Rare Cancers Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRare Cancers Bill 2024-26 View all Rare Cancers Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during Committee sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online as well as in the room. There will be a single debate on all the Bill’s clauses.
Clause 1
Review of law on marketing authorisations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I was happy with the unanimous cross-party support that the Bill received on Second Reading and look forward to examining it in detail today.
The term “rare cancer” might imply that this is a relatively niche issue that is unlikely to have an impact on many of us, but the reality is that 47% of cancers diagnosed in the UK fall within the “rare and less common” category, and they account for 55% of all cancer deaths. That second statistic is partly due to the survival rate—five out of six less survivable cancers are also rare cancers—but survivability is not just a function of the aggressiveness of the cancer. It also depends on the treatment options available, and for less survivable cancers the options are limited. They receive a mere fraction—roughly 16%—of the funding that more survivable cancers receive.
At this point, I should clarify that I have had some contact with a charity that represents younger people. It is the case that the Bill covers younger people and that all childhood cancers are rare.
The situation is unlikely to change without Government intervention. Markets encourage pharmaceutical companies to prioritise the highest return on investment. Inevitably, that favours the development of drugs with the largest potential patient pools. When a company does pursue taking a rare cancer drug to market, having to access a limited patient pool can make the creation of sufficiently robust studies and trials a struggle.
The Bill is an attempt to intervene on behalf of patients and their families, and to enable pharmaceutical companies and the Government to re-evaluate the strategies for funding, research and finding treatments. It has been drafted carefully in consultation with a wide range of cancer charities—I am pleased to see a few of them represented in the Public Gallery—and expert bodies. The Bill reflects the solutions that scientists, doctors and those with lived experience think are necessary.
In practical terms, by passing this legislation we can, first, remove the barriers to participation in potentially lifesaving clinical trials; secondly, drive investment in under-resourced yet vital drugs and treatments; and thirdly, enhance connectivity between various organisations and individuals working to find cures. That last one is an incredibly important point. I have attended many meetings of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden; we often we see that those connections are not being made, and we all lose as a result.
Clause 1 will enable regulations to be made that compel the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to conduct a review of the marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer, and to prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of that review. I have never been a great fan of the term orphan drugs, which refers to drugs for rare conditions. The clause provides that the review process will specifically consider the regulatory approaches adopted in other countries. That will help to avoid research and patients in this country losing out.
The clause sets a timeframe for the publication of the report, namely within three years of the Bill being passed. We consulted broadly on that three-year point. We obviously all want to see progress on this issue as quickly as possible, but we have to balance that against the need for the review to be authoritative and impactful. That is where the three-year duration comes from, but I recognise that some people want it to move faster. A review of best practice at international level should surface a variety of effective strategies that the Government could consider implementing to drive pharmaceutical industry investment into lifesaving research and treatments.
Clause 2 will enable regulations to be made that will encourage the Secretary of State to facilitate, or otherwise promote, research into rare cancers. The clause will specify that the Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements are in place that will, first, enable potential participants in clinical trials to be identified and contacted, and secondly, ensure that a person—to be known as the national speciality lead for rare cancers—is appointed to promote and facilitate research into rare cancers. That person will hold an advisory and facilitatory role, offering input on the design and planning of research, as well as building collaborative networks between key bodies and individuals. Appointing a specific individual to hold that role will provide a structure for greater accountability and a more strategic approach for the delivery of rare cancer research across different organisations.
Clause 3 will enable regulations to be made that will facilitate data sharing in the context of contacting and identifying potential participants in clinical trials that are focused on orphan medicinal products for the diagnosis, prevention and/or treatment of rare cancers. The clause does not authorise the processing of information that would contravene existing data protection legislation. The twin benefits to enhanced data sharing are a greater access to clinical trials for patients, which could be lifesaving, and more higher-quality trials taking place in the UK as a result of a larger potential participant population for researchers.
