Welcome to this meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, at which we will be considering requests from colleagues for debates in the main Chamber and Westminster Hall on Tuesdays and Thursdays. First, we have a request for a debate from David Mundell. The title at the moment is “Rethinking UK aid policy in an era of global funding cuts”, and this is a request for a debate in either the Chamber or Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or a Thursday.

The focus of the debate was, in my understanding, the global response to HIV/AIDS, and not as wide as stated, so I do apologise, Chair.

It is your application.

It is. I do apologise, because I thought I had filled it in on the basis that it was very specifically focused on HIV/AIDS. I apologise if that was not clear in the application. Certainly, those who supported the application did so on the basis that that was what the debate would be about.

The application, as it stands, and the reasons given for the debate talk about the position on aid generally, as opposed to HIV.

If it would be more helpful to the Committee, I can resubmit the application—

It is up to you. The application is here. We are happy to consider it.

The application I would wish for is focused on the global response to HIV/AIDS. I am partly speaking with the hat on of being the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health. As Committee members will be aware, there were very significant cuts to funding for HIV/AIDS in the United States. Following significant lobbying by many organisations and individuals in the United States, over the last few days those cuts have now been substantially reversed, but because the United States has taken a policy decision to disband its development arm—USAID—it is very difficult to spend the money it has now identified as being available. Secondly, because of other policy considerations, certain groups are excluded from receiving support. Any group associated with any form of family planning or with the LGBT community cannot receive US funding. There is a need for a wider debate about how funding, in parallel with US funding, funding from the UK—which is currently uncertain—and funding from other countries, can be delivered along with funding from philanthropists, to ensure that everybody receives the help and support they need. As we move towards the goal of no new transmissions in 2030, we have had a very positive development here in the UK with the publication of this Government’s HIV strategy, which is very much to be welcomed. It is a very good platform for the UK to influence events elsewhere.

Thank you. Are there any questions from colleagues? No. The application, as I read it, is quite broad. If, during the debate, you wish to concentrate on HIV/AIDS, that is entirely up to you. I do not think there is an issue from our perspective.

Right, okay. That was the original impetus for the debate application.

The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Gregory Stafford made representations.

Our next application is from Greg Stafford with a request for a debate on filling the gaps in dental provision. This is for a Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday morning. Greg, please present your application.

Thank you very much, Chair, and Committee. Thank you for hearing this application. On the key things, I would be very surprised if any member of the Committee, or indeed any Member of the House, did not have a postbag full of issues about access to dentistry. Dentistry is different. Unlike the rest of the NHS, first, apart from children and certain specific groups, it is not free, and secondly, it is not universal. In fact, it is quite the opposite of universal: in many places, people cannot access it at all. The heart of that, in my opinion, stems from the way that the dental contract currently operates without the incentives in the right places—in fact, disincentives in some places—to operate effectively. I think it would be useful for us to have a proper debate around the future of dentistry. It would be helpful to scrutinise where things have gone wrong in the past, and hopefully give suggestions to the Government to improve things in the future. Right hon. and hon. Members could give their take on what is going on in their constituencies as well. I think the issue is of the moment and it is the right time to have this conversation, as the Government look at the dental contract. I think the debate would be well attended and well supported because of the nature of what is going on in dentistry in our constituencies. The application is supported across parties: by Labour, Conservative, independent and Reform Members, and we have a DUP Member as well now. Hopefully that shows broad cross-party support for this.

We already have a couple of debates in the line on dentistry. Would you consider reaching out to other Members—Lewis Atkinson, Adam Dance or Adrian Ramsay—to consider combining the debates to get maximum impact?

I am happy to, although I do not know the exact titles of their debates. I am really keen to get into the contract and how we deal with that. If that is part of their debates, I would be happy to amalgamate. But I think this would be such a well-attended debate on dentistry. It depends on their angle and what exactly they are looking at—I think we could talk about just the contract for 90 minutes—but with your guidance, I am happy to talk to them. Of course, they can talk to me as well.

Greg, you have identified a specific title for your debate, but Westminster Hall debates can only be general. Would you prefer it to be specific and wait for a Chamber opportunity, or slightly amend it?

I am keen for it to happen as soon as possible, and therefore I am happy to amend the title to something more generic if required.

It is the motion that is the issue.

Are you happy to go for a general, “That this House has considered”?

I am happy to go for a general title, if necessary.

