Christopher Chope MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that failed asylum seekers are exploiting these delays in the Crown courts? Will she therefore consider restricting the right to jury trial, so that only British citizens can enjoy it?

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not a cruel confidence trick to suggest that 1.5°C is still achievable, when it manifestly is not? Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency confirmed 2.9°C by 2100 as its central scenario and that a 2.5°C increase by 2050 was totally unrealistic and unachievable. Would the Government not be better off spending our taxpayers’ money on adapting to the realities—increasing resilience and ensuring we improve our flood defences and so on—and preparing for the inevitable, instead of continuing to punish the British people?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Unfortunately, we have reached 11 o’clock, and although the next debate has been withdrawn, I do not have the discretion to extend this debate. That is something that we might consider on the Modernisation Committee, so that we have a bit more flexibility than we had today. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  Order. The hon. Gentleman arrived late. He has made an intervention already and is now making a very long intervention. He should have some regard for other Members who have been here throughout the debate.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  I call Luke Akehurst, who I am afraid has been left with only a couple of minutes.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Covid-19 Vaccination Harm · Hansard source

  More

  I agree absolutely. If someone has suffered serious adverse effects from a covid-19 vaccine, it is not much consolation to them, their loved ones or those whose confidence we are trying to build to be told that because they are only 30% disabled they are not entitled to a penny. Someone who is 59% disabled is not entitled to anything, even if that disability was caused by the vaccine. To put all this in context, the VDPS was set up in 1979 to boost confidence for those receiving vaccines. Between 1979 and 31 March 2025, the total number of non-covid vaccine claims was 958. As of 31 March, 331 were still live, 88 of which had been waiting more than 12 months, and only nine had been successful. That is hardly a confidence-building measure, but as I mentioned, as of the end of June, there were more than 22,000—more than 22 times as many—claims for damage caused by covid-19 vaccines. It is hardly surprising that there has been a decline in vaccine confidence. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said, we need some urgency. When I ask questions about this, I keep getting fobbed off with unsatisfactory answers. Mostly recently, on 7 July, a Minister wrote in answer to my question: “I am not in a position to comment on timelines for the consideration of options for reform or recommendations for change.” Are those options not being considered now? When are they going to be brought forward? The answer continued: “Ministers continue to consider options covering both potential reforms…and the situation of those who have suffered harm.” But they will not tell us the timescale. What are we to do? What are the punters meant to do about this? We are still waiting for the report from the inquiry, in particular on module 4, but the evidence given to the inquiry was compelling. In conclusion, I will quote briefly from the evidence that was given in the introductory statements before Baroness Heather Hallett: “During the early months of the vaccine rollout, those who experienced adverse reactions found it nearly impossible to access information about vaccine injuries in the mainstream media. This lack of coverage contributed to feelings of fear, isolation, and a heightened likelihood of being disbelieved. Adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines were largely absent from mainstream media discussions. When they were eventually covered, the stories were often framed with an emphasis on the rarity of such reactions, the safety of the vaccine, and the millions of lives it had saved. Members of the Covid Vaccine Adverse Reaction and Bereaved Groups who participated in interviews with mainstream media often had to agree to censor themselves, or had their words altered during editing.” We now know that they were right. Their concerns that these injuries and bereavements had been caused by the vaccines were correct, although the Government at the time were in denial. That has added to the trauma of the victims and their families. I hope that the Government, which I always hope will be sympathetic to those in need and in plight, will now wake up and put a proverbial under the UK Government authorities that are trying to forestall any action. One can see the way in which the previous Government’s Ministers were disregarded on this issue and how the NHS carries on doing its own thing and being in denial. I hope that the Minister can tell us the timescales for this, exactly what is being discussed and what is not, and when we will be able to report something positive to those of our constituents who continue to suffer.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Covid-19 Vaccination Harm · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for people harmed following covid-19 vaccinations. