Welcome to this meeting of the Backbench Business Committee. We will be considering applications from colleagues for debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. We are starting slightly late because of a Division in the Commons Chamber. The first application, from Jen Craft, is for a debate on the importance of local museums. This is a request for a Westminster Hall debate on either a Tuesday or a Thursday.

Thank you very much, Chair. As you will see from the number of Members who have sponsored the application, local museums are a central part of all our communities—that will resonate with most Members here. They are really important for preserving shared heritage, celebrating local history and promoting pride in a local area and pride in the place that people come from. I am a big fan of local museums across the country, and whenever I go on holiday I pop in to see what the local town museum has on show. Seeing the curiosity, the history and the story of that town and its people is really important. I have a personal plea: I would particularly like this debate to occur in March. I have a museum in my patch that is an absolute success story. It has turned a profit for the first time this year—a very modest profit of £98, but that is no small feat for a local museum. It has also had an increase in local volunteers, which is fantastic. Those are the two things that our voluntary sector is desperate for, and it has managed to draw them in. The museum is closing over Christmas this year and reopening in March, hoping to have a much better visitor experience. It is hoping to attract people not just from the area but from outside, to come and have a look at what it has to offer. Its story is fascinating. It is set in an old garrison, and at one point it was providing gunpowder to both sides in the American civil war. It has a whole Dracula exhibition—Bram Stoker visited Purfleet-on-Thames, where the museum is. I should probably name it: it is the Purfleet Heritage and Military Centre. It has a fantastic local Gurkha display—we have a really prominent Gurkha community—and it hosts the first ever Gurkha memorial in the east of England, which is outside. It is a really beautiful space. It is putting a lot of work into getting it up to spec, and over the three months of the closure it will be doing a phenomenal amount of work to turn it into something that we can really be proud of. I would love to hold this debate in March, to give everyone an opportunity to sell their local museums and places of heritage. I have 29 names on the list. When I mentioned it in the lift, people said, “Yes, I’ll sign.” It is a popular debate, and it will allow Members to give these museums a bit of publicity, to push them over the line. Anything we can do to drive numbers up is really important.

At the moment, we reckon that between now and the February recess there are 10 sitting Tuesdays for which we will have allocations. We have 13 applications already on our waiting list. The fact that you are applying for a debate in March is very helpful, and I am sure we can accommodate that.

Great.

We have to fit with the rota, so which would the answering Department be on the Tuesday?

I imagine it would be DCMS, but MHCLG could probably also answer fairly effectively. I know that some local museums are being funded via Pride in Place and towns fund funding.

If there are no other questions, the Clerks will be in touch eventually. Gregory Stafford, David Davis, Linsey Farnsworth and Greg Smith made representations.

The next application, from Gregory Stafford, is for a general debate in the Chamber on SEND provision and reform.

I am seeking a Backbench Business debate on special educational needs and disabilities. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for SEND. I have 32 sponsors, across the parties, for this debate. I am sure that all members of the Committee, like me and the co-sponsors, will realise what a significant issue SEND is. There are a number of reasons why I am seeking this debate at this point. The first is practical: I am unaware of there having been a full debate in the Chamber of the House of Commons on SEND for some time. We have had a number of SEND debates in Westminster Hall; one might say that they are well attended, but one could also say that they are oversubscribed, because people do not have the opportunity to fully tease out the issues. The Prime Minister himself, almost on a weekly basis, is asked about special educational needs at PMQs and responds that it is one of the biggest issues facing the Government, and indeed facing us as constituency Members of Parliament. The second reason is about the timing. Until now, we thought that the schools White Paper would include some discussion of how the Government would bring forward changes to SEND provision. We now discover that the White Paper, which is imminent, is not going to include anything on SEND. You can come at that from two points of view. First, you could say, “The Government have kicked this into the long grass, and therefore it’s important to have a debate about it now.” Equally, you could say, “Actually, this has given the Government time to listen to the issues more closely and therefore bring forward a more constructive, well-thought-through White Paper.” Whichever view you take, the timing is important now, not just for those of us who are legislators and are interested in this, but for the parents. They need reassurance that this issue is still a priority for us as parliamentarians. This debate would give us and them the opportunity to listen to the issues. Hopefully, when we get the White Paper, the debate will help to inform the Government of some practical and appropriate measures to improve SEND provision. I could go through all the statistics about the effects of SEND, but I am conscious of your time.

