Welcome to this meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will be considering applications from colleagues for debates on the Floor of the House and in Westminster Hall. The first application is from Grahame Morris, for a half-day debate in the main Chamber on the Birmingham bin strikes. Grahame, will you present your case?

I begin by thanking you, Chair, as well as Committee members and Clerks, for advice when compiling the bid. Thank you for taking time to consider the application. As I am sure Committee members are aware, Birmingham is currently experiencing severe and ongoing disruption to its refuse collection service due to an industrial dispute. This has now gone on for more than a year—it started on 25 March 2025. Refuse workers represented by Unite—I have to declare an interest as a member of Unite—began an all-out strike in March 2025 following changes that were imposed by Birmingham city council, removing key roles and reducing pay for some workers by up to £8,000 a year. The dispute escalated further in December, when agency workers who were employed by the local authority took strike action themselves, raising serious concerns about workplace practices. Since then, negotiations have stalled, and there is no clear route to resolution. Residents are facing significant concerns, as refuse has gone uncollected for extended periods, building up in the streets and communal areas. A major incident has been declared, and there are growing concerns about public health, vermin and environmental damage. As you may tell from my accent, I am not a Birmingham MP. However, MPs across Birmingham and the west midlands are reporting very high volumes of complaints from constituents, and there has been recent national press coverage about fly-tipping within the boundaries of neighbouring boroughs, including Solihull, Sutton Coldfield and a number of other adjacent areas. While this is formally a local dispute, its impact and implications are very much wider. We have 26 Members who have signed the application—13 from the governing party and 13 from opposition parties, including His Majesty’s official Opposition and one Reform MP. We should not forget that Birmingham is the UK’s second-largest city by population. It is a very large borough—eight times bigger than the average London borough. It has more than 1 million residents who are directly affected and, as I mentioned, neighbouring areas are seeing real problems with increased fly-tipping and related issues. Crucially, the situation also raises broader national issues. It is closely linked to the council’s financial crisis—a crisis being experienced not only by Birmingham, which was effectively insolvent. Indeed, the Government appointed commissioners in 2023. This brings into question issues of accountability, transparency and the role of central Government during prolonged industrial disputes. There are also concerns, from the workforce’s point of view, about changes to terms and conditions and the use of agency labour during strikes, and concerns about the wider resilience of essential public services. Mr Blackman, there is a little more detail in the formal application, but I am trying to skip through it. The dispute has now gone on for more than a year and there is no clear resolution in sight. Importantly, the application has the support of MPs not just from across the city but from across a number of parties, demonstrating clear cross-party concern. There may not be a single view—there are concerns about a number of aspects—but there are serious concerns about the scale, seriousness and longevity of the dispute and the issues. If the Committee allowed a debate, it would allow MPs to scrutinise the role of both local and national Government, examine how disputes like this are resolved and consider how residents can be better protected when essential services are disrupted for such a long period. Given the scale and duration of the dispute and the clear cross-party support on this issue, may I urge the Committee to grant time for a debate, preferably in the main Chamber? I am not proposing a votable motion, because I think Members want to raise concerns without having a polarised vote on whether they support the motion or not. It would give them the opportunity to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents, and we could properly address the issues and get a proper response from the Government. Already a great number of people are affected, and there still does not seem to be any sign of resolution, despite our best efforts behind the scenes to broker such a conclusion. I will happily answer any questions.

There was a debate on Government support for waste collection in Birmingham and the west midlands in January, so it would be orderly to have another general debate in the next Session of Parliament rather than this one. We were going to ask whether you had considered a substantive motion, but I think you have answered that.

Yes.

Would you be happy to wait until the next Session, in order for the debate to be orderly?

What we are seeking, Mr Dillon, is to air the issues and to facilitate a conclusion to the dispute. There may be some aspects of it that can be quite readily resolved, in terms of the role of the commissioners and the role of Government in seeking a resolution. The debate that was held—it was brought by a member of the Opposition to Westminster Hall in January—was fairly narrow and fairly short, if I may say so. It sparked further interest from Members, who wanted to participate and to have the opportunity to raise concerns, not just from Birmingham itself but from neighbouring areas because of the implications and impact of the dispute.

