Welcome to the meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will be considering applications from colleagues for debates in both Westminster Hall and the Chamber—Westminster Hall on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the Chamber on Thursdays in general, but occasionally at other times. First up is Polly Billington, supported by colleagues, with a request for a three-hour debate in the Chamber on energy bill support. Polly, please present!

Thank you very much, Mr Blackman. The reason why we would like to be able to debate this is that I have already raised it in a ten-minute rule Bill about an energy social tariff. There is a range of options for supporting not only the vulnerable but other people in managing their energy bills, and we need to explore those properly and fully in order to inform further conversations with the Government, with the recommendations that might come out from parts of the industry and from civil society. There is a lot of pressure, and we have conversations with the wider sector—both the industry and fuel poverty campaigners—about what we need to do to be able to address this. We know that the Government are putting in place a range of measures to reduce bills, but we think a debate about the specific kind of support for energy bills will give us an opportunity to surface some of the problems with some of the proposals, and what the eventual consensus on a solution might be.

Thank you. Is there anything your colleagues want to add?

Simply, Chair, that the cost of living and energy bills are the biggest issue facing all voters. I serve the constituency that has the highest levels of fuel poverty in the UK; 40% of homes are in fuel poverty. This is a huge issue for my constituents and for constituents across the UK.

My position is similar to that of my two colleagues. This is one of the biggest issues we get in the mailbag. The issue has been ongoing for years. It is a very difficult one to tackle. I think more time for colleagues to discuss that in detail and to find the correct solutions, which will have a short-term and long-term impact, would be very welcome.

You obviously have a decent number of speakers, but for us to bring this forward, half of them have to be from the official Opposition, so is there any chance of you getting some Conservatives to be concerned about this issue?

I do think there will be some opportunities there. We have a number of Opposition MPs who have thought deeply about energy market reform over a period, and, whether they will be for or against particular proposals for energy bill support, they will at least be able to draw on their experience of having made decisions in government, particularly during the energy crisis around Ukraine, and before that. Debating what works and does not create perverse incentives and so on would be a good example of robust debate between people of differing political philosophies, trying to find a good solution for the country.

We have 17 debates in the queue for the Chamber at the minute. We are probably looking at a date after May. Would you consider taking Westminster Hall, or are you set on having the Chamber? I understand that this is a very important issue, but there is a wait.

In terms of timings, it would be better for us to be able to do the debate earlier, but I am comfortable about leaving it later so that we can enable as many people as possible to take part in it.

If there are no other questions from colleagues, thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Clive Jones made representations.

Next up is Clive Jones with a request for a debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday on a national lung cancer screening programme. It was deferred from last week because you weren’t able to be here, Clive. Do you want to present your request?

Thank you very much, Chair and members of the Committee, for letting me speak to you about my application this afternoon. From my own experience, I know how important early diagnosis is to effectively treating cancer. It took two visits to the GP before I was diagnosed with breast cancer, and that delay meant that the cancer spread to my lymph glands. Although I was unfortunate to have that one, I was fortunate to have effective treatment. People who are diagnosed often at later stages or with a much more lethal cancer are not so lucky. Lung cancer is the UK’s biggest killer, accounting for 20% of all cancer deaths. In just two years, between 2017 and 2019, there were almost 50,000 lung cancer cases in the UK and nearly 35,000 deaths. It is a shocking statistic. In comparison with our European neighbours, the picture for the UK is bleak. The five-year relative UK lung cancer survival rate is way below the European average. It should be clear that something needs to change in order to improve outcomes for lung cancer patients. Key to that is improving early diagnosis through a national screening programme. The UK lung cancer charity and other key groups achieved their ambition of doubling five-year lung cancer survival rates from 8% to 16% in their first 10 years. The charity is now targeting a new survival ambition of 35%, and it is clear that a national screening programme is a realistic and fundamental step towards achieving this ambition. Lung cancer is one of the deadliest cancers in the UK. It also has the biggest deprivation gap of all cancers by far. A national screening programme would help to address inequalities in care. Sadly, nearly 13,500 deaths each year are linked to socioeconomic disadvantage. The most deprived areas have a lung cancer mortality rate three times that of the least deprived areas. People living in rural and coastal areas in the UK have poorer access to NHS services, which increases their risk of early death from lung cancer. A national screening programme would help address the gaps in healthcare, providing many with a potential diagnosis when they might never have got one before. A debate on the national screening programme for lung cancer could not come at a more opportune time, given that we have the national cancer plan—or the 10-year national cancer plan, as it has now been called—coming out tomorrow. This debate will allow parliamentarians to highlight the need for a national screening programme at a time when long-term decisions are being made.

