Backbench Business Committee — Oral Evidence (2025-01-28)
1/5Welcome to the meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will be considering applications for debates on a wide range of subjects. We have six applications to consider this afternoon. The first is from Bayo Alaba, for a Westminster Hall debate on the cultural heritage of market towns. Over to you, Bayo, to present your application.
It is clear that the Government are committed to revitalising market towns, which are vital not only to the fabric of our history and cultural heritage but to how we plan for the future of our rural communities and market towns. Often, a lot of industry has left these areas, and in some cases, that has not been replaced, but the Government are committed to getting 50 million inward or international visitors to the country and I think that market towns are going to be key to delivering that. Their cultural and historical offer is something that we need, in conjunction with the offer of our large metropolitan communities and cities. For me, it is about finding strategies to promote and elevate the cultural significance of market towns to the UK.
Can I confirm that you think the answering Department would be the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?
Yes, that is correct.
Your application is for a Tuesday slot. The first available slot we have is on Tuesday 4 March. Would you be able to take that, if it was offered?
Yes.
How would you define a market town—those that have a market currently or those that had one in the past?
That is an interesting question. Obviously, the historical definition would be that it had a market there or there is a historic marketplace or market square. There are also some communities that have historic street markets, for example. Some historic street markets in this country date back 600 or 700 years. It is about how that community defines itself—if people feel that it is a cultural asset of significance to the community—and also whether historical planning protocols state that it is a market town.
Thank you for bringing forward this debate on market towns. I have a keen interest in the subject, as before I came to this place, I was trying desperately to keep a market alive in my own market town. What inspired you to bring forward this debate, and what is happening in your constituency that made you want to talk about this issue?
Good question. There are two parts to that. Prior to coming to the House, I spent 25 years in hospitality and regeneration. That was my profession—helping communities. I have worked on historic markets in conjunction with local authorities. In my constituency of Southend East and Rochford, we have a historic market town, Rochford, which, as I said earlier, has effectively been hollowed out. There is no industry that has been replaced over the last couple of generations, but it has a lot of history and it has a cultural and tourist offer like many market towns in the country. For me, this debate is a way to help communities understand what they should do with this cultural natural asset and also to put some focus on the Government to see what can be done, because this is a national issue, not just a local issue for me in Southend. It is a national issue and I think many communities would like a joined-up approach in addressing it.
Any other questions? No. Thank you very much for your presentation. The Clerks will be in touch shortly, when we have decided on your allocation. Chris Bloore made representations.
Your application is for a Chamber debate on mental health support in educational settings.
That is correct, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Please accept my slightly subdued nature, which is down to not the topic but the fact that I am coming off a bad chest infection. I apologise for that, but thank you for seeing me. What happens to us as children profoundly affects our lifetime mental health and other outcomes. If left unaddressed, it often persists into adulthood, and therefore, educational settings take on a particular importance. They are in the unique position of being able to reach children and young people regardless of their background or circumstances. There is also evidence that school-based interventions improve not only pupils’ wellbeing but their mental health and behaviour. There has been a lot of discussion about the wellbeing of children given the recent Bill, but I think there are still new areas to investigate. I think the cross-party support for this debate application shows that many of my colleagues agree. Thirty-eight Members from across seven parties have added their name, an increase from the original application, which I have shared with the Clerk. The children’s charities coalition welcomed the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill but stated that there is a need for “sustained investment in early help services, mental health support and children’s social care. This needs to be underpinned by an ambitious strategy to tackle child poverty.” Given that and the fact that we are expecting to hear from the child poverty taskforce very soon, this debate is timely. We know that 75% of lifetime mental health difficulties first occur before the age of 24, and 50% before the age of 14. This debate would provide an opportunity to reflect on what that means in reality, to share the current state of mental health support in education settings, and to raise examples of effective interventions, such as anti-bullying programmes and public mental health support, as well as opening the discussion on whole-school approaches. Thank you.
Thank you very much for that, Chris. The application is for a Chamber debate, and you have a lot of names on the application, but Chamber time is very difficult for us to allocate. Indeed, we do not have any left to allocate between now and the February recess. If we offered you a Westminster Hall debate in the initial stage, would that be acceptable to you? You would then get an earlier debate instead of having to wait.
