Welcome to the meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will be considering applications from colleagues for debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. The first request is from Pippa Heylings for a debate on closing loopholes in the fracking ban. This is for a debate in the main Chamber. Over to you, Pippa.

This is about closing what is really quite a small loophole that is left over from the 2019 moratorium on fracking. As we know, Labour’s manifesto committed—and since then, the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband and Minister Shanks have all said that they are committed—to no fracking: a complete ban. However, although the Government’s North sea future plan says no onshore drilling, it allows for what is called proppant squeezing—so, a certain amount of hydraulic fracking. Alison Hume—this would be in her constituency—has also had a Westminster Hall debate on this. The Government said that they were allowing it and they were not having a complete ban, but that it was up for and worthy of debate. Particularly given the impact of that kind of fracking on communities and on the land—it could lead to tremors and have a huge impact on the communities themselves—we feel that it is worthy of debate. It was in the manifesto that there would be a complete ban, and now they are allowing this loophole to continue. The impacts are so huge that I think it would be worthy of a Chamber debate.

Thank you for bringing this application; for transparency, I should say that I am a signatory to the application. Pippa, you are the Lib Dem Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson. We do not normally accept Back-Bench applications from third-party spokespeople on issues relating to their formal roles, so is there another Member who could lead this debate?

We definitely have plenty of support from Members, so I could come back with another name, yes. That is a possibility. The interest in this is huge both from the Liberal Democrats, as the third party, and from other parties.

Hi, Pippa. At the moment, we have 19 applications waiting on our list for a Chamber debate. That is likely to take us near the summer recess. Would you consider an earlier debate in Westminster Hall?

There have been a couple of debates in Westminster Hall, one in which this was addressed almost tangentially and one in which it was addressed openly. With the Minister saying that it is worthy of debate, I think it is now time for it to go to the main Chamber.

And you would be happy to wait.

Yes.

I would just gently say that, given the issues you are raising, and given that you want a Chamber debate, it would be fairly straightforward to bring up a divisible motion on this. I am not going to make it up from the Chair, but it could call on the Government to introduce whatever you want to see happen, rather than just being a general debate, which is not going to get you any action. The subject is obviously up to you and anyone else who may lead the application. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.

Thank you. Josh Newbury made representations

The next application is from Josh Newbury for a debate on improving outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability—please do not explain the detail. This is a request for a debate in Westminster Hall on a Thursday afternoon. Over to you, Josh.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for your time. As you said, Chair, I am applying for a Westminster Hall debate on Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability, which is quite a mouthful. Obviously the Department of Health and Social Care would respond, if we secured it. We are hoping to get a debate in the week commencing 9 February, preferably on the Thursday, but, as always, if the Committee thinks there is a better slot, then that is very much in your hands. On your request, Chair, I will not go into the details of the conditions, but I first got involved in campaigning on these conditions after I met my constituent Connor Edwards, who is 30. He has had these conditions for around five years. He was a very active young man, enjoying mountain biking, fishing and all the normal things that a 25-year-old does, but within nine months he was essentially bedbound and had lost most of his friendship circle. Since then, his condition has worsened and worsened. Unlike some people with his condition, he does not have a big support network of family and friends around him. For patients with EDS and CCI, which are often related, the consequences are life-altering. There is currently no clinical pathway under the NHS. There is no access to the appropriate diagnostic imaging, such as upright MRI scans. We obviously have ones where you lie down, but not upright ones—those are not available in this country—and we have limited specialist expertise. Many patients are dismissed, misdiagnosed, and forced to crowdfund tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds to travel abroad for diagnosis and surgery. That obviously creates profound inequalities based on income and geography. I raised this issue in the summer Adjournment debate last year, as well as at PMQs back in September. Off the back of that, I had a meeting with the Minister, Connor, his advocate and a support charity called Ehlers-Danlos Support UK. The Department has certainly heard Connor’s story, but Members have not had a chance to debate this and share their constituents’ stories in Parliament. A Westminster Hall debate on this topic last took place in May 2024, but because of the Dissolution of Parliament, there was not a follow-up with the Minister. Last month, I hosted a drop-in in Portcullis House; we had around 30 MPs from various parties, so there is clearly cross-party support and interest, as you can see from the application. I think a full debate is now needed to build on that momentum, highlight the huge gaps in NHS provision and press for meaningful change, so that these patients are finally believed and supported and no longer left behind.

