Backbench Business Committee
Tuesday 8th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 month, 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
A commission to look into the economic and wider impact. If there's a will of the committee to give us time to look at a recent report that has been packed of cathedrals in communities up and down the country, and I've secured a significant interest from at least firm interest from about 15 colleagues. But there are 42. We haven't chased down all their offices yet, but I'm pretty confident we're going to get a much larger number. The issue of the funding of cathedrals.
16:15
16:15
16:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Okay. Yeah, it's grown since the application went in, but we shall put the additional names to you. But we'll be working very hard to get, I would hope being realistic, 25 people. There will be an opportunity to explore what impact they make in their communities from a spiritual, but also a sort of wider economic point of view. Because this report points to £235 million of additional expenditure in the economy, but they also have, across a range of needs, significant capital problems and needing investment.
And I think that, you know, there is a real challenge there. It's unlikely the government is going to have a massive capital to give. As a former Treasury minister, I'm very aware of those constraints, but it's an opportunity to explore fully how we can get a wider platform for support with philanthropy and other giving. So I think doing it in the chamber would really help to raise the profile. Obviously, we'd get ministerial response elsewhere, but I think given the numbers that we could, we could get there and the wider view, it might stimulate other people coming from other faiths with other places of worship to to talk about it.
Your great expert on that. But, you know, I submit that it would be reach that threshold and would be, you know, a useful debate that the country would also want to hear about.
And I think that, you know, there is a real challenge there. It's unlikely the government is going to have a massive capital to give. As a former Treasury minister, I'm very aware of those constraints, but it's an opportunity to explore fully how we can get a wider platform for support with philanthropy and other giving. So I think doing it in the chamber would really help to raise the profile. Obviously, we'd get ministerial response elsewhere, but I think given the numbers that we could, we could get there and the wider view, it might stimulate other people coming from other faiths with other places of worship to to talk about it.
Your great expert on that. But, you know, I submit that it would be reach that threshold and would be, you know, a useful debate that the country would also want to hear about.
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
Next up is our season ticket holder, Jim Shannon. And Jim, you've got a request for a debate, in case you didn't know, because you had so many applications for a debate on, let's see, pulmonary fibrosis and interstitial lung awareness. And this is a request for a debate, I assume, in Westminster Hall. Yeah, yeah.
16:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Mr. chairman, again, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to ask for debate. Pulmonary fibrosis and interstitial lung awareness. My list is growing as well, but I've got the list with the names, and I'll give it to the clerk beforehand. There's not anywhere near 25, but there certainly is 11 and there's four people from the government, and then the rest are from the opposition. Why is it needed? September is Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Month, and it creates, I believe, a timely opportunity for Parliament to debate a group of progressive, life limiting lung diseases.
Now, I understand we can't have it in September because it's too short notice for that, but obviously, if we can, if it's possible, Mr. Chairman, to have it as early as we can in October would be much appreciated. Pulmonary fibrosis describes a group of interstitial lung diseases where the scarring of the lungs makes it breathing progressively more difficult. There's 150,000 people in the UK affected. It's one of the most common forms, and fewer than half of those diagnosed live more than five years.
So I think this is probably a disease and a health disability that hasn't been fully looked at. So the opportunity is perhaps for that. It it is very severe. There are serious gaps through the care pathway two and five stop treatment within six months because of intolerable side effects. Eye side effects are are gross. And and even though, you know you've got a life limiting disease, some of the the side effects are such that sometimes they're unbearable as well.
So the, the ten year health plan, a new respiratory transformation partnership have so far focused principally on asthma with COPD. But the the pulmonary fibrosis and the Amsterdam and lung diseases have never been fully looked at. So my request, Mr. Chairman, ever mindful of of your kindness and and generosity when it comes to asking for it to be here to debate that I think needs to be discussed. And hopefully that that can happen.
There's there's 11 names, as I said before, for from the from the government and the rest from the the opposition side. Thank you very much, Alison.
Now, I understand we can't have it in September because it's too short notice for that, but obviously, if we can, if it's possible, Mr. Chairman, to have it as early as we can in October would be much appreciated. Pulmonary fibrosis describes a group of interstitial lung diseases where the scarring of the lungs makes it breathing progressively more difficult. There's 150,000 people in the UK affected. It's one of the most common forms, and fewer than half of those diagnosed live more than five years.