I would rather not have the debate now.

In that case I shall leave it there, other than to say that I am sure that the Committee is aware of the real crisis that is happening in SEND. There is a cross-party desire to get something sorted and improve it, so I ask that we have this debate in relatively short order before the White Paper on SEND is published, so that we can reassure parents, reassure the public and ensure that the Government have the full facts in view when they make their White Paper public.

I just want to make one simple point: when we had a debate on the subject in the Chamber under the last Government, I think there was a record number of applicants to speak. It absolutely seized the attention of the entire House.

My presence here shows that this debate has cross-party support. We are in different political parties, but we have a very similar view on the urgency and importance of this topic. I echo the points that have been made about oversubscription. I was recently in a Westminster Hall debate in which my speech was curtailed to two minutes—anybody who knows me will know how difficult that was for me. There is so much to say about this topic. The only other point to add is about timeliness. The Select Committee has recently published its report on the subject. The gap between that report and the publication of the White Paper gives us an ideal opportunity to tease out the factors in the report in our debate and to highlight some of the salient points that families across our communities are really focused on.

Others have set this out very clearly, but I underline the critical urgency of this debate, given the Government’s own timetable around White Papers, so that everyone can have their voice heard in a clear way rather than in a very crammed and oversubscribed Westminster Hall debate. I refuse to believe that I am alone in thinking that this is the biggest issue in my casework. In every surgery I hold, you can guarantee that multiple appointments will be for parents coming to see me about not getting the right placement, the right assessment, the right EHCP and so on. The cross-party support that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has secured for his application shows that this issue affects us all as Back-Bench and constituency Members of Parliament, and that it urgently needs a full airing in the Chamber.

We all recognise the importance of the issue and the demand for another debate, but as you rightly point out, there have been a number of well-subscribed debates. Have you considered tabling a substantive motion to set out what actions you would like the Government to take?

That is a fair challenge. The reality is that SEND is not a party political issue, but there will undoubtedly be disagreements, or at least varying opinions, about what the right answer is. A Backbench Business debate will take the politics out of it and allow us to have a cross-party discussion; I am not saying that people will not be party political, but I hope that they will not be. I may be wrong, but I think I would find it harder to secure 32 signatures across the parties if I were to start giving Greg Stafford’s view on how to solve the crisis.

The slight problem, of course, is that the subject has already been debated in this Session, so to have a debate on it in the Chamber, you will need a substantive motion. But it does not have to be prescriptive about all the details.

If it is not prescriptive on the solution, I am sure we can do that.

I have no doubt that we can put something together.

Okay. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Baggy Shanker made representations.

The next application, from Baggy Shanker, is on town and city centre safety. This is a request for a Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday morning.

Good afternoon. This is relatively simple: all cities and towns across the UK have a vibrant city centre, and Derby is no exception, but people want theirs to be a good vibrant city centre. City centres are changing hugely—they have to change with the way in which people now shop. In Derby, we are encouraging more house building so that there are more homes in our city centre, so people can live, work and enjoy themselves in the city centre and still have a shopping offer as well. To make a cohesive city centre successful, it has to be fundamentally safe for every one of its users, irrespective of what they want to use the city centre for. Without the city centre feeling safe and being safe, it is a huge struggle. City centres are so important for the local economy, wherever you are in the UK. We have had some huge investments in our city centre in recent years, and some of that is now coming to fruition, with the opening of a new 3,500-seater performance venue. Our old market hall has had a £37 million revamp and has now reopened. We also have businesses that want to relocate to the city centre. That really drives me, like colleagues I have spoken to who represent other constituencies, to ensure that such investment and commitment from both the public and private sector to support our city centres is matched, with everybody coming together and making sure that our city centres are also safe. The idea of the debate is to get people together to discuss what has worked in different areas. It is also a chance to get the Home Office’s ministerial response, to make sure that we are getting support from Government to create that atmosphere.

