Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 12 December 2023

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 12 December 2023.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Patricia Gibson; Nigel Mills; Wendy Morton; Kate Osborne.

Questions 1-15

Representations made

I: Andrew Bridgen and Philip Davies.

II: Patrick Grady.

Written evidence from witnesses:

– [Add names of witnesses and hyperlink to submissions]

Andrew Bridgen and Philip Davies made representations.

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have two applications this afternoon. The first is presented by Andrew Bridgen, ably supported by Philip Davies. It is on the subject of trends in excess deaths. Andrew, please explain to us why you want this debate.

Andrew Bridgen: Thank you very much, Chairman. We have suffered more excess deaths since July 2021 than we did during 2020. There were 40,000 excess deaths last year, and it looks like this year is set to be higher than that. I had an Adjournment debate of 30 minutes on 20 October, which was attended by about a dozen colleagues. Obviously, only I and the Minister got to speak. I spoke for 24 minutes, and the Minister spoke for six. The Minister said that she was grateful to me for getting the debate and that the issue needed to be discussed. The Public Gallery was full. There were 150 members of the public in the Palace on that Friday afternoon who could not get into the Public Gallery.

The issue affects every constituency and community in the country, and it is ongoing. Something is causing it, and I think we are duty-bound to investigate and debate it in this House. There is a huge public appetite for it. I put those reasons to the Committee to explain why this is a debate that we need to have. We have 17 Members supporting. I think there are 10 Conservatives and seven others. I am supported by Philip Davies. Sammy Wilson would have been here, but he is speaking in the Chamber now, or waiting for the other speakers to finish so that he can leave the Chamber. He sends his apologies.

Q2                Chair: Thank you very much. Philip, do you have anything to add?

Philip Davies: Just to add that when Andrew had his 30-minute Adjournment debate, which was attended by around a dozen people, it was on a Friday in the House. To have that many people for an Adjournment debate on a Friday was quite an impressive feat.

There is a huge amount of interest in this subject. There is nothing more important than excess deaths. What on earth is Parliament for if not to debate why this is happening? We might all have different reasons as to why those excess deaths are there. I might not fully agree with Andrew about it—I might partially but not fully agree with him—but we in the House of Commons should be debating these things to try to get to the bottom of them. There are lots of people out there in the country who are crying out for parliamentarians to answer lots of questions that they have about why family members have died unexpectedly, and it is beholden on us to have a debate in Parliament—not just a half-hour debate, but a three-hour debate.

Chair: Thank you. Questions, colleagues, please.

Q3                Bob Blackman: Can I ask the obvious question? You have the right number of names and they are split. As you know, time in the Chamber is very limited. You rarely get a half-day debate anyway, because of the position with statements. If we offered time in Westminster Hall, would you accept that?

Andrew Bridgen: I would prefer it in the main Chamber. Given the gravity of the situation, it would somewhat demean it if we were pushed into the subsidiary Chamber, but it is better than nothing if that is the only alternative. It would not be my first choice, and I don’t think the optics would look good for the House, to be honest.

Q4                Bob Blackman: There is quite a long queue, and we are dependent on the Government giving us time in the Chamber, whereas we know we will get Westminster Hall. We can more likely give you time at an appropriate time—

Andrew Bridgen: If the question is, would I accept Westminster Hall if there is nothing else, the answer, in a millisecond, is yes.

Chair: Andrew, I think the point is that you would be unlikely to get time in the Chamber until probably mid to late February. We happen to know that there could be an opportunity for a debate in Westminster Hall much earlier than that.

Q5                Bob Blackman: The opportunity would be either a Thursday afternoon, when we put on two debates, or a Tuesday morning, when Health would presumably be the answering Department, which gives you a guaranteed 90-minute slot in Westminster Hall. We can line that up far earlier than if you wait in the queue for the Chamber.

Andrew Bridgen: Don’t we have sufficient signatures for a three-hour debate, though?

Q6                Bob Blackman: Yes, you do. However, we never get a three-hour debate.

Andrew Bridgen: Not even in Westminster Hall?

Q7                Chair: No, we don’t. We get 90-minute slots in Westminster Hall. We have occasionally managed to put two 90-minute debates together on a Thursday afternoon.

Andrew Bridgen: Ladies and gentlemen, I feel like we are haggling. Is that how we’re doing it now?

Q8                Chair: No, I think we are just trying to lay out what the reality of the situation is. There is a very good chance that the Health Department will be answering on Tuesday 16 January, because it is not on the rota for 9 January.

              Andrew Bridgen: I would really appreciate a debate in January.

Q9                Chair: The thing is that, if the debate is well attended, well subscribed and lively, there is nothing to prevent you from bringing back another application for a Chamber debate at a later date, having had a successful Westminster Hall debate.

Andrew Bridgen: What does my learned colleague think?

