Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 10 March 2026

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 10 March 2026.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Bob Blackman (Chair); Jonathan Davies; Mr Lee Dillon; Mary Glindon; Martin Vickers; Chris Vince.

Questions 1-7

Representations made

I: Jim Shannon

II: Caroline Voaden

Jim Shannon made representations.

Q1             Chair: Welcome to the meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will consider applications from colleagues for debates in the main Chamber, and in Westminster Hall on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The first application to be heard is from our season ticket holder, Jim Shannon, who is requesting a debate on the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people. Can you introduce your debate, Jim?

Jim Shannon: Thank you very much for the opportunity to request this debate. I am requesting it simply because, when we, as elected representatives, see conflict, we more often than not see children and women, because our hearts go out to the people we see as vulnerable. Sometimes, what is missed in that are the older people—elderly people—in conflict areas.

As we look across the world—it is not just myself, I think we all do it—there are 67 wars, and the focus is on the middle east and Ukraine, and on other places as well. Whether it be Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan or Myanmar, older people are frequently left behind due to systematic barriers such as ageism and policies that exclude them.

The UK’s commitment has always been—even in my time as a part-time soldier—to leave nobody behind; that was one of our policies.  That explicitly includes the rights, dignity and safety of older people, who are often invisible and left out of humanitarian responses.

I am very keen to have this debate. When I asked who would be interested, I had a number of Members right away who are very interested in these types of subjects. Brian Mathew is one, and David Reed will probably bring a military point of view from the Conservatives. From the Labour party, there is Sarah Champion, Steve Witherden, Rachael Maskell and Martin Rhodes. There is also Helen Maguire, my colleague Gregory Campbell and the independent Ayoub Khan, who sits behind us in the Chamber.

What will we try to do with this? Crucially, the debate offers a platform to MPs to help shift the narrative about older people, from being seen as passive victims, to recognising them as essential rights holders and contributors to their families and communities. In times of crisis, older people respond as volunteers, and are primary carers for children and respected peacemakers in communities. By highlighting their resilience and agency, I believe that the UK Government can lead global efforts to integrate older people into humanitarian and peacebuilding strategies, ensuring that their voices are central to the design of the interventions that affect all our lives.

Q2             Mr Dillon: Jim, as you have used an old form, you have not indicated which Department you want to answer the debate. Is it FCDO or is it Equalities?

Jim Shannon: I would presume FCDO. That is what I was thinking.

Q3             Mr Dillon: You mentioned additional names that we do not have on our list here. Could you hand that in?

Jim Shannon: I am happy to leave that here.

Q4             Martin Vickers: Jim, you have asked for a Tuesday debate, but would you be prepared to consider Thursday?

Jim Shannon: I will go wherever you tell me. I am okay with that. Obviously, Tuesdays are better but whenever you suggest I will be happy with that.

Q5             Mary Glindon: Jim, this is your 20th application of this Session and you currently have three debates on the waiting list. Are you okay with the fact that this debate is not likely to be allocated in this Session of Parliament?

Jim Shannon: Bob and I happened to have a generic conversation about what would happen to those debates that were not allocated. The Chair gave me an indication of how it would work. If it goes over to the next one, I think there is a methodology to do that and I am happy to follow that methodology.

Chair: Any other questions? No. As always, Jim, the Clerks will contact you in due course.

Jim Shannon: I apologise for last week. Unfortunately I was held up with lots of things. Everybody was demanding me at that time and I just could not get here. I made up for it today, and here is the new list.

Caroline Voaden made representations.

Q6             Chair: The second application is from Caroline Voaden. This is a request for a debate on the provision of face-to-face banking services in rural areas. It is an application for Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning.

Caroline Voaden:  As you will see from the number of MPs who have supported this application, access to face-to-face banking services is a significant concern in many rural areas. We have backers from three parties for the debate. Bank branches are closing every week across the country, leaving many towns without any high street banks. These towns are often a hub for a wider community of villages and hamlets. Each bank closure is leaving thousands of residents without access to face-to-face banking services. I only have one bank left in a large rural constituency where public transport is negligible. People may have to travel for well over an hour to reach the nearest branch of their bank.

Face-to-face services are essential. People need advice on complex transactions, on future financial planning, and for many people, especially the elderly, they need to be able to talk to someone face-to-face. Many are unable to use online services. Others do not trust them. We should not be permitting a system that shuts these people out. Digital connectivity also presents a real challenge in rural areas—and I speak from the heart, from my constituency.

The eligibility criteria for banking hubs changed in September 2024, meaning assessments are now based on access to cash rather than to actual banking services. Cash machines are not a substitute for banks. Post offices are often located in busy shops, queues can be long, and they cannot complete banking transactions or give advice. The debate will give Members the opportunity to highlight the situation in their own constituencies, and to share their constituents’ experiences. We must reconsider the responsibility of banks to provide services to all their customers.

Q7             Jonathan Davies: Thank you for raising that issue because it affects people in my area as well. It is galling that taxpayers bailed out the banks in 2008 and the banks now make large profits but often do not provide services to the people who need them in more rural communities. You have applied for a debate on a Tuesday in Westminster Hall or for the Chamber on a Thursday. Would you consider a debate in Westminster Hall on a Thursday? The waiting list for that is much shorter and there are a number of applications on the waiting list.

Caroline Voaden: I would consider that, yes. I would prefer it to be on a Tuesday because I believe there are a lot of Members in the House who would like to talk about this, and I think it would be good to give them the opportunity to raise it. Obviously there are fewer people around on a Thursday.

Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. That completes the public business of the Committee, which will now go into private session to consider the applications and allocation of time.