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. This is a hot topic. The Secretary of State told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) in June that it was on still on the boil. We hope today to find out a bit more about what the Government will do in response to the representations that have been made. I have been campaigning on this issue since the summer of 2021, when it first became apparent that some people had suffered serious adverse reactions—in a few cases fatal ones—as a result of having taken vaccines against covid-19. That summer, over four years ago, I presented a petition calling from reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme, to “maintain vaccine confidence and provide urgent support for those injured/bereaved through covid-19 vaccinations”. The complacent Government at the time responded: “Once more is known about the possible link between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed”. Is it not regrettable that four years on we are in exactly the same position? The new Government’s line is, “We are not sure whether we’re going to review the VDPS and, if we do, how we’re going to review it and in what respects.” What has happened since the summer of 2021? On 10 September 2021, in speaking to my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, I expressed my concerns about the victims of these vaccines. At that stage, there had been only 154 applications under the vaccine damage payment scheme. Four years later, as of June 2025, the number of claims had risen to 21,444. This is a big and serious issue, yet the Government continue to be in denial about the validity of causal links between covid vaccines and injury or death. Now, in the face of evidence, the Government have had to change their tune, not least because, as of May 2025, 224 awards of £120,000 had been paid in respect of people who had been proved to have suffered death or serious injury as a result of having the vaccines. It is no longer open to the Government to deny that causality, but it seems that they are still intent on playing hard to get for those people who are still seeking compensation or redress for what they have suffered. This fits closely with the whole issue of vaccine confidence. We have heard recently about the declining take-up of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and other childhood vaccines; our levels of take-up are now well below those recommended by the World Health Organisation. The vaccine damage payment scheme was introduced to give confidence to people who did the right thing in public health terms: they got themselves vaccinated, and they knew that if something went wrong, the Government would come in and support them. That now is not happening, or at least it is not happening in sufficiently large quantities. As a result, the word on the street is that if someone takes a vaccine—if they take that risk for the sake of public health—and something goes wrong, they will probably have to pay the consequences themselves, and the Government will not help. It is now universally accepted that covid-19 vaccines were not absolutely “safe and effective”, as was claimed at the time. For a few people, the vaccines have been a disaster. The charity UKCVFamily continues to campaign fearlessly for those victims; later this month, it will host in London a two-day seminar with leading lawyers and medical practitioners to consider some of these issues. In January, UKCV and others gave evidence on module 4 of the covid-19 inquiry, arguing for reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme. The hope at the time was that there would be an interim ruling or report, before this point, basically asking the Government to get to grips with reviewing the scheme because of the injustice that was being caused. So far, nothing seems to have happened about producing an interim report in relation to module 4. The recognition that the reluctance of Government to face up to the facts about covid-19 vaccines is widespread globally led to the publication of “Canary In a Covid World”, a collection of essays from 34 contributors across different countries. I was privileged to be one of them. Another contributor and co-author was Dr Peter McCullough, whose latest book, “Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality”, was published in July and for a time was in the New York Times bestseller list. The importance of this issue for tens of thousands of people cannot be overstated, yet the Government continue to vacillate.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Covid-19 Vaccination Harm · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister listened to her and will have direct answers to the questions that she raised. Having spent so much time badgering my right hon. Friend, when she was a Minister in the Cabinet Office, to get something done on this issue, I perhaps need to take the opportunity to say this. I think in the end I reached the conclusion that she had been badly let down by the officials in her Department. It was unfinished business at the time of the general election, and if the current Secretary of State is in discussion with the Cabinet Office, then another 15 months have gone by. Having regard to the work that was done before, I would hope that we are getting close to having answers.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Covid-19 Vaccination Harm · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, the Minister has a brief that has been given to her by officials on behalf of the Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is not able to be here. Can this Minister give me some assurance that I, together with my colleagues who have participated in this debate, will be able to meet the relevant Minister, so that we can go over some of this stuff? I realise that this Minister does not have the discretion to be able to respond to this debate, but the public health Minister would have that discretion, so can she guarantee that we can fix up a meeting, please?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Covid-19 Vaccination Harm · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says she cannot give us an exact timeline. Could she give us an approximate time? Is this going to be finished before the end of this year, for example? That is not an exact timeline, but it would be an indicative timeline. And when she talks about various options, can she not explain which of those options are being considered or which ones are not being considered? For example, is increasing the £120,000 payout being considered? Is reducing the disability threshold from 60% being considered? Is disapplying the three-year limitation period for the bringing of civil claims being considered? Please can we have a yes or no to those things? We are not asking for the decisions on those, but we are asking whether they are being considered or not.