Clause 4 explains the territorial extent of the various clauses. Clauses 2 and 3 will extend to England and Wales only, while the remainder of the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Where the Bill does not extend to the entirety of the UK, we have been assured by the devolved Governments, which were consulted during the Bill’s formulation—I thank Department of Health and Social Care colleagues for that—that they will work alongside us to achieve the policy goals it outlines within the context of their unique legal landscapes. In that regard, I acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for South Antrim to ensure that Northern Ireland generally, and his constituents specifically, benefit from the Bill.
Clause 5 will provide for commencement, which will occur two months after the Bill is passed, and clause 6 provides the short title for the Bill.
I hope the Bill has real impact, because so many people in the charity sector and elsewhere are working so hard to raise often small amounts of money, which they hope will have a big impact. I hope the Bill amplifies their work and helps it to go further. I look forward to Committee members’ contributions to the discussion of this important Bill, and I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, which will have life-changing effects for many individuals across the entirety of the United Kingdom. I applaud him for it, because I know some of the driving reasons behind him doing that.
I have a couple of points to make about the Bill. I am fully supportive of it, but I note the geographical challenge it brings. The Northern Ireland Assembly passed a legislative consent motion for clause 1 on Monday, so we are already stepping into line for this legislation. Much of the relevant work was discussed in the Northern Ireland cancer strategy, which was published in 2022 when I was Minister of Health there. It looked at our specific challenges with regard to research and clinical trials. At that point, cancer charities highlighted that only 15% of cancer patients in Northern Ireland are offered the opportunity to take part in cancer trials, compared with 31% across the rest of the UK. I hope the Bill increases awareness among Northern Ireland patients and cancer sufferers, and their families, of what is out there and their ability to take part.
The other concern often raised by some of my Northern Ireland colleagues—you are aware of this, Mr Stuart—is the EU implications. I can state that novel treatments do not fall under the scope of the EU, so hopefully any medication, treatment or supply that comes forward will be equally accessible and applicable to the entirety of Northern Ireland. The only difficulty and challenge we have in progressing the Bill’s other provisions is the legislation that allows Northern Ireland to use secondary data for cancer registries. I am aware that the current Health Minister in Northern Ireland, who is my party colleague, has a one-clause Bill ready to move forward to rectify that.
I wanted to make that small contribution in support of the work done by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West in bringing forward the Bill. It has been a pleasure to serve on this Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West on bringing forward this very important piece of legislation. I declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after a number of children with rare conditions such as teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Wilms’ tumour and retinoblastoma, to name but a few.
One of the issues with rare cancers, which transposes to rare diseases in general, is that they are often diagnosed late, because people do not recognise that they have symptoms of a rare disease and their health professionals are not as familiar with them because they are rare. The presentation and diagnosis are then late and, as such, the treatment is more difficult. That is compounded further because there has been less research on those topics, so it is not clear what the best treatment for those conditions is. On top of that, the patient may have to travel very long distances to see a specialist who is familiar with the condition, adding both logistical difficulty and cost to that patient’s care.
Some steps are in place to try to improve the situation. The orphan drug regime gives market exclusivity for 10 years, and it provides for lower and refunded fees from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for the services it provides. Nevertheless, it can still be non-commercially advantageous to put money into developing a drug that is going to be used on no more than a handful of people, however beneficial it is for the individuals concerned.
I welcome the Bill, but wish to make a couple of points. First, in principle it is best that trials are first broached with the patient by a member of their healthcare team. Of course, a member of any given healthcare team—I speak as one myself—will never be aware of all the trials available to all patients at any one time. I welcome the Lord O’Shaughnessy review—commissioned by the last Government and accepted by the current one—which talks about getting a consensus on how best patients can be informed of trials. I wonder whether we should have a system in which patients opt out of not the trial itself but being asked about trials. At the outset, they could be asked, “Would you like to receive information on trials—yes or no?”, so that more people can be aware of how they can contribute. When people are diagnosed with something rare, they often want to contribute to helping others who will come after them.
