Welcome to the meeting of the Backbench Business Committee. We are considering applications for debates for both the Estimates Day debates, which will take place on Tuesday 24 and Wednesday 25 June, and for normal applications for debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. For everyone’s benefit, we will take the seven applications for Estimates Day debates first, then the normal applications. Anyone here for a normal application will have about a half-hour wait before we reach your application. You are very welcome to stay, but if you would rather come back later than wait while we hear the Estimates Day applications, we completely understand. For the benefit of everyone presenting Estimates Day debates: we have seven applications, and the Committee has agreed there will be six speaking slots, or applications, to be heard over the two days. If all applicants could inform us during their contribution which day they would prefer for their debate, that will help the Committee make its decision. First, we have Linsey Farnsworth on behalf of the Justice Committee, for a debate on Ministry of Justice spending on criminal justice.

Given that the Justice Committee sits on Tuesday afternoons, we would request that consideration be given to Wednesday 25 June for the Estimates debate. There are serious challenges facing the criminal justice system. The backlog in the Crown Court is in excess of 70,000 cases, and the remand and prison populations are extremely high at over 17,000 and 87,000 people respectively; that figure had peaked but has slightly reduced in recent months. Nonetheless, it is still significantly higher than one would hope. There are 240,362 people under the supervision of the Probation Service. It is fair to say that all aspects of the criminal justice system are under considerable strain at present, and the interconnected and complex nature of the system makes that a real concern for the Justice Committee. In the 2025-26 main estimate, the Ministry of Justice received an additional £800 million in resource funding, an annual increase of 6.5%, and a further £350 million in capital funding, a rise of 20.8%. On the face of it, that appears generous, but it must be viewed against the context of decades of underinvestment. Recent funding increases follow years of severe budgetary cuts in the 2010s. Justice spending peaked in 2007–08, but by 2016–17 the day-to-day budget, which accounts for 85% of total spending, had fallen by a third in real terms. In 2025–26, the Ministry of Justice’s real-terms day-to-day spending will still be 14% lower than in 2007–08, and 24% lower on a per-person basis, adjusting for population growth in England and Wales. The MOJ’s real-terms day-to-day spending for 2025–26 will be no higher than it was 25 years ago, in 2002–03, and actually 16% lower per person. These are significant concerns for the Justice Committee, which we feel merit debate. Of course, that is a matter for you and the Committee, Chair, to decide. Phase 2 of the spending review includes further investment in prisons, probation and the courts, but it also sets out significant savings targets as well, including a 10% real-terms reduction in the administration budget by 2028-29 and 15% by the end of the decade, alongside £356 million efficiency saving requirement, equivalent to 3% of the resource budget. There are other concerns as well. The spending review does not include any update on the funding settlement for legal aid, which has been significantly reduced over the years. That has a real impact on access to justice. It is a key moment in time, I would submit to you, because the Government have announced reviews on both the criminal courts and sentencing. It is a real opportunity to debate the challenges that these sorts of savings present, against the context of real reform to the criminal justice system. That is our pitch, and I am grateful for the time and opportunity to speak to you today.

Thank you. As there are no questions from colleagues, the Clerks will be in touch with you as soon as possible to tell you whether you have been unsuccessful or successful. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown made representations.

The next application is from Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, in a joint bid with the Defence Committee. It is for a debate on the spending of the Ministry of Defence relating to the remit of the new armaments director.

Chair, thank you for allowing me, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, with the informal support of the Defence Committee, to make this application for a debate on the defence estimates, preferably on Wednesday 25 June. I say with the informal support of the Defence Committee because the Committee is away on a visit. It would have formally supported us, but not many of its members are about to actually speak in the debate. There is significant interest in defence spending in response to increased security threats to the United Kingdom. An estimates debate on the MOD’s spending plans could not be more topical. I am told that there has not been an Estimates Day debate covering defence for more than three years, in which time the importance and profile of defence spending has changed almost beyond recognition. While technically to do with the estimates, the 2024-25 supplementary estimates contain plans to increase its expenditure by 6.2%, or £3.7 billion, compared to 2024-25. The 2024-25 main estimates show a further increase in day-to-day spending of 2.1%, and investment spending of 1.6%, compared to the final 2024-25 budget. This is a total increase of around £1.35 billion. The MOD routinely receives material increases through the supplementary estimates, and therefore the 2025-26 allocation is likely to increase further. By the time of this debate, the PAC will have published a report on the future of parliamentary scrutiny of defence spending plans. The debate would be very topical. It would be an opportunity for Members to discuss significant public expenditure at a time when global events in the security sphere, and economic pressures such as inflation, make achieving value for money for major projects, procurement and recruitment extremely challenging. There is also the factor that the Government have committed £7 billion to go into defence housing in the last few months. The bid has the informal support of the Defence Committee, as well as the formal 15 signatures that I have applied to the Committee with. We also have—I accept, beyond your deadline—15 signatures collated by the Member for Huntingdon. I think we can take it that within the House this debate has significant demand. I hope that you will consider this application favourably.

