Backbench Business Committee
Tuesday 13th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:16
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
Welcome to the meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, where we will be considering applications from colleagues for debates in the main chamber and in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday morning and a Thursday afternoon. The first application we have is from Scott Arthur on the future of cancer research in the UK, and I will declare my interest as being a strong supporter of Cancer Research UK and chairman of the all party Group for Action on Smoking and Health.
Scott, do you want to present your case? This is. Oh, sorry, I should say this is for a request for a debate in the chamber.
Scott, do you want to present your case? This is. Oh, sorry, I should say this is for a request for a debate in the chamber.
16:17
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. And thank you, chair. And I'm sure, I mean, all of us have interests in this area, so you won't be alone in having you've got a formal conflict of interest. I am sure we've all got an interest in this subject. So this is about looking at how we can progress faster and further cancer research in the UK. So fundamentally it is about holding the government to account, but also thinking about not just the health benefits of working in this area, but also the economic benefits.
So the UK is a world leader, has a world leading record in cancer research and breakthroughs have transformed prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. In my lifetime, I have to say I'm in my 50s actually. But there is a feeling that perhaps whilst progress is faster than the past, it is starting to slow a little. So we have the Cancer Plan, which was published earlier this year, but we've got a few changes in personnel, I think, in that department since then.
So this is a challenge just really to keep them on their toes. Although we are this is not DHS, it is a chance to expose some light on the progress that has been made. So it's extremely timely. So there are several pressing issues, principally delays in setting up clinical trials that mean promising treatments are reaching patients more slowly than they should. I want to give two examples. I have a constituent say a constituent called Fay Robertson.
She's a clinician, and she's just won 72, £70 million to research glioblastoma with Edinburgh University and NHS Lothian in my constituency, which is fantastic. But if she was here, she would say that if she had chosen to go to the States, she would have started the work a year earlier. Such are the delays in the UK. And yesterday evening we had a meeting with universities who want the government to invest around £500 million in science infrastructure to progress treatments for cancer and other conditions.
And there was a pharmaceutical company there who is investing alongside Cancer Research UK. And the pharmaceutical company was asked, well, if this new research institutes develops intellectual property, would they stay in the UK? And the pharmaceutical company said, well, that couldn't be guaranteed because it's always it can be more attractive to do the work overseas as compared to the UK. So this is something we have to address. It's not just about giving people access to treatments, it's about giving them access to really good clinical trials, which means they've got more support as they go through their cancer journey.
But it's also about ensuring we are investing in the UK economy and bringing these jobs, these jobs and investment to the UK. So this is very, very timely indeed. I would say we've got broad support from within my own party, Labour, Liberal, Liberal Democrats, always a fantastic supporter of everything in this field. Conservatives, SNP and DUP members. And I want to stress that the MPs that are signed up didn't sign up because I approached them in a tea room with a with a piece of paper to sign or even in the voting lobby.
Those MPs have signed up because their constituents have contacted them and made the case. And every single one of those constituents have either lost a family member, have cancer right now, or are a survivor of cancer. And I think this is what makes this application a little bit different as well. It comes really from the grassroots. So I don't know if Clive.
So the UK is a world leader, has a world leading record in cancer research and breakthroughs have transformed prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. In my lifetime, I have to say I'm in my 50s actually. But there is a feeling that perhaps whilst progress is faster than the past, it is starting to slow a little. So we have the Cancer Plan, which was published earlier this year, but we've got a few changes in personnel, I think, in that department since then.
So this is a challenge just really to keep them on their toes. Although we are this is not DHS, it is a chance to expose some light on the progress that has been made. So it's extremely timely. So there are several pressing issues, principally delays in setting up clinical trials that mean promising treatments are reaching patients more slowly than they should. I want to give two examples. I have a constituent say a constituent called Fay Robertson.
She's a clinician, and she's just won 72, £70 million to research glioblastoma with Edinburgh University and NHS Lothian in my constituency, which is fantastic. But if she was here, she would say that if she had chosen to go to the States, she would have started the work a year earlier. Such are the delays in the UK. And yesterday evening we had a meeting with universities who want the government to invest around £500 million in science infrastructure to progress treatments for cancer and other conditions.
And there was a pharmaceutical company there who is investing alongside Cancer Research UK. And the pharmaceutical company was asked, well, if this new research institutes develops intellectual property, would they stay in the UK? And the pharmaceutical company said, well, that couldn't be guaranteed because it's always it can be more attractive to do the work overseas as compared to the UK. So this is something we have to address. It's not just about giving people access to treatments, it's about giving them access to really good clinical trials, which means they've got more support as they go through their cancer journey.
