HoC 85mm(Green).tif

Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 9 January 2024

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 9 January 2024.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Kevin Foster; Patricia Gibson; Chris Green; Nigel Mills; Wendy Morton.

Questions 1-12

Representations made

I: Andrew Lewer

II: Kirsten Oswald and Mr Alistair Carmichael

III: Dame Maria Miller and Caroline Nokes

IV: Jim Shannon


Andrew Lewer made representations.

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We are starting a few minutes early in order to get as much done as we possibly can prior to Divisions in the Chamber that we anticipate may disrupt our proceedings.

The first of our four applications this afternoon is from Andrew Lewer; welcome, Andrew. Your application is on the subject of COP10, the 10th session of the conference of the parties to the WHO framework convention on tobacco control. Why would you like this debate?

Andrew Lewer: Chairman and Committee members, thank you very much for your time. I will not read out the documentation that you have already received, which is a sort of paper version of a PowerPoint, but I want to highlight a few salient points.

Although there have previously been general debates about smoking and vaping, this one is very deliberately focused on the framework convention on tobacco control and on COP10, because it is an international organisation with a significant role in directing policy, which intrudes upon the role of Members of Parliament in informing debates and decision making. In my view, it is critical that a session of a large-scale international body with that sort of power, of which the United Kingdom is one of the major funders within the WHO framework, should not take place in an atmosphere of Ministers disappearing off and coming back to announce what they have done without Parliament having any opportunity to debate the subject or have some input. We need to ensure that the debate is informed not only by Health Department experts, but by parliamentarians.

The debate is being requested in short order because the next tobacco control framework COP meeting, COP10, will take place in Panama between 5 and 10 February this year. For the debate to be of maximum value, it needs to take place ahead of that meeting, so that Ministers and others will have heard from parliamentarians about the subject in the round.

This is not one of those slightly lame “Labour good, Conservatives bad” or “Conservatives good, Labour bad” debates. It is much more cross-party than that. Members from four different political parties have already put down to speak. Even within parties, there are important views on the subject that will cross-fertilise rather than simply being some sort of partisan framework.

Finally, there is an important angle to the United Kingdom Parliament debating the subject. A United Kingdom delegation is going to the meeting in Panama in February, even though some of the responsibilities in question are devolved responsibilities. I have support from the SNP with this, because there is a devolved angle in terms of health approaches to smoking, vaping and heated tobacco products in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. That all needs to be aired and debated here so that the people who will represent the UK hear the full spectrum of UK opinion before they do so.

Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Questions, colleagues?

Q2                Bob Blackman: Andrew, you have ticked the box for a half day in the Chamber and a general debate. You will not get any Chamber time before COP takes place, because there is a queue, but there are gaps in Westminster Hall. We could accommodate you in Westminster Hall as soon as next week.

Andrew Lewer: It is vital for the debate to take place before the scene-setting, long-term agenda-setting meeting in Panama. Obviously I would prefer a Chamber debate, as we all do when we make these applications, but the timing is more important than the venue. If the choice is between the Chamber at some point in late February/March and Westminster Hall ahead of 5 February, my preference would be Westminster Hall.

Q3                Chair: There is an opportunity for a debate in Westminster Hall a week on Thursday. You can have the first slot, if you are willing to accept that.

Andrew Lewer indicated assent.

Chair: As there are no further questions, Andrew, thank you very much for your application. It is very much appreciated.

Kirsten Oswald and Mr Alistair Carmichael made representations.

Q4              Chair: The next application is for the Holocaust Memorial Day debate. Margaret Hodge submitted the application, but I understand that she is away, so we have Kirsten Oswald and Alistair Carmichael with us. You are very welcome.

Mr Alistair Carmichael: Thank you, Chairman. We will do our best to be a substitute for Dame Margaret—a formidable prospect for anyone. She authored the application that you have before you; as you can see, it gives a pretty comprehensive description of the history of this debate, which is now a part of the parliamentary calendar.

The request is for a three-hour debate in the Chamber. Holocaust Memorial Day itself is 27 January, so if we could get something ahead of or around that date it would be particularly helpful and appropriate. I am mindful of what you said to the previous applicant, but I hope that we can accommodate this debate in the Chamber: rightly or wrongly, it is seen in the rest of the world as a more important and significant forum. This is a moment of heightened sensitivity, particularly among our colleagues in the Jewish community. I think, this year of all years, that if we were seen to be in some way downgrading the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, it would come with an attendant reputational risk.