Those names have been supplied to us. If there are no questions from colleagues, the Clerks will be in touch shortly. Helen Hayes made representations.

The next application is from Helen Hayes on behalf of the Education Committee. It is for a debate on the spending of the Department for Education.

I am grateful for the opportunity to present this application to the Committee. We have put together an application on behalf of the Education Committee for a debate on the spending of the Department for Education. Members of the Committee will know that there is a great deal of interest in all of the major responsibilities of the DFE at present, from the crisis in SEND, which is particularly acute all across the country, to funding on capital for schools, to what is happening in the skills sector, in children’s social care and in universities. The comprehensive spending review last week revealed new funding for skills, SEND and social care, but little in the way of additional funding for early years or universities, so I think that Members from across the House will be very interested and keen to speak on behalf of their constituents about those issues, both on the opportunities that are brought by the spending review for investment, but also some of the challenges where we are still waiting for the Government to set out in detail what their approach is going to be. I note that my application is supported by members of the Education Select Committee, from the three parties represented on the Committee. Also, not on the application form but provided subsequently, we have support from the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which is significant because it reflects the implications of DFE expenditure for children’s social care and for SEND in local authorities as well. We would be very grateful for the Committee’s kind consideration of this application.

Thank you. Do you have a preference for the day of the debate?

Remind me which days of the week.

Tuesday or Wednesday.

We would probably have a preference for the Wednesday. We sit on the Tuesday morning, so that would make it quite a congested day for Members. But we could manage with either, to be honest.

Thank you. Any questions from colleagues? No? Okay. The Clerks will be in touch shortly. Dame Emily Thornberry made representations.

Next up is Dame Emily Thornberry on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for a debate on the spending of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

Thank you very much for having us—it is great to appear in front of you. I will just address the first issue. I know that Departments that have not had a debate before are given preference over those that have had one, and we have had a debate—I accept that. However, the Foreign Office has got quite a lot on its plate. The last debate was one where we focused on the development aspect. I thought it was only right in the circumstances that we did not try and crowd that out, so there was an agreement that the International Development Committee would take a lead on it, and that is what happened. In the meantime, we have now had from the Government what it is that they are going to do in relation to the Foreign Office, and day-to-day spending is going to fall 4.3% with investment down by 4.2% in real terms, and the administrative budget is going down by 17%, which is the steepest of any Department. So it is quite a thing. Of all the Departments, the Foreign Office might be the one facing the biggest cuts. You will see from the people who have signed that we have only got seven out of 15 Opposition people signing it, but we do have 22 people. We have everybody on the Committee. What we would like to do, if we are given the opportunity to have a debate, is to focus particularly on the British Council, because the British Council is in quite a lot of difficulty. The chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the British Council and soft power has also signed it. The spending review talks about an uplift to the World Service, but we have been concentrating on the British Council and there is no uplift in relation to that, and it is in trouble. I think that is recognised. We asked the British Council to come back to us. After the announcement from the Government, we got them to come back to us about what that meant. It is in financial distress and struggling to repay a £200 million loan that the Government gave them during the pandemic. As its chief executive has warned, without support it is not going to survive the next decade. Our Committee has heard concerns from the council and from stakeholders about potential office closures. We have an ongoing inquiry into this. The British Council is obviously a vital soft power asset, and any reduction—or worse, closure—would damage the UK’s global standing, in our view. But it is far from the only organisation or job at risk as a result of Foreign Office funding, so we would like to have the opportunity to scrutinise these urgent issues. Obviously, the Foreign Office faces pretty harsh reductions. We are all facing a harsh reality, but, given the importance of Britain’s role on the world stage, we are concerned that we may be harming ourselves unnecessarily.

Do you have a preference for the day of the debate?

We do not. We are working all the time, Chair. We don’t just sit on one day.

Any questions? No. Thank you. The Clerks will be in touch shortly. Paulette Hamilton made representations.

The next application is from Paulette Hamilton on behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee. This is an application for a debate on the spending of the Department of Health and Social Care.

