Welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We will be considering applications from colleagues for debates in the main Chamber, and also in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or Thursday. First up is a request from Andrew Ranger for a debate on the findings of the Milburn review of young people and work. This is an application for a Chamber or Westminster Hall debate of either 3 hours or 90 minutes. Andrew, please present your case.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to members of the Committee. As many of us will have heard, the findings of the interim Milburn report into young people and work shed light on what I believe is a national scandal, showing the long-term neglect of over a million young people classed as NEET. The review showcased structural failures that span a huge portion of Government Departments and institutions. Over many years, we have seen: the erosion of institutions such as youth clubs and social programmes that provide crucial interaction and social skills; a labour market that is becoming increasingly automated and psychologically challenging; an education system that prioritises exams over employability; and a welfare system that fails to provide the necessary route into work. Although we have had an urgent question on the report in the Chamber, that obviously had quite a short period of time, and I believe that this is such a crucial issue that we really need more in-depth parliamentary time to discuss and debate these initial findings. As I said, what we have is a systemic failure, and the consequences are clear. Only one in five NEET young people gets meaningful employment support, and 67% believe the curriculum has failed to prepare them for work. We also think there is a hidden cohort of around 300,000 NEET young people who are not claiming benefits and are not in the system anywhere, and who are effectively invisible. Actually, the problem could be bigger than we think. Despite any measures that may come forward in the full report that Alan Milburn will present in the autumn, the figures are still projected to increase. This really is a crucial national issue, and I therefore strongly believe that we need a cross-party debate because the solutions and best practice needed to tackle this really need to be explored on a cross-party basis. We need to hear from everyone, which is why the debate is needed so that we can solve this for the long term. I have had good cross-party support for this debate, and the sooner, the better—that would be helpful. Ideally, it would be great to get a three-hour debate in the Chamber, but I am open to other options. Thank you very much for hearing me.

Thank you very much for the application. You have indicated that you would like either a Chamber debate, which is likely to be a Thursday, or a Tuesday debate in Westminster Hall. Would you consider a Thursday in Westminster Hall for the debate to happen sooner?

I would definitely consider it. As you know, attendance is always a challenge on a Thursday, which is the downside, but you raise a good point. I think we need to have this debate relatively soon. We have the full report coming out in the autumn—October, I believe—and I assume that the Government will issue some kind of response. There will be talk about that then, so I would definitely consider it.

I think this is your first appearance in front of our Committee.

It is my second.

When people sign up for a debate, particularly a Chamber debate, we expect them to take part. Recently, there has been a spate of people signing up to an application but not actually turning up for the debate. Just to be clear, if you are given a debate, it is your responsibility to make sure that those people who have signed the application actually turn up and participate. We bid for parliamentary time from the Leader of the House, and obviously we want to make maximum use of it. I just want to make that clear because it has happened in the last couple of weeks where, shall we say, people who said they would take part in a debate have not turned up.

I fully appreciate that. Last time, you were kind enough to grant me a debate in Westminster Hall on careers advice for young people. It was very well supported, and the people who signed the application did turn up. I hope to emulate that.

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

Thank you very much. Josh Newbury made representations.

Next up is Josh Newbury. This is for a debate in the Chamber on independent press regulation. Josh, please present your case.

Thank you for your time and the time of your Committee members. My application is in relation to independent press regulation and the second phase of the Leveson inquiry. I should say that, since submitting the application last Friday, we have had an additional three signatures, taking it up to 24.

Would you make sure that you pass those names to the Clerks at the end?

