Welcome to this meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will consider applications from colleagues for debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The first application is from Bambos Charalambous for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate on a Thursday on the future of music education. Over to you, Bambos.

Before I start, I want to make sure that, in addition to the names submitted in my application, you also have the names of Caroline Dinenage and Bernard Jenkin, which were not on the original application. They came in a bit later, but they also support the application. This application is for a debate in Westminster Hall about the future of music education. It is a timely debate because of a number of changes that have arisen in this Parliament in relation to music education. I will go through five main ones that we hope to debate. The first is the national plan for music education. There is a national plan that governs music education across the country, but earlier this year it was announced that the monitoring board for the music plan had been disbanded and that the programme was being evaluated. There is uncertainty in relation to that, which we would like to explore. There is also the creation of the national centre for arts and music education, a new thing that has been announced to oversee how music hubs work. Again, there is no detail on that, so we want to find out how it will work and how it would relate to music hubs. What oversight would there be of how music hubs carry out their role? Also, there is the curriculum and assessment review. At the moment, the curriculum and assessment review has suggested that there will be more prominence for creative subjects such as music. That is something that we would like to drill down on. I mentioned music hubs. Previously, there were over 100 music hubs. There was a reorganisation, and now there are about 40-odd. We want to see how they are functioning. Lastly, there is the issue of specialist teacher recruitment. Many schools do not have specialist teachers teaching music. As a result of that, the quality of music education has been in decline. We want to investigate that further. Those are the main reasons that we are seeking a debate on the future of music education. Hopefully, you will agree to our request.

Is there any time sensitivity on this application, given the review of the curriculum?

We would be grateful if it was this side of the summer, but otherwise, there is not.

Thank you. Are there any questions from colleagues? No? Is everyone happy? Okay. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Thank you. Chris Bloore made representations.

Our next application is from Chris Bloore MP for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate on either a Tuesday or a Thursday.

Thank you for reviewing the application for this important debate on safeguarding children with allergies at schools. I came across this topic when I met Helen Blythe, who has turned the tragic and avoidable death of her son Benedict into an incredible campaign that will hopefully keep more children with allergies safe in the future. At this point, I put on record my thanks to Alicia Kearns, who recently gave birth. She has been leading this campaign as well. I want to make sure that her contribution is noted. The prevalence and impact of allergies is on the rise. More than 680,000 children in England have an allergy. This debate is about keeping children with allergies safe at school, for several reasons in particular. Children spend at least 20% of their waking hours in school, and food allergies affect around two children in every classroom. Data shows that 18% of food allergy reactions and 25% of first-time anaphylactic reactions occur at school, but right now we are not doing enough to make sure that children are safeguarded in those situations. One in three schools have no allergy policy at all, and, in some of those that do, they are as simple as saying, “No nuts.” Half of schools do not have spare allergy auto-injector adrenaline pens and over 60% of schools do not provide training for how to manage allergies. There has been a rapid increase in the number of hospitalisations due to allergies in the last 20 years. We need to make sure that schools can create an environment safe from avoidable allergic reactions and ensure that, if a reaction does happen, school staff are prepared and trained to deal with it effectively. Families deserve to have the confidence that if their child is exposed to something that could make them sick, the staff around them will have the knowledge to handle it. It is clear that change needs to happen. This debate is an opportunity to hear from colleagues across the House about the experiences of their constituents and for them to join the call for more robust protections in schools.

Thank you. As this is an application for a Tuesday as well as a Thursday, which is the relevant answering Department?

It will be the Department for Education.

Thank you for bringing this important submission to us. The application mentions that the debate could coincide with the inquest into the death of Benedict Blythe. Are there any implications for people taking part in the debate?

I can answer that. Although Benedict’s inquest has not yet taken place, legal advice has been taken and sought, and there is no conflict in having this debate while it is ongoing, as the issues of school safety are relevant regardless of the outcome and will accordingly not impact the proceedings.

Thank you for that clarification.

May I just sagely advise that, while that might be the event that you wish to cover, the pre-inquest verdict might be an issue? If we can time the debate appropriately, that is fine, but I do not think that you will want to dwell on what the inquest may say.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. We are trying to keep as closely in touch with the timescales for that as possible.