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Covid-19 Vaccination Harm · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I have before me the answer that he received from the Secretary of State when he raised the matter at Health questions on 17 June: “I reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the constituents of his I have met and other campaigners that I am having discussions with the Cabinet Office about how we deal with that and other issues that have been raised this morning…He knows the complexities involved, and I have been grateful for his advice as a former Attorney General. I do not have specific progress to report now, but I reassure him and campaigners that this issue has not gone off the boil and we are working to find a resolution.” —[ Official Report , 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 159.] That was almost three months ago, so what has happened in the interim? I hope that the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in her place, will be able to deliver a response to the questions as to what review is being carried out, which aspects of the scheme are being reviewed, when evidence will be invited, if that is to happen, and what the timescale is for all this, because at the moment people are in the dark, as my right hon. and learned Friend said.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Solar Development: Newark · Hansard source

  More

  One way of dealing with that would be for the Government to prohibit the import of solar panels and insist that, as a condition of such solar farms, panels must be produced within the United Kingdom. Would that not be a sensible policy?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Solar Development: Newark · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 2 Sept 2025 · GP Practice in Burton, Dorset · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be able to present this petition, which has been organised by Mr and Mrs Mackenzie-Cook of Burton in Christchurch, who, along with thousands of other local residents, have been campaigning for the reopening of Burton’s only GP surgery, which prior to its closure in August last year had served the people of Burton for over 40 years. With local encouragement, another GP practice bought the premises earlier this year and everyone assumed that its application to reopen the branch surgery would be a formality. But in April, Dorset’s integrated care board rejected that application, and we now need the Government to overrule the unelected ICB and show everyone that they were being genuine at the general election when they promised to increase access to GP services rather than to reduce it. The petition states: The petition of residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch Declares that the petitioners and other residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch had the benefit of a local accessible GP practice on Burton Green for over 40 years prior to its closure in August 2024; are delighted that earlier this year South Coast Medical acquired the premises for the purpose of opening a new branch of the Grove Practice following a welcome refusal by the local planning authority to permit a change of use on the grounds of loss of community benefit; and are outraged that the Dorset Integrated Care Board has since refused permission for the re-opening of the surgery. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to overrule the Dorset Integrated Care Board’s decision to refuse permission for the re-opening of a GP surgery in Burton, which ignores, inter alia, the needs and wishes of the people of Burton and the fact that new housing already in receipt of planning permission will generate demand from an additional 2,000 patients for local GP services. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003107]

• 16 Jul 2025 · RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Minister, you have 35 minutes in which to respond.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Further Education Institutions · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) wishes to participate in this debate, I should say that there are only 10 minutes or so for the Minister to respond to the mass of points that have been made. I hope she will be brief.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “and”.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend is responding to the amendments or making a Third Reading speech. I hope he will address the amendments I have tabled, including those that relate to clause 1, about which he has just spoken.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). I echo his tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), who continues to be a pioneer in this campaign and is what I would describe as a no-nonsense lady. She has been in this place since 1997, and she has made and continues to make an enormous contribution. This Bill will hopefully be an exemplar for Members who are successful in the private Members’ Bills ballot. So often, those who are successful in the ballot are told, “Here’s a handout Bill—we need to fill a little niche here in a bit of legislation.” The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) has used his good fortune in having success in the ballot to bring forward something that he wanted to do and that meant a lot to him, but he did not do it selfishly; he did it after listening to a whole lot of other people and realising that this is a subject on which there is deep-seated consensus, unrest and concern among parliamentarians. Full marks to him for doing this. I was only once successful in the private Members’ Bills ballot, and it was just after the rules were changed, so even though I came third out of the hat, I was No. 17, because it was done in reverse order so that it looked better on television. I think the previous Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means was responsible for that change. I have never had the good fortune of having a Bill that has been able to make progress; it is something I still look forward to and yearn for. This is a really important subject. When we look at the Second Reading debate, in which I was briefly able to participate by way of an intervention, we can see the strength of feeling. I go back to the Minister’s response to my amendments on Report. I hope he will be a bit more helpful on Third Reading about the role of NHS England and what will happen. I have paid tribute to him for agreeing that priority should be given to getting on with setting up these research bodies and looking into these issues. It is asking too much for the Government to agree to put those things on the face of the Bill, but I think it is clear from the pressure that is already on the Minister that his Department—however much it may have dragged its feet in the past—is now intent on rectifying that. Most important of all, we will get the Government’s cancer plan. Let us hope that it will not be on the slow burner—we are promised it before the end of the year, and I hope it will be nearer this end of the year than next year. That could be very important, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, it links in with a lot of what we have discussed today. Cancer needs to be taken more seriously in this country. We need to invest more. We need to get back to the top of the international league table, where we should be, as a leading nation with a very strong economy. I see in today’s news that the economy is shrinking, but that should not be a reason not to campaign to get these cancers shrunk.