Welcome to this meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, at which we will be hearing applications from colleagues for debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. The first application is in the name of Oliver Ryan. He is not able to be with us today, so Sean Woodcock is taking the application on. This is for a debate on a Tuesday morning in Westminster Hall about how to support people living with multiple sclerosis and challenging assumptions about MS. Over to you, Sean.

Thank you very much for having me. As you have noticed, I am not Oliver Ryan, but tackling multiple sclerosis and the issue of treatment for people with it are quite personal for me. My wife has multiple sclerosis, so the issue is something that I am quite passionate about, hence my presence as an officer of the APPG for multiple sclerosis. As one of the few named conditions in the Equality Act 2010, multiple sclerosis, or MS, is a progressive and lifelong neurodegenerative condition that affects more than 150,000 people in the United Kingdom, and more than 7,100 people are newly diagnosed each year. That means that about one in every 400 people in the United Kingdom has MS and each week 135 people are diagnosed with the condition. Despite that prevalence and incidence, understanding of the condition and how it impacts people in different ways is limited among policymakers and the public more generally. MS is unpredictable and different for everybody. It is often painful and exhausting, and it can cause problems with how people walk, move, see, think and feel. As I said, my wife has multiple sclerosis, which manifests itself in a totally different way from her cousin, who also has it. Her cousin is unable to walk at all, while it normally affects my wife in her eye, and very occasionally in other parts of the body. The understanding of the impact of MS and, more importantly, of how policy impacts people living with it is sometimes flawed. This debate would have a breadth of support. In April 2025, more than 100 MPs attended a reception hosted by the MS Society in order to better understand it, the impact it has on people and the policy changes needed to support the MS community. Each attendee attended the awareness week last year after their constituents asked them to, and that local engagement would ensure a strong turnout for a debate during MS Awareness Week 2026, which runs from 20 to 26 April. This is an important opportunity to further raise the issue with Members. Since the general election, the Government have committed to addressing long-term conditions such as MS, recognising their significant impact on the nation’s health, economy and wider society. There are a number of different streams of work, and whether it is the Timms review or funding for local government, which has responsibility for things such as disabled facilities grants, the impact that policy and wider public discourse have on people with multiple sclerosis is significant. I will stop there to answer any questions.

Sean, there is a long waiting list for Tuesday debates, so if this debate were to take place on Tuesday 21 April, it would be jumping the queue. How important is it to you that this is on a Tuesday? Would you consider the Thursday of that week?

We have a clear preference for the Tuesday because it is at the beginning of that week, which, as I stated, is MS Awareness Week. It is most important that it is in that week, but having it at the beginning of the week, rather than when everyone has disappeared off home to their constituencies, would be beneficial in generating some of that interest and would allow it to have a knock-on effect for the rest of the week.

Are there any events taking place on days in that week that would mean you could not hold the debate as it would lead to a clash?

I am not aware of any. I have not been given information suggesting that.

Okay, fine. Any other questions? No. Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Jen Craft, Dr Beccy Cooper, Danny Beales and Josh Fenton-Glynn made representations.

We move on to a request from Danny Beales, Layla Moran and Dr Beccy Cooper for a general debate in either Westminster Hall or the Chamber on vaccination rates in England. I presume you are speaking to it first, Danny.

Thank you very much, Chair. I thank the Committee for hearing our application. I am here with other members of the Health and Social Care Committee, which is supporting the debate. Layla, who is another co-sponsor, gives her apologies for not being able to be here; a Health and Social Care Committee meeting is happening right now with the Royal College of Midwives, so she is there. Thank you for your time. Vaccinations are one of the most effective public health interventions—the second most effective, after only clean water. Yet despite this effectiveness, uptake rates are falling and have been for some time in the UK, specifically in England. In January 2026, we had the unfortunate news that we had lost our measles elimination status, and we are still not meeting our WHO targets in a number of areas. As the Health and Social Care Committee heard very recently, at the moment, there is no schedule for getting back that elimination status or reaching those WHO targets. Obviously, we have had issues very recently with MenB—the meningitis outbreak—which is causing a lot of concern. Although that is not directly related to vaccine uptake issues, but related to broader eligibility issues, outbreak management is of concern, particularly when vaccination rates in other areas are dropping. The Health and Social Care Committee would welcome the opportunity to debate the vaccine uptake rates and the UK strategy, which was developed in 2023, so is now quite old. We would also like to debate a number of the issues we discussed, both when we looked at childhood vaccinations in our first 1,000 days inquiry, and in our broader one-off session looking at vaccination that we held with NHS England, in which a number of issues were surfaced. We have had strong cross-party support for the application, across three parties. We think that there will be significant Member interest in contributing, particularly given recent events, as I have said. With lots of discussion about misinformation around vaccines and health information generally online, we think it is also a pertinent time for Parliament to debate and assert the importance of vaccination more generally, with a debate in either the main Chamber or Westminster Hall. I will draw it to an end there. I do not know if my Committee colleagues want to add anything that I have missed.