Just to be clear, you have a motion attached to your application. Obviously a motion can only be taken in the Chamber. You cannot take a motion in Westminster Hall if it is divisible.

Yes, and that is why—don’t get me wrong; I would love to have this on the main Floor of the Chamber—given the panoply of stuff that you have, I would rather do this sooner. The general debate in Westminster Hall would be, “That this House has considered dentistry provision in England.”

That is fine. Any other questions from colleagues? No. Okay, Greg, the Clerks will be in touch.

Thank you very much.

You may wish to converse with the other individuals.

I have taken a note of them, so I will speak to them as well. Helen Hayes made representations.

The next application is from Helen Hayes. This is a request for a debate on World Book Day and a request for the Chamber. Helen, over to you.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for considering this application for a debate on World Book Day. There is significant cross-party interest in this debate. You might think that the interest is from Members who want to share the stories of their World Book Day costumes, perhaps for themselves and their children, or perhaps share in a therapeutic manner some of the trials and tribulations of their World Book Day costumes for themselves and their children. But there is a really serious purpose to this debate. The Government have launched the National Year of Reading. My Committee, the Education Committee, has also launched an inquiry on reading for pleasure. We know that reading for pleasure has huge benefits for children’s brain development, their development of empathy, their mental health and wellbeing, expanding their horizons and imaginations and, for very young children, bonding and secure attachment as well. However, we also know that reading for pleasure has significantly dropped off. Only one in three children now says that they would choose to pick up a book and read in their own time when they are not being directed to do anything else. The Select Committee is digging into the question of why reading for pleasure has dropped off so much and what can be done. How can we intervene to get things back on track and make sure that as many children as possible from all parts of the country are benefiting from picking up a book? That is why we would love to have a debate in the House of Commons Chamber coinciding with World Book Day. We would shine a light on the marvellous institution that is World Book Day across the country and celebrate all that schools, teachers and support staff do to encourage children to enjoy and have fun around reading and books, but we would also talk about the serious policy debate on this issue: how can we support more children to get back to reading and enjoy reading for pleasure?

I know you said that you are interested in getting a debate in the Chamber, but World Book Day is only three weeks away and we have quite a long list of debates. Would you be interested in a Westminster Hall debate to get it in closer to the time and add a bit more relevance?

I would hope that the level of interest—and the genuine balance of cross-party interest—might mean that the Committee could prioritise it for a debate in the Chamber, but we are open to what the Committee is able to offer.

Just to clarify, if we offered you Thursday 5 March in Westminster Hall, would you accept it?

We would accept it, but we would really prefer the Chamber.

I understand.

This is not a question. I just want to declare an interest: I am a member of the Education Committee.

Anyone else? Okay. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Bambos Charalambous made representations.

The next application is from Bambos Charalambous for a debate on safeguarding human rights in supply chains to the United Kingdom in Westminster Hall on either a Tuesday morning or a Thursday afternoon.

This is about safeguarding human rights in supply chains to the UK. An estimated 27.6 million people are currently working in forced labour. Two thirds of those people find their way into supply chains. At the moment, the UK does not have the best process for working out whether supply chains are using forced labour. This debate is to find out what steps the Government are taking to be more stringent in their processes for trying to find out the global chains that use forced labour that find their way to the UK. An example is the Uyghurs in China. The Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report last year on forced labour in UK supply chains that made a number of recommendations. At the moment, due diligence from organisations is voluntary. There are some great organisations that do due diligence on modern-day slavery in supply chains, but they are at a disadvantage because the ones that do not do due diligence get the benefit of cheaper goods and can undercut them in the marketplace. There has been a fair bit of interest. In addition to the names already submitted, Chris Law from the SNP and Iain Duncan Smith have expressed an interest in the debate. We are ideally looking for Thursday 16 April, but we would be happy with any time from the week commencing 13 April, which is straight after the recess, until the end of April.

Can I just check, because it is a Tuesday application, which would be the answering Department?

It would be DBT.

Any other questions, colleagues? No. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course, Bambos. Jim Shannon made representations.

The next application is from our season ticket holder, Jim Shannon. Apologies for keeping you from the Adjournment debate.

You can still make it.

It would be a challenge to intervene in that one. This is a request for a debate on public toilet provision for people living with a stoma. It is a request for a Westminster Hall debate on a Tuesday morning.