Let me say that the current Chair, Layla Moran, who is off at the moment, did get a debate in March, but there are some massive issues going on within health and social care at the moment. The debate would allow us to discuss the estimates for 2025-26 and look at the spending review and the settlement amount that we received last week. Members are likely to want to debate whether the proposed funding is adequate or whether there are significant gaps. Also, given the Government’s ambitions, it would offer an important opportunity to raise any concerns in advance of the forthcoming NHS 10-year plan, which will be debated next month. There are three key areas—you have had all the detailed documents. The first is the capital spend and the fact that £10 billion has been allocated to NHS technology and digital transformation. Secondly, we want to discuss the funding of additional frontline activity, which is key. The debate could explore how much is needed to do all of this, and how much is funded and what are the gaps. We could also discuss how much of the 2.7% average real-terms increase per year will be wiped out following the annual pay rises. We would also like to look at efficiency savings; in my opinion, Members would really enjoy that. Thirdly, the Committee did an inquiry on adult social care and health. We would like to use the estimates debate to discuss what the implications would be. We have had all the names sent in. The amount of support for the debate was incredible, so I ask the Committee to consider us. I will be bold and ask, if at all possible, for a Tuesday, because on a Wednesday we have our Committee meetings.

Thank you, Paulette. Any questions? No. Thank you. The Clerks will be in touch. Ruth Cadbury and Alex Mayer made representations.

I cannot see Florence Eshalomi; she has obviously been held up. If there is no one else on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, we will take Ruth Cadbury on behalf of the Transport Committee. Ruth is presenting an application for a debate on the spending and priorities of the Department for Transport.

I apologise that I am able to bring only one colleague from the same party with me today. The votes in the Chamber meant that I have lost several, but you can see that I have a broad spread of names from at least three parties, including several who are not members of the Select Committee. I do not think I need to tell you that transport policy impacts all our constituents in many different ways. It affects all Government and policy objectives around the environment, economic growth, regional rebalancing and devolution—particularly in England, but of course there are debates about funding across the UK. We are keen to ensure that estimates link to the Department’s strategic objectives. Our Committee wrote to the Department when we received the supplementary estimates asking for clarity on how the spending linked to the Department’s strategic objectives. Having a debate on this would permit us to press the Department on ensuring that policy objectives are clear, and that spending aligns with those objectives and links to the Government’s missions. There have been big changes in spending; there has been an overall reduction in the departmental spending in the main estimates, mainly due to a fall in day-to-day spending. There has been a reduction in bus subsidies linked to the increase in the fare cap, and with the buses Bill. Buses in rural areas are a massive issue for so many colleagues in English constituencies. There are new projects announced in the spending review, and the main estimates included an increase in investment spending of nearly £900 million. We want to make sure that the spending is evaluated and debated in public, particularly given the challenges around spending on HS2 and other large infrastructure projects. Finally, there has not been a transport Estimates day debate for at least three or four years, so we would very much hope for one.

I agree, and let me say that transport is popular when it comes up in the Chamber. It does not often come up, because there are not emergency statements on it every five minutes, but everyone has a bus in their constituency and many people have a train—

And some do not and want them.

Thank you. Any questions? No. I will come on to the day of the week for the debate.

We would prefer Wednesday afternoon, because our Committee meets on Tuesday afternoons.

The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Our final application on Estimates day does not appear to have arrived. We will hold that over until the end of the meeting, and take the other applications for our normal customary debates first. Helen Morgan made representations.

Our next application is from Helen Morgan for a debate on mobile connectivity in rural areas. This is a request for a general debate in the Chamber.

Thank you for considering the application and hearing me today. We have had a number of Westminster Hall debates on digital connectivity over the years, and they have always been extremely oversubscribed, so I thought it would be a good moment to seize to give more Members an opportunity to speak in the Chamber on the subject. The shared rural network aims to roll out 4G to 95% of the nation by the end of 2025 and we are regularly informed that it is on track to do so. However, it is reported in my constituency and from colleagues across the House from all parties that coverage remains very poor in rural areas and people have not noticed the benefits of the shared rural network. It would be helpful for colleagues to have an opportunity to air those issues in the Chamber. We are also conscious that 3G services are being sunsetted across the country—they are critical in rural areas—and that 5G coverage is poor in rural areas. The United Kingdom’s 5G performance ranks as 30th out of 39 countries according to the Social Market Foundation. We need to have a conversation about stimulating growth in rural areas ideally with digital services that are so critical for economic growth.

Thank you for the application. As you rightly say, you have had debates on this subject in Westminster Hall. For us to have a Chamber debate on this, we would need a divisible motion to accompany it—whether it goes to a vote or not is up to you—to make this a live application. That would be one of the conditions we would impose.

That is fine, thank you.

It seems like a very popular debate.

It is very popular, mainly because the service is pretty poor. If you could kindly supply that motion to the Clerks, that would help us and you will hear in due course. Time in the main Chamber, as you know, is very stretched at the moment, so it is unlikely that this will get heard before November.