I will just reiterate what Danny said and build on the view that we think there will be significant Member interest. Vaccination rates fluctuate significantly around the country, so it would be really good to get a broad cross-section of Members of Parliament from different parts of the country, so we can discuss the barriers that exist. As Danny said, we had the vaccination experts from NHSE and from the Health Security Agency come to the Committee, and they were minded to say that accessibility rather than misinformation is actually the major issue for vaccination rates dropping. However, as I say, information and interest from Members of Parliament would be very welcome to allow the public to engage more closely with this issue.

I think this is an issue that we need real leadership on. As parliamentarians from the Back Benches, we have a chance to show some leadership by having this debate.

The others have summed up basically what I would say. However, I think the work that we have done on the Committee has really shone a light on how we are on the precipice of quite a crisis regarding this issue. We can move the debate forward a bit by shining a light and seeing what comes up.

You have not said where you would like the debate to be—in Westminster Hall, where it would be on a Tuesday or Thursday, or in the main Chamber. If it is on a Tuesday in Westminster Hall, that is fine. But if it is for the main Chamber, you would need three more Opposition Members on your application.

I think we have four Opposition Members on the application.

You need seven.

We need seven for a main Chamber application?

Basically, it has to be 50:50. We require 15 speakers for a main Chamber debate, so it has to be 50:50 between Government and Opposition Members.

Right. I will be guided by the Committee, really. Sorry—we misread the form in that sense. We thought that we had to have four Opposition Members. We are happy to source more or, as I say, we are happy to accept either Westminster Hall or the main Chamber. We feel that there would be quite strong interest, so ideally we would like a slightly longer time period if possible. Given the issues that Beccy has raised, we imagine that there will be quite a lot of Members who would want to contribute to the debate. Ideally we would like a 90-minute debate, if possible.

Has the Health and Social Care Committee done a report on this?

We did a one-off, so we have not done a full inquiry. As Jen said, that one-off shone a light on some of the questions, but we have not—

We have had reports where vaccines were key recommendations as well, and where they were key issues that we raised. For example, the report on the first 1,000 days of a child’s life particularly raised the issue of falling vaccination rates.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from colleagues? No. Okay; thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch in due course. Samantha Niblett made representations.

The next application is from Samantha Niblett for a debate on lifelong sex education in the main Chamber.

Thank you, Chair. I asked my daughter, who is 18 now, if she remembers a time when I first spoke to her about sex, and she said that she has always just known and that that has been empowering. Her friends think that I am like the character Jean Milburn, a sex therapist in the Netflix show “Sex Education”. By the way, she is played by Gillian Anderson, which is a comparison I am very happy to have. My daughter’s friends have often spoken to me about sex as a trusted adult, so I feel honoured to be able to use the platform of being an MP to reach more people. It was in speaking with Cindy Gallop, of MakeLoveNotPorn and the MakeLoveNotPorn Academy, that I realised that it is not just about educating young people. Lifelong evidence-based sex education is one of the most powerful tools that we have to prevent real world and digital sexual harms and abuse. Even more than that, lifelong sex education reflects a simple truth: our bodies, relationships and needs change across our lives, but the conversation can end at school. The focus on solving the harms caused by sex being used as a weapon to control has, to date, mainly been centred on blocking, repressing, censoring and shutting down, but there is a much bigger opportunity. If we cannot talk about good sex, how can we ever talk about bad sex? The solution is not to shut down, but to open up. We need to open up the ability to talk openly and honestly about sex. We need to open up actively to remove guilt, shame and embarrassment from sex to make it easier to talk about, and we need to open up to identify and welcome every opportunity to embed lifelong sex education into our systems and society. I have cross-party support to have a Back-Bench debate in the main Chamber to open up the discussion of how we make that happen. I will be kick-starting a national campaign to encourage more people to feel comfortable talking about sex and pleasure; and to help people have more agency over their own bodies, and health and wellbeing, because it is time to switch from, “No sex, please, we’re British”, to, “Yes, sex please, we're British.”