Chairman, you know that when I appear before you I mostly say, “Yes, I’ll take 90 minutes on a Thursday afternoon in Westminster Hall,” butnotwithstanding the shortness of the time available and the other pressures that you haveI think this is a moment where the Committee would be well served by finding a means of accommodating this debate if possible.

Kirsten Oswald: I concur with my colleague. I think it is really important that we have this debate at the appropriate time and in the appropriate location, which is the main Chamber of the House of Commons. We have a particular responsibility, as MPs elected to this place, to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, and to do so in the appropriate way in the main Chamber with the opportunity for as many MPs as possible to participate. This debate will be supported significantly across the parties.

It is particularly poignant that the theme of this year’s debate is the fragility of freedom. It is a timely and concerning theme, which takes me on to the importance of our making the debate a standard that happens every year on a cross-party basis, so that as elected Members of Parliament we can properly mark Holocaust Memorial Day and all that that means.

Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Questions, colleagues?

Q5                Bob Blackman: Would you prefer Thursday 25 January, which is the nearest date to the day itself?

              Mr Carmichael: Yes.

Q6                Bob Blackman: You have a very large number of speakers, and I am sure that there will be others who wish to contribute. You have applied for a three-hour debate. Would you be able to accommodate a full Thursday? It will not be six hours, because it never is, but rather than having people end up with two or three minutes each, that would allow people to make a reasonable contribution.

Mr Carmichael: I think we probably could. On a Thursday, there are inevitably urgent questions and all the rest of it, and business questions run on. If you are in one of these debates and it turns out that you get only two or three minutes, that is what you have to live with, but given the external optics, if we were able to say that this was a whole-day debate, it would be a good signal to send.

Chair: What we were saying to Andrew earlier was cognisant of the fact that we had your application coming before us, with over 40 signatures. We had already pencilled in your application for the 25th. You can take it that we are very much minded towards acceding to that request.

Mr Carmichael: Lovely. On Burns day as well!

Chair: Indeed. It is also my better half’s birthday.

Kirsten Oswald: We should have a debate on that, too.

Mr Carmichael: That alone has got to be a half day, surely.

Chair: Indeed. As there are no further comments or questions, thank you very much for your application.

Dame Maria Miller and Caroline Nokes made representations.

Chair: Next up, we have Dame Maria Miller.

Dame Maria Miller: Ably assisted by Caroline Nokes. Thank you so much for the opportunity to put in a bid for what I think has now become the annual International Women’s Day debate.

Q7                Chair: With a slightly different theme: language in politics on International Women’s Day. I am interested in that aspect.

Dame Maria Miller: May I start by saying that other parliamentary business may take me out of the country that week? There is a Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians conference, so I am very grateful to Caroline Nokes, in her role as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, for offering to be an alternate to lead the debate. I hope that that is acceptable to this Committee.

The reason why the APPG decided to table something slightly different this year was to ensure that we had a votable motion that we could get behind. That took forward the idea of an International Women’s Day debate to focus on a different issue, rather than simply celebrating the role of women in society. As a group, we felt that the use of language and the way in which campaigning can affect women is quite a profound issue. It can put people off standing for election; it can increase attrition rates, meaning that people do not stay Members of Parliament for long. We thought it might be something that would capture the imagination of colleagues, as well as giving people the opportunity to celebrate International Women’s Day in the usual way.

Wendy Morton: It’s a really good idea.

Caroline Nokes: Maria has set out exactly why we have the motion proposed. I do not take it for granted that there will be an annual debate on International Women’s Day. Hence we are here making the pitch; I think it is important that we persuade colleagues of the importance of the day. Historically, the debate has always been well supported, and not just by female colleagues in this place. I always appreciate the fact that men come along to speak and highlight issues that are of importance.

I am very conscious that this year is most likely an election year. The discourse and the tone of our political debate can sometimes be incredibly difficult. It was just a few weeks ago that 50:50 Parliament had a meeting with literally hundreds of young, aspiring female politicians in Committee Room 14. Many of them used the phrase, “Why should we take the risk of putting our heads above the parapet?” I think it is incumbent on this place to make sure that we highlight exactly why people should take the risk. It is a risk to stand for election, but it should not be a risk that opens you up to abuse and harassment. I think this is a great opportunity for us to debate the issues and, alongside that, to celebrate the challenges and achievements of women over the past 12 months.

Q8                Chair: Thank you very much indeed. I understand that, if we can accommodate you, your preferred date is Thursday 7 March.