We are well aware of that. Thank you. Clive Jones made representations.

Our next application has been withdrawn and the next one after that is from Clive Jones on less survivable cancers. Once again, this is a request for a general debate in the main Chamber. Over to you, Clive.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this application for a debate on less survivable cancers. I am applying for the debate because these cancers—pancreatic, liver, lung, brain, stomach and oesophageal—are some of the deadliest diseases that we face, yet remain neglected in the national conversation and in our cancer strategies. Despite significant improvements in survival rates for many other cancers over the past few decades, the outlook for these six cancers has barely shifted. The average five-year survival rate is just 16%, yet they account for one in 10 deaths in the UK. We need parliamentary time to examine why progress has stalled. I believe that a debate is especially timely given the Government’s recent national cancer plan call for evidence. It represents a real opportunity for MPs across the House to highlight how the new plan can prioritise early diagnosis, equitable access to care and much-needed research funding for these devastating cancers. This application has wide cross-party support, as reflected in the list of more than 40 colleagues who have committed to speak. I recognise that the Committee has a significant backlog of main Chamber debates and therefore I would be happy to have a Westminster Hall debate instead, ideally on a Tuesday. Thank you very much.

Thank you for clarifying that. Any questions from colleagues? No. Once again, this a well-subscribed debate and is obviously on a very serious topic. You will be added to our list and the Clerks will be in touch when there is the potential for you to be allocated the debate. As you have asked for a Tuesday debate, it has to be on a Tuesday when the relevant Department, which in this case would be the Department for Health and Social Care, would be answering. So, it just depends on when we can slot it in. The Clerks will be in touch.

Thank you very much. Clive Jones made representations.

We will now move on, because the next application is once again by Clive Jones for a debate on the impact of NHS workforce shortfalls on cancer patients. This is a request for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall. Over to you once again, Clive; you will get a reputation of being the equivalent to the hon. Member for Strangford, if you are not too careful.

Is that a good reputation or not? I do not know; we will have to think about that. Anyway, thank you very much for considering this application for a debate on the impact of NHS workforce shortfalls on cancer patients. I am applying for it because the NHS workforce crisis is now directly endangering the lives of cancer patients. New data from the Royal College of Radiologists, based on a 100% response rate from cancer centres and radiology departments, paints a very stark picture. Every single radiology leader reported delays in diagnostic imaging this year, and 90% of cancer centre leaders reported delays in patients starting treatment. These delays are not simply inconvenient; we know that for every month that a patient’s treatment is delayed, their risk of death rises by 10%. If we do not act, the shortfalls will get worse, and by 2029, we face a 39% shortfall in the number of radiologists and a 19% shortfall in the number of oncologists. At the same time, experienced clinicians are leaving the NHS earlier, reducing capacity to train new specialists and compounding the crisis. A debate is needed urgently to examine the Government’s planning for the cancer workforce and to access both the fiscal and patient safety consequences of inaction. Without significant investment in specialty training, we cannot meet targets to cut waiting lists or improve survival rates. The topic has cross-party backing, as reflected in the list of Members who are committed to speak, and I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a vital and timely issue for a debate in Westminster Hall.

Just to clarify, this is an application for Westminster Hall for either a Tuesday or a Thursday?

Yes.

Thank you. Obviously, the same applies: for a Tuesday debate, it has to be heard when the answering Department is the relevant one. You have two applications here. Which is the most important for you, in terms of the allocation of time?

Probably the first one. They are both equally important because of the national cancer strategy that is likely to be reported on some time in August or September.

Okay. Any other questions from colleagues? No. Thank you very much, Clive, and the Clerks will be in touch in due course. Kirith Entwistle, Jas Athwal, Gurinder Singh Josan, Warinder Juss and Naushabah Khan made representations.