Of course. We started outreach to gather the signatures only last Wednesday, so it took us around 48 hours to get the signatures together. I think that shows quite strong interest. We wanted to get this into the system before recess. If we had more time, perhaps we would have got more signatures, but there is a strong interest among colleagues from across the House. Why does this debate matter? Well, we are now more than a decade on from the Leveson inquiry, which, as you know, exposed widespread bad practice in parts of the British press, most prominently phone hacking. One of the inquiry’s main findings was that we need a truly independent system of press regulation. Do we have that? Well, my constituent, Paul Dadge, would say no, and so would many other victims. Paul helped an injured survivor to safety during the 7/7 terrorist attacks in a really selfless act, but that resulted in him having his phone hacked by journalists who were looking for a story. I was recently contacted by Tulisa Contostavlos, who is famous for having been in N-Dubz, if you are of the millennial generation like me, and as a judge on “The X Factor”. You may remember that she was lied to as part of a sting operation, was entrapped and faced a criminal trial because of it. It cost her her livelihood and nearly her life. She and her mother’s medical records were also accessed, along with her childhood social services records. Her story and the story of Paul are not rare. Most of our press sits under a regulatory model that has failed to command public confidence and, I believe, lacks the independence and enforcement powers necessary to provide effective accountability. The Independent Press Standards Organisation was set up in the aftermath of the phone hacking scandal. I met it last year because it had heard me speak about this, and I got the chance to ask some questions about how it operates. I do not question the commitment or professionalism of the individuals involved, but those discussions reinforced my view that the shortcomings are systemic. In the five years from 2018 to 2022, for example, IPSO investigated less than 4% and upheld just 0.5% of the complaints it received. It has also repeatedly refused to submit itself for approval by the Press Recognition Panel, which was set up by royal charter following Leveson to recognise press regulators that are independent, properly funded and able to protect the public. We have also seen in other sectors that when regulation lacks independence—whether it is water, banking or any other industry—public trust evaporates and politicians have to step in. A free press is clearly one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Good journalism exposes corruption, challenges power and informs the public, which is absolutely as it should be. But that is why it deserves a regulator that commands confidence. Freedom of the press and accountability are not opposing principles. I believe they stand firmly together, and so do the signatories to this application. Every profession carries responsibilities. Every profession is accountable when standards are breached. Members of this House are rightly scrutinised by journalists, of course. Doctors, lawyers, police officers and countless others are expected to answer for serious failings. It is difficult to think of another profession where conduct capable of destroying reputations, invading privacy and changing lives can so often pass without meaningful consequence. The Leveson inquiry drew a blueprint. More than a decade later, many victims believe that it was never followed through. That is why this debate is overdue; indeed, I believe the last time the House debated press regulation specifically was in 2012. There is a clear and growing cross-party interest, strong public concern and a compelling case for Parliament to examine whether the system we were promised is the system we now have. I hope the Committee will agree that this issue deserves some time on the Floor of the House.

We usually ask for a minimum of seven Opposition signatures on a Chamber application. At the moment, you have only three. Will you be able to come up with another four?

I am sure we can, yes, and we would also be open to considering Westminster Hall as a potential alternative. I realise that you have a lot of demands on time in the Chamber, so that could be an alternative for a 90-minute debate, if that was more agreeable to the Committee.

Again, if it is in the Chamber, we would want a substantive motion rather than just, “This House has considered”. If you could liaise with the Clerks on rewording it slightly, I am sure it can be arranged.

Okay, thank you.

The additional names you have already acquired—are they Opposition Members or Government Members?

I believe at least one of them is, yes. We recognise that we need to do a bit more work to get Opposition Members on board. As I said, we got these signatures together in quite a short period of time. We reached out to Opposition Members, and we hope that we will be able to get plenty more signed up.

Thank you very much. If you could kindly supply the extra names, the Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.

Okay, thank you.

And if you have a substantive motion, you need to supply that to the Clerks as well, because we need to agree it.

Okay, thank you. Mike Wood made representations.

Next up is Mike Wood, who has an application for a Chamber debate on Sepsis Awareness Month.