So I think this is probably a disease and a health disability that hasn't been fully looked at. So the opportunity is perhaps for that. It it is very severe. There are serious gaps through the care pathway two and five stop treatment within six months because of intolerable side effects. Eye side effects are are gross. And and even though, you know you've got a life limiting disease, some of the the side effects are such that sometimes they're unbearable as well.
So the, the ten year health plan, a new respiratory transformation partnership have so far focused principally on asthma with COPD. But the the pulmonary fibrosis and the Amsterdam and lung diseases have never been fully looked at. So my request, Mr. Chairman, ever mindful of of your kindness and and generosity when it comes to asking for it to be here to debate that I think needs to be discussed. And hopefully that that can happen.
There's there's 11 names, as I said before, for from the from the government and the rest from the the opposition side. Thank you very much, Alison.
16:20
Alison Hume
-
-
Alison Hume
Yeah. Thank you. And thank you very much for bringing this application. Jim, I agree with you that interstitial lung disease is really should be included in the ten year plan. It's a very, very good application. But you will know that we require an even split between government and non-government members to support the debate. You say you have signatures coming, but at the moment you've only got two Labour members.
Can you provide the clerk with additional names?
Can you provide the clerk with additional names?
16:21
16:21
16:21
16:21
16:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I was hoping that might be a belated one for perhaps October. I, I don't ask you don't get you know, so yeah, that's how it works. So I'll do my best. Look, I'll say if you can do it. We understand by the way, it's our fault and my fault as a proposer, it should have been done long before this. It wasn't. We'd only discussed this over the summer with the a PPG, and we'd realize that September was a month when you were never going to get in September.
We understand that.
We understand that.
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:22
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, chair, and thank you for having me again. So I'm hoping to bring forward a debate on inequalities and access to therapy for disabled children so that colleagues and I can raise concerns regarding children with disabilities and their families that are facing with inequalities in accessing rehabilitation and therapy services in the UK. As I think I've touched on when I've been here previously, I do have some first hand experience as well as a parent of a child with quadriplegic cerebral palsy.
So I got involved in this. Prior to the summer. The member for Harlow was quite involved, but he's now a PPS and Napa, which is the Neurological and Physical Applications Centre, is based in his constituency, so he's been working very closely with them. They design individualized, intensive therapy programs with unique combinations, with a wide range of speech, physical occupation and other innovative therapies. And their groundbreaking research dives into the imbalance impacts of different access levels to advance paediatric therapeutic care.
I'm aware that members from across the House attended the event they held here back in, I think it was in June. It was a very hot day and took an interest in that matter. Given the wide range of differences in those therapies across the country. Again, I know first hand , for four years, even myself and my father did 118 mile round trip every week. And to ensure that my daughter could have that kind of level of service by going from south east London to Enfield in West Sussex, in our case.
And. But Napa do offer some of those services. And as I say, currently families are reporting disparities in accessing services, with that provision really being determined for a postcode lottery hugely by the charitable sector or through private therapy. We know early intervention. Again, I know in my role as chair of the disability equipment group, the all party group and the wheelchair users group, and early intervention could improve long term outcomes for children with complex disabilities, preventing hospital admissions and pressures on social care systems.
And investing in that rehabilitation would not only mean investment in the quality of life of disabled children and families, but also long term savings to public finances. Again, I spoke on that on the health bill last night, and there is very clear evidence on that matter. So I'd be grateful if Westminster debate could be considered and hopefully granted. Chair.
So I got involved in this. Prior to the summer. The member for Harlow was quite involved, but he's now a PPS and Napa, which is the Neurological and Physical Applications Centre, is based in his constituency, so he's been working very closely with them. They design individualized, intensive therapy programs with unique combinations, with a wide range of speech, physical occupation and other innovative therapies. And their groundbreaking research dives into the imbalance impacts of different access levels to advance paediatric therapeutic care.
I'm aware that members from across the House attended the event they held here back in, I think it was in June. It was a very hot day and took an interest in that matter. Given the wide range of differences in those therapies across the country. Again, I know first hand , for four years, even myself and my father did 118 mile round trip every week. And to ensure that my daughter could have that kind of level of service by going from south east London to Enfield in West Sussex, in our case.
And. But Napa do offer some of those services. And as I say, currently families are reporting disparities in accessing services, with that provision really being determined for a postcode lottery hugely by the charitable sector or through private therapy. We know early intervention. Again, I know in my role as chair of the disability equipment group, the all party group and the wheelchair users group, and early intervention could improve long term outcomes for children with complex disabilities, preventing hospital admissions and pressures on social care systems.