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will respond briefly to the debate. In so doing, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for their contributions. I listened for what the Minister would say in response to my point about NHS England, but I did not hear the expression “NHS England” come from between his lips, and I wonder whether that was an oversight or whether it was left out of his brief deliberately by officials from NHS England. Amendment 8 specifically deals with NHS England, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth referred to it. Does the Minister’s reluctance to intervene at this stage show that he is in denial about the policy in relation to NHS England? I presume that he is in such denial. We have had a classic example from the Minister of why the civil service is ruling okay, because it can come forward with a valid objection to every possible suggested alternative and amendment. I do not think that this attitude will be very helpful to the people we are trying to help through the Bill—namely, those who are suffering from rare cancers and who want us to make progress in this area. I will not press any of these amendments to a vote, but I hope that when the Bill gets to the other place there will be more persistent probing, particularly on the issues around NHS England and the definitions. To give credit where it is due, I was pleased with what the Minister said about the specialty lead. As discussed, we do not need legislation for this anyway. He said he wants to have that dealt with promptly but is fearful of accepting an amendment that requires it to be done within six months because of the possibility of unforeseen delays. I take it from that that he is going to get on with that aspect, and let us hope that that goes faster rather than slower. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Third Reading

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is certainly not a trivial Bill; it is a really important piece of legislation, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on introducing and pioneering. It was not a Government handout; it was an idea that he thought needed to be the subject of legislation and he has pursued it. We had a fantastic Second Reading debate. There is tremendous interest in the Bill. May I therefore make it clear at the outset that my amendments are designed to try to strengthen the Bill rather than anything else? I explained my position to the hon. Gentleman yesterday. He said, understandably, that to a large extent he was constrained, because he was trying to negotiate with the Government and with the Department of Health and Social Care, and unless he showed himself to be reasonably compliant, he would not have got the Bill to a state where it could be accepted by the Government. I note the different positions on this, and I fully understand and respect the hon. Gentleman’s position. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) basically said that if she had introduced such a Bill, she would have got so steamed up about it that she would have included a lot more strength and safeguards, and as a consequence it probably would not have got anywhere near being considered on Report. Those are two different approaches. I am, relatively speaking, neutral on the matter—I am a sympathetic supporter of the Bill—but I have a lot of background experience of how Governments always try to give themselves wriggle room, in effect to maintain control over everything, and in my view the Bill could be improved by being amended, with the will of the House, on Report. We could talk about taking some of my amendments to the other place, but the trouble is that the Government machine may say that there will not be any more sitting Fridays in this House, so if the Bill were to be amended in the other place it might fall completely, because it would need to be brought back here. That is why it is important that the House should consider these amendments now rather than leave them to the other place. Amendment 1, which is to be read with amendment 2, is a prime example of the point I made earlier. We have a commitment from the Government that: “The Secretary of State must…carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer”— great— “and…prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.” But what is the timescale for that, and what will happen after those conclusions are produced? There is no obligation on the Government to do anything else. The review and its conclusions could be just left on one side. We in the House are in a position to tighten those provisions up and say, “This is not good enough. There should be a timetable for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review.” That is the essence of the two amendments. To look at another gap that could be exploited by the Government, the Bill says that the report must be “published before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the Act is passed”. I have tabled amendment 4 to say that the period should be two years. In respect of both those points, I have had a helpful email from Diana Jupp from Pancreatic Cancer UK, who writes on behalf of more than 30 charities representing patients affected by rare and less common cancers. She comments on my amendments. On amendment 2, she says, “We are keen to push for this change with the Department once we reach implementation stage of the Bill.” With