Will the Minister tell us more about the national cancer plan, which was consulted on earlier this year? I welcome the fact that the children and young people cancer taskforce, which was paused, is being reinstituted. Also, how will the Bill apply to repurposed drugs? Sometimes new medicines are developed for a particular condition, but we often find that medicines can be reformulated and used in a different way to provide a different form of treatment to help individuals with a different condition. How will that apply in respect of both the measures in the Bill and the O’Shaughnessy review?
As a paediatrician, I am very pleased that the Bill applies to children. Overall, I think the Bill is great. It offers hope for many in the future. Will the Minister say something about other rare conditions? As well as rare cancers, people get other rare conditions, and they are affected by the same challenges with research and treatment, and by delays in diagnosis and travel.
Overall, doctors are able to save people’s lives, and improve people’s lives, one at a time, but Parliament and research offer the opportunity to do that on a much bigger scale. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West for what he is doing today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West on his Bill reaching Committee stage. That is a huge achievement for any colleague, but especially for one who has served in this place for almost exactly a year to the day. The Government welcome contributions from Back Benchers, we welcome effective scrutiny from Committees, and we value the vital role that Parliament plays in holding us to account.
In April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that clinical trials would be fast-tracked to accelerate the development of the medicines and therapies of the future. Through this new drive, patients will have improved access to new treatments and technologies. We see the Bill as contributing to that ambition. We want to go further for patients with rare cancers, and this legislation will act to incentivise recruitment, oversight and accessibility of rare cancer research, so that NHS patients are at the front of the queue for cutting-edge treatments.
Clause 1 will ensure our regulatory competitiveness. It places a duty on the Government to publish a review of the legislation around orphan drugs within three years of the Bill becoming an Act. The review will examine our legal framework and compare our approach to that of our international partners. We want the UK to lead the world in this space, as the prime destination for clinical research.
Clause 2 will raise the profile of research for rare cancers by placing a new duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to facilitate and otherwise promote research in this area. The Government want to give patients greater choice and control over their healthcare, and rare cancer patients should have access to research if they choose.
The clause also ensures that the Government will develop a bespoke registry service for rare cancers, to be delivered through the “Be Part of Research” programme—our groundbreaking research registry service provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research—and that we will appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers, which we will designate within the NIHR research delivery network, who will have oversight of the overall rare cancer studies portfolio in England.
The Government are committed to going further for rare cancer patients, and that means making clinical trials more accessible. Clause 3 will introduce an innovative solution to allow rare cancer patients to be contacted as quickly as possible about clinical research. The clause creates a new power to allow patient data to be shared from NHS England information systems.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that keeping a list of people with rare cancers is only any use as long as there are some drug trials? Last night we launched a first trial, in my sister’s memory, for glioblastoma, with every penny raised by people donating, holding bake sales and running marathons. Is that any way to tackle rare cancer?
Ashley Dalton
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the launch of the trial in her sister’s name. We do want to see more research and trials coming forward, particularly for rare cancers. She will be aware of the consortium that the Department has developed to work directly with the brain tumour community in particular, to improve the quality and number of research trials that come forward for funding.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Constituencies in Yorkshire, such as the one I represent, do particularly poorly with research funding—I think 5% of research funding for cancer trials goes to the area. With this Bill and a renewed focus on cancer, I hope we will look to expand the number of research-active hospitals to give people throughout the country a better chance.
Ashley Dalton
I should clarify that there is no regional specificity in the allocation of research funding. We welcome all funding bids for research on cancer and rare cancers from anywhere in the country, and I encourage them to come forward.
The new power in clause 3 to allow patient data from NHS England information systems to be shared will allow more patients to be contacted about existing trials. Practically, it will allow us to join up data from the national disease registration service with “Be Part of Research”. As I have said, we are encouraging people to bring forward more research proposals, all of which are considered.