And investing in that rehabilitation would not only mean investment in the quality of life of disabled children and families, but also long term savings to public finances. Again, I spoke on that on the health bill last night, and there is very clear evidence on that matter. So I'd be grateful if Westminster debate could be considered and hopefully granted. Chair.
16:24
16:24
16:25
Mary Glindon
-
-
Mary Glindon
Thank you. Daniel, you've applied for a Westminster Hall debate, but your application includes the text of a substantive motion, very clear motion. But debate in Westminster Hall can only take place on neutral motions. And would you be therefore happy for us to change your. Motion to a neutral motion that says that this House has considered inequalities in access to therapy for disabled children?
16:25
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'd be delighted to accept that request, Mary, and have that rounded debate. I accept again what I forgot to say. Of course, in the last Parliament there isn't. Now there was an all party group for cerebral palsy at which Mary Kelly for it, and a member on your side chair, whose name I forget for black, from Blackpool, were very involved in. I think the gentleman has. Has cerebral palsy, and so there are recommendations from from their reports on these matters as well.
But it'd be good to be able to talk about them. But that neutral motion, Mary, I'd gladly accept.
But it'd be good to be able to talk about them. But that neutral motion, Mary, I'd gladly accept.
16:26
Alison Hume
-
-
Alison Hume
Thank you. Thank you, Daniel, for bringing this application. I think it's really important. And I just wanted to add that I think the economic consequences of not providing timely rehabilitation and therapy services for children are huge. Only the other day I was speaking to a parent of a primary aged child who who's broken his ankle twice, waiting for proper orthopaedic interventions. And this must be replicated across the country. So.
So thank you for for bringing this application. Thank you chair.
So thank you for for bringing this application. Thank you chair.
16:26
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, sorry, chair, if you if you allow me to, you know, anecdotally and as I say, we've taken this evidence, all party group and wheelchair users, we know there's clear evidence, particularly for children with cerebral palsy who don't weight bear. And I know my own daughter had half this ball taken out of the socket on her hip three years ago, is about to have to have part of her femur taken out on this side, because her leg has almost come out of its hip on this side, and that is that they are quite common issues.
If you talk to specialists over the road at the. I'm sure we'll be discussing in that debate if it's granted. Chair.
If you talk to specialists over the road at the. I'm sure we'll be discussing in that debate if it's granted. Chair.
16:27
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
Can I just check with you because you've asked for a Tuesday debate. We need to allocate it. If it's in Westminster Hall on Tuesday to the right answering department, you haven't indicated the answering department because it could be health and social care. It could be within inequalities, you know. But I just want to clarify.
16:27
16:27
16:27
16:28
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
thank you very much. A Bob. Yes, I'm really here in my capacity as a co-chair of the all party group on HIV and Aids and Sexual Health, which is one of the largest all party groups in Parliament. And next year will celebrate its 40th year as a group. As you will be aware, there have been there. There has generally been a debate in Parliament, either around world Aids day, which is the 1st of December, or HIV testing week, which is in the spring.
All of these debates previously have been very well attended and a with a large number of members from all sides participating, we've had within a. The UK government's remit an HIV action plan in relation to England and quite a significant amount of positive activity, and that's why I think our the feeling of of the Appg and my own feeling is that this year it would be appropriate to debate the global situation, which is very much impacted on changes in funding, not just to a odor here in the UK, but very significant changes in the United States, which has previously been a very important funder of HIHIVAHIV treatments, particularly in the global South.
A it's an important opportunity to be able to. A make clear that many of those who are facing infection now are, in fact, women and girls. It is not the stereotypical a gay male community that that some people believe is the case. A. And there have been rising rates, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, and therefore a. Our view is that the focus of any debate this year would would rightly be on the global situation, I.
I believe that there would be sufficient interest in this debate to ensure that there was a wide attendance within the Commons Chamber and that therefore it would merit a. That.
All of these debates previously have been very well attended and a with a large number of members from all sides participating, we've had within a. The UK government's remit an HIV action plan in relation to England and quite a significant amount of positive activity, and that's why I think our the feeling of of the Appg and my own feeling is that this year it would be appropriate to debate the global situation, which is very much impacted on changes in funding, not just to a odor here in the UK, but very significant changes in the United States, which has previously been a very important funder of HIHIVAHIV treatments, particularly in the global South.
A it's an important opportunity to be able to. A make clear that many of those who are facing infection now are, in fact, women and girls. It is not the stereotypical a gay male community that that some people believe is the case. A. And there have been rising rates, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, and therefore a. Our view is that the focus of any debate this year would would rightly be on the global situation, I.