If we could secure a lengthy time—I think 90 minutes is your maximum—because of the number of people who have expressed an interest in taking part, I would certainly be willing to accept that.
That would not preclude you coming back at a future time for a Chamber debate if you do not get the answers that you want to get from the Minister.
I appreciate that, Chair.
Colleagues, any questions?
Just a statement: I think this is a really important issue, and I think it is timely. I would just emphasise that it links in well with the curriculum review as well. Clearly, as a former teacher, we know that students are happiest when they feel they can achieve in school, so I think it is very important.
Just one thing: it will not affect your application, but I know that Scotland ran a scheme in schools, which was called something like “Happy Healthy Minds”, so it would be great if the SNP were also represented in that debate. Perhaps you could reach out and encourage them to make sure that their voices are represented, because they have run some schemes that have worked really well in schools in Scotland.
I will do that. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your presentation. The Clerks will be in touch with you shortly to confirm the offer that we will make.
Thank you ever so much for your time. Jim Shannon made representations.
Now, of course, no Backbench Business Committee meeting would be complete without a visit from our season ticket holder, Jim Shannon—and he has not just one but two applications. We will take the one on transforming CVD prevention across the UK first.
First of all, Chair, it is a real pleasure to be here and thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to request another debate. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease, so CVD prevention across the United Kingdom is an issue that I am very keen on. It is a good opportunity to look at this because, in recent years, there has been a development around lipoproteins. That coming through provides a unique opportunity to address the clear trends in the United Kingdom. Although health is obviously a devolved matter for Northern Ireland, what happens here in Westminster sets the trend for what happens in Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK, so what we do here will be reflected back home as well. There are a number of system barriers that need to be addressed if we are to successfully realise the potential of this development across the NHS. In this debate, we would like to secure a formal commitment from the Minister to work with key system partners, such as NICE, NHS England and the devolved Administrations, to address these barriers and, more broadly, to seek to include Lp(a) testing and management into the national CVD policy at the earliest possible opportunity. That is what we are aiming for quite clearly. It is not often that you bring forward a debate that actually has something in the sidelines that you can hope the Minister will grasp. Obviously, Chair, you know my form: whenever I say something to the Minister, it is in a very respectful manner, and I would like him or her—whoever comes forward—to be able to respond in a positive fashion. I believe this is something that could make lives better. If we can make lives better, let’s do it.
In terms of this application, you have applied for Westminster Hall on either Tuesday or Thursday. To confirm, what Department do you expect to answer the debate?
I think it is Andrew Gwynne.
So the Department of Health and Social Care. Obviously we will contact you about that application shortly. The second application is on reducing drug deaths in the UK. Once again, you are looking for a Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday or a Thursday.
Chair, I am very much anti-drugs, but I understand the issues. There is a prevalence of drug consumption across the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is prevalent in my constituency of Strangford as well, even if it is the underbelly of what is perhaps happening. The reason why I hope to have the debate is that we want to talk about reducing drugs deaths in the UK. That is the title of the debate. It has cross-party support as well—I think we have nearly all the parties that we have asked. I am quite happy to leave some background information if it is helpful, Chair. The number of drugs deaths in the United Kingdom has risen in the last year. Those who die of overdoses are mostly young people, unfortunately, which disturbs me greatly. In England and Wales, there are 5,500 deaths—[Interruption.] I will summarise this information quickly. This debate could not come more quickly. It does not matter whether you are in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England: this is an issue that we need to address.
Which would be the answering Department if we allocated this debate to a Tuesday?
I think it has to be Health and Social Care again. That is my understanding, because it is a NICE recommendation that will drive the process.
Finally, because I do not want you to have to come back after the vote, we have your application for Government support for the vascular sector in the NHS. Would you be able to take a debate on Thursday 13 February in Westminster Hall?
Yes, I would be able to do that. May I ask a quick question? On the Blair Mayne debate that I asked for in the Chamber, there is an anniversary coming up on 8 April that is specific to him. Could we get that debate before the recess? I will leave that with the Committee; I understand that it was not on the agenda. I met the Blair Mayne guys yesterday—Damien Lewis and David McCallion—and they are keen to have a debate around 8 April. I understand that that is when we have recess, so it probably would not be possible to have it on that day. Is 7 April possible, or even the week before? I will leave that with you, if you do not mind.
