Welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We will be considering applications from colleagues for debates in the main Chamber on Thursdays and in Westminster Hall on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The first application is from Martin Wrigley on parking regulations. The request is for a general debate on a Tuesday morning.

Specifically, this is about the operations of private parking operators. I think we have all heard from people in our constituencies who have received outrageous fines. Recently, there was a lot of fuss in the news about someone who received a fine of, I think, £100 for being five minutes late and getting a ticket. The private companies operating private parking areas are not independently regulated. There are two separate organisations that they can belong to, so people have two separate means of complaining when they have been treated unfairly in such a car park. It turns out that at least one of those organisations is owned and run by people who own and run car parks. That is very much marking their own homework without an independent regulator. Even more confusing, in 2019 Parliament passed an Act to set up an independent regulator for private parking organisations, but the process failed to complete due to difficulties in the public consultation, despite a code of conduct having been written that would have established a single independent parking regulator. We would like the opportunity for MPs to air the problems with private parking companies. We know that this is not a one-off: some 50-plus MPs have expressed their desire to speak, have private parking companies to complain about, or have signed early-day motions. The issue is not unique to a single constituency; I suspect that it is widespread, and we would like to establish that it is widespread. We also want to establish the state of the private parking industry at the moment as far as MPs are concerned, and send a message to the Government urging them to complete the process for the 2019 Bill to establish the regulator, so that people are not unfairly treated. We have the support of the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club. Both are quite vociferous on this issue. And we have many, many cases in our inboxes.

Thank you for the presentation. Because this is an application for a Tuesday debate in Westminster Hall, we have to be clear, when we allocate it, that the answering Department has to answer that week. Which answering Department are you considering? I assume that it is the Department for Transport. Or is it another Department?

Right. Fine. So, if we were minded to offer you Tuesday 22 April, would you accept that? That is the first day back after the Easter recess.

Yes.

Okay. Fine. Thank you very much. Questions, colleagues?

I am fully supportive, because I am dealing with two such cases at the moment. [Laughter.] And you are absolutely right—they are impossible people to deal with. The continuing interest charges, late payment charges and so on mount up. I am very supportive, Chair

Anyone else have any questions?

I agree that these cowboys need to be dealt with. I just wondered if you had any thoughts about whether the cost of that regulation and the subsequent reduction in revenue for these companies, which I do not bemoan, might be passed on to consumers.

Are there any other questions? No. Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch with you shortly. John Glen made representations.

The next application is from John Glen and Marsha de Cordova, but she is not able to be here. The title is “The value of churches and religious buildings to their communities”, which we suggest you might wish to reword slightly.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this application. I represent the constituency of Salisbury, which has a large number of churches and a cathedral. I have taken an interest in various matters in this space since my return to the Back Benches, and it has occurred to me in conversations with colleagues across the House that many of them have churches and faith buildings—not just Christian churches—in their constituencies that provide a useful venue for community activities for old people and young people, as well as music and cultural events and so on. I have been in conversation with the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Marsha de Cordova, about various matters connected with the listed places of worship scheme. I thought it would be helpful for us to have a debate, because places of worship and churches exist in virtually every Member’s constituency. A debate would be a great opportunity to celebrate that but also to focus on the change of use in some cases and the fact that churches are integral to the delivery of so many services. I wrote to colleagues, and we have quite a considerable list of 10 Government Back-Bench MPs, four Conservative MPs, one Lib Dem MP, one Ulster Unionist party MP and one Democratic Unionist party MP. With more names coming in, that suggests there would be a heavy demand for this debate. It might seem an inconsequential subject with no real purpose to the debate, but there is a real challenge with the viability of these churches and places of worship and how they can establish themselves as a place where parts of local government—parish councils and so on—can come together and, in some rural constituencies, provide security of tenure. It would be a really worthwhile debate. We would definitely fill 90 minutes, and I think colleagues would value it as a way of talking about places of worship and church buildings. It will be a productive conversation that might lead to specific actions and would assist Marsha de Cordova in her work as she tries to champion, in her case, the churches of the Church of England.

Is there any time sensitivity in relation to the debate? You mentioned the listed places of worship scheme.

The Government have made their decision on that. There is an ongoing issue. I know of some places that have works under way and were planning to retrieve some VAT but might not be able to now, and there has been publicity about that. That might come up in the debate, but my purpose is not to focus on that but to focus more broadly on the role of churches and religious buildings in their communities.

Are there any other questions?

I declare an interest in this application, which I fully support: I have a constituency full of churches.

Excellent—thank you.

We can all declare the churches in our constituencies. Are there any other questions or comments? No. Thank you very much, John. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Graeme Downie made representations.

The next application is from Graeme Downie for a general debate in the Chamber on Parkinson’s Awareness month.

Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to present this application. April is Parkinson’s Awareness month. Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition worldwide, one for which there is no cure or treatment to slow or stop progress of the disease. All that can be done is management of the symptoms. Part of the reason it is so fast growing is that people are living longer, and people are being diagnosed with Parkinson’s after retirement in the 70 to 79 age bracket. However, there is a significant proportion of people in the UK living with young-onset Parkinson’s disease, which is being diagnosed below the age of 50. It is good to know that on one measurement, I can still consider myself young. Those people are still of working age but need tailored support to live a full and substantive life. There has been only one substantive debate on Parkinson’s, which focused on young-onset Parkinson’s disease, and that was as far back as 2017. This is a condition we have known about for more than 200 years. There are more than 153,000 people with Parkinson’s in the UK right now. Every hour, two more people are diagnosed; that is a total of 18,000 every year. In my constituency, more than 200 people have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s. This subject occurs in mailboxes and other requests for health support across the country in all parts of the UK. Skills and workforces are two critical areas that need to be bolstered, in order effectively to support people with Parkinson’s. It would be good to shine a light on that aspect of the debate, on how to ensure we are supporting people. Equally, it would be good to challenge some of the misconceptions about what Parkinson’s is and what it is not. I have been working with the presenters of the “Movers & Shakers” podcast, Rory Cellan-Jones and Jeremy Paxman, as well as with Parkinson’s UK, who fully support this application. That podcast has brought these issues further into the mainstream. A debate in the Chamber would highlight some of the misconceptions around Parkinson’s and shine a light on what Parkinson’s means to the people who have it and those who love them. People do not die from Parkinson’s but life with it does need careful and sensitive management. This would be an opportunity to debate what a gold standard of care for Parkinson’s would look like, including access to neurologists, therapeutic input such as speech therapy and physiotherapy, and to discuss how the Government’s support for research can be targeted and directed. It would also be an opportunity for people from across the House to share personal stories and experiences for themselves, family members or constituents. We could discuss different models around the world to ensure that people with Parkinson’s are living full lives and getting the access to support that they need.

I note that you say April is the relevant month. That also coincides with a large section of the Easter recess. It is unlikely that we would be able to allocate this until the end of the month. Would that still be acceptable?

Yes. The last week in April would be very suitable.

Obviously, we are dependent on the Government to allocate the time for us.

I would like to declare that I am Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s. My name is not on the list for this debate.

But no doubt you will speak.

I will reserve my opinion.

Several MPs got in touch after the application had been submitted. Although we were willing to add their names, we were pushing at a deadline to make sure they were submitted, but we did get significant additional names in place.

Any other questions? No. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Adam Jogee and Callum Anderson made representations.

The final application for today is from Adam Jogee, Callum Anderson, Polly Billington and Andrew Rosindell for a debate on St George’s day. We have suggested retitling it to St George’s day and English affairs. Over to you, Adam.

Thank you for hearing our application. I bring apologies from Polly Billington and Andrew Rosindell, who did not want their absence to be misinterpreted as any weakening of their support for the application. If you will indulge me, I apologise for not being able to appear before the Committee last week, when Ms Costigan did so in my place. I was in Northern Ireland, hopefully demonstrating commitment to that debate. I am grateful for the Committee allocating us time. Today’s application is consistent with the other debates marking the national days in our United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland one for St Patrick’s Day is coming up soon, we had a debate on St David’s Day for Wales last month, so it only seemed fitting to apply for a debate to mark St George’s Day and all that makes England great. The hon. Member for Romford and I are sponsoring the St George’s Day reception in Speaker’s House on 23 April, so a debate around that time would provide a fitting opportunity for colleagues to feed into the discussion about our past, present and future. Obviously, a warm invitation will be extended to all members of the Committee to join us in Speaker’s House. I also note that Ms Fleet, Mr Babarinde and Dr Huq, a close colleague of Mr Anderson, have indicated that they would like to add their names to the application—more cross-party colleagues. I think the application speaks for itself. I will hand over to Mr Anderson.

I concur with what Mr Jogee has said. Given the success of the recent St David’s Day debate, I think this is a great opportunity for Members from across the House to reflect on England as a nation state—past, present and future. I am very aware that England as a nation means something a bit different to everyone, both from a national and a civic perspective. There are urban and rural parts of my constituency, and Members will be able to showcase their own little corner of England and tell the House what it contributes to the nation. It is a unique opportunity.

Obviously, 23 April is a Wednesday, so the nearest we could get to that is 24 April. If the time is allocated to the Committee, would that be acceptable?

That would be super if it worked. Having spoken to colleagues, I am going to be writing to the Leader of the House to suggest that she looks to allocate debates on these national days in Government time in years to come. I think there is clearly an appetite here. That would be helpful, because it would then free up more time for the Committee. Support for this application will add credibility to that.

That is obviously up to the Government. When this Committee was created there was a number of days that the House traditionally debated, and they were merged into time for the Backbench Business Committee. It will be interesting if the Leader of the House agrees to your request. As long as it does not reduce the number of debates that we are allowed to allocate, then it will be fine. There is a long list of speakers, and it is obviously a good initiative. The Clerks will be in touch when we know whether we have got the time available. That concludes the public business of the Committee.