I believe that there would be sufficient interest in this debate to ensure that there was a wide attendance within the Commons Chamber and that therefore it would merit a. That.
16:30
16:30
16:31
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, if it was at all possible and I tried to get it in early in the sense. But I know you have a very long waiting list, but I mean, it would I had anticipated in December, because world Aids day is a is the 1st of December. There will be some other activity, as always in Parliament, around a around that. But I think a proximity to world Aids day would be would be very much welcomed if the Committee was minded to grant the application.
16:31
16:31
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
wouldn't I wouldn't rule it out, but I think it is a debate that would command, you know, a wide interest across members, across the House that would merit a debate in in the chamber. But, you know, in order for the I would obviously and members of the Appg would obviously wish the debate to take place. So if those two things weren't reconcilable, then obviously I wouldn't rule out a Westminster Hall debate, but I think the preference would be for a chamber debate, and I think it would both merit and would command the level of support that that that merits that.
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The second application is by myself and with the support of principally Irene Campbell, who's the Labour MP for North Ayrshire. And we would like to have a debate in Westminster Hall on nuclear power in Scotland. As members may be aware, under the devolution settlement, energy policy is reserved to Westminster, but a planning policy is within the remit of the Scottish Government and over a period of time, the Scottish Government have used that planning policy to ensure that there is no nuclear development in Scotland, which is contrary to the view, for example, of Irene and various other members.
However, other people do have different views, but it is. It is a very topical issue, particularly as the government is pressing ahead with nuclear development in England. And I think it's a it's a it's a topic of of interest. It's one that would spark a very lively and I'm sure well attended debate, not least obviously, by Scottish members of all persuasions.
However, other people do have different views, but it is. It is a very topical issue, particularly as the government is pressing ahead with nuclear development in England. And I think it's a it's a it's a topic of of interest. It's one that would spark a very lively and I'm sure well attended debate, not least obviously, by Scottish members of all persuasions.
16:34
16:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, I sort of have two hats on because I'm speaking on behalf of the Appg , really in relation to the HIV debate, and I think that is a very important debate, and I would wish that to take place. This is a very topical political issue, a which could could be debated at any time. So in a timing cycle, a, I think the HIV debate is as we've just as we've just been discussing, is better suited around the 1st of December.
This other debate could, within reason, take place at any a at any time, because I don't anticipate that the Scottish Government will change their position within the short term. But who knows? Once we've had the debate, they might do so.
This other debate could, within reason, take place at any a at any time, because I don't anticipate that the Scottish Government will change their position within the short term. But who knows? Once we've had the debate, they might do so.
16:35
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
Q okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Clerks will be in touch about both your applications. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Slinger, subject of which we've all got a vested interest in, namely, a debate on the role of an MP. And this is a request for Westminster Hall debate on either a Tuesday or Thursday. John, over to you.
Thank you, chair, and it's good to be back before you as a committee, I'm seeking this debate because I regard the role of an MP as absolutely critical to our democracy, and I'll just talk you through, if I may, the reasoning the roles have evolved organically over time. It's never really been truly gripped or defined or properly assessed in this place. It has been outside, and as far as I can tell, there have been no debates on the role of an MP.
There's strengths to this organic growth, but also some deficiencies, and they include there being no job description, each MP determined, and I note the laughter of honourable members. Each MP determines the role as best they can. The public don't often understand our role. How could they? Nor do organisations. And quite often. Nor do we, and certainly nor do I. On occasion. We are under.
As colleagues will know, we're under no obligation to ever visit our constituency, although I live in mine, so I. I visit it every week, and nor to come to this house, save to swear an oath of allegiance, which is frankly preposterous. I think we can all agree there's a grey area, both nationally and locally. There are very few formal powers, and these pretty much only apply nationally to vote on legislation. So legislative powers amend to question ministers, initiate debates or to scrutinise.
And of course, we have immense power at certain moments. We may have noticed that when we in the PLP at least determined who the Prime Minister of this country is, and that's an enormous power and privilege. But the other powers are heavily constrained by by whipping and locally, no public or private organization that's providing services to our constituents is under any statutory obligation to ever meet us or consult us or respond to us. Of course they do, because they know of our status, but they're not under any obligation, not even councils.
It's incredible. We have no formal executive power locally to direct policy. We have no resources. For example, local councillors do have a resource to deploy on issues that they care about. In my case, Rugby Borough Council is just about to bring in a 300 £0 fund for each councillor and Warwickshire County Council. They have £8,000, I think, per year to distribute to good causes and make things happen in their constituency.