Okay. We will add that to our list. There is a Division in the House, so we will temporarily cease the discussion and suspend the Committee so that colleagues can go and vote if they wish. We will reconvene straight after the Division or when colleagues have returned.
The WASPI women are watching, so all MPs would be wise to vote.
We are suspending anyway. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. On resuming— Blake Stephenson made representations.
The Committee is recommencing following the Division in the Commons, and the application before us now is from Blake Stephenson for a debate on growing the UK tourism industry. The request is for a Westminster Hall debate on a Thursday afternoon. Over to you, Blake, to present your application.
Thank you, Chair. I will try to keep it fairly short; I do not know how this normally goes, but perhaps you will be asking me questions. Tourism is worth £74 billion in the UK economy, so it is a pretty large industry. The Government set an ambitious target for 50 million visitors per year by 2030, which I think is extremely ambitious. That is up from 38 million in the most recent year available and 41 million pre-covid, so it is an ambitious target. Tourism, leisure and hospitality play a role in virtually every UK constituency—probably every UK constituency. The debate is titled “Growing the UK Tourism Industry”, and it would allow MPs to consider how we can work across the House and across our constituencies to deliver the growth in the industry required to hit 50 million visitors per year. Taking place on Thursday 20 March, it would allow the debate to take place in English Tourism Week. We have support from 12 MPs at the moment; in addition to me, that includes five Labour MPs, three Liberal Democrats and four Conservatives, so there is cross-party interest in such a debate, which I think would be extremely constructive in the context of that particular week. The debate is particularly relevant given the challenges and opportunities for tourism over the next few months and years, including an increase in the cost of electronic travel authorisations to £16, visitor levies being introduced in places like Wales and Edinburgh, and—if I can do a shameless plug for my own constituency—potential investment from Universal Studios in Bedfordshire, which would be absolutely huge for my community, but also for the UK tourism industry as a whole. There are also other projects around the country that I am sure Members would want to champion, and I think this would be a perfect opportunity to do so.
Just to be clear, you would like Thursday 20 March, if possible.
If possible, but I suppose there is total flexibility within the week. The important thing is that it is within English Tourism Week.
Obviously, that is clear at the moment, and we allocate on Thursdays for Westminster Hall, so we will be able to offer that. Any questions from colleagues? No. Okay, thank you for coming, Blake. I know you were in a Bill Committee earlier, so thanks for making it to the Committee.
Not at all.
The Clerks will be in touch to make a formal offer shortly. Jess Brown-Fuller made representations.
The final application is from one of our Committee members, Jess Brown-Fuller. Her application is for a debate, again in the Chamber, on maternity services across England. Jess, over to you.
Apologies, Chair. I stated on the application that I would like it to be in the Chamber, but I would be very happy to accept a Westminster Hall debate if it is possible to bring it forward sooner, because I believe that this is an important topic that needs to be raised. It has cross-party support. As you can see from my application, I have had 12 Members sign up. I actually wanted to stop at eight, but others indicated that they were really keen to be on the form, so there is cross-party support for this. The Ockenden report highlighted failures across the country in our maternity services, and put forward its IEAs. It did not want to submit recommendations, so it had implementable actions instead of recommendations. The Health Secretary is very aware of that, and Health Secretaries who came before him were also very aware of the Ockenden report. We need a robust conversation about what can be done right now, and what implementable actions can make a difference to maternity services. In 2023-24, the amount that the NHS paid out in claims was £2.8 billion, and 41% of that was maternity related, yet maternity services say that if they had investment of £1 billion, they could turn around the sector in its entirety. They need £1 billion in investment, yet we are paying out £1.1 billion in claims when things have gone wrong. We want to work with the Health Secretary’s aim for prevention, rather than cure. We have a real opportunity to improve the lives of all those going through maternity services, be it the parents or the children.
Thank you. Obviously, this would be answered by the Department of Health and Social Care.
Yes, please.
As you have amended your application, the first available slot that we have is Tuesday 25 February at 9.30 am. If that is offered to you, would you be able to accept it?
I would accept it, Chair.
Just to make it clear, because Jess is a member of the Committee, she will not take any part in the deliberations about approval or the allocation of dates when we go into private session. Thank you. That concludes the applications. We will now go into private session to determine which debates are put forward, and on which dates.