Backbench Business Committee
Representations: Backbench Debates
Tuesday 13 October 2026
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 13 October 2026.
Members present: Bob Blackman (Chair); Mr Lee Dillon; Mary Glindon; Martin Vickers.
Questions 1-10
Representations made
I: Scott Arthur and Clive Jones
II: Scott Arthur and Julie Minns
III: Olivia Bailey
Scott Arthur and Clive Jones made representations.
Q1 Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will be considering applications from colleagues for debates in the main Chamber and Westminster Hall on Tuesday mornings and Thursday afternoons. Our first application is from Scott Arthur, for a debate in the Chamber on the future of cancer research in the UK. I will declare my interest as a strong supporter of Cancer Research UK and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health.
Dr Arthur: Thank you, Chair. I am sure that all of us have interests in this area, so you will not be alone in that. Although you have a formal conflict of interest, I am sure that we all have an interest in this subject.
This debate is about looking at how we can progress cancer research in the UK faster and further. Fundamentally, it is about holding the Government to account, but also thinking about not just the health benefits of working in this area, but the economic benefits. The UK has a world-leading record on cancer research, and breakthroughs have transformed the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers in my lifetime—although, I have to say, I am in my 50s actually. But there is a feeling that, while progress is faster than in the past, it is perhaps starting to slow a little.
We have the national cancer plan, which was published earlier this year, but we have had a few personnel changes in that Department since then. This is a challenge, really, just to keep them on their toes. Although this is not a DHSC debate, it is a chance to shine some light on the progress that has been made.
This is extremely timely; there are several pressing issues, principally delays in setting up clinical trials, which mean that promising treatments are reaching patients more slowly than they should. I want to give two examples. I have a constituent called Faye Robertson. She is a clinician, and she has just won £70 million to research glioblastoma with the University of Edinburgh and NHS Lothian in my constituency, which is fantastic. However, were she here, she would say that, if she had chosen to go to the States, she would have started the work a year earlier, such are the delays in the UK.
Yesterday evening, we had a meeting with universities that want the Government to invest around £500 million in science infrastructure to progress treatments both for cancer and other conditions. There was a pharmaceutical company there that is investing alongside Cancer Research UK, and it was asked, “If this new research institute develops intellectual property, would that stay in the UK?” It said, “Well, that can’t be guaranteed, because it can be more attractive to do the work overseas than in the UK.”
That is something that we have to address. It is not just about giving people access to treatments; it is about giving them access to really good clinical trials that mean that they have more support as they go through their cancer journey. It is also about ensuring that we are investing in the UK economy and bringing those jobs and that investment to the UK. I would therefore say that this is very timely indeed.
We have broad support from within my own party along with Liberal Democrat—Clive is always a fantastic supporter of everything in this field—Conservative, SNP, Plaid Cymru and DUP Members. I want to stress that the MPs signed up did not sign up because I approached them in the Tea Room or Division Lobby with a piece of paper to sign; these MPs have signed up because their constituents have contacted them and made the case. Every single one of those constituents has either lost a family member, has cancer right now or is a survivor of cancer. That is what makes this application a little different as well. It comes from the grassroots.
Clive Jones: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak in favour of the application, Chair. Cancer is going to touch one in two of us, meaning that we all know somebody who is affected by cancer. As Scott said earlier, it remains the leading cause of death in the UK. I have experienced at first hand what it is like to go through a diagnosis, and I know the importance of effective treatment. The treatment I had, 18 years ago, had not changed for 40 years—but it was successful. These days I would not have to go through so much difficulty. It was something that was pretty hard to cope with.
Survival rates have doubled since the 1970s, but have started to slow a bit recently. We in the UK have a proud history of world-leading cancer research. In the discussions that I have with a lot of cancer charities I hear that we could be doing so much more. We could be back to a leading position in the world, and we have slipped away from that recently.
This debate is definitely needed. It has lots of cross-party support, and the Government’s recent national cancer plan has set a target of three in four people surviving for five years or more by 2035. To be able to do that—and it is a goal that nearly all of us would say we need to reach—we have to improve the research and the development of treatment.
I hope very much that you are going to say yes, and let us have this debate.