We have the power of influence, of convening, of writing, of talking and cajoling, and that's not insignificant. But it's not enough. And it's within the context that we're we're we're facing, which I think is vital. If you look at local government reorganisation and devolution, we are seen as the most senior politician in our areas, and yet we hear little else of metro mayors in the current debate. People assume that we have the power and the budget to deploy locally.
When I think we know that we don't, people assume that we can improve their area and local services, and of course we can. But the route to doing so is, of course, highly complex. We end up as members of this place, as members of Parliament, being held accountable for almost everything that happens in our area. And we're picking up the pieces of often broken or failing local and national public services, and much more besides.
And of course, if I could be so bold due to our nature as democratically elected politicians, we are actually incentivized to maximize the appearance of power and to minimize the absence of it. Which is slightly ironic. So I'm seeking a debate, Mr. Chairman, to discuss this perhaps most vital role within our democracy and most importantly, most importantly, to give the opportunity to honourable members across the House to make their suggestions and discuss these issues, and they can take it wherever they want to.
They could talk about the logistics of being an MP. Our formal powers are informal powers. The support we receive, maybe even pay and package security. And the wider context. As I've mentioned, I want the debate not to be about complaints or moaning, but to be about improving, to be about improving the situation and focused on solutions and constructive ideas. Mr. chair, MPs are vital to our democracy , and I believe that our status, power and authority needs to be needs to be enhanced, not for our benefit, but for the benefit of our constituents and for the democracy of this country.
And MPs must have more opportunities to speak out. And I want this debate to be part of a much wider discussion here in this place, among the various committees with academia and others about revitalizing. Revitalizing our democracy. Rewiring the state must include improving and revising the role and the status and the powers of MPs. And if I could conclude by saying, when I mention my application here today to colleagues, they're very interested.
And I think the debate would be would be well supported from across the House. And it's an important and timely one. Thank you. I think I'd add to your observation that those of us that have served in executive roles in local authorities stepping in to become MPs, changes from a position of making decision that affects people in the places they live, to one of. Can I bring influence to bear to make a decision? It's it's very frustrating, I agree.
Anyway. Well, yeah.
Thank you, chair, and it's good to be back before you as a committee, I'm seeking this debate because I regard the role of an MP as absolutely critical to our democracy, and I'll just talk you through, if I may, the reasoning the roles have evolved organically over time. It's never really been truly gripped or defined or properly assessed in this place. It has been outside, and as far as I can tell, there have been no debates on the role of an MP.
There's strengths to this organic growth, but also some deficiencies, and they include there being no job description, each MP determined, and I note the laughter of honourable members. Each MP determines the role as best they can. The public don't often understand our role. How could they? Nor do organisations. And quite often. Nor do we, and certainly nor do I. On occasion. We are under.
As colleagues will know, we're under no obligation to ever visit our constituency, although I live in mine, so I. I visit it every week, and nor to come to this house, save to swear an oath of allegiance, which is frankly preposterous. I think we can all agree there's a grey area, both nationally and locally. There are very few formal powers, and these pretty much only apply nationally to vote on legislation. So legislative powers amend to question ministers, initiate debates or to scrutinise.
And of course, we have immense power at certain moments. We may have noticed that when we in the PLP at least determined who the Prime Minister of this country is, and that's an enormous power and privilege. But the other powers are heavily constrained by by whipping and locally, no public or private organization that's providing services to our constituents is under any statutory obligation to ever meet us or consult us or respond to us. Of course they do, because they know of our status, but they're not under any obligation, not even councils.
It's incredible. We have no formal executive power locally to direct policy. We have no resources. For example, local councillors do have a resource to deploy on issues that they care about. In my case, Rugby Borough Council is just about to bring in a 300 £0 fund for each councillor and Warwickshire County Council. They have £8,000, I think, per year to distribute to good causes and make things happen in their constituency.
We have the power of influence, of convening, of writing, of talking and cajoling, and that's not insignificant. But it's not enough. And it's within the context that we're we're we're facing, which I think is vital. If you look at local government reorganisation and devolution, we are seen as the most senior politician in our areas, and yet we hear little else of metro mayors in the current debate. People assume that we have the power and the budget to deploy locally.
When I think we know that we don't, people assume that we can improve their area and local services, and of course we can. But the route to doing so is, of course, highly complex. We end up as members of this place, as members of Parliament, being held accountable for almost everything that happens in our area. And we're picking up the pieces of often broken or failing local and national public services, and much more besides.
