Backbench Business Committee
Representations: Backbench Business
Tuesday 11 October 2022
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 11 October 2022.
Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Chris Green; Jerome Mayhew; Nigel Mills.
Questions 1-19
Representations made
I: Peter Aldous
II: Cherilyn Mackrory
III: Jim Shannon
IV: Martin Vickers
V: Carolyn Harris
Written evidence from witnesses:
– [Add names of witnesses and hyperlink to submissions]
Peter Aldous made representations.
Q1 Chair: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have a number of applications, the first of which is from Peter Aldous on Colleges Week 2022. Over to you, Peter.
Peter Aldous: Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to attend the Committee again. I am submitting this application as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning, and next week is Colleges Week. I am conscious that, due to unfortunate events, I am submitting this application slightly late in the day. We would like a debate next week, but we recognise that you have a lot of challenges and that may not be possible.
In the debate we would celebrate the work of colleges, which are deeply rooted in communities all around the United Kingdom. I am quite sure that members of the Committee have a college near them with which they resonate and work closely. We all go to events at colleges, such as awards ceremonies, when we see the joy on people’s faces as they realise their dreams and aspirations by getting their various qualifications and then moving forward.
We would like a debate this year on colleges for three reasons. First, the previous parliamentary year was a busy one for colleges because the “Skills for Jobs” White Paper was published in January 2021. That paved the way for the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, which secured Royal Assent this year. Colleges, along with employers, LEPs and others, are now busily working on local skills improvement plans. Having had that busy parliamentary year, now is a good opportunity to take stock of how colleges are getting on in implementing those strategies that we decided on last year.
Secondly, colleges really do multitask, and they are at the vanguard of achieving so much of what we want to achieve in this place. To list five of those achievements, they are driving the post-covid recovery; helping us to deliver net zero—whether that is creating jobs in my own patch, generating offshore wind or nuclear power, or developing the skills we need to retrofit our homes and businesses—playing a key role in addressing regional equalities through the levelling-up agenda; promoting lifelong learning, which is so important; and last month the Government provided the fifth and final goal, the focus on growth, growth, growth. If you want that growth to be sustainable and if you want people from around the UK to benefit from that, colleges have a key role to play in providing people with the skills so that they can take part in that growth and help to eliminate the productivity gap that has plagued the UK for so long.
The final point that we want to emphasise is that for colleges to perform that role, they need the tools for the job. Colleges are subject to funding pressures. If you kindly grant us this debate, I suspect that you will hear a plea again from Members about the need to address the fact that the sector is the Cinderella service of our education system. The last comprehensive spending review made a good start to remove that tag but a great deal of work remains to be done when you consider the multifaceted task that colleges deliver.
We would also flag up a staffing challenge. We need to train people in fabrication, welding and the like, and plumbing. A debate on colleges would allow us to highlight the particular challenge for colleges to get trainers to deliver that training, because with skills shortages they can earn more by staying in the private sector.
I have taken you quickly through some of the issues that we would like to address if you are able to provide us time for the debate.
Chair: Thank you very much. Questions, colleagues, please.
Q2 Bob Blackman: I just have one or two questions. As you said, Colleges Week is basically next week. Your application is timely in terms of wanting a time slot but, unfortunately, we have a queue of debates awaiting Chamber time, which you have specifically requested. We might be able to facilitate Westminster Hall time. If you do not get that, frankly the chances of getting a debate in the Chamber before Christmas are bleak.
Peter Aldous: We will be taking Westminster Hall time.
Q3 Chair: Thank you. Therefore, Peter, the time that we hope to have available would be on Thursday next week in Westminster Hall. If that was offered to you, you would take that?
Peter Aldous: Definitely. Yes, we would.
Chair: That is very useful. If there are no further questions, that is very much appreciated, Peter. Thank you very much.
Peter Aldous: Thank you very much, everyone.
Cherilyn Mackrory made representations.
Q4 Chair: We next have an application from Cherilyn Mackrory, who is in front of us. Cherilyn, I was led to understand before the sitting that you wanted the application to be considered on paper only.
Cherilyn Mackrory: Yes, because I had DL duties down the corridor, but they finished in time, so I wanted to hedge my bets, if you do not mind, and I did not want you to think that I was ignoring you or being discourteous to the Committee by not turning up.
Q5 Chair: Not at all. Anyway, you are very welcome, and your application is for a debate on baby loss and safe staffing in maternity care. Your preference is for a debate to be held in the week commencing 17 October, because Baby Loss Awareness Week is actually this week.
Cherilyn Mackrory: We originally made the application probably during the summer recess, and certainly before the death of Her late Majesty. The dates became mixed up. Normally, Baby Loss Awareness Week, which is this week, would fall in conference recess, so we know that we are usually a little bit out when it comes to the dates. We are slightly flexible, shall I say.
