a Thursday.

As you have asked for a debate on a Tuesday or Thursday, which would be the answering Department? I am assuming it would be DCMS.

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

Last but by no means least, in the nick of time, we have our season ticket holder Jim Shannon, who has submitted two requests. The first is a request for a debate in either the Chamber on a Thursday or Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning, on justice for the families of the 1994 Chinook disaster.

Chair, can I apologise? There was a Northern Ireland statement in the Chamber, and as always, I was called near the end. The first application is for a debate on justice for the families of the 1994 Chinook disaster. It is a well-known disaster in which the cream of intelligence experts from Northern Ireland were killed in a tragic accident. I have managed to secure some 15 names—hopefully the Committee has them all—from across the parties. I have a request on this one: if the debate is going to be in Westminster Hall, it really has to be a Tuesday, if you do not mind me asking. That facilitates most of the Northern Ireland Members who normally go home on a Wednesday. The background to this is probably well known. Some 29 victims of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash included 25 senior Northern Ireland intelligence experts, and I believe they deserve the transparency and accountability that only a judicial review can compel, given the MoD’s persistent refusal to order a public inquiry. Chief Constable Jon Boutcher of the PSNI has publicly endorsed the call for a public inquiry. I am mindful that, if it comes from that level, it is not just Jim Shannon, Member of Parliament, and 14 other MPs who are asking for it. The chief constable also wants it, because he says it affirms the need to address lingering distress and uncertainty. A judicial review would offer a vital pathway to compel disclosure and independent adjudication. Without that, the MoD’s rejection of truth and transparency not only betrays the victims’ service to the nation but risks repeating historical injustices, where bereaved families are left to bear the burden of unresolved grief and doubt. The debate seeks to support the families in their quest for justice, answers and truth. That is really what it is all about: that request for justice, answers and truth.

Thank you for the application. Because it is a Tuesday request for Westminster Hall, which is the answering Department?

I was presuming it would be the MoD. Would that be right?

I don’t know; that is why I am asking you.

I think for this one it is the MoD. That is my understanding.

Okay. There is a range here, and obviously we can only allocate it on a Tuesday morning when we know what the answering Department will be.

I understand that. It is just to make sure that the Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland who always travel home on a Wednesday—

We understand that.

Obviously we would like this debate to go ahead if it can, but is there any risk that it would prejudice ongoing legal proceedings?

No, I understand that it will not. I did make inquiries, before I even approached the Committee, to see whether it was appropriate to do this, and it was indicated to me that it was. I think the fact that the chief constable has called for a public inquiry would indicate that. To me, if the top man in the PSNI back home in Northern Ireland thinks it is legally okay, it pretty much is.

Any other questions, colleagues? Jim, can you confirm that each of these individuals has been asked whether they sponsor this debate and that they have agreed to do so?

Are they going to speak?

No, have they agreed to sponsor the debate?

Yes, they all did. I asked them all individually and personally, yes.

All right. We will take it offline, but one of the individuals on this list has categorically told our Clerks—

Unless she has withdrawn her name—would this be Sorcha Eastwood?

Yes.

Well, she was the second one to sign, because I asked her, “Would it be okay to sign?” and she said yes. But if she wants to withdraw her name, I am happy with that; it doesn’t bother me personally. But I wished to give her that respect because her conversation with me was to ask for it.

Okay; it is just that we have to resolve this appropriately.

That is fine.

The Clerks will be in touch, as you know, in due course. The second request from you, Jim, is for a debate on the impact of VAT on independent faith schools. This is a request for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on either a Tuesday or Thursday.

Again, I made copious inquiries across the Chamber. I am mindful about being fair to some of the Labour Members. You always tell me, Chair, to make sure that I get at least four Labour MPs to sign it, so I had to have a number of long conversations with them in relation to this. I did not want to put them in an embarrassing position—that is not my form—but I wanted to make sure they would agree with the principles of what I was asking for. They all indicated that they were very much in favour of this, because they see the importance of faith schools from the position of their own particular faiths. With that in mind, it helps us to have the conversation. For example, the Al-Khoei Foundation established the Al-Sadiq and Al-Zahra schools in 1991. The fees were already heavily subsidised—in many cases, lower than the cost of state education. Most of the families are not wealthy; they choose these schools because of their ethos—faith-based education and a strong record in raising attainment and cohesion. We understand that the Government have taken a decision on this, but I think it is something worthy of debate, and I have asked for one for that reason. The new VAT policy is an existential threat; it does not distinguish between elite private schools and small charitable faith schools. We have always tried to make that point the whole way through the debate. Families cannot absorb the rise, so schools are forced to bear the costs, thus pushing some towards closure. It undermines parental choice, equality of access and the contribution that Muslim, Jewish, Christian and other small faith schools make to social cohesion and educational diversity. On top of VAT, we are also facing the loss of business rates relief and rising national insurance contributions, leaving schools financially unsustainable. There are over 21,000 pupils in independent Muslim schools and more than 20,000 in Jewish schools alone. The survival of those schools is critical for our communities and the wider education system. In my life in this place, I am ever mindful of trying to embrace all those of different religions who have the same point of view and perhaps the same goal—but a different religious viewpoint—and trying to achieve it.

Once again, this is an application for a Tuesday or a Thursday. Which will be the answering Department? It could technically be Education or Treasury, presumably.

I think probably Treasury, since it is to do with VAT. They are the people who make that decision. Again, we have a good consensus, with some 12 MPs in total from all the parties.

Just a quick one: what is your definition of a small charitable faith school? What is small?

Thinking of one back home, it has no more than 40 pupils. The impact upon them is greater, simply because the school is small, but the overheads are incredible, and the VAT on top of that creates a problem.

Thank you very much, Jim. The Clerks will be in touch.

Do you want me to leave anything?

Have you got an up-to-date list of supporters, if there are others who were not added to the original?

I will leave that. Thanks very much. Again, apologies for being a wee bit late.

That concludes the public business of the Committee. The Committee will now retire to consider the applications in private.