But it's also about ensuring we are investing in the UK economy and bringing these jobs, these jobs and investment to the UK. So this is very, very timely indeed. I would say we've got broad support from within my own party, Labour, Liberal, Liberal Democrats, always a fantastic supporter of everything in this field. Conservatives, SNP and DUP members. And I want to stress that the MPs that are signed up didn't sign up because I approached them in a tea room with a with a piece of paper to sign or even in the voting lobby.
Those MPs have signed up because their constituents have contacted them and made the case. And every single one of those constituents have either lost a family member, have cancer right now, or are a survivor of cancer. And I think this is what makes this application a little bit different as well. It comes really from the grassroots. So I don't know if Clive.
16:20
16:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak in favour of the application. Cancer is going to touch 1 in 2 of us, meaning that we all know somebody who is affected by cancer. And as Scott said earlier on, it remains the leading cause of death in the UK. I've experienced first hand what it's like to go through a diagnosis, and I know the importance of really effective treatment.
The treatment I had 18 years ago hadn't changed for 40 years. But it was successful. But these days I wouldn't have to go through so much difficulty if it was something that was pretty hard to cope with. So survival rates have doubled since the 1970s, but have started to slow a bit recently. We in the UK, we do have a proud, proud history of being world leading cancer research and the discussions that I have with a lot of cancer charities is we could be doing so much more.
We could be back to a leading position in the world, and we have slipped away from that recently. So I think this debate is definitely needed. It's got lots of cross-party support and governments recent national Cancer plan has set a target of 3 in 4 people surviving for five years or more by 2035 to be able to do that. And it's a goal, I think, that nearly all of us would say we need to be reaching.
We've got to improve the research and the development of treatment. So I hope very much that you're going to say, yes, letting us have this debate.
The treatment I had 18 years ago hadn't changed for 40 years. But it was successful. But these days I wouldn't have to go through so much difficulty if it was something that was pretty hard to cope with. So survival rates have doubled since the 1970s, but have started to slow a bit recently. We in the UK, we do have a proud, proud history of being world leading cancer research and the discussions that I have with a lot of cancer charities is we could be doing so much more.
We could be back to a leading position in the world, and we have slipped away from that recently. So I think this debate is definitely needed. It's got lots of cross-party support and governments recent national Cancer plan has set a target of 3 in 4 people surviving for five years or more by 2035 to be able to do that. And it's a goal, I think, that nearly all of us would say we need to be reaching.
We've got to improve the research and the development of treatment. So I hope very much that you're going to say, yes, letting us have this debate.
16:23
16:23
Mary Glindon
-
-
Mary Glindon
Chair, I would just like to say that my late husband benefited from being on a trial. I know what difference it makes to a cancer patients to be able to partake in trials. So I'm glad you did mention that, Scott. And can I say, is there a particular date you would like this to be going sideways? Any special way?
16:23
16:23
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
Well, obviously, as you say, it's a very well supported application. I'm not sure if you could prevail upon the leader of the House to give us plenty of time in November, because at the moment we're not getting time in the chamber at all for one reason or another other than the day. And of course, we've got the budget coming up, which means that debating time will be on the budget. Of
16:24
16:24
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. And I do have to say, I mean, from my I mean, one of the questions I'm worried he might ask me is which of these two debates I might prefer, because certainly, you know, my constituents, this is the issue I get emails about, and I've had police officers from my constituency here. They would say, this is the number one issue that people are raising with them right now in my constituency. But obviously, the cancer care is a is a separate issue.
But I really, really important one as well, but very, very different. So of course, I've got a good friend who has recently bought an e-bike and she's in her 70s. She goes to my church and it's transformed her life, her boldness she's using it is incredible. But the flip side of the positivity has come with e-bikes is the use of illegal e-bikes , and also kits, which are used to convert legal e-bikes to illegal e-bikes.
And I see this right across my constituency. And actually one of the hotspots is right outside my constituency office, which is a little bit embarrassing at times for me. And people are able to point to this and say, ask me what I am doing about it. So these these are big disruptors. We see them every day. And like I say, there are huge concern to the police. So it's right across our country where we're living in an urban area or even some rural centres as well.
We really do feel that we've had past discussions about e-bikes in Westminster Hall. I believe I remember taking part in the debate, but that focused on anti-social behaviour, and I think we're all aware of those implications. But this debate today is really focused on understanding the role illegally modified and illegally bikes are playing, and particularly thinking about the import of them into the country and what steps the government could be taking to deal with that.
There are disruptors, but I think if we're all being honest, I think perhaps the government has been too slow to respond to. There is a consultation recently closed on the import of these devices, so there is a real chance to hold the government to account and push them to do more. And it's not just about the safety issues we see in our streets. I met with London Fire Brigade recently in this building, actually, and they were talking about how they've got a fire every two days, which has caused by the batteries, including in the depot of the police use for the confiscated bikes.