Obviously, this Session is likely to end very soon; the state opening has already been scheduled. It is likely, therefore, that any debate on this will be long into the next Session. Do you have a particular timeframe in mind for such a debate?

Mr Blackman, the whole purpose is to seek a resolution, so the sooner the better. My preference would be for the main Chamber, but I don’t know what time slots are available to the Committee. If that is not possible, I think that we would prefer to have a Westminster Hall debate rather than waiting an undue length of time.

Because there has been a debate already in this Session, the requirement would be for a votable motion for the Chamber, and then we would have to look at whether this is sufficiently urgent to jump the queue. So there are two things: first, if you want a debate in this Session, there would have to be a votable motion for the Chamber; and, secondly, there are obviously other people in the queue who would argue that their debates are urgent too. Is there any answer to that particular issue?

I was not aware of that information. If it would help our case, I would be prepared to draft a votable motion, but then it would be for the Committee to decide whether this should take priority over the other subjects that are bidding for places. I do not have that motion in front of me, but I could quite quickly put something together if that would be helpful, Mr Blackman.

You have a wide spectrum of MPs; the only issue would be getting a motion on which they all agreed, given that they submitted an application for a general debate.

When we were considering the application, in order to maximise support we thought it would be preferable not to have a votable motion, and then people could come at it from whichever angle they wished. We didn’t want to polarise opinion by saying, “Yes, we agree with the strike,” or, “No, we think it’s a disgrace.” We just thought it would be an opportunity for people to air their concerns and hopefully pressure the Government to bring things to a hasty conclusion. But if that is what is required, we will have to craft something worded diplomatically that we can present, Mr Blackman.

You would have to do it quite rapidly, because in this Session we are expecting only one round of Thursday debates before we prorogue.

When you say rapidly, do you mean this afternoon?

Yes.

Yes, sir. That shall be done.

Actually, before the Committee rises would be helpful.

Yes, okay. Shall do.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for your time. Henry Tufnell made representations.

The next application is from Henry Tufnell for a debate on the impact of energy policy on the UK economy. Once again, a three-hour debate in the Chamber is requested. Henry, please present your case.

Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee, for hearing this application. We are at a critical juncture in our UK energy policy, and the current policy raises important questions about energy security, the future of British industry and manufacturing, and the pace of those policy sequencing decisions. As you can see from the number of MPs who have signed the application, there is support from right across all four corners of our United Kingdom. Of course, the energy transition presents lots of opportunities to strengthen our economy, and the Government’s investment in a lower-carbon economy will create new jobs and industries, but at the same time it is important to recognise that oil and gas will continue to play a key role in our in our energy mix. It is really important that there is no undermining of businesses, particularly in regional corners of our great nation. The ongoing conflict in the middle east, the Iran crisis and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine raise the salience of this issue to a much greater level. The ongoing or imminent negotiations with the European Union on dynamic alignment will also impact, particularly in respect of the emissions trading scheme. All these things mean that it is a very salient issue that warrants debate in the Chamber.

Mr Tufnell, you have put down on your application that you want the Treasury to be the answering Department. Can you explain why? It seems that it would probably be more appropriate for it to be the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

One of the problems that we have at the moment is that a lot of these issues span Whitehall. The Cabinet Office is responsible for the negotiation with the European Union, the Treasury has responsibility for the carbon border adjustment mechanism, and DESNZ obviously has responsibility for net zero and energy security. It is difficult to pin down one Department, but the Treasury ultimately has the huge policy levers at its disposal, so having it respond would be appropriate.

You initially submitted your application for Westminster Hall, and you have now changed it to the Chamber. We have a very long waiting list for the Chamber. Given that this is an important issue, would you consider going back to Westminster Hall?

The importance of the issue, the impact on all our constituents, the ongoing conflict in the middle east, rocketing energy prices and the imminent negotiations with the European Union mean that this is an incredibly important debate to be having. I think that having it in the Chamber would reflect its importance to our constituents and show that we take these issues with the seriousness that they deserve.

So the answer is no, and you would rather wait for it to be in the Chamber.