Thank you for the presentation, Clive. You were due to have a debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday on secondary breast cancer, but you have withdrawn the application, which means there will be no second debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday.

I am sorry about that.

So are we, because we have a long queue of people that want to hold debates. You had accepted it. What was the background to that? The Committee will want to know that, if we allocate a debate, you are not going to pull out at the last minute, which does not allow us to get an alternative debate in the relevant Chamber.

That is a very good point. As I say, I apologise for that, but in a conversation with the Minister yesterday it was fairly clear that she was not going to come to the debate on Thursday to respond for the Government, because there will be a statement on Thursday about the national cancer plan.

I know you are a relatively new Member, but let us be clear: it is up to the Government to provide a Minister or spokesman on their behalf to answer the debates that we allocate. It is not up to you or others to determine which Minister arrives. We have deliberately tried to ensure that, for example, the Health Department does not have several debates going on at the same time, so there should be no justification for a Minister not being able to answer. I will be taking this up, because the reality is that if this sort of thing happens, it disrupts what Back Benchers want to debate, and our role is to safeguard Back Benchers being able to have the debates that they want to have, not at the convenience of the Government. I believe that I will be supported by the Leader of the House in that regard as well. Anyway, we will deal with that separately.

I take your point on board personally.

Okay. Thank you. By the way, there are other Ministers who could have answered, and Whips can also answer in Westminster Hall, so they have no excuse in that respect. Anyway, let’s move on—Jonathan.

You need four Back Benchers from the Government party to have a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall. You only have three.

We have four now. We got another one today—Paulette Hamilton.

Right, okay. Well, we are just going off the information that we have here, but we will note that. Thank you.

Clive, we have enough Tuesday applications for Westminster Hall to take us through to May. Would you consider having the debate on a Thursday, in order to bring it forward?

Yes, especially in the light of what has happened this week.

Well, we live and learn. Thank you very much, Clive. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Dr Roz Savage made representations.

The next application is from Roz Savage, for a Tuesday morning debate in Westminster Hall on community hospitals. Over to you, Roz.

Thank you very much. Coming from a rural constituency, community hospitals are a cause very dear to my heart. They are a vital but often overlooked part of our NHS infrastructure, and they are especially important in rural areas, where travel times between the larger hospitals can be quite significant. Those can be crucial minutes, and they also take ambulances out of commission for that time. Unfortunately, it looks like services at community hospitals are gradually being eroded. I am thinking particularly of Cirencester hospital in my constituency. A couple of years ago, it had operations suspended at its minor injuries unit—supposedly temporarily, but it ended up becoming permanent. There is now a day surgical unit, which again is having its functions temporarily suspended. Local residents are very concerned that this is a gradual erosion. There does not seem to be a clear national strategy for or parliamentary scrutiny of services at community hospitals. This debate seems particularly timely, given that the Secretary of State has been talking about delivering care closer to home through the NHS 10-year plan. It sometimes feels like the stated ambition is one thing, but the reality on the ground is heading in the opposite direction. There are about 500 community hospitals across the UK, so there will be one in many constituencies, and they really do form a crucial bridge between primary care, social care and the major acute hospitals. Even though I understand the desire to create centres of excellence, there is a very important role for these community hospitals. We know that most patients prefer to be treated closer to home so that relatives are able to visit them, and due to that boost in morale they often produce better patient outcomes, as well as a more personal service. It really does tie in with that NHS 10-year programme, which focuses on preventive care, integrated service and treatment closer to patients’ homes. I know that many colleagues are experiencing a similar decline in services, and this issue will only become more pressing over the coming few years. We are seeing a lot of housebuilding going on across the country, so we have significant new developments increasing the population of our market towns and there will be increased demand for A&E services. We also have declining rural public transport, making it very difficult for people—especially elderly people and sick people, who of course are the ones who primarily need the services of hospitals—to get to appointments. It makes it so much easier for them if they have a shorter journey. Of course, we have a growing population of older people living in poor health, with diabetes on the rise, so there is increasing demand for step-down and rehabilitation care. Why is parliamentary time needed? It seems that, once those services are lost, and particularly once a hospital closes down entirely, they are very rarely restored. There seems to be no nationally agreed definition, data framework or strategic direction for community hospitals in England. I am hoping that a debate would allow MPs to represent those widespread constituent concerns, take a look at whether policy ambitions match delivery and explore the case for a national strategy. This cause is particularly top of my mind at the moment, having spent 12 hours on Saturday in an ambulance—not as a patient, I am happy to say, but riding along and seeing that a lot of the cases that people feel driven to call 999 for do not really need a 999 call. Community hospitals could help to reduce demand and the handover times at hospital entrances, and, overall, maintain the quality of service that we wish we could expect from our NHS.