Q2 Mary Glindon: My late husband benefited from being on a trial and I know what a difference it makes to cancer patients to be able to partake in trials. I am glad that Scott mentioned that.
Is there a particular special date that you would like this debate to coincide with?
Dr Arthur: I understand that November is the national awareness month for lung, pancreatic, oral and gastric cancer. I know that November seems quite close, but that would seem timely. Obviously, I am in your hands.
Chair: As you say, it is a very well-supported application. I am not sure whether you could prevail upon the Leader of the House to give us plenty of time in November. At the moment, we are not getting time in the Chamber at all, for one reason or another—other than the odd day. We also have the Budget coming up, which means that debating time will be on the Budget. Then we have the short recess that comes up at the beginning of November. We will do what we can to get you a proper date. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.
Scott Arthur and Julie Minns made representations.
Q3 Chair: We now come to Dr Arthur’s second application. It regards the impact of the illegal use of e-bikes and conversion kits on communities. Once again, it is for a debate in the Chamber. I have to say, this is one of those things that I am sure all MPs are getting plenty of correspondence on.
Dr Arthur: One of the questions I am worried you might ask me is which of these two debates I might prefer. Certainly, this issue is the one that I get emails from my constituents about. If I had police officers from my constituency here, they would say that this is the No. 1 issue that people are raising with them right now in my constituency. Obviously, cancer care is a separate issue, and a really important one as well, but is very different.
I have a good friend who goes to my church. She is in her 70s and recently bought an e-bike. It has transformed her life. Her boldness in using it is incredible. However, the flip side of the positivity that has come with e-bikes is the use of illegal e-bikes, and kits that are used to convert legal bikes to illegal e-bikes. I see this right across my constituency. One of the hotspots is right outside my constituency office, which is a little embarrassing at times for me: people are able to point to it and ask me what I am doing about it.
These bikes are big disruptors. We see them every day and they are a huge concern to the police. It is right across our country, whether we are living in an urban area or even some rural centres as well. We really do feel it. We have had past discussions about e-bikes in Westminster Hall, and I remember taking part in the debate. That focused on antisocial behaviour, and we are all aware of those implications.
This debate is focused on understanding the role that illegally modified and illegal e-bikes are playing and thinking about the importing of them into the country and what steps the Government could be taking to deal with that. They are disruptors but, if we are all being honest, the Government have been too slow to respond. A consultation recently closed on the import of these devices, so there is a real chance to hold the Government to account and push them to do more.
It is not just about the safety issues that we see in our streets. I met with the London Fire Brigade recently in this building. They were talking about how they see a fire every two days caused by the batteries—including in the depot that the police use for confiscated bikes. They even catch on fire there. While the fireman was far too professional to be angry, he sounded angry about the inaction from the Government and all parliamentarians on this issue.
This is a serious issue, both in terms of the threats that we see on our streets, but also what our emergency services are dealing with. If debated, there will be broad support from our parliamentary colleagues, but I think also from the public as well. There is a chance that they might tune in and watch what we are doing in voicing their concerns in Parliament.
Ms Minns: Thank you for the opportunity to address this issue and propose the debate. As Dr Arthur says, this is an issue that affects all our constituencies. We all see it in our postbag. We are all well versed in the criminal and safety aspects, along with the speeding that we see. Some of the less well-known aspects, which the debate would give us an opportunity to rehearse, include the impact that this is having on the legal market.
First, on the sale of legal e-bikes, in the UK, just 9% of bikes sold are e-bikes. If you go to Germany, it is 53%, and in Holland it is 61%. The debate would allow us to understand, or give us an opportunity to rehearse, why it is that the UK does not have similar sales of legal e-bikes. I would contend that it is because we have a very rife illegal market, which exactly as Dr Arthur said, is made up of these conversion kits and illegal e-bikes. The other impact is that they are undercutting legitimate businesses. For example, they are affecting the sale of low-powered motorbikes and mopeds. That market has seen a 20% decrease in Q1 this year alone, because why would you buy, license, insure and MOT a moped when you can buy an illegal kit that will get you to exactly the same speed?