Philip Davies: Having been on the Backbench Business Committee, I fully appreciate the pressures that there are in terms of securing time. Lots of people want a debate, and you are trying your best to fulfil everybody’s expectations. I am with Andrew: obviously, any debate anywhere is better than no debate. I would prefer it to be in the Chamber if possible, but I understand the limitations. If the debate is as popular as we expect it to be, and we could come back because it wouldn’t be counted against us that we had already had a debate, that seems reasonable. That would be the key thing: it wouldn’t be counted against us that we had already had a debate.

Andrew Bridgen: If there are 17 speakers in 90 minutes, we can all do the maths, can’t we? That is not many minutes. Then you have Ministers as well. It’s going to be five minutes.

Chair: The thing is, Andrew, that experience tells us that the 17 people who sign an application are not always available when a particular debate is scheduled; that is just natural. But you get others. For instance, the hon. Member for Strangford is on your application, but he quite often turns up to speak when he hasn’t actually signed an application—it’s unusual to get an application that he hasn’t signed, but it does happen. He possesses a season ticket for this Committee, but that is neither here nor there.

We will have a contemplate afterwards, but the crucial question is whether, if we were to offer you time in Westminster Hall, you would accept it, given the caveats we have talked about. I think it probably would be mid to late February before we could get you anywhere near the Chamber.

Andrew Bridgen: Thank you, Chairman.

Patrick Grady made representations.

Q10            Chair: Patrick, good afternoon and welcome. Take a seat and make yourself comfortable. Your application is on the role of the United Kingdom’s scientific research and development in ending malaria and neglected tropical diseases.

Patrick Grady: Yes, that’s right. It is quite interesting that we have just heard a bid about excess deaths, because malaria continues to kill over 608,000 people a year globally and affects many more than that. That is why ending malaria and tackling neglected tropical diseases are key targets in the global sustainable development goals framework. We are just reaching the halfway point, as the Backbench Business Committee will know because it has held a number of debates to mark that milestone recently. We want the debate to highlight the role that the SDGs, the UK Government, and the UK research sector more widely have played in making significant progress to drive down the incidence of these diseases, but there is much more that can be done.

I know that the Committee likes plenty of advance notice for world days, and hopefully we are able to provide that. We are hoping that the Committee might be able to find something around the time of World NTD Day, at the end of January, so that we have the opportunity to highlight the challenges that still face us in driving down and eliminating some of these diseases, but also to highlight the successes.

A number of us who are members of the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases were in Malawi earlier this year. We visited communities where trachoma has been completely eliminated and saw the transformative effect that that has had on people’s lives. A lot of that is down to investment from UK sources and activity at the research end from UK institutions.

We hope that the debate would be an important opportunity to highlight some of the research that takes place in many of our constituencies and the impact that that is having around the world.

Q11            Bob Blackman: Can you just clarify what the answering Department would be?

Patrick Grady: Yes. I apologise that we did not make that clear on the form. I think it would be preferable to have the FCDO, because there is quite a big international angle. Potentially, there would be a role for the Health Department, the Business Department or the new Science, Innovation and Technology Department, but I think the FCDO would pull that together.

Q12            Wendy Morton: Just a quick question: I notice that you have seven names down, and we would normally look for eight; do you think you could add a few more? I am sure you can.

Patrick Grady: I am hoping so. I apologise to the Clerk, because I said I would try to get a couple more names in advance of this meeting, but some of the potential speakers are at COP28 in Dubai, so it has been a wee bit difficult to get hold of them. There is an hon. Member who normally takes an interest in these things; he was mentioned in the last evidence session, and his name does not appear on this list.

Wendy Morton: There you go.

Patrick Grady: He will be first on my list.

Chair: Actually, including yourself, you have eight.

Q13            Bob Blackman: You ticked Tuesday as a potential. On a quick calculation, World NTD Day would be 30 January, which is a Tuesday.

Patrick Grady: It is a Tuesday. However, my calculations are that the FCDO is not on the rota to answer that week.

Q14            Bob Blackman: That was going to be the next question. We think it will answer on the 23rd, but we do not know.

Patrick Grady: Yes, and that was kind of my calculation as well. I think we would be quite relaxed about that. I do not think we are as concerned as the previous witnesses about Chamber time or whatever; we are keen to get a good, focused debate that Members can make substantial contributions to. I am happy to co-operate with the Committee.

Q15            Chair: Patrick, the FCDO is actually one of the Departments answering Westminster Hall debates on Tuesday the 9th, which is the second day back after the Christmas recess.

Patrick Grady: Okay.

Chair: If offered that, would you be likely to accept it?

Patrick Grady: I think we would welcome it if the Committee can squeeze us in that early. We were hoping for it to be timed a bit closer to the global day, because that helps with the wider awareness-raising and would give Members a bit more time to prepare. But we are in the hands of the Committee and are very grateful for whatever can be done.

Chair: We could probably let you know before the Christmas recess, so your Members would have lots of time to prepare.

Patrick Grady: Sure.

Chair: Okay, everyone? Right. Patrick, thank you very much indeed. We now go into our closed session.