The next application is from Kirith Entwistle for a Westminster Hall general debate for 90 minutes on the commemoration of the 1947 partition of India.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for considering my application promptly. I have brought some colleagues with me, probably more for moral support than anything else. My application has cross-party support, as I have support from Liberal Democrats and some Conservative Members. The Indian Independence Act, which legislated for partition and independence, received Royal Assent on 18 July 1947, so my hope is that a debate can align with that date and, I hope, occur during the same week this year—so, before the summer recess, in the week commencing 14 July. Partition occurred on the 14 and 15 of August 1947 and triggered the largest mass migration in recorded history. It is estimated that about 10 million to 15 million people were displaced and up to 2 million people lost their lives due to violence and displacement. I wanted to apply for a debate on the subject because of the long-lasting legacy and impact on families and communities, which continues to resonate to this day, including for the large, growing south Asian diaspora throughout the UK. Since 2000, the partition has been mentioned only 30 times in the House of Commons, despite its ongoing impact on hundreds of thousands of UK families. Growing and sustained public interest in community-led initiatives, exhibitions and education programmes reflects a desire for that history to be more widely understood, so I wanted the debate as an opportunity not just for a discussion on an important subject but to allow Members of an increasingly diverse Parliament to come forward and share their stories and the impact that partition has had on their constituents and on families in their constituencies. The aim of the debate would largely be to acknowledge the legacy of partition, explore how it can be commemorated and consider how it informs today’s discussions on migration, identity and multiculturalism. The debate would also highlight the contributions of south Asian communities and the importance of supportive, inclusive and accurate historical narratives. My intention is for it to be a commemorative, constructive and non-divisive debate, and largely an opportunity to hear people’s stories. I do not know if colleagues wanted to add anything else.

Do not feel obliged to, colleagues, seeing as there are so many of you and we do not want to rehearse the debate that will eventually happen.

I certainly won’t rehearse what my colleague just said, because she articulated it really well. I just want to emphasise the point that this conversation has shaped the way our communities are today. It is a huge part not just of the history of south Asians in this country, but of British history, and an opportunity to talk about the way it is shaping our communities in 2025 is really important. We all have our own personal stories to tell, so we should talk about what this means and recognise that it is an important part of our history. I have spoken to so many people who don’t even know what partition is or recognise that part of our history in India and south Asia. Drawing some attention to it feels incredibly important to me, as someone with that family background but who was born and brought up in this country.

Apologies for being slightly late. The other aspect of this is the importance that it has for identity in current-day Britain. When my son was an undergraduate, he did a piece of research where he went out to find people who were alive at the time of the partition, on both sides of the border, and he recorded their testimony. The stories that came across were of how people on both sides didn’t see a difference between each other. They might have been of different religions, but they lived as one family in the village or wherever else, and suddenly they were torn apart. That has had an impact over the years, and still has an impact today. That model of cohesion is one that we should aspire to. Exploring these stories and that narrative, and looking at how get communities to be more cohesive, is a really powerful thing. This is the right place to be doing it.

I will keep it very short because there are so many of us. I just want to say that in constituencies where there is a high south Asian population, it is still very important. In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, we still talk about it. My parents often talked about it, and I have other friends who did so. It would be very important to constituents to hear this debate.

I echo what my colleagues have said.

Okay, fine. Well done—that is the kind of contribution we like. Any other questions?

You mentioned a specific date in August, which is obviously during recess—

July.

July—I do apologise. I am so sorry.

Just to correct you, the decision by the House of Commons was in July, and then partition took place in August.

Thank you. So I wasn’t wrong—well, I was. My question was: would you rather have it nearer that date, or would your rather have it in the Chamber? As the Chair will tell you, there is a big delay on Chamber time, so you are more likely to get it quicker if it is Westminster Hall. I just wonder what your preference is.

That is the advice that I have already been given. On this occasion, I am happy for it to be in Westminster Hall so that it is closer to the date.

The one thing that I would say about a Tuesday application is that I assume it would be the FCDO answering.

Yes.

It would have to be when the FCDO is due to answer. We will try to see what we can do around that, but it depends on the answering Departments at the time.

Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions from colleagues? No. Okay, thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Cat Smith made representations.

The next application is from Cat Smith for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday on alcohol and cancer.

Thank you, Chair. I am applying for a debate on the link between alcohol and cancer. By way of background, alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen and is strongly linked to at least seven types of cancer, including breast and bowel, which are two of the most common cancers in the UK. In addition, a new study published in May this year demonstrated evidence linking alcohol to an eighth cancer—pancreatic cancer. This debate will be able to touch on many different forms of cancer, but specifically on the link between cancer and alcohol. In the UK, about 4% of cancer cases are directly attributable to alcohol. Given the rise in alcohol-related deaths that we have seen post covid, it is expected that we will see a parallel rise in the links between alcohol and cancer deaths. Despite all that, public awareness of the link between cancer and alcohol remains low, and current Government policy does not reflect the risk. This year, the World Cancer Research Fund has themed its Cancer Prevention Action Week, which falls between 23 June and 29 June, around alcohol and cancer, to highlight the little-known link between the two. In partnership with the WCRF and the Alcohol Health Alliance, I want to bring a debate to Parliament to raise awareness of the cancer risks linked to alcohol, and to seek Government reassurances that they will take steps to address it. It would be the first debate of its kind in the House of Commons. We have never had a debate anywhere in the past on the link between alcohol and cancer. Despite knowing that roughly 40% of cancers are preventable, the current trends show that it will continue to be a problem, because of the rising risk of alcohol harm, which is causing the UK economy vast sums of money. I would flesh that out in the debate. It is also about the risk to life. We are expecting an additional 18,700 cancer cases by 2035 as a direct link to alcohol. It would also be a good opportunity to raise public awareness of the issue. The debate would offer a platform for MPs to be able to bring this home to their constituents and hopefully lead to better information. There is perhaps an opportunity for us to make the case to industry about labelling as a way of raising awareness. At the moment, I believe about 25% of the public are aware of the link between alcohol and cancer, so it remains very low. With breast cancer, if you are drinking regularly two units a day, we know there is a 16% increase in your risk of cancer. If you are drinking above the recommended daily limits, which many people do, it continues to go up quite quickly. Given that we have not had an opportunity to have a debate on the link between alcohol and cancer in the past, my ask to the Committee is to grant time in Westminster Hall to have a 90-minute debate to raise public awareness of this and hopefully offer Government some suggestions about how they might be able to combat it.