The reason why I say this is that one of my former members of staff very sadly lost her daughter when she had a severe allergic reaction and died. It can be very serious, as you know. Are there any other questions from colleagues? No? The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Graeme Downie made representations.

The next application is from Graeme Downie, on St Andrew’s day, for a three-hour debate in the Chamber.

First of all, I pass on the apologies of Christine Jardine. She is currently chairing a Bill Committee, so she is unable to make it—we felt that that was a good enough excuse. We have taken into account your comments, Chair, about making sure that we plan in advance for debates, particularly in the main Chamber.

It is timely, because we will be allocating for November.

I was listening last week, and you mentioned November, so I thought that this would be perhaps the ideal moment before it slipped by—a rare moment of good planning, thanks to your guidance. This would be a debate on St Andrew’s day, in line with similar debates we have had in the Chamber on both St David’s day and St George’s day. It is an opportunity to discuss the history of Scotland, its role in the UK and the role it has played in contributing to the world. It is also an opportunity to look to its current role and strengths, and the issues that Scotland is involved in, such as energy, defence, farming and rural affairs. It is also an opportunity for MPs from across the political spectrum to reflect on the different roles played by community groups, as well as the links between Scotland, other parts of the United Kingdom and other parts of the world. In addition to the names on the sheet, I have ensured that the debate is cross-party. It is also supported by all those with representation in Scotland, because I believe that it is an opportunity for all political parties to come together and share the excellent things that Scotland has done in the past and could continue to do in the future.

Thank you very much. Any questions? No? Thank you for your timely application. We will be in touch—eventually. Ian Sollom made representations.

The next application is from Ian Sollom, on the contribution of maths to the UK, for a 90-minute debate on a Tuesday or Thursday in Westminster Hall. Over to you.

National Numeracy Day is next week, on 21 May. This would be an excellent opportunity for the House to celebrate maths and raise awareness of its important contribution to the UK. From the record, I believe that there has not been a debate solely focused on maths since 2022. We have a different Government now, with new priorities, so this seems like a good time to revisit it. The application has support from all major parties and regions of the UK. As I noted in the application, mathematical sciences were estimated to contribute nearly £500 billion to the UK economy in 2023. There has been significant growth in demand for jobs requiring undergraduate maths skills, driven in part by AI, which is obviously in our thinking a lot at the moment, and also in relation to green jobs, energy jobs and the life sciences sector—not to mention the increasing demand in cyber-security. In fact, the largest employer of pure maths graduates is GCHQ, and we can see that becoming more important. That healthy pipeline of maths graduates is a really important thing to cover in this debate. Although it is clearly important to the UK, some of the Government’s decisions have been concerning, and I think it would be good for Members to take the opportunity to challenge the Government on some of those issues. I am thinking particularly of the withdrawal of funding to things like the exascale computer in Edinburgh and the advanced mathematics support programme—that is, teaching in areas without enough qualified maths teachers. There are a lot of different angles to come from in this debate.

Very good. Was that a maths joke?

Angles—acute, obtuse.

I am sorry, I didn’t even notice it. I didn’t expect the third degree! I could go on all day. That teaching aspect is particularly important. Only 63% of the target number of maths teacher trainees were recruited last year. That is a concern, and there is a concern in the higher education space about maths departments closing. With the Government’s mission to kick-start growth, I think that maths is a key part of that from the skills perspective. With National Numeracy Day next week, on 21 May, a debate either side of that would be most welcome.

Because it is a Tuesday, I am assuming that the Department for Education would be the answering Department. Is that right?

Yes.

Thank you. Given that we have already pre-allocated the time before the Whitsun recess, is it an issue if it takes place after the Whitsun recess?

I think it would still be valuable. We can refer back to it. It was the spark in my mind that motivated me to do this. I realise I left it to the last minute to do it.

Very late, yes.

I appreciate this as it is my area of expertise. I have just noticed that you have not got enough people on the Government side. I can solve that problem for you because you can put my name on the list, as you can probably imagine. As a former maths teacher—I have a genuine love of maths, as you know—I wonder whether this is also an opportunity to talk about how brilliant maths is. I think that there is often—I am sure you would agree—a stigma about maths, and people say, “It’s okay not to be good at maths.” If we talked about not being able to read or write, that would be considered somewhat differently. I wonder whether there is an opportunity just to talk about maths and its brilliantness.