the greatest of respect to Diana Jupp, we can do this now. Instead of leaving it to her and her colleagues to try to pressurise the Department later, we in this House have the power to change the legislation in the way that I have suggested, so that there would be a timetable set out for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review. In response to amendment 4, Diana Jupp says that “this timeline has been agreed with the Department and in our opinion would tie into the timelines of other developing cancer policy implementation, including the cancer plan.” Obviously, the most important part of her comment is that the timeline has been agreed with the Department, because if it had not been, the Department and the Minister would not have taken the Bill forward in this way and agreed to it. On the timeline, I draw the House’s attention to the evidence base set out in the impact assessment. It says that the whole process will take one year. The Department reckons that it will cost £130,000 and sets out how many full-time equivalent civil servants will be involved in it. If it will only take one year, why are we saying that it needs to have three years? That is an example of why we need to tighten up the Bill, because if this is a review that needs to and will be carried out, why do we not get on with it? To suggest that it will take longer than a year is to go against the Department’s own evidence set out in the impact assessment. The impact assessment says on page 6, under the heading “Mandating a Government review of the orphan drug regulations”: “This will place a duty on the Government to publish a review which will be a comparison of orphan drug Regulations (specifically Part 5 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012) and international regulatory approaches to supporting the research and development of orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancers. Since the review is concerned with orphan drug regulations it is by default covering rare cancers. The findings should be published within 3 years.” On page 7, paragraph 19 on financial costs says, “It is difficult to estimate the resourcing costs required for the orphan drug review, since the exact scope remains to be agreed. However, we estimate the cost to the Department of Health and Social Care to produce and publish a report on orphan drug Regulations to incur costs of approximately £0.14m in relation to staff resource. This reflects the cost of 0.3 x SCS staff, 1 x FTE Grade 6 or Grade 7 staff, 0.3 x Grade 7 staff and 0.5 x SEO staff for one year.” That is what the Government say: only one year will be necessary. In that case, why is my generous amendment, which would restrict the period from three years to two years, unacceptable to the Government? There is a history of dragging of feet at the Department of Health and Social Care, I am afraid; we certainly heard about that on Second Reading. I give the House that specific example of why, on the Government’s own evidence, they should accept the change from three years to two. Amendment 3 would leave out “in particular” from line 7, which reads: “In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider regulatory approaches in other countries.” The amendment is intended to probe rather than anything else. Why do the words “in particular” need to be incorporated? Surely it would be simpler to say that the Secretary of State “must consider regulatory approaches in other countries”—full stop, period. But that is not how it is at the moment. Amendment 5 would leave out the reference to the Secretary of State. This is to do with the definition of a rare cancer. Currently, clause 2 would add this wording to the National Health Service Act 2006: “The research that the Secretary must facilitate or otherwise promote under subsection (1)(a) includes research into cancers that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are rare cancers.” Why cannot it not just say “that are rare cancers”? Indeed, clause 2 would also add this wording to the 2006 Act: “In this section ‘rare cancer’ means a cancer that affects not more than 1 in 2000 people in the United Kingdom.” That is an issue of fact. The Secretary of State should not be able to basically have a veto over the interpretation of what is or is not a rare cancer. This is just another example of the control freakery within the Department. I am sorry that so far the Minister does not seem to have stood up to officials who have persuaded him, no doubt, that we need the expression “in the opinion of the Secretary of State”. Again, the argument is quite straightforward and the people from Pancreatic Cancer UK are on my side, but they are obviously very keen for the Bill to get on to the statute book. We all have to recognise that it is within the Government’s power to prevent it from making any further progress. That is why it will be quite difficult, I suppose, to persuade the Minister to accept amendment 5. Amendment 6 would leave out from “are” to the end of the line and insert “arrangements in place to” in this statement in clause 2: “In discharging the duty under subsection (1)(a) in relation to those cancers, the Secretary of State must, in particular, ensure that there are such arrangements in place as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to”. Why can we not just say “arrangements in place to enable potential participants in clinical trials”, and so on? Why do we need to give the Secretary of State discretion —a veto, essentially—over whether he considers those arrangements to be appropriate? It seems to me completely redundant, unnecessary and, indeed, oppressive. It is counter to the expressed wishes of this House on Second Reading, when there was impatience over the delay, because of the need to get on with this, and suspicion over the failure of the Department of Health and Social Care—under not just this Government but previous Governments, which I would be the first to accept—to actually deal with the crisis involving people who are subject to rare cancers. That is amendment 6. I am trying to beetle through these amendments quite quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that other people can participate in this important debate.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is it possible to respond, Madam Deputy Speaker?