It is Alcohol Awareness Week the week commencing 7 July. Is that what you are pitching for?

Yes, ideally. I am conscious that as a Committee, you only have certain bits of time available. As close to that date as possible would be preferable.

Thanks for bringing this forward, Cat. I was going to mention that you were a little bit short on Opposition Members, but as somebody who lost their dad to oesophageal cancer because of his alcohol use, I would like to put my name to this Backbench debate to get you over the line for Opposition Members.

Thank you, and I am sorry for your loss.

The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. David Mundell made representations.

The next application is from David Mundell on the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan and the end of the war in the far east. It is for a three-hour general debate in the Chamber.

Thank you, Chair. I am very aware of the pressure on Chamber time, from having previously appeared at this Committee. I was also aware that the Government had from time to time released some additional time, which is why, as you are aware, I raised the issue with the Leader of the House at business questions. She responded favourably but, of course, directed me to yourselves. I feel strongly about this issue, partly because a very significant number of service personnel from the south of Scotland—the King’s Own Scottish Borderers—fought in the far east. When the war in Europe ended in 1945, there was a strong perception back here in the UK that the war had ended, while people were still fighting in the far east up until 15 August. They were not duly considered in all that took place subsequently. I feel that that has almost been repeated. We had a very heavily subscribed debate in the Chamber for VE Day, to which VJ Day was added, but the overwhelming number of contributions focused on the end of the war in Europe. In the part of the debate that I was participating in, we were down to contributions of three minutes. By the time I had mentioned a couple of people from my own constituency who were heavily involved in the war, it was over. I feel that, to acknowledge properly the contribution of those who served in the far east and the war against Japan, we should have a specific debate on this subject. To ensure that it is given the weight that it deserves, I believe the debate should be in the Chamber, if time can be found. I think there are possibly two hooks. One is VJ Day itself on 15 August, which would suggest a debate just before the recess. The second opportunity would be the formal surrender of Japan on 2 September, and Parliament will be back in that period. That is the timescale pitch that I would make. Parliament should acknowledge the sacrifice that was made by people who fought thousands of miles from home in really difficult conditions—that is not to diminish what happened in Europe. Of course, the other aspect is prisoners of war, and many families across the UK had members who were Japanese prisoners of war and endured appalling conditions.

Thank you. Any other questions?

I have only a comment. I was in that debate and unfortunately I did not get to speak. I absolutely agree with you and I would really want this to be a Chamber debate, because I think it is important that we show as much reverence—for want of a better word—for those people who fought overseas in the far east as we do for those who fought in Europe. I think the parity is really important. Sorry, that is more a comment than a question, but I just wanted to throw it in.

Realistically, when we come back in September is when we are more likely to be able to allocate time for this debate. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. David Smith made representations.

The next application is from David Smith for a debate in either the Chamber or Westminster Hall on the role of freedom of religion or belief in UK foreign policy.

I note that you have requested a debate ideally on 10 or 15 July. We will see, but I doubt that we will be able to accommodate that, given our long list of very worthy applications.

I suspect that it would be a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall, rather than three hours, but you are more likely to get an early debate at around those dates there than in the main Chamber, to be fair. There are no questions from colleagues. The Clerks will be in touch in due course, David. Andy MacNae, Michelle Welsh and Sir Jeremy Hunt made representations.

We move on to an application from Andy MacNae, Michelle Welsh and Jeremy Hunt on baby loss. This is for a general debate in the main Chamber.