For the first time, patients with a rare cancer could be automatically contacted about research opportunities that are relevant to them and offered innovative new treatments, which means rare cancer patients could have access to research at their fingertips. That is the kind of change that the Government support as part of the shift we are making from analogue to digital—one of the three shifts that will be covered in the 10-year plan that will be launched tomorrow, when more details will become clear.
Clause 4 covers the Bill’s territorial extent. Due to practical and legal differences between the nations, the devolved Governments did not wish to legislate in their individual countries. Our manifesto promised to reset our relationship with the devolved Governments, and we have developed the Bill with them. I am delighted that they expressed their support on Second Reading. Clauses 5 and 6 cover the Bill’s commencement and title. The Government are fully committed to supporting the Bill through the next stages so it can become the Rare Cancers Act 2025.
The shadow Minister talked about the national cancer plan, which I can confirm is being worked on. We have had over 11,000 representations on that plan, which will be published later this year, following the publication of the national 10-year plan for health tomorrow. The children and young people cancer taskforce was launched earlier this year and continues to meet, and has now ensured that young people and children’s voices are part of the taskforce.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
When the national cancer strategy is published, I hope that part of it will focus on boosting the survival rates for rare cancers. Will the Minister confirm that that will be an important part of the strategy?
Ashley Dalton
I can confirm that the overall objective of the whole cancer plan will be saving lives and reducing the number of lives lost to cancer, including rare cancers. The plan will be published later this year.
It is important to note that the Bill is specific to cancer; there will be opportunities to discuss other rare conditions in the future. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for presenting the Bill, and I pay tribute to the charities that are backing him, some of which I had the pleasure to meet recently to discuss further how the Government can better support people with rare cancers. Together, we will improve outcomes for people across our country, and I look forward to working with everybody to get that done.
Dr Arthur
I am grateful for all the contributions to debate. The charity partners carefully picked the Committee members, given their interest in this subject, and we can see the benefit of that.
I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim for his efforts to make sure that the legislation works in Northern Ireland. I am also grateful for the comments from the hon. Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, who both asked for more progress in this area generally.
Of course, I have to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden. I attended the reception yesterday evening and, first and foremost, it was a fantastic celebration of her sister’s fantastic life. We should be grateful for her. I wish Paul Mulholland and his team all the best with that trial. It really did fill me with hope to hear that update from him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned marathons, so at this point I have to mention my daughter, Ruth Arthur, who ran the marathon in Edinburgh for the Brain Tumour Charity and raised just over £3,000 in the memory of her grandfather. I am very proud of her.
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments and the insight and depth of thinking she brought to the debate. One of the best things about this journey has been working with the DHSC team who are working on the cancer strategy, and seeing how much they care about getting this right. We have often reflected on the point that the shadow Minister made about diagnosis. Too often when we go to events in this place hosted by charities that include somebody with life experience, late diagnosis is where their story starts. It is often avoidable. It is fantastic that the DHSC cancer team acknowledge that. Hopefully our GPs in particular will get more support to make sure that the early signs are not missed and the dots are joined together. It is good to see the Minister nodding vigorously as I say that. I thank her for her leadership right across this policy area and for her support for the Bill in particular.
I thank all Committee members for coming along today and contributing, and I thank the civil servants who helped to draft the Bill. If it passes—and I really hope it does—it will incentivise and create an environment in which more research into rare cancers is fostered, potentially helping us to save, in the longer term, perhaps thousands of lives. What an aspiration that is. I once again commend the Bill to the Committee.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesSecure 16 to 19 Academies Bill 2024-26 View all Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. If you wish to speak today, I encourage you to bob to catch my eye, like you would in the Chamber. My selection and groupings for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled. We will have a single debate on both clauses.
Clause 1
Secure 16 to 19 Academies (funding, impact and consultation)
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Secure schools are a new form of custody for children and young people. Secure 16 to 19 academies have already been established in legislation, with the first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, opening in Kent last year. The Bill will make further amendments to the Academies Act 2010 for the purpose of providing different requirements for securing 16 to 19 academies.