They even go on fire there. And whilst the firemen was far too professional to be angry, he sounded angry, actually, about the inaction from the government and all parliamentarians on this issue. So this is a really serious issue, both in terms of what we see, the threats on our streets, but also what our emergency services are dealing with as well. And I think if it is debated, I think there will be broad support with our parliamentary colleagues. But I think also the public as well.
There is a chance they might tune in and actually watch what we're doing. Voicing their concerns in Parliament. I will pass to Julie.
But I really, really important one as well, but very, very different. So of course, I've got a good friend who has recently bought an e-bike and she's in her 70s. She goes to my church and it's transformed her life, her boldness she's using it is incredible. But the flip side of the positivity has come with e-bikes is the use of illegal e-bikes , and also kits, which are used to convert legal e-bikes to illegal e-bikes.
And I see this right across my constituency. And actually one of the hotspots is right outside my constituency office, which is a little bit embarrassing at times for me. And people are able to point to this and say, ask me what I am doing about it. So these these are big disruptors. We see them every day. And like I say, there are huge concern to the police. So it's right across our country where we're living in an urban area or even some rural centres as well.
We really do feel that we've had past discussions about e-bikes in Westminster Hall. I believe I remember taking part in the debate, but that focused on anti-social behaviour, and I think we're all aware of those implications. But this debate today is really focused on understanding the role illegally modified and illegally bikes are playing, and particularly thinking about the import of them into the country and what steps the government could be taking to deal with that.
There are disruptors, but I think if we're all being honest, I think perhaps the government has been too slow to respond to. There is a consultation recently closed on the import of these devices, so there is a real chance to hold the government to account and push them to do more. And it's not just about the safety issues we see in our streets. I met with London Fire Brigade recently in this building, actually, and they were talking about how they've got a fire every two days, which has caused by the batteries, including in the depot of the police use for the confiscated bikes.
They even go on fire there. And whilst the firemen was far too professional to be angry, he sounded angry, actually, about the inaction from the government and all parliamentarians on this issue. So this is a really serious issue, both in terms of what we see, the threats on our streets, but also what our emergency services are dealing with as well. And I think if it is debated, I think there will be broad support with our parliamentary colleagues. But I think also the public as well.
There is a chance they might tune in and actually watch what we're doing. Voicing their concerns in Parliament. I will pass to Julie.
16:27
16:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. Thank you, chair, and thank you for the opportunity to to address this issue and propose the debate. As Mr. Arthur says, this is an issue that affects all of our constituencies. We all see it in our postbag. I think we're all well versed in the criminal aspects, the safety aspects, the speeding that we see, some of the less well known aspects, which I think the debate would give us an opportunity to rehearse, are the impact this is having on the legal market, both in terms of the sale of legal e-bikes.
So, for example, in the UK, just 9% of bikes that are sold are e-bikes, just 9%. If you go to Germany, it's 53%. In Holland, it's 61%. The debate would allow us to understand our opportunity to rehearse. Why is in the UK we are not getting a sale of legal e-bikes. I would contend it's that we have a very rife illegal market, which exactly, as Mr. Arthur said, it's these these conversion kits and the illegal e-bikes.
The other impact that they're having is that they're undercutting legitimate businesses. So, for example, it's affecting the sale of low powered motorbikes, I mean, mopeds. So they that market has seen a 20% decrease in Q1 this year alone. Because why would you buy licence, ensure an MOT and moped when you can buy an illegal kit that will get you to exactly the same speed? And then the other aspect that I think we would want to look at in the debate is because there is a definition of a legal e-bike.
If your e-bike is illegal, it becomes a motor vehicle. And at that point, if you have an accident with an illegal e-bike and you are injured, you can go to the motor insurance Bureau and raise a claim because it's an uninsured motor vehicle. And the the Motor Insurance Bureau has seen a 73% increase in claims attributed to the fact that people are now having accidents with these illegal bikes. So there are multiple aspects to this.
It's not just the safety. It's not just the fires, it's not just the speeding, it's not just the criminality. It's having a financial impact on the legal sale of e-bikes and also on mopeds. And the last thing I would say in terms of timing chairs, next year, the tour de France is coming to the UK. It's coming to my constituency. It's coming to Mr. Arthur's constituency. I think if we have this debate, let's push the government to legislate to ban the sale of these illegal kits and the illegal bikes.
Incidentally, China has already done that. Where do these things come from? They're coming over from China. But if we if we can get the ban in place, we can focus on the safety and the enjoyability of cycling as we go into the tour de France next year.