Samantha, you will be aware of the long waiting list for main Chamber debates. Rather than add your name to that long list, would a Tuesday or Thursday in Westminster Hall suffice?

Because of the importance of the subject matter, because I am keen to demonstrate that we are showing leadership from the top, and because the Chamber that most people recognise as being the place that represents this place is the main Chamber, I would be prepared to wait. I do not know how long that list is, but there is a whole raft of activity that I am hoping to do ahead of any debate anyway. I hope that does not sound a bit entitled, but it feels like it would be worth the wait.

That is your choice. Are there any other questions from colleagues—I almost dare you to ask them? No. Okay, Samantha, the Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Thank you. Navendu Mishra made representations.

Last but not least, we have Navendu Mishra on inequalities in cancer care. This is a request, once again, for a debate in the main Chamber.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am back—well, the previous application was not for me. Thank you for making time for me. I have the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, and I thank Macmillan Cancer Support, the British charity that provides the secretariat for that APPG. Sadly, the stats for people getting cancer are quite high. I think 50% of the population will most likely end up with some form of cancer. One of the best things about the UK is that people are living longer, and that is a really good thing—we should be proud of that—but of course that comes with challenges, particularly in medical care. I am here to request a half-day debate in the main Chamber on the inequalities in cancer care. You have had a number of other applications, and they are all really important, but cancer is one of the issues in this Parliament that I think we have cross-party consensus on. Every single MP wants the best, highest-quality cancer care in their constituency, but sadly, as you will all be aware from correspondence in your inbox, there is a postcode lottery for medical care. The NHS does a great job, but inequalities in cancer care and outcomes persist across the UK. Who you are, where you live and your access to healthcare determine not just how early your cancer is diagnosed, but the treatment you receive and, ultimately, whether you survive. In this room, we will all have family members and friends who have had cancer, some of whom survived and some of whom sadly are not with us any more, so it is a sensitive issue. This year, just a few weeks ago, the Health Secretary launched the cancer plan for England, so the relevance of having this debate is quite high. We need to make sure that our health system meets the needs of everyone fairly, inclusively and with compassion. To give some approximate numbers, in the UK 1.4 million people live with cancer, and roughly 40% of them experience variations in treatment and care—40% of 1.4 million is quite a lot. That is just far too high, sadly. The reality is that people in more deprived areas are diagnosed later and die sooner. People in deprived areas already have a lower life expectancy, but this is just shocking for one of the largest economies in the world. Across the country, there are significant differences in screening, early diagnosis and waiting times, which leave thousands of people at risk. Over one in three patients must travel an hour or more just for tests, scans or treatment. That is simply not acceptable. This debate will provide an opportunity for Members to raise how progress in reducing inequalities will be measured, and how the Government will ensure effective implementation of the national cancer plan for England, which was announced quite recently. Ultimately, the purpose of the debate is to ensure that everyone, regardless of who they are, regardless of where they live, will benefit from improvements in cancer care. I am grateful to colleagues from the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats who supported my application. That reflects the cross-party element of this application. Given the scale of the issue, with an estimated 100,000 lives at risk from the UK’s cancer postcode lottery, I will be very grateful if the Committee could allocate time for a debate in the main Chamber. I am happy to take any questions, if there are any.

It is a really important issue, and thank you for suggesting the debate. In order to have a debate in the main Chamber, we need to have five more Opposition Members.

I am more than happy to get them. It is my fault for not getting more—I was unclear about the rules, which is my fault. I am more than happy to get more Conservative or SNP MPs, and some from the smaller parties, to sign up. Cancer is just one of those issues that, sadly, all 650 MPs in this House will have people experiencing in their patch.

Is there any time sensitivity with this particular request, in terms of anniversaries and so on?

The cancer plan was launched quite recently, on World Cancer Day, so it would be good to have the debate in the coming weeks, but it is not super urgent. I appreciate, obviously, we have Easter recess coming up and local elections, so there are a few days off for that. The organisations and charity groups that the APPG works with are really keen to have the debate in the main Chamber. I am sorry to say it, but a lot of MPs know that the public do not really resonate with what Westminster Hall is, and I think that cancer is one of those issues that is relevant to every single constituency.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions? No. Thank you very much, Nav. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Please supply the extra names.

Can I get them to you by the end of the week?

As soon as you can.

As soon as I can, absolutely. Thank you.

That concludes the public business of the Committee. The Committee will now go into private session to consider the bids and the allocation of time.