If possible. First of all, thank you, Chair, and Committee members for giving me the chance to request this. I have been approached by some organisations, as I am my party’s health spokesperson. It is one of those ones where I did not have much bother getting people to sign or contribute. I have five Labour Members, two Conservatives, a Lib Dem, a Plaid Cymru, an SNP, an independent and myself. This is a very personal thing. I have known people over the years who have had stomas—the Chair and Committee members will have known people too. Some of the people I have spoken to still have a stoma, and some had a stoma for a short time and then had it removed when their health conditions got better. That is always what we hope will happen, but it is not always what does happen. Public toilets are disappearing at an alarming rate. Therefore, many of those who have stomas are under a bit of pressure. When there are problems with the stoma bag—it can leak, pancake, balloon or whatever—events can happen very suddenly, and it puts those with stoma bags in a very difficult position. Without a suitable toilet, dignity, confidence and mental wellbeing are at risk. A Stoma Aware survey said that 62% avoid day-to-day activities because of their stoma, 25% have been challenged for using accessible toilets—that is ridiculous—and 4% leave home only in emergencies. I am hoping that the Government can do things—[Interruption.] Any hope I had of going to the Adjournment is well over now. I have two simple asks of the Government. First, they should legislate for minimum public toilet provision and, secondly, they should mandate stoma-friendly features in all accessible toilets throughout the UK. We do not need a whole lot of things to change; it is about simple low-cost adaptations—hooks, shelves, mirrors, bins and clear signage. Those are simple things to do in toilets, but they can transform people’s lives. I think we can get it right. People feel shame, pain and rising anxiety from having a stoma, never mind all the other issues. The lack of proper toilet facilities affects every aspect of life. It means that people cannot go to shops, go to theatres or go on public transport. Opportunities for work, education and socialising are also limited, and emotional wellbeing and independence are undermined. There is a real, genuine case to be made. I know the Committee is very fair. It is time that we aired the case for people living with stomas, because there are impacts on their lives that we do not know very much about, and I think it is time to make that known. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Jim. I declare my interest: I had to wear a stoma bag for a year after an operation, so I know exactly what you are talking about. When one of those starts to peel away from your skin, you know all about it—it is horrible.

This is your 19th application. We have allocated you one for Thursday 26 February, and you have two more on the waiting list. Are there any time considerations that the Committee needs to know about for this specific debate?

I know the pressures that the Committee is under. I am happy to leave it to your discretion.

Jim, you have not specified the Department that you would like. Stoma care would come under DHSC, but public toilets would be the responsibility of MHCLG. Which of those would you like to answer?

Mary, you have given me a difficult question. I suspect that you might have as much knowledge of the right person. I am sorry, Chair; I thought it was straightforward, but Mary is absolutely right. It could be another Department. Can I leave it with you to tell me the right Department? I thought it was straightforwardly Health.

You can, because I suspect we are not going to allocate this immediately. As it is a Tuesday application, we need to know the answering Department. We can only allocate it when the answering Department is actually answering.

Can I leave that with you?

Yes, you can—by all means. Advise us. Mary has another question.

This one might be a bit easier. The Committee has enough Tuesday applications on its waiting list to last until May at the earliest. You are usually happy to accept debates in Westminster Hall on a Thursday. Is there a reason why it could not be on a Thursday?

I would prefer a Tuesday, but honestly, I will take whatever you give me.

I have a question for you first, Chair, and then I might have a question for Jim. Jim, in your introductory remarks, you said you were the health spokesman for your party. Does the rule about that extend to all parties, or is it just the three main parties?

With minor parties, we do not mind.

Just for clarification, Jim, are you saying leave it to us to choose the answering Department?

I think that is better, because I thought it was straightforward that it would be the Department of Health.

I think the Chair was saying that you should come back to us with which Department you want to answer.

It is your application. You want to get an answer from the relevant Department. It is for you to decide who the answering Department should be. If the Government change their view and say, “Actually, we want a different Department to answer this,” that is up to them, but you need to decide.

If that is the case, I would probably say the Department of Health. Would that be appropriate?

We will ask.

Do you have a copy of all the names?

Yes. Thanks very much, Jim. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Barry Gardiner made representations.