I would prefer for it to be in the Chamber, yes.

Thank you. You seem to have given us some confusion. Did you submit two separate forms for this application?

My understanding was that I just submitted the one form.

In our papers we have two separate forms, but not to worry. If there are no other questions from colleagues, then the Clerks will be in touch in due course. Baggy Shanker made representations.

The next application is from Baggy Shanker on manufacturing skills. This is a request for a general debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning.

Thank you. The success of UK manufacturing depends on the skills of our workforce. Employers, the Government and anybody else you speak to will say that the biggest asset is people, and I genuinely believe that to be true. But there are currently 55,000 unfilled, long-term vacancies in the UK manufacturing sector, whether that is manufacturing or advanced manufacturing, where we are world leaders in some of the technology. The cost of lost output to the economy is around £6 billion a year, which is a huge gap that nobody would say we can afford. We need to shorten that figure and ensure we realise the benefit across the economy. As a former apprentice myself—it is a few years ago now that I did my apprenticeship—I have seen the benefits of good-quality manufacturing jobs, starting as an apprentice, being with people for the rest of their lives. But unfortunately, the start rate of apprenticeships is down. We have an ageing workforce, and action is urgently needed to futureproof our skills pipeline. I feel holding a debate on manufacturing skills would give MPs the opportunity to raise issues from their constituencies, and the challenges around getting the right skills, for the right sectors, at the right time. At the same time, it would celebrate the absolute powerhouse of UK manufacturing, and what sovereign capability means for British jobs. I have asked for an hour and a half on a Tuesday in Westminster Hall. Just yesterday, the Government signed the SMR contract with Rolls-Royce. That is an example of sovereign capability. We are world leaders in small modular reactors, which will be designed and predominantly built here in the UK. That is so exciting, but if we have not got the people to take advantage of that, then it is going to be a massive challenge.

Thank you for your presentation. Skills England sits with the Department for Education, apprenticeships are with DWP, and manufacturing is with the DBT, so which Department did you have in mind to respond to this debate?

In my mind, I think DBT. Skills England and DFE have got their work, and DWP has got its work—as we heard from the previous applicant, the Treasury play a key part in this as well—and while recognition of this problem lies across Government, ultimately with the topic being manufacturing and UK jobs, DBT would be best placed to respond.

You have applied for a debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday, but would you consider a debate on a Thursday, for which, to be blunt, there is a shorter waiting list?

I would, and I think it is important enough that Members would stay around on a Thursday to participate. I have gone for the Tuesday just because some of the people who signed the application requested a Tuesday or Wednesday, and from experience, those days are better attended. That is the reason I went for the Tuesday.

In support of your application, Baggy, I can see only four Opposition Members, and no Conservatives.

The general split is four Government and four Opposition for a 90-minute debate. How the Opposition are made up is up to the applicant. Can I point out—I think you have applied to us for previous debates—that the form you are using is an old version? The new form asks you to put in the answering Department, which is one of the reasons why Alison needed to ask the question. We have to allocate Tuesday slots for when the answering Department is on the rota. That is just for future reference. Any other questions, colleagues? No. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course.

Thank you. Calvin Bailey made representations.