In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his review of the youth justice system. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit offences serious enough to warrant detaining them in custody. His proposal was to create a new type of custodial environment focused on the delivery of education and offering children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their eventual release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. The need to transform the environment in which we detain and provide care for those children is as necessary now as it was then.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16 to 19 academies under the Academies Act 2010, and secure children’s homes under the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. As work has continued, and the first secure school, Oasis Restore, is now open, the Bill is needed to make further amendments to the 2010 Act in relation to secure 16 to 19 academies. The proposed changes cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure school, should there be a need to end a funding agreement for a secure school into which they have entered. The Bill will also amend the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. The changes will provide far better and more integrated services. With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses.
Clause 1 contains three main measures. First, the Bill will amend section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 to reduce the minimum notice period of funding under a funding agreement from seven to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. A two-year termination period will enable Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility, should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Reducing it to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which Government would be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary, while ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment.
Secondly, the Bill will disapply section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies. That will remove the requirement that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area for secure 16 to 19 academies. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies, in order to ensure they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different, as secure schools do not compete with other schools. As such, we do not expect them to have an impact on the viability of other local mainstream schools. The Bill would therefore disapply that duty for this particular type of school, to help any future secure schools open with minimal delay.
Thirdly, the Bill will amend section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires that an academy provider consult appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. I recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. Clause 1 will amend section 10 to require that the provider consults appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners, such as elected representatives or health and education services.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Does my hon. Friend agree that this part of the Bill will help to ensure that these institutions are better integrated with local services? I am thinking particularly about my hon. Friend’s opening remarks about the importance of ensuring that the young people who go to these institutions are better integrated into the community once they leave.
Emma Foody
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that the success of these schools is absolutely dependent on them being properly integrated with local services, as he rightly says.
Clause 2 establishes that the Bill will extend to England and Wales, but it will apply only to England, given that the academy system has not been adopted in Wales. Clause 2 also establishes that the Bill’s provisions will come into force two months after the day on which it receives Royal Assent and is passed. Finally, clause 2 establishes that, once in force, the Bill may be referenced as the “Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2025”. I commend clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill, which replicates, in many ways, the provisions of a similar Bill that was introduced before the election and taken through the House of Commons stages by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson).
As the hon. Lady says, secure 16-to-19 academies are fundamentally different to other schools, so it is appropriate that different requirements apply to them. This is a sensible Bill that modifies part of the framework around academies and disapplies some requirements that are simply not relevant to secure 16-to-19 academies. Therefore, as the official Opposition, we are very happy to support the Bill and look forward to it progressing.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill.
By reducing the funding termination agreement period from seven years to two, the Bill aims to make secure 16-to-19 academies more cost effective and adaptable, giving the Government greater flexibility to close underperforming academies or repurpose them without being locked in for such a long period. These measures are welcome, not least because of the opportunity that they offer to reinvest into community-based youth services.
The Liberal Democrats believe that any freed-up funds should be directed towards making youth diversion a statutory duty, ensuring that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. We believe that that would deliver better outcomes for young people and reduce pressure on police and courts.
According to the evidence, high-quality youth work has consistently been shown to help vulnerable young people escape the grip of criminal gangs. However, as we all know, youth services have suffered repeated cuts over many years, robbing young people of that support and contributing to antisocial behaviour and rising violent crime. By reinvesting savings into early intervention and support, fewer young people will fall into offending cycles, meaning fewer arrests, fewer custodial sentences and, ultimately, less need for these academies. We believe that the real long-term savings lie in prevention, rather than detention.