Yes, to celebrate maths. I hope that in a 90-minute debate, there would be lots of opportunity to do that.

I declare my interest, having a degree in physics and maths. Any other questions from colleagues? No? The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Thank you. Sarah Edwards and John Cooper made representations.

The next application is from Sarah Edwards, and it is on regulatory powers over the billing of energy supply to businesses. It is for a general debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday, I believe.

It is.

You are also accompanied by your colleague.

I am John Cooper. Sorry, I do not have a name tag.

You don’t get a name tag. Over to you, Sarah.

Thank you very much and thank you to the Committee for inviting me to present my application. Happy anniversary! What anniversary? It is the anniversary of me dealing with a terrible incident on my high street last year. A microbusiness owner came to me in tears. Her energy supplier, E.ON Next, was threatening to cut off her supply and was demanding £10,000 immediately. One year on, I am still dealing with this case. The Energy Ombudsman ruled in my constituent’s favour and confirmed that thousands of pounds were not credited to their account, there was incorrect billing, there was back billing and many other issues. But still, the debt collectors are being sent in. There are more details about just how terrible this experience is. If you do grant me the debate, I will fill you in on all those shenanigans. Needless to say, the bills sent to my constituent show that she still owed £4,000. If I had not got involved when I did, 11 jobs on my local high street would have gone and a family business that has been operating for 37 years would have disappeared overnight. So I started to wonder how many other businesses this had happened to around the country. It is not an isolated experience. I have heard from other businesses, who confirm that the types of things that energy companies are doing are threatening businesses, and are uncontrolled. The ombudsman has the power to levy a fine up to £10,000, but the average fine, and the fine in this instance, is just £200. It is not just the unscrupulous nature of this and the willing indifference to get issues like billing right. It is also about the inflated cost of energy, which we know challenges all businesses, large and small across all constituencies in the United Kingdom. That is why I am joined by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, my colleague on the Business and Trade Committee. Many colleagues are supportive of this debate and their names are down on the application. I will hand over to my colleague to talk more about why we think this is so important.

Very briefly, I think all of us have experienced issues like this. I had a small business that was faced with an £18,000 bill that was completely spurious. It was based on a meter that should have been disconnected and had not been. Energy bills—we all get them, whether we are in the private sector or the public sector, whether at home or in work. It should be one of the best regulated sectors, but it increasingly looks a bit like the wild west out there. The significance of this across the country means that it really is a debate for the main Chamber, rather than for Westminster Hall. No disrespect to Westminster Hall, but it does look like something where there would be quite a wide interest. I think the public would be very keen to hear what the Government intend to do about this. Energy is going through something of a revolution at the moment and I think that if we get this right at this stage, the benefits would be huge.

According to the application form, this is for a general debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning.

Yes.

From what John was saying, are you changing the application?

I have got that wrong.

No—that is what we are putting in for. I think what John is saying is that we have heard evidence that this is such a no. 1 issue that needs to be debated. We think it is big enough for it to be anywhere.

The answering Department would be?

Energy and Net Zero.

Thank you. Colleagues, questions?

Thank you for that lively presentation—it was great. I note that you are a bit short on Opposition MPs. Do you have any more to add to your application?

I can certainly add more. I have the support of the Business and Trade Committee, so that is Conservative and Liberal Democrats, and there are many more. I was asked to present eight, so I presented eight—should you wish to have more, I can provide you many more. Do I need two more?

We need two more. We need an even split.

Okay—my apologies. I can do that.

The clue is on the form, where we say eight speakers are required—four from the Opposition and four from the Government Benches. Any other questions, colleagues? No. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Thank you for your presentation. Adam Dance and Juliet Campbell made representations.

The next application is from Adam Dance and Juliet Campbell on support for dyslexic pupils at school. Once again, this is an application for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday.