And of course, if I could be so bold due to our nature as democratically elected politicians, we are actually incentivized to maximize the appearance of power and to minimize the absence of it. Which is slightly ironic. So I'm seeking a debate, Mr. Chairman, to discuss this perhaps most vital role within our democracy and most importantly, most importantly, to give the opportunity to honourable members across the House to make their suggestions and discuss these issues, and they can take it wherever they want to.
They could talk about the logistics of being an MP. Our formal powers are informal powers. The support we receive, maybe even pay and package security. And the wider context. As I've mentioned, I want the debate not to be about complaints or moaning, but to be about improving, to be about improving the situation and focused on solutions and constructive ideas. Mr. chair, MPs are vital to our democracy , and I believe that our status, power and authority needs to be needs to be enhanced, not for our benefit, but for the benefit of our constituents and for the democracy of this country.
And MPs must have more opportunities to speak out. And I want this debate to be part of a much wider discussion here in this place, among the various committees with academia and others about revitalizing. Revitalizing our democracy. Rewiring the state must include improving and revising the role and the status and the powers of MPs. And if I could conclude by saying, when I mention my application here today to colleagues, they're very interested.
And I think the debate would be would be well supported from across the House. And it's an important and timely one. Thank you. I think I'd add to your observation that those of us that have served in executive roles in local authorities stepping in to become MPs, changes from a position of making decision that affects people in the places they live, to one of. Can I bring influence to bear to make a decision? It's it's very frustrating, I agree.
Anyway. Well, yeah.
16:41
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:42
Alison Hume
-
-
Alison Hume
Yes, please. Thank you for bringing this application. John. And I describe myself as a sort of combination of the Terminator and a fairy godmother. That's how I think my constituents see me. And of course, as you say, the reality is completely different. And I can't believe that we've never debated this. Is that right, chair, to your knowledge.
16:42
16:42
16:42
16:42
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
When Ipsa was set up because there's a you know, obviously a rationale for that. There's clearly a the Commissioner Standards Commission has got an interest in this because we know he tried to inflict certain things upon MPs. And indeed, I think Ipsa would have a have a say on what happens. But you're absolutely right. We have no contract of employment. We have no job description. We set up a small business.
We employ our staff, albeit to contracts within a budget. And basically you can and there are examples of people who arrived in this place, sworn their oath of allegiance, never been to their constituencies, never done anything for their constituents, and somehow managed to get re-elected. But extraordinary. Yeah it is. Anyway, the clerks will be in touch with you at your course about the potential date. Thank you, thank you.
We employ our staff, albeit to contracts within a budget. And basically you can and there are examples of people who arrived in this place, sworn their oath of allegiance, never been to their constituencies, never done anything for their constituents, and somehow managed to get re-elected. But extraordinary. Yeah it is. Anyway, the clerks will be in touch with you at your course about the potential date. Thank you, thank you.
16:43
16:43
16:44
16:44
16:44
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Okay, so I'm sure many of us have been impacted by dementia or will know constituents who have been impacted by dementia. And without wishing to bring everybody down, 1 in 3 of us will develop dementia. And it's obviously the defining health and social care challenge of our time. And later this year, the government's modern service framework for frailty and dementia and the first publication of the Casey Commission is expected.
And so this would be a timely debate, looking at what happens after diagnosis, because what what what's happening at the moment in far too many cases is people get told that they have dementia, and then they get sent home and they're left to get on with it, and they have to do their own research and find out about everything themselves. But research shows that if they can, if they can be properly supported, then they can live, you know, a reasonably productive and active life for as long as possible.
And it's really, really important. So this debate is really would really give members, and it does have cross-party support, would give members the chance to talk about their experiences in their constituencies and to put the case forward for ensuring that everybody in the UK has access to the post-diagnostic support that they need.
And so this would be a timely debate, looking at what happens after diagnosis, because what what what's happening at the moment in far too many cases is people get told that they have dementia, and then they get sent home and they're left to get on with it, and they have to do their own research and find out about everything themselves. But research shows that if they can, if they can be properly supported, then they can live, you know, a reasonably productive and active life for as long as possible.
And it's really, really important. So this debate is really would really give members, and it does have cross-party support, would give members the chance to talk about their experiences in their constituencies and to put the case forward for ensuring that everybody in the UK has access to the post-diagnostic support that they need.
16:45
16:45
16:46
16:46
16:46
16:46
16:46
16:46
16:46
16:46
16:46