So, for example, in the UK, just 9% of bikes that are sold are e-bikes, just 9%. If you go to Germany, it's 53%. In Holland, it's 61%. The debate would allow us to understand our opportunity to rehearse. Why is in the UK we are not getting a sale of legal e-bikes. I would contend it's that we have a very rife illegal market, which exactly, as Mr. Arthur said, it's these these conversion kits and the illegal e-bikes.
The other impact that they're having is that they're undercutting legitimate businesses. So, for example, it's affecting the sale of low powered motorbikes, I mean, mopeds. So they that market has seen a 20% decrease in Q1 this year alone. Because why would you buy licence, ensure an MOT and moped when you can buy an illegal kit that will get you to exactly the same speed? And then the other aspect that I think we would want to look at in the debate is because there is a definition of a legal e-bike.
If your e-bike is illegal, it becomes a motor vehicle. And at that point, if you have an accident with an illegal e-bike and you are injured, you can go to the motor insurance Bureau and raise a claim because it's an uninsured motor vehicle. And the the Motor Insurance Bureau has seen a 73% increase in claims attributed to the fact that people are now having accidents with these illegal bikes. So there are multiple aspects to this.
It's not just the safety. It's not just the fires, it's not just the speeding, it's not just the criminality. It's having a financial impact on the legal sale of e-bikes and also on mopeds. And the last thing I would say in terms of timing chairs, next year, the tour de France is coming to the UK. It's coming to my constituency. It's coming to Mr. Arthur's constituency. I think if we have this debate, let's push the government to legislate to ban the sale of these illegal kits and the illegal bikes.
Incidentally, China has already done that. Where do these things come from? They're coming over from China. But if we if we can get the ban in place, we can focus on the safety and the enjoyability of cycling as we go into the tour de France next year.
16:30
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
I always find it bizarre that the tour de France comes to the UK, but that's a I. As I say, I chair the all party group for Fire and Safety, and I recommend you see the video that the London Fire Brigade have produced about an e-bike in block of flats in the. The inner vestibule. Is it like going up in flames and the smoke that emanates right up the stairs. It's horrible. But you're absolutely right with the the dangers.
Anyway. Li.
Anyway. Li.
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I mean, our preference would be the chamber because it's such a national issue. But I think in terms of timing, which Mr. Arthur's alluded to, the sooner we can push the government to make a decision on this, the better. So if if the only option was a Westminster Hall debate, then yes, we'd happily take that.
16:31
16:31
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
Just so you know, we are still dealing with applications we received in January of this year for the chamber. So that's the sort of length of time that we're having to push people to. So the clerks will be in touch with you in due course. And certainly, if you are willing to take a Westminster Hall debate, that it's more likely you're going to get one quicker, sooner rather than later.
16:32
16:32
16:32
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
Thanks. Our other applicants have not decided to turn up. There's one application, obviously for Black History Month. Our understanding is that the government are going to organise a debate in government time on the subject. So I suspect the proposer of this is not coming to us. Any of them are on their way, but the other ones will know why we on their way from Jarrow or.
16:32
16:32
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
What can we do. Adjourn for in suspend. We can suspend for a few minutes. Yeah. Well okay we'll suspend for a few minutes. We are obviously ahead of time. So. We are back in session now that our well third applicant has arrived. And this is a request for a debate on the legacy of the Jarrow Crusade on the 90th anniversary. And this application is in the name of Kate Osborne.
But Olivia Bailey is presenting on her behalf. Olivia, please present your case.
But Olivia Bailey is presenting on her behalf. Olivia, please present your case.
16:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you, chair, very much. And I'm presenting on behalf of Kate, who is the MP for for for Jarrow and who is very determined that there would be a debate to mark the 90 years since the Jarrow Crusade, when 200 men marched almost 300 miles to London to petition Parliament over devastating unemployment and industrial decline. And the anniversary is a very important opportunity for the House to commemorate the marches and reflect on the circumstances that led to the march and its lasting national significance.
And its legacy continues to resonate in debates about the dignity of work, regional equality, industrial communities and their relationship with Parliament. And it has significance far beyond Jarrow. Although, of course, it's very important to Kate in terms of her constituency connections.
And its legacy continues to resonate in debates about the dignity of work, regional equality, industrial communities and their relationship with Parliament. And it has significance far beyond Jarrow. Although, of course, it's very important to Kate in terms of her constituency connections.
16:35
16:35
Martin Vickers
-
-
Martin Vickers
16:36
16:36
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
Bob Blackman
-
-
Bob Blackman
That's understood. We're all busy people , and we've got several members of the committee that are very busy people as well. Order, order. That brings the public proceedings of the committee to an end. The committee will now retire to consider the applications in private and allocate time accordingly.