Thank you to the Chair and the Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss our application. Following on from Adam’s points, I want to continue with our reasons for requesting the debate. Across the country, dyslexic pupils are regularly excluded from the best experience that education can provide. Dyslexia can lead to low attendance, and therefore low attainment and an erosion of self-esteem. Students with high attendance tend to achieve higher academic results. Dyslexia is not an issue of intelligence; it is the way people process information. It is important to have robust confidence and resilience, but low self-esteem creates high anxiety and can lead to depression. Recent studies have shown that there is an over-representation of dyslexic people in men’s prisons. A recent study shows that the prevalence of dyslexia in prison is as high as 50%. To address those disparities, I would like to see a reform of the teacher training curriculum so that teachers can implement inclusive teaching styles. Current teaching styles in classrooms are almost exclusively auditory and visual learning and teaching, but dyslexic people tend to learn best through kinaesthetic learning. Research shows that that type of multi-sensory learning benefits everybody in the classroom. This debate would also include the merits of a reform to the teacher training curriculum so that teachers are able to adopt the best possible practice in identifying and supporting dyslexic students.

Thank you for your application. I note that you have a very impressive number of people signed up to the debate—so impressive that, allowing for the three Front Benchers and a lead-off, colleagues in support would get one minute each in a 90-minute debate. If it is true that a huge number of people want to come and speak in the debate—I do not doubt that—I am concerned that there will be a great deal of frustration if we put this on a Tuesday morning, because obviously it will be heavily subscribed and very time-limited, and a lot of people will be frustrated at not being able to speak. It is your application, but you might want to make it an application for a Thursday too, because then we could allocate, if we choose to, a full three hours. I am not saying we are going to do that, but it is your application.

However, we were thinking about how we mitigate the potential problem you raise. We have thought about when we would like the debate. It is Dyslexia Awareness Week on 6 to 12 October, when we are in recess. If we could have it the week after, that gives people enough time to put it in their diaries, to slot out that three hours, so it is not something that is done really quickly and therefore we do not get the uptake.

It is your application, so it is up to you—I am just giving you advice as to how this might work. It might be very frustrating for colleagues, particularly on a Tuesday morning. The debates are quite well attended on a Tuesday morning anyway. It is up to you, but obviously we will consider it. You must make your decision when you speak to the Clerks. Given you are talking about October, we have time to make these arrangements.

I should declare that I have supported this application.

You might have to give us tips on how you got so many names.

We have done a lot. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dyslexia. There are a lot of Members who are very keen for this to be taken forward.

We are not decrying the importance of the debate. It is just how we can facilitate an opportunity for colleagues to participate. Thank you. If you can go away, cogitate and decide what you want to do and then communicate that to the Clerks, we will then be in touch with when we can allocate you a time. At this point I am going to vacate the Chair, as the next application is in the joint name of me and Paula Barker, who does not appear to be here. [Martin Vickers took the Chair] Bob Blackman made representations.

The final application today is in the joint names of Bob Blackman and Paula Barker, although somewhat surprisingly Mr Blackman is here on his own. The subject of the request is progress on getting Britain back on track to ending homelessness.

I should declare that I am the joint chairman of the all-party group for ending homelessness, which is why this application has been put in. As colleagues may be aware, the challenge of homelessness is continuing. There is a nearly 14% increase in homelessness reported over the last 18 months. While the wishes of the Department are of course to end homelessness, colleagues will know that I have written, developed and passed two private Member’s Bills already on this subject—a third one, the Homelessness Prevention Bill, was unopposed on Second Reading—to try to reduce homelessness. The challenge is that it is still going up and the reality is that action needs to be taken. The all-party group has held a range of evidence sessions prior to releasing a report on what action is required from the Department. This application is for a Tuesday morning. It would be MHCLG which would be answering. Our concern is that, despite the best efforts of the last Government and this Government, homelessness is rapidly on the increase. I should also declare that we have put in to Mr Speaker for an Adjournment debate. We are waiting to hear the outcome of that application. In the event that debate is granted, this application would not necessarily need to go forward. Clearly we do not have enough Opposition speakers on here yet. We will certainly go away and get the extra speakers that are required to bring the application into proper order.

You have pre-empted what I am sure Committee members were going to raise with you. Do Members have any further queries? You have confirmed that it is MHCLG, so the Clerks will be in touch about the arrangements. That concludes the public session.