I come before you annually to ask for this debate. I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, and we have done some very important work on the national bereavement pathway, which has been circulated to every trust. We are currently doing an awful lot of work in response to the Ockenden report and the awful cases that came out of the Shrewsbury and Telford hospitals in conjunction with the report of the Health and Social Care Committee, and in conjunction with the all-party parliamentary group on maternity. We are all asking for the same things to be considered by Government in terms of staff shortages, and I think it would be a powerful debate, if granted.
The debate would also shine a light on Parliament in a way that no other debate can. Our previous debates have always shown this place in a very positive light. It shows how human MPs are and that we all have families and care about one another regardless of party lines. I think it is vital that, regardless of what else is going on in politics, this debate gets a good airing, because it shows to the rest of the electorate, even if only once a year, that we are all human, and it makes everybody take a pause and remember that. Some people will come and tell their stories about their own personal loss, and I think that is often very cathartic for colleagues. But I want to this to be a very constructive debate where we challenge the new Minister on staffing shortages and our other requests from the all-party groups, as well as what is coming out in the women’s health strategy. There is a lot going on, and I think it is really important to tie it together in a debate if that is possible.
Chair: Thank you. Questions, please.
Q6 Bob Blackman: Can I kick off, Chair? Your application before us has eight speakers listed, but we would normally expect 15 for a three-hour debate and eight for a 90-minute one, so it is short of speakers for a start. That is not to decry the quality of speakers, or the fact that no doubt you will attract other speakers as time goes by. As I mentioned earlier to Peter, the first challenge is that we have no time to allocate, so the only chance that you have got is either the first debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 25 October, from 9.30 am until 11 am, or a Westminster Hall debate on either 20 October or 27 October. I wonder which you would choose.
Cherilyn Mackrory: I would prefer to take the Tuesday, if that is possible, and Westminster Hall is more than adequate; we totally understand the challenges you are facing.
Q7 Bob Blackman: Congratulations on your new appointment, but the other challenge is that that means you cannot be the lead speaker.
Cherilyn Mackrory: Oh, right. Okay. I did not realise that.
Q8 Bob Blackman: Can you find an alternative lead sponsor? There is nothing to stop you speaking in the debate.
Cherilyn Mackrory: I have a co-chair, so I will ask him to do that.
Q9 Bob Blackman: Who is that?
Cherilyn Mackrory: Jeremy Hunt.
Chair: Never heard of him.
Cherilyn Mackrory: Jill Mortimer is also the chair of the maternity all-party parliamentary group, so she may do it. I will ask one of them.
Chair: If you can inform the Clerks to the Committee as soon as possible about that. Apologies, but that is way it works, I am afraid—some have greatness thrust upon them, Cherilyn. There we go. Thank you very much.
Jim Shannon made representations.
Jim Shannon: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and Committee. Back again.
Q10 Chair: Jim, I will quickly announce what your application is about. The debate would be on the subject of building back healthy homes and building to level up nation’s health and wellbeing. Over to you, Jim.
Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to come before the Committee to ask for a debate. I am not short of ideas to bring forward for your consideration. I am chair of the APPG on healthy homes and buildings, and I have chaired it for around five or six years. We have not had a debate on the connection between healthy homes, buildings and health and wellbeing, and we think it is time that we do, because they are intertwined. A healthy home by its very nature will be a home where your health will be better and your wellbeing, mentally and physically, will be better.
It goes back to the pandemic and the background information that I have supplied. Prior to the pandemic, most of us spent some 90% of our time indoors. Covid-19’s successive lockdowns shone a very unhealthy light on the considerable impact our homes have on our health and wellbeing. The APPG were keen to ensure that the Government and the Minister would be in a position to respond to our debate. It is not just covid-19 that made us work from home; even now some may have a reluctance to go back to the office. Therefore, shift working at home and spending more time indoors is a timely issue for debate. The APPG wants to positively contribute to our physical and mental health and wellbeing and not to diminish it.
Unhealthy housing impacts the nation’s economic growth, business performance, educational attainment and life chances, and the ability to deliver green homes. The debate would provide an important opportunity to emphasise why it is essential to invest in building back and retrofitting homes. It is not just about the new homes that have been built but those already in the housing stock. We are very keen to have that debate.
There seems to be considerable interest in the subject, and when the APPG contacted a number of Members they were keen to add their support. We have a healthy number from the Conservative party, Labour, the DUP, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP. We are very keen to have the debate and although I do sometimes seek a certain date for a debate, on this occasion I do not and I am quite happy to go with the allocated date that the Committee feels is the right one. Thank you.
Chair: That is very kind, Jim. Thank you very much. Any questions, colleagues, please?
Q11 Bob Blackman: As I have said to our other colleagues, Chamber time is very limited and we have a huge queue. Presumably, Jim, being a veteran of Westminster Hall, you would accept a Westminster Hall debate.
Jim Shannon: I am always happy in Westminster Hall—I am happy in the Chamber as well—so there you are.
Q12 Bob Blackman: The next two dates available are 20 October and 27 October. Are either of those—
Jim Shannon: Would 27 October be okay? Is that a Thursday?