The final application is from Barry Gardiner for a debate in the Chamber or Westminster Hall on Government plans to address air pollution. Over to you, Barry.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for considering the application. Last year, 205 people died in this country because of knife crime. It is a national outrage, and politicians fulminated against it so much that the Government have said they are going to halve knife crime by 2035. Last year, 1,579 people died in road traffic accidents, and now the Government say that they will cut the number of deaths on our roads by 65% by 2035. These deaths are unacceptable, and it is right that the Government are taking action. But for a killer 20 times more deadly than knife crime and road accidents put together, the Government’s ambition has been blunted and their progress has stalled. Last year, up to 43,000 people died in the UK because of polluted air. Those are not my figures; they are the figures from the Royal College of Physicians and the UK Health Security Agency. They record the number of premature deaths that are the result of air pollution, and they are backed up and supported by Alzheimer’s Research UK, Asthma + Lung UK, the British Heart Foundation, the British Thoracic Society, Cancer Research UK, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal Society for Public Health, and many other scientific and medical bodies. Air pollution remains the single largest environmental risk factor for both early death and ill health in this country. The World Health Organisation has set clear guidelines that cover nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and many other pollutants. That is why the Office for Environmental Protection advised the Government to align the UK’s standards with the World Health Organisation’s guidance. That advice was rejected, and nitrogen dioxide targets for air pollution are not even included in the Government’s latest environmental improvement plan. In December’s environmental improvement plan, the Government announced their ambition to reduce population exposure to PM2.5 by 30%. That is welcome, but notice that the plan talks of population exposure and not of absolute air quality standards. Incidentally, that target on population exposure is one that we are already meeting. The WHO standard is that there should not be more than 5 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic metre. In England and Wales, 26,000 schools sit in areas where the air pollution exceeds the WHO guidance levels for PM2.5 or nitrogen dioxide. This year is the 70th anniversary of the Clean Air Act 1956. When the Government did act, 4,000 people had died over a period of five days in the great smog, as it was known. The Government have not updated their targets for nitrogen dioxide, with towns and cities projected to still be breaching the outdated legal limits that were set in the 1940s. This is a pressing issue, but it is one that the whole of Government is not pressing hard enough on. It encompasses health, transport, agriculture, education, work, the environment, climate targets and so much more. We need a whole-Government approach. The UK needs a new Clean Air Act that commits to achieving WHO guidelines as soon as possible, because we know that every year of delay means tens of thousands of preventable premature deaths. We also know that those most affected by air pollution are the medically vulnerable: children, those with underlying health conditions and the elderly. We also know that those on low incomes, people of colour and non-drivers are disproportionately represented in the 5% of neighbourhoods exposed to the most extreme air pollution. Air quality is not just a health issue; it is a social justice issue. Air quality is also an economic issue, not just because of the pressure it puts on our healthcare system, but because of the wider economic burden that it places on business. The CBI has found that the business benefit of achieving WHO guidelines would be £1.6 billion to the economy each year. The Royal College of Physicians has calculated that the savings to the health service and the wider economic benefits would be £27 billion each year. Tackling air pollution is one of the most progressive and cost-saving actions that this Government could take. The 70th anniversary of the Clean Air Act in 2026 should be the year that the Government commit—as the Labour party did in 2023 while in opposition—to abide by the WHO guidelines for air quality. There are up to 43,000—the actual figures are between 29,000 and 43,000—premature deaths each year in this country because of polluted air. Had those people died of knife crime or in road traffic accidents there would be an uproar. But because it is an invisible and silent killer, there is no motivation to act. There should be. I hope that if we can secure this debate, we can make 2026 the year that the Government start treating air pollution with the urgency and the attention that it deserves. As you can see, this is a well-supported debate. We have Members from the DUP, the Social Democratic and Labour party, Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, as well as independents. This is something that affects every constituency in this country and I hope that if we can secure this debate, we can begin to do something about it.

Thank you. Any questions?

Thank you for your very passionate pitch, Barry. This is obviously a hugely important debate, as you have correctly identified. I note from a bit of googling that the Clean Air Act 1956 gained Royal Assent in July of that year. I am presuming that, given the urgency with which you speak, you would want to have this debate as soon as possible. I presume that is why you have said that you are happy with either a Westminster Hall or Chamber debate. Is that right?

Absolutely. The sooner we can get people to realise the extent of the problem, the better. There is also the opportunity for savings and an economic benefit. If you want to grow the economy, the CBI is saying that there would be a £1.6 billion benefit to the economy from meeting those guidelines.

Okay. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. That concludes the public business of the Committee. The Committee will now retire to consider the applications in private.