That all being said, the Bill represents the opportunity to create a virtuous circle, a funding opportunity, and an opportunity to build safer communities, and the Liberal Democrats support it.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a please to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill. I have only one question for the Minister to answer in his summing up. On reducing the notice given to providers from seven to two years, I agree with the characterisation. In respect of the existing contract, however, has that had to be renegotiated— from the service provider’s point of view, obviously the Bill represents a significant change in the terms of the contract—and has that renegotiation cost the taxpayer any money?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
I thank the hon. Members who have contributed so far. On the issues just raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, they are for the Bill as it makes progress. Assuming that it does progress, however, I am happy to write to him with an answer to those points, as they are pertinent.
I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I add my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for promoting the Bill. I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrats spokesmen for the pertinent remarks that they have made, which are helpful.
A sad reality is that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty to protect the public. In line with our safer streets mission, the Government’s responsibility is to ensure that children who find themselves in the youth justice system receive the support that they need to turn their lives around.
Secure 16-to-19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are detained after having been sentenced or remanded to custody by the courts. Secure schools allow children to gain skills and qualifications that will help them to turn their backs on crime for good and, crucially, to protect the public from their reoffending in the future.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
We have had Borstals and approved schools, neither of which were particularly successful at reforming those who were in custody in them. Is the Minister confident that this new architecture, this new arrangement, will be more successful?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, and we are at the start of a new venture. The former chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor, was enthusiastic about this line of development. The previous Government, to their credit, over a period of time developed the first 16-to-19 academy, which is now established in legislation. The first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, opened in Kent last autumn. I was pleased to visit the secure school in September last year to see it for myself. The school is not yet where we or Oasis aspire for it to be, but I am encouraged by the commitment and passion of those involved. We need to ensure that it works as described in the appropriate challenge of hon. Members.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The provision of 16 to 19 secure schools to ensure that young people have an opportunity to develop skills to prevent reoffending is absolutely something I welcome. Given that, however, I should declare my interest: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth-form education. Given that 16 to 19 education now includes a lot of off-site learning for young people—such as through T-level placements or BTEC provision—can the Minister say how young people in a secure setting will be able to access the same educational opportunities as their equivalents in mainstream education?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that he chairs the APPG for sixth-form colleges, a group I previously chaired, relating back to my time leading a sixth-form college before I came to this place.
I had a roundtable with external providers on how to challenge our system in youth-offending institutions. The Oasis Restore school was represented, as was the Oakhill secure training centre. It is important that we ensure that the best practice available outside our youth custody estate is levered into what we do, so that we can get the very best for the young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is right to press me and the Government on that point.
The Bill is necessary to ensure that specific provisions in the Academies Act 2010 are tailored to reflect the unique nature and needs of secure schools. The Government support the Bill on the basis that those amendments will provide for better and more integrated services. The Bill will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and to have more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider.
We also have the opportunity to remove any unnecessary administrative burden and to help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. Engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection process for new custodial sites. The Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process on how the secure school should work with local partners.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to all those Members who have contributed to the debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for her promotion of this important Bill. I confirm the Government’s continued support.
Emma Foody
I thank the Minister for those remarks and for the support of the Government. Similarly, I thank Members from across the House for their constructive remarks and for their support of the Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank all the Clerks and officials who have helped in the preparation and progress of the Bill. I thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing this sitting.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCourts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2024-26 View all Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during Committee sittings except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. With the heat in this room, it would be in order if anyone wants to remove their jacket. The selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled, and we will have a single debate on both clauses.
Clause 1
Amendments to legislation about court hearings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I propose to deal with clauses 1 and 2 together, as you set out. This modest but important Bill amends current legislation to enable defendants and debtors in specific types of cases heard in the magistrates court or county or family courts to be able to appear before the court remotely via live audio or video link. The use of remote video and audio links is common and already used in civil, family and criminal jurisdictions, delivering significant benefits through swifter access to justice and by utilising the court estate efficiently, particularly at a time of backlogs.
