Backbench Business Committee
Representations: Backbench Debates
Tuesday 1 September 2026
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 1 September 2026.
Members present: Bob Blackman (Chair); Jonathan Davies; Mary Glindon; Alison Hume; Will Stone; Martin Vickers.
Questions 1-9
Representations made
I: Andy MacNae and Michelle Welsh
II: Clive Lewis
III: James Naish
Andy MacNae and Michelle Welsh made representations.
Q1 Chair: Welcome to the first meeting of the Backbench Business Committee after the summer recess. We will consider applications from colleagues for debates in the main Chamber and Westminster Hall. The first application before us is from Andy MacNae and Michelle Welsh for a three-hour main Chamber debate on baby loss. Please present your case.
Andy MacNae: Yes. We are looking for a debate in the Chamber during Baby Loss Awareness Week, which is 9 to 15 October. Every year for 10 years, the House has held a debate during that that week, although when we had it in the main Chamber last year, I think it was the first time it had been in there for many years. We are all aware of just how impactful and important that debate was, and it came at a crucial time, as work was starting on Baroness Amos’s national maternity investigation. It played a crucial role, in part rebuilding some trust among families and others who have been impacted by baby loss, which remains a terrible thing for anyone to go through. Nationally, it is something that I think we recognise needs to be addressed as a vital priority across Government.
Since then, we have had not only Baroness Amos reporting on the national investigation, but the Ockenden report. If anything, I think the importance of a debate in the main Chamber has become even greater. A huge amount of work needs to be done to pull in the recommendations from all the reviews to make them reality, to build trust that we will deliver the changes that people want to see at the national level, to make the fundamental change to maternity safety, to get back to listening to parents, to eliminate disparities due to ethnicity or deprivation, and to reintroduce the safety culture—a system change that we need to see across the NHS. The debate will play a vital role in pulling together the various threads of work that have been done across Government.
Crucially, too, as these things must, I think a debate will hold Government and Ministers to account for the progress that they have made to date, because I think families rightly expect the work to be done with urgency and ambition. We need to see that manifest in the House. It is a really crucial moment, really important to families, and I hope that the Committee supports this. I will hand over to Michelle to fill in what I have forgotten.
Michelle Welsh: Just to declare an interest, I am the national maternity adviser to the Government—I want to make that clear. There are a number of reasons why this debate is so important, such as the fact that the issue affects every single constituency in this country—no constituency is not affected in one way or another.
We had the Baroness Amos inquiry and that will involve us working cross-party to ensure that women have safe births in this country, which is not happening in many areas. We had the Donna Ockenden review of the biggest maternity scandal in NHS history, reporting back on hundreds and hundreds of families who were affected. In addition to that, we have a Leeds inquiry starting in a matter of weeks, a Sussex inquiry starting after that, and the potential for an Oxford inquiry as well. The fact that we work so well across parties helps with this issue. We have to keep talking about it. We in this room all know that the minute we stop talking about it, it is no longer an issue; we need to keep it on the radar. We owe that to people in this country. As I said, it affects every single community.
I will not go back over what my hon. Friend has just said, but the fact that we are working across parties on this clearly tells us all something. It tells us that this is important to everybody. We keep talking about it in Parliament. This is an absolutely crucial time; we are at a crossroads, and if we do not get the investment that we need in maternity services, we will not see the improvement that we so desperately need. At the moment, the Government are considering all the recommendations from those inquiries. This will allow us to have debate and discussion on a cross-party basis and to put over why improvement in maternity services is so vital for every single community and constituency.
My last point is that a lot of the babies sadly passed away under really awful circumstances. A debate would also allow us, as a House, to pay respects to those babies, mothers and the families who have lost the most precious thing in their lives. That is what we are about as well. We are at a crossroads; there is a huge opportunity. If this is not what we are here for, then I do not know what we are here for.
Q2 Will Stone: As it stands, the Committee does not know what dates we will be allocated in the first week after conference. That said, if we could offer it, would you be happy with Monday 12 October? Just to note that on the first day back there are sometimes UQs, which could eat into your time.
Andy MacNae: Last time we had the Monday, and I think that we started it at 9 o’clock and finished at 12. I was wondering whether there was an opportunity on Thursday 15 October. That would correspond to the “Wave of Light”, which is the final part of Baby Loss Awareness Week.