If colleagues have no questions, thank you, Roz. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Emily Darlington, Helen Maguire and Anneliese Dodds made representations.

The next application is from Emily Darlington for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate on the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online. Welcome, Emily and colleagues.

Thank you very much, Bob. We want to bring this debate to the House because we feel that it is an issue that is very little understood, and is having a huge impact on the majority—51%—of the population. It is the issue of the censorship of women’s health information and products online, because they are deemed too sexual and pornographic, even though they are using scientific terms. This is three times more likely to happen to women’s health than it is to men’s health, and 95% of GPs, gynaecologists and entrepreneurs who are working in this area have suffered some form of censorship in the past year. This has a significant impact. As I said, we feel that there is very little understanding of the issue, and it is really important for us to get it right here in the UK, as more and more people are dependent on the internet for their health information, and health practitioners are dependent on it for keeping up to date with the latest best practice in health-related fields, including women’s health. The Government are rightly focusing on creating a women’s health strategy, but we feel that internet censorship of women’s health information is a particularly important part that may be lost and missed because it sits between the Department of Health and Social Care and DSIT. For those reasons, we would very much like to have a debate so that we can raise the issues, understand the full impact, and inform both our knowledge in the House and the Government’s understanding and knowledge, so that we can have a proper women’s health strategy. My colleagues may want to contribute further.

You don’t have to speak if you don’t want to.

I would be happy to add very quickly that we have seen that debates in the House on women’s health and on online safety tend to be very well subscribed. This subject sits right at the heart of both, so we would anticipate that there would be considerable interest as a result. There is also a big issue for UK plc here, because UK-based femtech is often impacted by this, with products not able to be properly marketed because of what was just described by my colleague.

Further to that, it is affecting women’s health. If you search on the internet to understand a particular condition that you might have, the censorship is preventing you from understanding that further. This is a very real challenge that women are experiencing.

You touched on the tension between who has responsibility for this space—DSIT or DHSC. Which would you like the answering Department to be?

DHSC, because this is ultimately about women’s health.

If colleagues have no further questions, the Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Just to confirm, this is a request for a Tuesday and a Thursday.

Tuesday or Thursday—not “and”.

Well, you never know.

A Tuesday or Thursday 90-minute debate, please.

Okay, lovely. Thank you very much. Paul Foster made representations.

We move on to Paul Foster with a request for Chamber time for a debate on how to achieve the Government’s ambition to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% in the next decade.

