Backbench Business Committee
Representations: Backbench debates
Tuesday 11 September 2018
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 11 September 2018.
Watch the meeting
Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Nigel Mills; Jess Phillips; Alex Sobel; Mr William Wragg.
Questions 1- 8
Representations made
I: Lee Rowley and Mr Peter Bone
II: Antoinette Sandbach
Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. This is our second meeting of the autumn session.
Lee Rowley and Mr Peter Bone made representations.
Q1 Chair: We have two applications before us this afternoon. The first is from Lee Rowley and concerns ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Lee Rowley: Thank you, Chair and thank you all for being willing to consider this. I am here on behalf of a group of Members, and Peter Bone is here with me. Other supporters include Jeremy Lefroy, Jim Shannon, David Lammy, Ruth George, Tonia Antoniazzi, Liz Twist, Laura Smith and Paul Williams. We are asking for your consideration for a debate on ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment.
About 7,000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer annually. It remains a cancer that is not as high profile as others. It has less good outcomes than a number of other cancers and it also falls into the bucket of being less known and less debated. We hope we can start to rectify that with an opportunity to debate it in the House in the coming months.
Ovarian cancer has not been explicitly debated in the House for about seven years, I understand, since 2011. It seems to be a good inflexion point and a good opportunity to have a debate, given movements in treatment and a number of things that the NHS is doing. In addition, the all-party parliamentary group, of which I am vice-chair, has recently published a report on ovarian cancer—I have it here—that gives an excellent framework for a debate, which would allow Members to discuss the subject and talk about the way forward in coming years. I hope that is useful as a starting point.
Q2 Chair: Peter, do you wish to add anything?
Mr Bone: I should declare an interest: my mother died of ovarian cancer. I have a private Member’s Bill on the very specific point that cervical smear results are often mistakenly regarded as showing that a woman does not have ovarian cancer. My Bill proposes to put on the piece of paper given to the patient the information that a cervical smear test is not a test for ovarian cancer.
Q3 Alex Sobel: You have put on your application that you want Chamber time for this debate, but you have only asked for 90 minutes. We normally allocate three hours. Would you be able to fill a three-hour slot—you only have 10 speakers—if you are offered three hours?
Lee Rowley: We are happy to be guided by the Committee. Our priority, presuming you accept this, is to raise the profile in any way possible, so we would be happy to take your guidance on what is appropriate.
Q4 Alex Sobel: Do you think you will be able to get more names?
Lee Rowley: I am hopeful but I cannot guarantee it—sorry to give you a politician’s answer.
Q5 Chair: There is an opportunity for a debate in the Chamber following the Government’s proxy voting debate on Thursday this week. Would you be able to take that if it were offered to you?
Lee Rowley: I am afraid we probably would not. I don’t think we would get the number of people we hope for in that period. I am very reluctant to turn down Chamber time, but I don’t think it would be very likely to succeed.
Q6 Chair: There is also potentially the opportunity for the very next day, in parliamentary terms, which is Tuesday 9 October. Would you be able to take that?
Lee Rowley: In principle, I would not have an issue with that.
Mr Bone: That would be very acceptable, Mr Chairman. I guess that is the first day back after the conferences?
Chair: It is the first day back after the conference recess.
Mr Bone: An appropriate way to start, when everyone will be relaxed.
Chair: The Committee has yet to determine what we are giving priority to, but there is the potential that that offer will be made. We will let you know. Thank you very much, and welcome back, Peter. It’s good to see you again.
Mr Bone: It is more terrifying at this end, Chair.
Antoinette Sandbach made representations.
Q7 Chair: Next up we have Antoinette Sandbach. This is not a surprise—we discussed the matter during business questions in the Chamber last Thursday. It is an application on baby loss awareness week.
Antoinette Sandbach: As you know, Chair, I raised this issue in the Chamber last Thursday, when 9 October was released by the Leader of the House for Back-Bench business. Baby loss awareness week takes place not only nationally in the UK, but internationally. It is an annual event for bereaved parents and their friends and family to unite with others to commemorate their babies’ lives.
Baby loss awareness week is used not only to raise awareness of the issues surrounding pregnancy and baby loss in the UK, but to push for tangible improvements in services, support and research and around policy and bereavement support. We need a debate—there have been three key developments since last year. First, in November 2017, the Government brought forward their target to halve the rate of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths, and brain injuries by 2025. It was previously set for 2030. We would welcome the opportunity to share news of the progress that has been made on that target. Secondly, the national bereavement care pathway was launched last year during baby loss awareness week in 11 pilot sites. A further 21 sites went live in April, and it is hoped that the Department will roll out this new bereavement care pathway across England.
This debate is supported by 42 Members of Parliament—additional names have come forward, and I don’t know if my office has had an opportunity to notify the Committee.
Chair: We have the list here.
Antoinette Sandbach: Lovely—I am very grateful for that. It is quite clear that there is some learning to be done in relation to Scotland, where they have had a different approach from England. I hope it will also encourage colleagues to push for their local NHS trust to adopt the new standards that will be rolled out. It has had a very significant impact in the past; indeed, baby loss awareness week has been one of the debates that had the largest digital outreach in Parliament. Baby loss charities all work together to try to ensure that in their own fields they can have the maximum impact by using this week. It is clear from previous debates that what happens in Parliament has helped drive the discussion outside and break the silence around baby loss. I urge you to grant the application for a debate.
Q8 Mr Wragg: Following on from that last point, the previous debates certainly sparked wider conversations away from Parliament that have been particularly moving, as you do not need me to tell you. You put on the application that you would be happy with either the Chamber or Westminster Hall. Mr Chairman, is Tuesday 9 October the afternoon that we might have Chamber time? Is there only a single slot?
Chair: No, it is two slots.
Mr Wragg: In that event—I am not sure what the whipping is on that Tuesday—would you be able to summon enough Members to justify the Chamber time?
Antoinette Sandbach: I would argue that, given that 42 supporters have signed the application and that your normal request is for 15 to 20—it is usual for some people to drop out; I accept that some people are unable to attend debates—there is a high likelihood that we would have a sufficient number of speakers for the debate if it were in the Chamber.
Chair: Thank you very much for the application. It was not unexpected, but we will see if we can accede to that request for 9 October. That concludes the public session of the Backbench Business Committee.