Michelle Welsh: One request is that a lot of families want to be there, because Members of Parliament read out the names of babies and mothers who have lost their lives during maternity. Previously, families who had been present for the whole day had to go before they heard their baby’s name read out, as the debate was just getting pushed back until later in the day. If anything could be done in that regard, we would really appreciate it. The main thing is for us to have it in that week, but greater consideration would be very much appreciated.
Q3 Chair: The reason Will raises that issue is that the first day back after a recess is often when the Government gives us time for such a debate. We will probably not get the Thursday as well as the Monday. However, you can help us by persuading the Leader of the House to allocate that Thursday to us, and then we will meet you halfway by agreeing that your debate should be that day.
Andy MacNae: We will give it a go.
Michelle Welsh: We will give it more than a go!
Chair: Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch in due course.
Clive Lewis made representations.
Q4 Chair: The next application is a request for a main Chamber debate on public ownership of water. Clive, please present your case.
Clive Lewis: Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks to the Committee for considering this. You must be aware of the issues surrounding water—not just Thames Water, but in every single region in England—and the level of public concern about the situation. I know that it has been in media headlines over the summer with the droughts, hosepipe bans and then the flash floods that were in part caused by the growing scale of the climate crisis and its impact on our water here.
Going back in history, we have been a water-rich country and society. We are now entering a phase where that is ending. According to the latest Government statistics, we will be approximately 5 billion litres a day short within the next 20 years. That is before the Government’s own data centre planning and increased house building have been included in that calculation. Water, which is probably one of the most critical resources this country has, is clearly a hot topic of discussion. Thames Water is in the news, and the Government have now said that they want to go away and consider the special administration regime and how it is going to impact on any kind of decision going forward. Clearly, Thames Water is key to that.
Yet there is one thing that we have never discussed in this House. Even in my private Member’s Bill, I was not able to use the term “public ownership” because of the cost implications, which would have meant I needed a money resolution, and so we were not able to do it. There has not been a debate on the issue of ownership of water in this place for a long time. I know that there are now two other debates scheduled. One has come about through the Petitions Committee, which I think takes place in two weeks’ time. That was submitted and came through after I had made this application. The other application was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and is entitled “A dirty business”, based on the Channel 4 documentary, which got a lot of public attention. That is focusing more on public health. That is an integral part of this, but it avoids the crunchy issue of ownership, which is the nuts-and-bolts basis of why I want this debate, preferably in the main Chamber, with as many MPs as possible from across the political spectrum taking part.
The key issue here, and I do not want to be too dramatic, is that the national risk register, which has just been published, states that there is a one in four chance that, within a very short timeframe, there may be a drought of such dire consequences that a region would have to be evacuated. Millions of people would need to leave that part of the country—this is on the national risk register—because they would not be able to be supplied with bottled water for the time required. That is a one in four chance for the Government. If you put a round in a chamber, spun it and gave me a one in four chance, I probably would not take that chance.
This is a big issue and it is not just about the cost of living, or about the fact that the ecological systems of our rivers are now at a tipping point, the fact that people can no longer swim in the sea or rivers with confidence, the increase in bills, or the fact that there are now data centres that will use up vast amounts of water with unknown benefits for local communities—water that is not there for farmers, house building and manufacturing in other sectors. This is a massive issue—one of the most fundamental. It goes to the heart of this country’s move into a deeper and deeper climate situation. Like in most of the world, including Europe—look at the wildfires in the south of Europe, including in Italy, the south of France and Spain—the FBU are deeply concerned about the levels of water we have in this country and our ability to firefight both now and in the future.
This is a massive issue, and whether or not you agree with public ownership, the model of ownership is now clearly key going forward. It is something the last Government continually sidestepped. They refused to acknowledge or talk about this. Given the scale of what is happening, and the level of public support for some change to the ownership model, which is around 85% in successive polling, there is a real appetite for this place to debate this and give it a meaty debate—time for people to get stuck in, hear the arguments for and against, and give this Government a flavour of where the House is on this issue. I think that is really important.
The Prime Minister has spoken today about the need for more control, and about change. Well, what does that control look like? Will it keep assets in the hands of those who have done such wrong to our water system, or will it put them into a new ownership model? That is what this debate would be about. I would urge the Committee to give us some time to have that fundamental debate.
Q5 Mary Glindon: We require an even split between Government and non-Government members for a debate to go ahead. You have only got three non-Government members. Would you be able to get any more?