Thank you, Chair. Dr Scott Arthur was going to sit by me, but he apologises; he has just been called away. I will be brief. I am grateful for the opportunity to make the case for a Backbench Business debate on cardiovascular disease, an issue that affects millions of people across the UK in every one of our constituencies. It would be timely, as this month is Heart Month. CVD is one of the most pressing health challenges our constituents face and is responsible for over 170,000 deaths each year in the United Kingdom—more than a quarter of all deaths—with one life lost every three minutes. Most troublingly, for the first time in over half a century, premature deaths from CVD are rising again. CVD is largely preventable. Around 70% of cases in the UK are linked to risk factors, including obesity and smoking, and millions of people have risk factors for CVD, such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol, often without knowing about it. In 2020, the most deprived areas of England had rates of early death from CVD two times higher than that in the least deprived, a pattern reflected across the other nations of the UK. If we are serious about tackling the stark health inequalities across our country, we must start by tackling CVD. The Government have set a bold ambition to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% over the next decade, and work is under way on a modern service framework for CVD in England as we speak. As priorities for the framework are still being shaped, the debate would provide a critical opportunity for Members to share their views and those of their constituents. The debate would also allow Members to consider the wider CVD pathway and the policy changes needed beyond the framework, from primary prevention legislation, such as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, to opportunities in the life sciences plan to advance lifesaving research breakthroughs. A debate in the House would shine much-needed light on an issue close to all our hearts—pardon the pun. It would help the Government in their commitment and help drive progress in cardiovascular health once more. This is also deeply personal to me, because it is an issue that has affected me and my family in the past year: I have just been diagnosed with a congenital heart defect that I had not known about for 54 years, which will require significant intervention at some point.

Well, we obviously wish you well in that treatment.

Thank you.

Paul, the Committee usually requires 15 speakers for a Chamber debate, and you have 12 listed. That certainly qualifies for a Westminster Hall debate, which we could probably accommodate sooner than the Chamber. Would you be happy with that?

Of course I would, Martin, but can I just explain why there are only 12? It is down to the fact that I had an enforced absence of two weeks up until Monday. You will notice that I mentioned in the bid that last year 50 MPs co-signed a letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about this very issue. I have already spoken to them, but it is because I could not be here to get the signatures that there is only the number that you see.

It would be very helpful if you supplied those extra names to the Clerks. The application is in before us, but we will not approve it until those extra names are added.

Understood.

Unless you want a Westminster Hall debate instead.

If I could have a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate, because it is an issue that I think many Members are keen to debate and influence Government legislation on, then yes. I would accept a Tuesday or a Thursday, particularly if anything could be accommodated in February, which is Heart Month. I know that is asking something, though.

Well, let’s see. If colleagues have no other questions, thank you very much, Paul. The Clerks will be in touch in due course.

Thank you. Mike Martin made representations.

We move on to Mike Martin with an application for a debate in the main Chamber on UK rearmament and warfighting readiness.

Thank you, Chair. I convey apologies from Tim Roca, who is stuck in a Bill Committee, otherwise he would be here, and from Sir Bernard Jenkin, who was sitting here but had to go to another engagement. It is actually very simple: there is a huge gap between the risks that we face globally—you only need to open a newspaper or a magazine, or switch on the radio or watch the television, to see what they are—and the UK’s military capability. In fact, currently, our military capability is going backwards. Although we released the SDR last July, it is a “jam tomorrow” document. Much of that stuff is not going to come online until we are well into the 2030s, yet the risk is right now, and that gap between what we say and what we do, and the risks that we face and the capability that we have, is getting wider, not narrower. I liken this to the 1930s debates on rearmament—it is our firm conviction that that is where we are. Sir Bernard asked me to highlight a recent report that he wrote, specifically about transitioning the UK to warfighting readiness. It is a sub-plot of the wider theme of rearmament, which is not only about developing the mass and the capability, but about making sure that the troops are trained, ready, integrated, working with allies and all those extra bits that we need to do once we have rearmed. I respectfully submit the application to the Committee.

Thank you very much. We will obviously look at this sympathetically. Indeed, in conversations with the Leader of the House, he has bemoaned the fact that we are not getting enough applications on behalf of defence, so that ticks a few boxes for people. If colleagues have no questions, the Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.

I have a brief question. I have put the Ministry of Defence as the responding Department, but is it possible in these applications to ask for the Prime Minister to respond?

Well, you can ask, but I suspect the Prime Minister is likely to say, “I’ll make sure the relevant Minister answers.”

Well, in that case, I would like to ask.

As I say, you can ask, but normally we do not even get Secretaries of State responding to our debates; it is normally junior Ministers. But I understand the rationale.

And the importance of—

Yes, and the importance.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Dawn Butler made representations.

The next application is from Dawn Butler, for a debate in the Chamber on International Women’s Day 2026.