The other aspect we want to look at in the debate is that, because there is a definition of a legal e-bike, if an e-bike is illegal, it becomes a motor vehicle. At that point, if you have an accident with an illegal e-bike and you are injured, you can go to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and raise a claim because it is an uninsured motor vehicle. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau has seen a 73% increase in claims attributed to people now having accidents with these illegal bikes. So there are multiple aspects to this issue. It is not just the safety, the fires, the speeding or the criminality; it is having a financial impact on the legal sale of e-bikes and also mopeds.
The last thing I would say about the timing is that next year the Tour de France is coming to the UK—it is coming to my constituency and to Dr Arthur’s constituency. If we have this debate, let us push the Government to legislate to ban the sale of these illegal kits and illegal bikes. Incidentally, China has already done that, but where do these things come from? They are coming over from China. If we can get a ban in place, we can focus on the safety and enjoyability of cycling as we go into the Tour de France next year.
Chair: I always find it bizarre that the Tour de France comes to the UK, but that is another matter.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, and I recommend that you watch the video that the London Fire Brigade has produced about an e-bike in the vestibule of a block of flats going up in flames and how the smoke emanates right up the stairs. It is horrible; you are absolutely right about the dangers.
Q4 Mr Dillon: We had a lithium battery fire in my constituency over recess that closed the Paddington line. I have just one question for you: you have requested a debate in the Chamber, but would you consider one in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or Thursday if it could happen sooner?
Ms Minns: Our preference would be the Chamber, because it is such a national issue. But as Dr Arthur has alluded to, the sooner we can push the Government to make a decision on this, the better, so if the only option was a Westminster Hall debate, we would happily take that.
Chair: Just so you know, we are still dealing with applications for the Chamber that we received in January this year. That is how long we are having to push people to. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Certainly, if you are willing to take a Westminster Hall debate, you are more likely to get one sooner rather than later.
Our other applicants have decided not to turn up. There is one application for a debate on Black History Month. Our understanding is that the Government are going to organise a debate in Government time on the subject, so I suspect the proposer is not coming to us.
Olivia Bailey made representations.
Q5 Chair: This is a request for a debate on the legacy of the Jarrow Crusade, on the 90th anniversary. The application is in the name of Kate Osborne, but Olivia Bailey is presenting on her behalf. Olivia, please present your case.
Olivia Bailey: Thank you, Chair, very much. I am presenting on behalf of Kate, who is the MP for Jarrow and who is very determined that there should be a debate to mark the 90 years since the Jarrow Crusade, when 200 men marched almost 300 miles to London to petition Parliament over devastating unemployment and industrial decline. The anniversary is an important opportunity for the House to commemorate the march and reflect on the circumstances that led to the march and its lasting national significance. Its legacy continues to resonate in debates about the dignity of work, regional inequality, and industrial communities and their relationship with Parliament. It has significance far beyond Jarrow, although of course it is very important to Kate in terms of her constituency connections.
Q6 Martin Vickers: Olivia, it is proposed that on the application that the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade is to respond, but the last time we had a debate on the Jarrow Crusade, the DWP responded. Are you aware of a particular reason that you have gone for Business?
Olivia Bailey: No, not that I am aware of. I imagine the significance might relate to the Employment Rights Act 2025 and recent improvements in workers’ rights legislation under this Government. That perhaps is one reason DBIST has been suggested.
Q7 Chair: Okay. We are suggesting, to try to coincide with Kate Osborne’s original request, to allocate the debate for 22 October—that is obviously next week—as the second debate. Is that acceptable? We will need to know immediately, because we are allocating the time.
Olivia Bailey: It is hard for me to say—I am afraid I don’t have access to Kate's diary right now. I could say yes provisionally, and then I could very quickly correspond with you, Chair, following this meeting, if there is a particularly significant reason
Kate cannot make it.
Q8 Chair: Just so you are very clear, if she is not then able to do it—
Olivia Bailey: I will do it.
Chair: The debate will slip until November.
Olivia Bailey: Okay.
Q9 Mr Dillon: Olivia just offered to lead the debate, if Kate could not.
Olivia Bailey: I could do, but I imagine Kate would prefer to do it.
Q10 Chair: Lovely. Thank you very much. We will have correspondence if necessary, but the Clerks will contact you about the offer formally.
Olivia Bailey: Thank you.
Chair: That brings the public proceedings of the Committee to an end. The Committee will now retire to consider the applications in private and allocate time accordingly.