Will the Home Office be the answering Department?

Absolutely.

Okay. As I have said to previous applicants, we now have a queue for Tuesday mornings that will take us past the February recess. To give you an expectation, it will be some time in March before we can get to your application. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Abtisam Mohamed made representations.

Next up is Abtisam Mohamed, requesting a general debate in the Chamber on banning trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

My name is Abtisam and I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee. In doing an inquiry, we have had the opportunity to discuss this particular issue and that particular region. One of the key aspects that came through quite prominently was that, in making sure that we have a viable, strong and functioning Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israeli state, the issue of trade with the occupied territories needs to be addressed. A significant number of individuals from different political parties have put their name to this debate, and there has not been a significant debate on this particular issue since the Government announced the temporary suspension of trade talks and the recognition of the Palestinian state. Many colleagues who are also keen to be part of this debate have emailed me since the application was submitted. Human rights organisations, both Israeli and Palestinian, want to contribute to the debate too. Given the significant news that we have had, this would be a timely next step and would engage a huge number of Members. This is a political issue in many constituencies across the country, and people would like to express their views about trade with the occupied territories. We look to the Government to provide some policy ideas on what happens next.

Thank you. Just to set your expectations, we are obviously dependent on the Government allocating time for us to allocate for these debates. We currently have 16 debates waiting for Chamber time, and the maximum we can do between now and the February recess is 18. We have already had applications for the Chamber before yours today. To set your expectations, it is likely to be after the February recess before it gets to your turn. That is just the way we are at the moment, with the number of applications we are receiving.

Okay.

Any questions from colleagues? No. Thank you very much. The Clerks will eventually be in touch with you. Anna Dixon, Sarah Coombes and Sarah Russell made representations.

Next up is Anna Dixon on road safety in the UK—tackling dangerous drivers. This is a request for a debate in either the Chamber or Westminster Hall, for either 90 minutes or three hours.

Road Safety Week starts on 16 November, but the critical thing is that the Government have their upcoming road safety strategy, which is the first comprehensive road safety strategy for 10 years. The issue has not been substantively debated in the Chamber for a long time. As Anna said, different bits and bobs have been discussed, but there is still time to influence the Government from all sides, so a debate in the main Chamber with a Minister in the Department for Transport responding would give an important opportunity to do that. They are looking at reviewing all the legislation in this area, so it would be a big opportunity for Back Benchers to have an impact on Government policy. Secondly, as the Chairman knows, this is a very popular topic at business questions. People can make short statements at business questions, but this is an important policy area, given that there are huge numbers of deaths and serious injuries every year, so it would be great for people to have a lengthier opportunity to contribute.

About 19 young people have died in my constituency in the last few years. Rural roads account for a disproportionate number of road deaths. There is huge cross-party support for this, and a huge geographical diversity of interest. It affects everybody. Vision Zero, a campaign group that would like to see the elimination of road deaths worldwide, estimates that, if we achieved that, between now and 2040 we would save 25,000 lives in the UK. We are very normalised to the fact that people die on our roads, but it is actually not normal. We have roughly the same number of road deaths as we do stabbings. We spend a lot more money on and give a lot more prominence to the stabbings. Road deaths are more readily avoidable in many cases, and we should bring that case forward to the Government and the public.

You have given a very earnest presentation. The titles for our Backbench Business debates need to be neutrally worded, and your title sounds more like a slogan for a campaign. Would you accept a change of wording? Would something like “Dangerous Drivers and Road Safety” be acceptable?

Thank you. Road Safety Week is the week after next. You seem keen to have it that week, but as you will have already heard, the requests for debates are piling up. I think you have one yourself, Anna.

The other option is waiting until there is a February slot. I am not sure how far you want to press this.

If you can convince the Leader of the House to give us more time, we would be delighted to allocate you a debate.

Thank you for sharing your personal experience with us, Anna.

The Clerks will be in touch in due course. James Naish made representations.

The next application, from James Naish, is for a debate on grasping opportunities to boost productivity and economic growth in the east midlands. This is for a Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday morning.

Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Committee. Thank you very much for hearing me today. I am here to present an application for a Backbench Business debate specifically on the east midlands and grasping opportunities to boost productivity and economic growth. I am pleased to have the support of 15 other Members in applying for this debate—Labour, Conservative, Reform and independent, which covers the breadth of parties in the east midlands. As you will see from the application, I initially hoped to have a debate prior to the spending review that has now taken place. Listening to the challenges you have around scheduling, it may be that it is not until after subsequent fiscal events that this may be able to take place, but it is absolutely relevant because the east midlands is growing faster demographically than many other major regions. However, productivity per worker stands at just 84.8% of the national average. That tells me something quite concerning, which is that the region is not realising its potential. I am sure all of us here recognise the need for each region to play its part in economic growth. The east midlands has world-class universities, high-value manufacturing, the UK’s only inland freeport and exceptional clean energy potential based on our historical association with coalmining, yet right now these are not working effectively together at scale. We have also repeatedly struggled to get long-term investments, such as the electrification of the midland main line, and key investment metrics are potentially holding back our region. To give you just one example, our transport investment per head has fallen to just 54% of the UK average—the lowest of any UK region—which, of course, is not helping productivity. These persistent disparities have significant implications for productivity and regional growth. We need a strategic approach to infrastructure, skills development and innovation. While we have a new Mayor of the East Midlands, in the form of Claire Ward, providing potential for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, that is not the east midlands. The east midlands is much broader, and therefore it is important that we have a debate for the whole region. I would therefore like a debate focused on how we can boost productivity in the region. This is, and must be, a cross-party regional priority, and I believe that allocating time will allow Members to discuss it constructively to make sure that the east midlands pulls its full weight in driving the UK’s economic growth. I am very happy to take any questions.

As was raised in the previous presentation, James, debate titles need to be somewhat more neutral. Would you be happy if the title were changed to “Productivity and Economic Growth in the East Midlands”?

Yes, that would be absolutely fine.

Also, Tuesday debates in Westminster Hall are dependent on the departmental answering rota. Is this the Treasury?

Yes. Obviously, there is a cross-departmental requirement to get the economy really moving in this particular location, but I believe the Treasury would ultimately be the best Department to answer.

As previously advised, you will probably have to wait until March for a Westminster Hall debate, but obviously that depends on the list.

Thank you for your presentation, James. Where is the inland freeport?

The East Midlands freeport is split over three sites at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, East Midlands airport and the Toyota site near Derby. The freeport is unusual in being split over multiple sites, but it carries about £160 million-worth of tax incentives with a view to sparking the local economy. There are some positive signs, but parts of the freeport are yet to really get moving. Again, I think that would sit at the heart of this debate.

The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Ruth Jones made representations.

Last but by no means least, we have Ruth Jones with a request for a Tuesday morning Westminster Hall debate on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products. Over to you, Ruth.

Thank you very much for your patience, Chair and members of the Committee. We are looking for a Tuesday debate to discuss the moral and ethical issues surrounding the import of fur and fur products. As the Committee will be aware, the UK banned fur farming over 20 years ago, so the continuing import and export of fur should be debated. There are also health issues, with 13 new coronavirus variants discovered in fur farms over the last year. Again, those sorts of issues could be highlighted in a Westminster Hall debate. We have cross-party support, and it is a matter about which lots of MPs get lots of mail. Animal welfare is a big public interest story, and a petition calling for a ban, signed by 1.2 million people, was delivered to No. 10 about six weeks ago. This would be a neutral debate on the import and sale. You have already very clearly articulated that timings are difficult. We know that the animal welfare strategy will hopefully be published before Christmas, and it would tie in because we know there should be evidence on fur within that. A private Member’s Bill is to be debated on a Friday morning in January. You have already very eloquently set out the timings, but we would be looking for a Tuesday morning, with DEFRA to answer the debate.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Ruth. Is there anything you want to add, Alison?

I just want to say thank you for the presentation, Ruth. I would think that the vast majority of the British public might already assume that it has been banned, and therefore this is a very timely debate.

Thank you. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. That completes the public business of the Committee. We will now go into private session to consider the applications and to determine the allocation of time.