I will speak briefly before handing over to my esteemed colleagues for some additional context. We are here as the chairs of the baby loss, maternity and patient safety APPGs to request a debate on baby loss during Baby Loss Awareness Week, which is 9 to 15 October. Baby loss is a profound issue. Every day, 13 families suffer the loss of a baby, and one in five of those are seen as preventable. Black families and those in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to suffer baby loss as others. At the same time, we see repeated issues with maternity safety manifesting itself in places such as Nottingham, Morecambe and others. We have seen, as I am sure my colleagues will speak to, a ream of recommendations, reports and inquiries, and yet action seems to be largely stalled. A debate would therefore seek to raise awareness of baby loss and the bereavement pathways, and to call for urgent action to address profound inequalities.

I speak as the chair of the APPG on maternity, as a harmed mother and as someone who has been working with mothers in Nottinghamshire for the past five years on, as many will know, the biggest maternity scandal in NHS history, affecting more than 2,300 families. Sixty-five per cent. of maternity services in England were recently rated not safe for women. Sadly, baby loss has become part of a way of assessing how many maternity departments are working. A lot could have been prevented. England has experienced at least four significant independent maternity inquiries in recent years, including the Morecambe Bay one, the Shrewsbury and Telford review, and now the Ockenden review in Notts. It is likely that there will be more. There is a crisis in maternity care across the country, so it is important that we have this debate. We have a duty to those mothers and babies, and to the 65% of maternity services which I said are rated not safe for women. We have a duty to have this debate in the Chamber.

I will add to that. If you look at the statistics, the number of baby deaths was going down consistently in the past decade, but since the pandemic, it has started to go up again. We are now seeing about three baby deaths and five stillbirths every day. It is an appalling human tragedy, but it is also a scandal, because the NHS, despite the best efforts of many people, including me as Health Secretary, just does not seem to be turning this issue around. It is also an inequality issue, because black mothers are three times more likely to die than other mothers, and black and Asian babies are 50% more likely to die than white-ethnicity babies. So there is a very big inequality issue as well. In terms of the details of our request, every year, as colleagues will know, we have a Baby Loss Awareness Week debate. It is always in Westminster Hall—a 90-minute debate. Colleagues who have been will know that it is one of the most harrowing debates in the whole year, but very, very powerful. It is very important to the families who campaign that they hear their agonies articulated in this House. This year, we have supporting the application 77 MPs and three APPGs, and we would very much like the Committee to consider a debate in the Chamber, which we have never had before. We appreciate it is very short notice and it may not be possible, but Baby Loss Awareness Week finishes on 15 October, so if there were a slot—because of the recess—on 16 October, which is the Thursday at the end of Baby Loss Awareness Week, that would be an incredibly strong signal that this House is alive to the concerns of so many bereaved families.

One of the things about Chamber debates anyway is that they are often squeezed, because of urgent questions or statements, on a Thursday, as we have experienced recently. The other possibility—the Committee will consider this—is that we give you a guaranteed three-hour debate in Westminster Hall. Given the number of people who wish to speak, that would at least allow them time, whereas if it is the Chamber, the speakers will be down to two or three minutes for their contributions. That may allow them to get their views on the record, but not to make reasonable speeches, I would suggest. The application is yours, but if you do consider making it both a Chamber and a Westminster Hall application, that gives us more flexibility on what we can allocate.

Given the severity of the issue—we could list a lot more statistics that I know everyone in this room would be really shocked by; there were a few eyebrows raised and there need to be—and given the fact that there have been all those inquiries, that thousands and thousands of families have been affected and that I receive hundreds of emails every week, this is a plea from me personally that we have a debate in the main Chamber. I don’t know whether others disagree, but I think this is about showing the families, who have suffered and continue to suffer and have fought for 15 and sometimes 20 years to get answers as to why their baby died, that we here have enough respect for them to have the debate in the main Chamber. I don’t think a Westminster Hall debate would give them the justice that they deserve.

It is your application. The Committee will be guided by what you are applying for. We can only give helpful advice about what time is made available to us. Westminster Hall we can control; for the Chamber, we are dependent on the Government giving us time. I just sound that note of caution. Colleagues, are there any other questions or comments?

Just to note that I signed this one.

Thank you. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Thank you very much. Helena Dollimore, Ms Polly Billington and Sojan Joseph made representations.

The final application for this series of slots is from Helena Dollimore on the benefits of returning international rail services to Ashford. It is for a 90-minute general debate in Westminster Hall.