Caroline Nokes: Absolutely. International Women’s Day is Friday 8 March, so the closest date would be the Thursday.

Chair: You make a very good point, Caroline: this has become an annual debate, but it is only an annual debate because we get an application every year, so it is important that the application is submitted. We would not be allowed to consider it otherwise.

Thank you very much indeed for your application. It is much appreciated.

Jim Shannon made representations.

Chair: Last but certainly not least, renewing his season ticket for 2024, we have Mr Jim Shannon. Jim, your application this afternoon is on the future of Girlguiding UK in the British overseas territories.

Jim Shannon: I likewise do not take it for granted that when you come to the Backbench Business Committee you will always get a debate, but I do try to bring matters that have been brought to my attention and that are of some interest. On this issue, there has been more interest than normal. You will see that we have some 14 names on the list, across the parties; there was also an EDM some time ago, which was well supported. I think between 30 and 35 Members added their name to it. I know that Mr Speaker is not allowed to contribute to Chamber debates, but he is also interested in the subject.

We feel quite aggrieved that the Government have moved on with this; they have made a decision. I had hoped to get the application in before Christmas, but time overtook me and I was not able to—not that I could have had a debate before Christmas anyway.

I hope that all Committee members have received the outline of the reasons for the debate. There is a very substantial argument for Girlguiding UK to remain active in the overseas territories. Eight reasons have been outlined, the first of which is continued support for girls and young women. The two right hon. Ladies who have just left were making the case for an International Women’s Day debate. Do you know something, Mr Chairman? If God spares me, I will be one of the men at that debate, because I believe in it. I believe it is the right thing to do. For young girls and women, the debate that I am requesting about Girlguiding is so important.

The other reasons include the promotion of inclusivity and diversity and global citizenship, which are all things that we try to build for our children and schoolchildren in our constituencies, as well as community building, social development, empowerment and leadership development. Those are all things that we wish to see. If you had taken the last application and mine together, we could probably have done the same thing. We are asking for the same thing, only for a different reason. The last two reasons are positive impact on local communities and long-term relationships and partnerships—those friendships that are developed.

This debate is about the organisation’s commitment to the wellbeing and development of girls, as well as its dedication to fostering positive change and creating a more inclusive and empowered society. We all want that, Mr Chairman. You want it; your Committee members want it; we all want it.

Q9                Chair: Which Department do you see answering this debate?

Jim Shannon: I presumed it would be the FCDO, but I stand to be corrected by those who know better than I do. Kevin, you are usually the man who knows best.

Q10            Kevin Foster: It would probably be the Minister for the overseas territories in the FCDO, but obviously that would be a matter for the Government, if we schedule the debate. If it is on a Thursday in Westminster Hall, for example, the Government will put up whoever they believe should respond, because it is not limited to one Department. I presume that it would be the FCDO Minister for the overseas territories; you could stretch it to DCMS, given the youth involvement, but based on your application I would have thought the FCDO was the obvious one.

Jim Shannon: I think so as well.

Q11            Bob Blackman: Would you accept a Westminster Hall debate if we offered it?

Jim Shannon: I certainly would, with the proviso that I cannot have it on 18 January because I have Mark Spencer coming over for a visit to Northern Ireland. That would be quite short notice, anyway, so I would not expect to get it that quickly, but I cannot do that particular Thursday.

Chair: Tuesday 23rd would be possible, and then Selaine Saxby’s could go on the 30th. The answering Department will be up to the Government, but it so happens that the FCDO is answering on the morning of Tuesday 23 January.

Wendy Morton: A quick point, and one that I often raise: I can see that you have three named Conservatives. We would normally be looking for four. I am sure you could get a fourth; I was a Girl Guide once in my dim and distant past, and I am sure plenty of others in this place were too. That would be my only point, Chair.

Chair: A valid point, Wendy. I say that having been a Boy Scout myself.

Wendy Morton: Dyb, dyb, dyb!

Bob Blackman: You’d have been a Scout. Boy Scouts were abolished in the 1970s.

Wendy Morton: Are they just Scouts? You can have Girl Scouts now, Chair.

Q12            Chair: I am afraid to say I was a Boy Scout from 1968.

Jim, that offer is on the table for Tuesday 23 January, as long as the Government believe that the FCDO is the appropriate answering Department.

Jim Shannon: I appreciate that. Mr Chairman, colleagues and staff, thank you so much.

Chair: Thank you very much. It is much appreciated.