As I said on the application, sepsis claims the lives of more than 48,000 people in the UK each year. I know that you are a Tottenham Hotspur fan, Chair, so if 48,000 is difficult to conceptualise, the number who will die in a typical year in the UK is roughly the combined capacities of the south stand, the north stand and the east stand filled with fans in every seat. That is more than are killed by breast cancer, bowel cancer and prostate cancer combined in Britain. On top of those 48,000 deaths, at least a third of which are thought to be preventable, about 80,000 more suffer life-changing injuries. In all, around a quarter of a million people are affected by sepsis in Britain each year. Globally, it is thought that about 11 million deaths are attributable to sepsis, yet it is a condition that a lot of people will not be familiar with. Most people probably would not recognise the early signs. Among that quarter of a million affected each year by sepsis, I was seriously ill at the start of 2017, and we have numerous other colleagues who have been ill with sepsis, as well as Members of the House of Lords. There was a Westminster Hall debate, I think led by Lee Anderson, two years ago, in autumn 2024, which was well subscribed—it certainly filled up the time available—but as far as I know, there has never been a dedicated debate in the Chamber on this major killer. Ideally, we would like a debate in the Chamber in September. I know that very much depends on time being made available by the Leader of the House, but September is Sepsis Awareness Month, with a particular focus on 13 September, which is World Sepsis Day every year. The debate would be part of a whole range of activities happening around the country to highlight the signs and impacts of sepsis, but there is also another reason within Parliament and Government for why September would be particularly appropriate. Just before Christmas last year, the Government announced that sepsis would be one of the three priority areas for a modern service framework. We very much hope that will be published before we return in September, in which case a Chamber debate in September would obviously be an opportune moment for Members in all parts of the House to consider what is in that modern service framework, what might be missing and how we could ensure that it has the desired effect. In the event that we have not yet seen a modern service framework by the time of the debate, we would obviously use the opportunity to press the Government further to bring it forward without any unnecessary delay. With that, I am very happy to answer questions.

I don’t think we are going to have a problem, in that, to be honest, this was very much a last-minute attempt to get an application in before the recess. We had the AGM of the all-party group, last Tuesday I think it was, and we floated vague ideas. I think it was last Wednesday or Thursday when I just happened to bump into the Chairman, so I asked what the process was for applying and he obviously explained. Those 14 names were from me calling round the first people I could think of who take an interest in this, to ask whether they would be interested in taking part in a Chamber debate if we secured the time. That was what I managed to get together in 24 hours, I think; we would certainly get many more than that, given a little more time.

If we had to. As I say, there was a Westminster Hall debate two years ago, so I think there would be less value in having another one, whereas having the first Chamber debate on this issue would obviously be rather more valuable in terms of actually getting something done.

If you could supply the extra name to the Clerks ASAP, we will see what we can do about September.

Of course. Mr Toby Perkins made representations.

The next application is from Toby Perkins for a Westminster Hall debate, on either a Tuesday morning or a Thursday afternoon, on NHS support for patients with learning disabilities.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks to the Committee. I was approached by constituents who are parents of an adult with learning disabilities. They are very concerned about his case and more generally about how our health services are not equipped and are not understanding of the needs of patients with learning disabilities, which has negative impacts on those patients’ health. I wrote about this meeting on social media, and I was contacted by a number of constituents who had exactly the same concern. I then held a meeting with a wider group of parents. What I heard was shocking and showed the extent to which people with learning disabilities are being failed by our health system. I heard of “Do not resuscitate” orders being put on healthy learning disability patients’ records. When a parent asked why, he was told, “Well, we thought it would be for the best.” I heard that, as learning disability patients are sometimes less receptive to pain, their concerns are often overlooked, sometimes to a catastrophic degree. Patients have ended up with terminal conditions that have not been investigated. I heard that, because they do not communicate as easily, they are often ignored, their health conditions are less thoroughly investigated, and they often get distressed and leave hospital when there is a medical imperative for them to be there. The “Learning from Lives and Deaths” report found that 39% of deaths of people with a learning disability were avoidable, and since 2009, the number of learning disability specialist nurses employed by the national health service has fallen by a third. I believe that a debate will allow Members to collectively reflect the experiences of learning disability patients in their communities, to ask Government Ministers what they will do to ensure better standards of care for all learning disability patients and bring parliamentary attention to this important matter.

Thank you very much, Toby. I declare an interest, as my late sister had learning disabilities. I can recount that everything you have said about hospitals was true for my late sister.