Bob Blackman: It is.
Jim Shannon: That is okay. Great. Thank you.
Q13 Jerome Mayhew: On the timing, you have 34 speakers and you have put down for a 90-minute debate, unless I am misreading it and you are asking for three hours. How long a debate are you looking for?
Jim Shannon: I have done a fair few debates in Westminster Hall and unfortunately it is just a reality that Thursday afternoon is usually the graveyard shift. That is a fact. The fact that we have 30-odd Members who have indicated that they wish to speak may fall because of that timing in Westminster Hall, so I think that 90 minutes would be more than adequate. That is not a reflection on colleagues, because people have other engagements and sometimes Thursday is when they are heading home or doing something else. It is not the case that anyone is being disrespectful; it is just the reality of life.
Chair: Of course Thursday afternoon in Westminster Hall also coincides with really well supported debates in the Chamber put on by the Backbench Business Committee.
Jim Shannon: Of course it does, yes. There is a choice sometimes, and that is a fact as well.
Chair: That is much appreciated, Jim. Thanks a lot.
Martin Vickers made representations.
Q14 Chair: Good afternoon, Martin, and welcome. Nice to see you again.
Martin Vickers: Hello, Chairman.
Chair: Your application is for a debate on the importance of religious education in modern Britain. Over to you, please.
Martin Vickers: A few weeks ago, actually just before the summer recess, I met representatives of the RE Policy Unit, which had conducted a survey and produced some statistics. I spoke to them with particular relevance to my constituency, although their survey indicated that around two thirds of the UK population think that education in religion and world views is an important part of the modern school curriculum.
I think we would all agree that religion plays an important part in not only many individuals’ lives but society generally. Indeed, across the world, we sometimes see the rather dark side of religion. But I think it is important that people come to any discussion of the subject with a background. It is also important to note that, in actual fact, in our country, if you do not have an understanding of religion and the part that it has played in our history and culture, it is very difficult to understand many aspects of modern Britain. It is important to improve our education in religion and increase the amount of teacher training available to deliver a complex subject in a form that informs our young people.
You will be pleased to know, Chair, that we are not looking for an immediate debate and that all we are looking for is 90 minutes in Westminster Hall. Because I am on a Public Bill Committee for the next week or two, I would be very happy for a date in November.
Chair: Excellent. I think that you have anticipated the potential questions from colleagues, Martin.
Q15 Bob Blackman: So you could not do 27 October?
Martin Vickers: No, I am afraid not. The following week, or whatever, would be great.
Q16 Chair: Super. Thank you very much. I take it that if the correct answering Department were available, you could do a Tuesday morning as well as a Thursday afternoon.
Martin Vickers: Morning or afternoon. I think we could be flexible. One of my co-sponsors, Jim Shannon, is here as well, and I am sure that we can rely on him to make a contribution.
Chair: The only thing is that you will only get a 90-minute debate, and with Jim speaking—well, you know. Thank you very much indeed.
Martin Vickers: Thanks very much.
Carolyn Harris made representations.
Q17 Chair: Last but certainly not least we have an application from Carolyn Harris for a debate on World Menopause Day, which is next week, I believe.
Carolyn Harris: Yes, but we would be happy to take a debate, if granted, any day from 24 October, because other stuff is going on next week. It is World Menopause Month, actually, not World Menopause Day, so it spans the month. I have come to the Committee before, and I think it is fair to say that the Backbench Business Committee has helped to propel the subject of menopause into the mainstream media, as we see today, and provide the excellent platform that has given us the opportunity to hear stories from across the House from independent-minded people who are willing and happy to share their story or that of their loved ones.
Every time we have a debate on the subject we learn a new aspect of how menopause is affecting different areas of social policy; it is not just a health issue, or a BEIS or DWP issue. Domestic violence increases during menopause; menopausal women are 16% more likely to commit suicide and 65% of menopausal women do not apply for promotion for fear that they would not be able to complete the tasks. It really is a subject that spans every area of social policy. We are asking for a debate so that colleagues can discuss the issue and raise even more areas of social policy that we can take forward and highlight, I would add, on the global stage. The UK is now seen as a global leader on menopause and that is entirely down to the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has given us a platform over the years, and because of other international annual Menopause Months.
Chair: Thank you, Carolyn. Questions, colleagues.
Q18 Bob Blackman: Just to confirm, you want the debate after 24 October.
Carolyn Harris: Any time after. I have a family funeral next Thursday.
Q19 Bob Blackman: That is fine; we understand. So 27 October—I think that is the first date we could allocate—would be okay in Westminster Hall?
Carolyn Harris: That would be fine. We have plenty of speakers; quite a lot have responded and yet more have come back later to say that they would like to speak.
Chair: Anyone else? In that case, thank you very much indeed, Carolyn.
Carolyn Harris: Thank you, gentlemen.
Chair: That concludes our public deliberations.