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the hon. Member is saying, but why does the impact assessment say that the costs are for staff for only one year? If the review will take three years, why are the staff funded for only one?

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his unprompted comments. He will know that the funding is sufficient to staff the review only for one year. If there is only funding for one year, why does it take three?

• 11 Jul 2025 · Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Some people may be unfamiliar with the detail of the Bill because it did not receive a Second Reading debate. It went through on the nod on 16 May. It then went into a quite truncated Public Bill Committee on Wednesday 2 July, and it has now come back to the Chamber on Report. I tabled amendment 1 to highlight my concern about the consultation arrangements proposed in subsection (4). Amendment 2 is a consequential amendment. As people will have noticed, in the Bill’s long title, it states: “expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy; and to alter the consultation question required when it is proposed to establish or expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy.” If amendment 1 were successful, the long title would need to be amended, and in anticipation of that, I tabled amendment 2. As ever, I am most grateful to the Public Bill Office for having ensured that I was on the right lines with that and that such an amendment could be tabled. Amendment 1 arises from the fact that section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 states that before entering into an academy arrangement, the provider “must carry out a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into.” Clause 1(4) would insert into that provision an exception that “where the educational institution, if the arrangements are entered into, is to be a secure 16 to 19 Academy…the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question”. In other words, it is an exemption from the requirement for a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into. I do not see that as a reasonable thing to do. In the short debate on this matter in the Bill Committee, there was a bit of a misrepresentation when it was stated that “secure schools do not compete with other schools.” –– [ Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 4.] That may be true, but they can compete with other institutions, particularly those providing alternative provision. Clause 1(4) adds to section 10 of the 2010 Act that for a secure 16 to 19 academy, the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question, but “must instead carry out a consultation on the question of how they should cooperate with potential local partners in connection with the establishment and carrying on of the Academy.” Those local partners are described as “potential local partners”, meaning “persons exercising functions of a public nature”— I think the Bill has in mind organisations such as the health service, the local education authority, councillors and so on— “and…so far as not falling within paragraph (a), proprietors of educational institutions…with whom the person carrying out the consultation thinks it appropriate to cooperate.” Again, that discretion is left with the person carrying out the consultation. I do not understand why we are abandoning the much more fundamental issue of the consultation. There might be no competition between a secure 16 to 19 academy and an ordinary school, but there may well be competition between that secure academy and another such academy that is already in existence or that may be proposed. The 2022 legislation on secure academies was introduced in the previous Parliament. At the time, nobody thought there was any problem with having the same arrangements for secure 16 to 19 academies as for other academies. This short debate on amendment 1 will give the Minister an opportunity to explain why that change is necessary, how it is justified, and why there needs to be a deletion of the existing consultation arrangements rather than an addition to the existing arrangements of being subject to consultation, which is the subject of proposed new subsection (2A)(b) to section 10 of the Academies Act 2010, as in subsection (4).