Clive Lewis: I think we can, including, after this summer, a few Conservative MPs in particular. Obviously, the debate is limited because it relates to England, so it means you cannot approach the SNP, Plaid or any others, but I think, after this summer, there will be others on the Opposition Benches who will want to have this debate. That is something I can go back to. I actually do know two or three Members who will now come on board. I can do that.
Q6 Martin Vickers: Your colleague Peter Prinsley has got an application fairly high up our waiting list entitled “The state of the water industry”. Assuming Peter is happy to do so, would you consider merging with him and combining the two?
Clive Lewis: I would be happy to merge, but I would rather wait. This issue will not go away any time soon. I am aware that Peter is higher up on that list. I am prepared to wait if that is an option, to go into next year, further on in the parliamentary term. I am unclear whether Peter has asked for a Westminster Hall debate or a debate in the main Chamber. I would rather a debate in the main Chamber; I think it has more impact. I have attended multiple debates on this issue in Westminster Hall, with other people. I am prepared to merge them, but I would like to go into the main Chamber, and I am prepared to wait.
Chair: Thank you, Clive. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. At the moment your application is in, but we will consider it amber until we have the extra names who will contribute to the debate.
Clive Lewis: Yes. Thank you very much.
James Naish made representations.
Q7 Chair: This is a request for a three-hour debate in the Chamber on nursing staff.
James Naish: I thank you Chair, and the Committee, for seeing me. Welcome back. This request is for a general debate about nursing. I am sure that the Committee knows that the nursing workforce is the largest part of our NHS, but across the country, nurses are currently working under sustained pressure, due to unsafe staffing levels in some cases, poor retention and under-investment in nursing education.
Nursing is critical to delivering the NHS 10-year plan. I am amazed that we still do not have the workforce plan to accompany that. Although we do not have it, the debate would be a good opportunity for Members to reinforce the importance of nursing within the context of that plan. Although the funding is of course positive, it does not guarantee that there will be staff, beds and appropriate discharge capacity, that community nurses will be available when and where they are needed, or that there will be safe nurse-to-patient ratios. Those are all things that could be talked about in a debate.
Three key areas are of interest to me. The first is district nursing. In Nottinghamshire there are around 40 district nurse vacancies. That means that specialist nurses are having to give up their time to support those gaps in the workforce, and that in turn means we see pressures elsewhere. We have that type of issue.
The second key area is in the challenges around training routes. My home university, Nottingham University, proposes to cut certain training courses for child and mental health nursing. That will of course have consequences locally, but it is not just a Nottingham problem. I understand that Cardiff University narrowly avoided making similar decisions, that some Scottish universities have cut training routes, and that there are challenges in Northern Ireland, so the problem applies to constituencies across the UK.
The third key area is nurses in general practice. They face further difficulty because, despite the fact that they deliver NHS-funded care, they do so as employees of their practice, which means that pay and conditions, such as maternity leave, can vary quite widely from one practice to the next.
Those are just some of the issues that have been raised with me as a local MP. I would like an opportunity for us to debate them as a House. The proposal is for Members to join together to raise issues on behalf of their constituents and their local ICBs, so that we can press the Government to ensure that nursing staff are properly consulted and included in the workforce plan when it arrives. On that basis, I request a half-day debate in the Chamber, but I am happy to be flexible. I have strong cross-party backing for the debate.
Chair: You may wish to add in the plight of hospice nurses.
James Naish: The list could go on, couldn’t it? That is exactly why a general debate would be very timely.
Q8 Jonathan Davies: You do not actually have enough Opposition signatories to have a Chamber debate. You need seven and there are five here, so you have two options: either get some more Opposition Members or have a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday or a Thursday.
James Naish: I am fairly confident that I was told it was the other way around and we had more Opposition signatories. I wonder if that is due to the way they have been presented. I will double-check and come back to the Committee, if that is okay.
Q9 Jonathan Davies: And your preference is to have a Chamber debate?
James Naish: Yes, given that there is a lot of interest in this issue.
Jonathan Davies: You can let the Clerks know who the additional signatories are. We need seven for the Chamber.
James Naish: Based on general demand, I am happy to be flexible but—
Chair: After a quick recce through the application, you have 14 Labour Members and five Opposition Members. Obviously, we want a 50:50 split of speakers for a Chamber debate. If you could kindly supply some extra names of Opposition Members who will speak in the debate, the application will then go live.
James Naish: Yes, no problem. Thank you very much.
Chair: The Clerks will be in touch in due course. That concludes our public business for today. The Committee will now retire to consider the applications and allocation of time in private.