Good afternoon. International Women’s Day has been in existence for over 100 years. I have been putting in for debates in this House not for 100 years, but since I have been here. I also ensured that we flew the International Women’s Day flag from Parliament. This year’s theme is “Give to Gain”, which is about investing in women; the more that you invest in women, the more everybody thrives. I would like to ensure that we have an International Women’s Day debate in the Chamber for 2026.

Thank you, Dawn. Have you considered bringing forward for this year’s debate a motion with a list of asks for the Government?

I can definitely put that in. I would hope that the Government puts this into the parliamentary diary so that it happens in Government time, but if that does not happen, then obviously I would like a Backbench debate. But yes, I would absolutely consider that—there would be a long list.

Very good. International Women’s Day is 8 March. Do you want the debate as close to that date as possible?

Yes please.

Okay, fine. Well, you can help us by leaning on the Leader of the House to make sure we are allocated the relevant Thursday.

I will do that.

The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.

Brilliant. Thank you very much. Jayne Kirkham made representations.

Our next application is from Jayne Kirkham, for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on ports and port connectivity.

Thank you, Mr Blackman. I am a member of the APPG on maritime and ports, and I am here after a discussion with them and on behalf of a number of MPs from around the country, because of course this is a cross-party issue. Many of us have ports—thriving ports, not-so-thriving ports or dormant ports—in our constituencies. Ports are going to be an absolutely vital piece of infrastructure in the Government’s plans for clean energy, defence, marine work—all sorts of things. There was also a manifesto commitment to put £1.8 billion into ports, and the National Wealth Fund was going to be instrumental in that. I have in my constituency a port that has a big plan for infrastructure expansion. We also want to restore the freight railway to that port. What I realised, when talking to other MPs about this, is that the connectivity of ports has really fallen away, but will be absolutely crucial if we are to restore ports to use and try to serve some of the ambitions that the country has with regard to the economy and building up the skills and the economy of those coastal areas that have been suffering so much over the last decade or so. It seemed to be a really important topic to get on the Government’s agenda. It seems to have dropped down slightly, and that £1.8 billion needs deploying, so I want to raise it to the top of the agenda again.

Thank you very much. Is there any time sensitivity on the request? Is there anything that is happening or that the Government are up to in terms of ports?

Only the rounds for floating offshore wind—the CfDs and the Crown Estate leasing rounds. One has just happened; another will be happening later this year. The quicker we can get the infrastructure up and running, the better, but this is not specifically time limited; it is just becoming more urgent as time goes on.

I just note that I have signed the application.

Yes—thank you.

Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Yuan Yang, Abtisam Mohamed, Sadik Al-Hassan and Luke Murphy made representations.

Last but by no means least, Yuan Yang, together with colleagues, has a request for a debate in the Chamber on customer service standards at FirstPort.

Thank you, Chair. FirstPort is the largest property managing agent in the UK, as I am sure you know. The debate would follow a series of informal sessions that different party groupings have had with FirstPort over the last year. Labour MPs, Lib Dem MPs and Conservative MPs have separately had scrutiny sessions with their own residents concerning FirstPort’s fairly appalling track record of customer service. I think we would all benefit from coming together as a whole House to discuss this in the open, rather than just in our own party groupings. This application of course follows Rebecca Paul MP’s general debate on service charges last October. You may recall, in the conclusion to that debate, Matt Pennycook, the Housing Minister, saying specifically that he found the mentions of FirstPort very high in number and that they were the one property agent that really stood out, in the course of the debate, as the magnet for so many complaints. That has certainly been our experience as constituency MPs. It is certainly a cross-party issue. Seventy-nine MPs, from different parties, have signed this application, and I think that shows how much this issue affects constituencies across the UK. One in five homes in the UK is subject to service charges, and because FirstPort is the largest collector of those and has been through an amount of organisational change in the last couple of years, I think it is particularly timely to look at FirstPort in a concentrated way. In terms of what is happening in the next few months and therefore the urgency of the debate, we have heard from the Secretary of State for Housing that the implementation of new measures—following on from the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—that may apply to service management agents like FirstPort will be rolled out in coming weeks, which as you know is politician speak for a slightly undefined amount of time, but certainly something that is quite imminent, and of course we all expect the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill to come to the Commons in the coming year. I think it is particularly relevant that in April, at the start of the next financial year, residents will be given their new service charges calculated by FirstPort. There are a number of outstanding queries from all kinds of estates—ranging from freehold new build estates to leasehold blocks of flats—as to what really goes into those service charges. That level of transparency and the meeting of existing legal obligations on FirstPort is really our question here. I will just say that as the introduction. I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do your colleagues wish to add anything?