I thank you, Chair, and the whole Committee for hearing our application today. We are asking for a debate about returning international rail services to Ashford International railway station and the merits of that. This issue has not been debated yet in this Parliament. It matters hugely to all our constituents and all those who have signed the application. For those who are not aware, international rail services at Ashford stopped in 2020, in the pandemic, and many people have been pushing for them to return ever since. We have cross-party support from nine Members for whom it is a particularly relevant constituency issue, given the geography: me, the Member for Hastings and Rye, and the Members for Ashford, for East Thanet, for Eastbourne, for Bexhill and Battle, for Canterbury, for Folkestone and Hythe, for Dover and Deal, and for Lewes. And I know that many others also support the issue. It matters greatly to our constituents because of the benefits it would bring to economic growth and tourism in our region. We also feel that now is the right time for a debate, because it is extremely topical at the moment. In PMQs, in response to a question from my colleague, the Member for Ashford, the Prime Minister confirmed his support for returning these services, as has the Secretary of State for Transport. And there have also been recent developments in the space that make it apt for a debate now. I will hand over to my colleague from Ashford.

Thank you for having us, Chair. This is time critical, because, all this time, Eurostar has had a monopoly over this line, but a recent audit by ORR identified that there is space for another operator and the application is open for any other interested operator to apply. However, Eurostar has come back and said that it has more plans to increase its number of services. Its interest is to continue the service from city to city and not stop anywhere in Kent. It has no interest in any economic development in Kent, which has hugely impacted Ashford and the surrounding areas. Many businesses moved into Ashford over the years and are disappointed now that the service has not come back since 2020. Some 60,000 people signed a petition, and 95% of businesses have supported that application for the international train to return, so we request your support to have a debate, please.

I would just like to add that, as well as the obvious value of people being able to reach European destinations faster from our part of the world, it will give a significant opportunity to grow a part of the country that sometimes people assume is already economically growing—I know people here will have heard me talk about living on the cold edge of an overheated region. We have enormous economic growth potential in my part of the world, and an internationally recognised heritage, art and creative community, which should be better connected to the whole world, rather than having to go via King’s Cross. It is as simple as that. Since we put in the infrastructure that was put in, that infrastructure should be used to be able to grow our economy in Kent. That is why we think there is a strong case for making that case in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall.

Just to finalise that point, the infrastructure that we have talked about is, of course, the international station at Ashford, which was opened after huge taxpayer investment into that as an international station. We therefore also believe there is a relevance here about taxpayers’ money being well spent in seeing those international services return.

Thank you. Before I throw it open, I am assuming that the Department for Transport will be the answering Department.

Yes, that is correct.

So we will have to allocate it on a Tuesday, obviously, when they are due to answer. Are there any other questions from colleagues? No? Then thank you very much; the Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Florence Eshalomi made representations.

The final application—thank you for your patience—is from Florence Eshalomi, on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, for a debate on the estimates, and the estimated spending of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Over to you, Florence.

Apologies for my lateness, Chair. I have a good excuse; I was with the Deputy Chief Whip. I thank colleagues for allowing me to present this case to the Committee this afternoon. I think it is fair to say that there will be a lot of interest in scrutinising the figures from MHCLG after the spending review last week. One of the biggest headlines outlined in the Chancellor’s statement was the increase in affordable housing—a significant increase in housing, which touched on the constituency of every single Member. However, there are still a lot of questions about what it actually means. At our Select Committee hearings, I have pushed Ministers to detail how many of those 1.5 million new homes will be social and affordable homes, which would have a big impact on the issues we are seeing in terms of temporary accommodation, which is a funding pressure for every local authority right across the country. We are also looking at how the new announcement from the Chancellor will impact on the planning changes being proposed and on Homes England. The affordable housing increase will mean a big overhaul in how we look at housing over the next few years. However, I think there are still outstanding questions about how the Government are going to square the big elephant in the room, in terms of our cash-strapped councils. Some 42 councils have applied for exceptional financial support; indeed, we should not be calling it exceptional financial support anymore: 30 of those councils applied for that support to cover their capital reserves for day-to-day revenue funding. That should set alarm bells ringing. We know that many councils are facing financial hardship. They are struggling to deliver primary services—statutory services—including adult social care, children’s social care and temporary accommodation. This debate would allow members from right across the House to ask Ministers deep questions about these issues; to get more clarity on how we are going to help our cash-strapped councils and to make the case to the Government for the support that our councils need; and to assess the impact that the devolution agenda is having on council finances. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Florence. By the way—sorry, you were not here originally, Florence. Obviously, we have the opportunity to allocate debates on Tuesdays or Wednesdays. If you are given the time, which would you prefer—Tuesday or Wednesday?

Tuesday, if possible, and just to make sure that we get a response from the relevant Ministers as well.

Thank you. Any questions from colleagues? Everyone happy? Good. Thank you for your patience, Florence. The Clerks will be in touch very shortly with any results. That concludes today’s public business for the Committee; the Committee will now retire to consider the applications in private.