I have just one question: no. 18, Cameron Thomas, is Lib Dem, not Labour.

Yes—I picked that up when I looked at it earlier. As far as I am aware, he has not defected. I am sure we would love to have him, but I would not want that to be on his record.

My substantive question, Josh, is that you asked for the debate to be in the week commencing 9 February; is there a reason for that?

Ehlers-Danlos Awareness Month is not until June. We debated whether to wait until that point, but we felt that, given that I had raised it in September, had a meeting with the Minister in November, and then had the drop-in in December, we wanted to try to keep the momentum going, and then possibly have a roundtable in June to mark the awareness month. We felt it was a good halfway point between what we have done and what we hope to do in future.

You have 21 Members signed up, which is pretty good. Do you anticipate a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate being adequate for the amount of people who want to speak on this very important subject?

I know that many people want to get a debate in the Chamber—we would all love that—but my feeling is that a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate would enable us to discuss a lot of the issues that need to be heard. Even if we could not go into immense detail on it, we could cover the most important points for the Minister to respond to in 90 minutes, and hopefully we would have good time for people to share their constituents’ stories as well.

Okay. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. There are Divisions in the Commons, so unfortunately we have to adjourn and come back. Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House. On resuming— Kate Osborne and Nadia Whittome made representations.

We reconvene the Backbench Business Committee to hear the application from Nadia Whittome and Kate Osborne for a debate in the Chamber on LGBT+ History Month. Thanks for coming back, and apologies.

That’s okay; you cannot control when the Divisions are. Thanks so much, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for hearing our application. We are looking for a Backbench Business debate in the main Chamber to mark LGBT+ History Month, which is taking place next month, in February. This has been a regular feature of the parliamentary timetable for a number of years now, and it has always been well attended. We have heard some very moving and personal testimonies from Members, either speaking from their own personal experience or on behalf of their constituents. It gives Members the opportunity to discuss the challenges that the LGBT+ community has faced and continues to face, to highlight and celebrate the contributions of LGBT+ people, particularly those in their constituencies, and to consider what lessons that history has for us today.

Thank you, Chair; thank you, Committee; it is nice to be back here.

Welcome back.

Thank you so much. As Nadia said, this debate is a chance for us to celebrate our community and all that that brings, but it is also important that we highlight how far we have to go on many issues that affect us. The acceptance of LGBT+ people in society remains a pertinent issue. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation and trans identity have risen by around 44% and 88% respectively over the past five years. I am sure you will agree that those figures are pretty shocking. The LGBT+ hate crime charity Galop also saw a 60% increase in LGBT+ hate crime victims coming to it for support in 2024. You will see that our application has strong cross-party support. In addition to ourselves, if these numbers are completely up to date—hopefully they are; they could have gone up from this, but certainly not down—we have nine Labour, four Conservative, three Lib Dem and two Plaid Cymru Members supporting the application, and we are pretty confident that there will be more speakers; it always gets a lot of interest. The importance of the debate and the number of people that we think will engage are two very good reasons why we would strongly argue that the Chamber is the correct place for the debate to happen. We hope you will take that into consideration. In terms of the responding Department, obviously it is for the Department to send who they think is most appropriate, but we imagine that Olivia Bailey, as the Equalities Minister, is maybe best suited. But, as I say, that is obviously for them to decide.

Yes, we are not concerned. Obviously, if it is in the Chamber, it is up to the Government to put up whichever Minister is responsible, whereas we would be involved if it was a Tuesday-morning Westminster Hall debate, for example.

Just to declare an interest, I took the opportunity to talk about my uncle’s experience at the debate last year. It was very powerful to me to have that opportunity, so I thank you for that. Obviously, LGBT+ History Month is in February; I should probably know this, but are there any specific dates that you would be looking for?

If possible, 12 February.

That is purely down to the availability of some of the people who want to contribute. It is the whole month, so there is not a particular day marking any event within the month that I am aware of.

Do you wish to have a specific motion, or do you wish it to be a general debate?

It would be a general debate on LGBT+ History Month.

Any other questions, colleagues? No? Okay. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. I note the suggested date of 12 February, so that is the Thursday before the mid-term recess. Thanks for coming back after the two Divisions that we had.

Thank you very much.

That concludes the public business of the Committee. The Committee will now retire to consider the applications in private.