As a result of the Bill, two categories of case will be able to be heard remotely. That means that those in breach of some injunctions and orders in the county and family courts, as well as persistent defaulters on orders to pay council tax, will now be able to appear remotely. That ability to appear remotely is especially important, because in many cases, defendants must be physically brought before the courts within 24 hours of their arrest for breach of these civil injunctions. Sometimes, that is not possible. Defendants may be arrested out of hours and court facilities may be some distance away, all while the clock, as set out in the current legislation, is running down. The Bill addresses those points. People who are arrested for those breaches will now be able to appear remotely, as will those who are defaulters of orders to pay their council tax.
But remote does not mean less access to justice. The courts recognise that a remote hearing is no less capable, in principle, of being fair than a hearing at which all parties are physically present. That has been affirmed by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s evaluation of remote hearings during the covid-19 pandemic.
Importantly, the Bill does not mandate remote hearings. It enables a defendant or debtor to attend a court in person or by live video or audio link at judicial discretion. Once a person is before the court, the ultimate determination of whether to have a remote hearing will be by the judge, who will make their own ruling, having heard from all the parties and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case.
With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses. Clause 1(1) sets out the required legislative changes for an amendment to section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996 in relation to arrest for breach of order. It inserts proposed new subsection (13), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(2) amends section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (7), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or live video link.
Clause 1(3) amends section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (8), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(4) amends paragraph 8(1A) of schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in relation to enforcement in England and Wales. It inserts new sub-paragraph (b), which provides that the debtor, subject to an application under paragraph 8(1A), may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link.
Clause 1 sets out the necessary changes to legislation so that a defendant or a debtor in certain circumstances can appear before a court via live link. These changes ensure that individuals who are arrested for breach of certain family or county court injunctions and orders, as well as persistent failures to pay council tax, can appear before the court in a timely and efficient manner using remote links.
At its core, the Bill enhances public safety, ensuring that dangerous individuals, in the case of breaches of injunctions, such as gang injunctions, are not released for want of finding a court or judiciary out of court hours. The use of remote links in court proceedings is relatively common and has delivered significant benefits already. This provision will provide greater flexibility, at judicial discretion, where it is appropriate. As I said, it does not mandate that remote links must be used. Access to justice is not curtailed by this Bill. The defendant or debtor will be able to make representations to the judge, and the existing safeguards of access to legal representatives remain.
Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 2 provide that the Bill extends to England and Wales; that it will come into force at the end of the period of two months following Royal Assent; and that it may be cited as the Courts (Remote Hearings) Act 2025 once in force. There is nothing controversial about these arrangements. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I will not detain the Committee long because it is stiflingly hot in here, but I want to add that I wholeheartedly support the hon. Member for Burnley in introducing this Bill.
The Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill extends the ability to be brought before the court remotely in two instances where individuals have been arrested and detained in police custody. The first is for defendants who are in breach of the terms of certain orders or injunctions of the court. The second is for failure to pay council tax. While those hearings could be conducted remotely from a custody suite at a police station on arrest, at present, the relevant legislation requires that they must be heard in person. Once a person is before the court, it will be at the judge’s discretion to decide whether to hold a remote hearing upon considering the representation of all the parties. To be clear, in-person hearings will still take place if that is necessary.
Hon. Members will be reassured that despite these new powers, the number of hearings in either type of case is not expected to rise. These changes will give magistrates and judges in county and family courts greater flexibility and efficiency. The changes will also mean that potentially violent individuals, such as those arrested for breaches of injunctions to protect victims of domestic abuse, can be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Current arrangements mean that those defendants must be produced physically in court within 24 hours of arrest. A lack of court premises or judicial capacity, for example, over the weekend, will result in their release back into the general population.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for bringing forward this important Bill and I confirm the Government’s continuing support for it. It is a modest but perhaps mighty Bill, and it provides for remote attendance before the court only when necessary. It adds to the flexibility of the ways that courts operate without compromising any of the safeguards of our justice system, and it has our wholehearted backing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.