Our final application this afternoon is from Calvin Bailey. This is for a debate on the UK National Screening Committee’s recommendation on prostate cancer screening, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or a Thursday. Calvin, over to you.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks all for receiving me this afternoon and hearing this application. On 26 March, the UK National Screening Committee met to consider the recommendations on screening for prostate cancer. We expect a final recommendation to be published in the next few weeks, after we will have all been out knocking on doors. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer in men in the UK. The campaign for a national screening programme has been ongoing for many years, and I think will be familiar to many of us, not least given the heartbreaking accounts of men and their families who are diagnosed far too late and have lost years or decades as a result of the condition. In its draft recommendation, the UK National Screening Committee recommended screening for men who carry two mutations, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. These men face significantly higher risk of developing prostate cancer and are more likely to experience progressive forms of the disease than others. Prostate-specific antigen testing means that this can be picked up in screening at an earlier age, when it is easier to treat, which ultimately saves lives. However, colleagues across the House and I were disappointed that the committee decided that the evidence is not yet strong enough for a screening recommendation to be targeted for black men and for men with a family history of prostate cancer, who are the other two significant groups. For those of you who do not know, black men have double the risk of white men, and we are twice more likely to die from the disease when it is picked up. Those groups deserve better. The draft recommendation was a disappointment for many and raises serious questions about how to ensure wider access to testing for groups at the highest risk of disease, such as those I have mentioned. There is a need for important research pathways so that Prostate Cancer UK and others can close the evidence gap. The Government need to address some of the challenges with the national screening pathways. The current system relies on these men knowing that they have or are exposed to this risk and proactively asking their doctors to have the PSA test, which we know is inadequate, because men do not tend to look after their health or be as proactive as we like. We need a fairer and faster system in place for these men, and we need to be able to respond where there is not a screening programme in place at the moment. This is an issue of widespread cross-party and public interest. My joint letter with Prostate Cancer Research before the National Screening Committee issued its draft recommendation had the signatures of 134 colleagues from across the House. As with other cancer screening, this is complex and sometimes highly technical, but it matters enormously to the health of the NHS in every part of the UK and to the over half a million men who are currently living with it after a diagnosis, and the millions more who are at risk. The issues can be difficult for the public to understand, and it is a very oversimplified process; I am sure some of that will come out in the debate. I believe the committee’s recommendation, regardless of when it comes, will create an important point in time to take stock of where we stand on screening, diagnosis and treatment for men with prostate cancer or at risk from it. Colleagues will want to raise urgent questions about the implementation of the screening recommendation for their constituents, as they did last year after the announcement, as well as concerns about the evidence base needed for the committee to move towards a recommendation for wider screening of prostate cancer. There are open questions that we need to dig into, which include how the recommendation will work with the national cancer plan for England; what commitments the Department of Health and Social Care will make to support earlier diagnosis, given that the Secretary of State is clear about his support for prostate cancer screening in principle; and what action will be taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, given the UK-wide scope of the National Screening Committee but the dispersed nature of the NHS. That is my pitch. Thank you very much for listening.

On your application, you said you were happy to have the debate in Westminster Hall or the Chamber. You only have eight people down on your list. You have not included yourself, so I presume it would be nine. If you wanted to have it in the main Chamber, you would need more names. Are you happy with just having a Westminster Hall debate, or do you want to get the names to have it in the Chamber, bearing in mind that Westminster Hall will be quicker?

I would be happy with Westminster Hall. The discussion is more important than the location of it. I thought we had enough for a half-day debate in the Chamber, but if that is not the case, I am quite happy with Westminster Hall. It is more the timing that is important.

For a debate in the Chamber, we would normally expect 15 speakers minimum, with an even split between Government and Opposition Members.

That is understood, which is why I pointed to the 134 names that we had last time. We could draw them, but I understand there is pressure. Ideally, November would be a good moment to have the discussion.

A debate in November?

Yes.

In your introduction, you talked about an imminent recommendation coming out.

Absolutely, but the problem is that we do not think the recommendation is going to be—unfortunately, this is quite complex. There are so many issues around prostate cancer. Everyone assumes that we should just be doing a national screening programme, but the consequences of testing can be quite significant, and therefore some of the cancer charities are actively saying, “That isn’t a fight that we need to have.” You will see that the APPG is made up of both the prostate cancer charities, which is very unusual; they have never been together before. We have to counterbalance, when we are advocating for something that the other does not want. When the screening announcement is made, there will be a moment of discussion around it, but I do not think that we are going to adequately shift the debate at that moment. November seems like a good time. It is the month of Movember, when there are discussions about men’s health and the like. That is probably a good moment, because just having the discussion means that more people will hear it and we will get greater success. The timing works well.

If it is November, that will be in the new Session. I suggest that if you want a debate in the Chamber, you will need to get extra speakers. The application is live for Westminster Hall—that is fine—but to progress it to the Chamber, we will need extra sponsors. You have plenty of time to do that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The Clerks will be in touch with you in due course. That concludes the public session of the Committee. The Committee will now retire to consider the applications and the allocation of time in the Chamber and Westminster Hall.