This is a very important debate, which is why I signed this application. I think we need to be particularly mindful of the DNACPR issue, especially in respect of legislation that we may be considering in September. Toby, do you have a particular timeframe for when you would like this debate to take place, or are you content for it to happen in the next available slot?

The next available slot will be fine. There isn’t a particular date that we want to attach it to. We simply sent an email around to Members and we had 16 responses, so I know there is a great deal of interest in this matter. In support of the debate, I intend to reach out to the learning disability community to encourage people to contact their Members of Parliament. It would be helpful if we had a bit of notice. I know you get many emergency applications, but a little bit of notice will be fine. As with others, my preference would be for a Tuesday, if possible, but we would work with a Thursday if that is what is available.

Tuesday mornings in Westminster Hall are obviously very popular among colleagues, but we will see what we can do. The Clerks will be in touch in due course.

I am very grateful. Thank you. Alison Hume made representations.

The final application is from our Committee member, Alison Hume, for a debate on access to stroke services in remote areas. Once again, this is a request for a Westminster Hall debate on either a Tuesday morning or a Thursday afternoon. I make it clear that, after presenting, Alison will take no part in the decision making on the application. Alison, please present your case.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for hearing my application. Stroke is a medical emergency, and prompt treatment can prevent brain injury and aid recovery. Stroke-related disabilities are unfortunately rising in this country and are predicted to rise much faster. That is because stroke strikes every five minutes in the UK. We are a nation with 1.4 million stroke survivors, and I think many of us know a family member, a friend or a member of our community whose life has been impacted by stroke. I am making this application due to work I have done in my Scarborough and Whitby constituency, where, since the closure of the stroke service at Scarborough hospital a few years ago and the transport of people suspected to have had a stroke to York, it has become clear to me that many of my constituents have unfortunately been damaged and their life chances have been impacted. The difficulty of access to stroke services in remote areas is not confined to the UK; it is an international issue. We have a stroke policy in the UK, but, as I have researched it, it is predicated on research done in large metropolitan areas such as London and Manchester. While I am not calling for a change to Government policy, I believe that a cross-party debate—and this has been well supported across the board—would prompt the Government, perhaps, to look at our policy. The problem is that when you call 999 and you are an hour away from the nearest hospital, your chances of surviving or of having the clot-busting thrombectomy, which is such a wonderful treatment, are really diminished by the sheer problem of getting from A to B. Scarborough is an hour away from York. Even though Scarborough hospital has modern A&E facilities and could provide scans and treatment, patients have to be shuttled to York and then often sent up to Hull or Leeds. Talking to colleagues, this is replicated across the country. I am calling for this debate because I think it would give Members a chance to speak on behalf of their constituents and get the Government to look at the disparity between rural and remote areas, coastal areas, and metropolitan areas. In the past, debates on stroke and stroke services have been well attended. If granted, this debate would come around five years after the chief medical officer’s report revealed that coastal communities, which are often among the most remote areas of our country, have some of the worst health outcomes, and surviving stroke is included in that. As I say, a debate would give the House the opportunity to examine whether the national stroke policy and guidance adequately reflect the realities of remote communities and what should happen if local ICBs fail to deliver. We have a target for 24/7 access to thrombectomy, which has been missed by many areas. It was set for April, and they have not met it—my area is one of them. We have good support from across the parties, and I would very much welcome the opportunity to lead this debate. I finish by saying to everybody that, as I am sure you are aware, the thing is FAST: face, arms, speech, time—call 999. But if you are an hour away from the hospital, tough.

You state in your application that NHS England committed to providing 24/7 access to thrombectomy by April 2026. Obviously, we have now passed that date. Is there a particular timeframe that you are working to?

No. We have missed the target, so I would be grateful for the debate as and when the Committee feels it could slot it in.

Thank you very much, Alison. As for everyone else, the Clerks will be in touch in due course.

Thank you.

That concludes the public business of the Committee. We will now go into private session to determine the applications and allocate time.