Thank you, Chair. Every single Member of this House will have had innumerable conversations—at surgeries and in the street while canvassing—detailing so many heart-wrenching stories from constituents who have suffered at the hands of FirstPort. That is why this application has such broad cross-party support. In my constituency of North Somerset alone, 750 properties are managed by FirstPort. They have demonstrated a consistent lack of transparency, poor customer service and, fundamentally, a level of service that no leaseholder should be paying for, and it is clear that constituents across the country are at a loss as to how to extract clear communication from FirstPort. I think that underlines the reasons why we need to have the debate.

I will just add that this is a bread-and-butter issue for many people across my constituency. Given the cost of living, people are struggling financially. The one thing that keeps coming up is the unaffordability of service charges continuously soaring. My constituency of Sheffield Central has thousands of leaseholders, and FirstPort is the biggest provider and causing the biggest issue, so I think it is essential that we have the opportunity to put forward our constituents’ complaints and for them to be heard in the Chamber.

As my colleagues have said, this is a huge issue—in my constituency and across the country. As one Prime Minister once said, transparency is the best disinfectant. FirstPort are not transparent about their management practices and service charges, so I think we should be using debates like this to apply transparency to their poor management practices across the country.

Debates should relate directly to areas of Government responsibility. I completely understand your frustration with FirstPort—I get this, too—but the Government are not directly responsible for customer service standards in private companies. Would you consider changing the title to “Regulation of Property Management”? When you are in the debate, you can slate FirstPort as much as you want, but just for the Committee to be able to approve the debate, would you consider that?

Yes, I am very happy to broaden it to regulation of the sector or of the company. Coming off the back of the previous debate on service charges, I thought it would be beneficial to look at the issue from the business perspective and to talk about a specific business and its functioning, as opposed to service charges in general. I was hoping for a more specific debate than we had in the Chamber last time, but yes, I am very happy to open it up.

I think there is parliamentary precedent for talking about specific companies’ failings in the Chamber.

Not in debate titles, though.

Well, if you look at urgent questions that have been granted—

Those are not debates from the Backbench Business Committee or part of our remit. As I said, in the debate you can say what you want. “FirstPort are rubbish”—that’s fine. But I encourage you to broaden the title of the debate.

The other issue is that there has been a debate, as you rightly say, on service charges, and FirstPort were predominant in that debate. They are not alone, I have to say, in terms of their service charges being, shall we say, opaque. I think there are issues. Have you considered having a divisible motion that calls on the Government to take appropriate action? You might want to consider that. You don’t have to; it is your application. But given the length of time this has gone on and that, as you rightly say, it is a cross-party issue—it is not partisan—and clearly action is required, we almost need to press the Government to do something, rather than having a general debate that ends up with the Minister replying and, possibly, everyone going away not very happy.

Is it a substantive debate, rather than a general debate, that you are proposing? Is that what you are saying?

It is up to you. You are the applicants. We don’t determine that. I just think you might want to think about it.

Sure.

You have mentioned the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill and there is at the moment criticism of that draft Bill, in that some say it does not go far enough and others are saying it goes too far, so I think the Government need to be pressed on these issues. I was on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for 14 years, and we constantly debated these particular problems and wanted action. You might want to press the current Government to actually do something, as opposed to airing the problems that there are.

I am not familiar with the wording for substantive debates. I don’t know whether anyone—

It is up to you. We don’t do it on the hoof. You might want to go away, think about it and submit the motion to us at a future meeting. That does not mean you have to come back. Just pass it to the Clerks, and we will consider it appropriately.

I think it would be appropriate for us to go away and have a chat to the signatories and check that they would support such a thing as well.

We will look into Will Stone’s suggestion about “the regulation of” rather than “the service charges of” and also the substantive wording. Great; thank you.

The Clerks will be in touch with you anyway about potential time for a debate. Thank you very much. That concludes the public business for this afternoon. The Committee will now go into private session to review the applications and determine timings for debates.