Commons Chamber
Friday 11th July 2025
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 7 hours, 25 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:34
None
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The Order, order. The question Order, order. The question is that this house sits in private. that this house sits in private. The The question The question is The question is this The question is this house The question is this house sit The question is this house sit in
None
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The Order, order. The question Order, order. The question is that this house sits in private. that this house sits in private. The The question The question is The question is this The question is this house The question is this house sit The question is this house sit in
09:47
Division: Standing Order 163: Private Sitting.
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The ayes to the right one. The noes to the left 58.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noes to the left 58. Thank you. The ayes to the right one. The noes to the left 58. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock. The clerk will now proceed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to read the orders of the day. Unauthorised Entry to Football
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill. Not amended in Public Bill Committee, to be considered. Now. Before we get onto the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before we get onto the proceedings, I remind members of the difference between the report stage difference between the report stage and third reading. The scope of the report stage debate is the amendment I have selected. The scope of the I have selected. The scope of the third reading debate to follow will
Division: Standing Order 163: Private Sitting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The ayes to the right one. The noes to the left 58.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noes to the left 58. Thank you. The ayes to the right one. The noes to the left 58. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock. The clerk will now proceed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to read the orders of the day. Unauthorised Entry to Football
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill. Not amended in Public Bill Committee, to be considered. Now. Before we get onto the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before we get onto the proceedings, I remind members of the difference between the report stage difference between the report stage and third reading. The scope of the report stage debate is the amendment I have selected. The scope of the I have selected. The scope of the third reading debate to follow will
09:47
Private Members' Bills: Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill: Remaining Stages
-
Private Members' Bills: Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill: Remaining Stages
be as it stands at report stage. Members may wish to consider these points and then decide at which stage or stages they want to try and stage or stages they want to try and catch My AI. We start with amendment one. We think it will be convenient to consider all other amendments. I Corso Christopher Chope to move the amendment one. amendment one.
09:47
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment one in my name. And to discuss the other amendments in my name. Many people watching this observing proceedings in Parliament will wonder whether we have got our priorities right. Because this bill is about unauthorised entry to football matches in particular circumstances when I think most people in the country are much more concerned about the proliferation of unauthorised entry into our very country. The failure of the Home Office and its officials to do anything effective about it.
I am afraid that this bill in my submission is a trivialisation of legislation by Home Office officials who should be doing other things. But I'm not going to dwell on that now Mr Speaker. What I'm going to do is say why I think, to extend the provisions of this bill beyond that long title, because that long title as a created event of unauthorised entry at football matches for which a football banning order can be imposed the following conviction.
This is not just about unauthorised and, it is an attempt at unauthorised entry which is contained within the provisions of the bill. My amendments are designed to exclude attempts to enter from the provisions of this legislation. Because it seems to me that such attempts are less important than the actual unlawful entry, and that to include them in the same category is disproportionate and unreasonable. When we get to debating other parts of the bill at third reading, then points can be made about the bill more generally.
But it seems to me that if you attempt to enter a football match without authorisation, then you should not be subject to the same penalties as set out in this bill relating to people who actually succeed in getting into a football match. The background to this, as you will know Mr Speaker, 11 July is quite an interesting date because it was on this very day four years ago in the Euro 2020 that we had the final at Wembley which resulted in the unauthorised entry of thousands of fans into Wembley Stadium.
And that resulted in a lot of disorder, and Baroness Casey, who is an expert at producing reports, she was commissioned by the football Association to look into this issue and come forward with recommendations. In her report of more than 100 pages, she emphasises the fact that a lot of the disorder was nothing to do with people coming in without tickets and tailgating. A lot of it was attributed to other failures to deal with the law, particularly the taking of drugs and alcohol on public transport in London, the taking of drugs in the vicinity of the football match, which also should be forbidden.
But it was allowed to proceed with impunity. She also made the point that, unlike many football matches, what happens there was largely exacerbated by the inadequacy of the stewarding arrangements. As a result of that report, the Home Office then decided to bring forward this bill. But nowhere could I find in the Baroness Casey report any reference to the fact that she wanted to treat attempts to enter in exactly the same way as entering.
And that is why I put forward these amendments. why I put forward these amendments. Mr Speaker, it does not need to expand on this except to say that it is in the common law normally an is in the common law normally an attempt to commit a criminal offence is an incorrect action and that can be the subject of proceedings. So you would not need in those circumstances to have this written into the face of the bill in any event.
But it seems to me that if you are creating a penalty which is quite severe, this is a penalty which could affect people's ability to be able to go and watch football matches for many many years into the future. The presumption made under the bill is that, if you are guilty of an offence, then the presumption is that you will also be unable to go and visit football matches again as a spectator. My assessment is that this is a disproportionate, unnecessary, and for those reasons I strongly oppose this aspect of the bill, and seeking through these amendments to remove references to attempts.
Turning now to amendment number six, this is another example of where I think we need to try and tighten up Private Members' Bills when they are brought before this place, so the government does not have it all its own way. You will note Mr Speaker that there are I think four of the report stage is of bills coming forward for debate this morning. All of those other ones have a commencement date which is set out on the face of the bill.
Clause two, two, of this bill says this comes into force as such date as the Secretary of State appoints. The question I ask is why? Why is that necessary? Why can't we in this simple bill say that these provisions will come into effect either on the day of Royal assent or within two months of the Royal assent, which would be the norm. What sometimes happens of course is that the government gives itself powers and does all the talk about supporting bills like this, then it never brings forward the regulations.
The consequent of that without any specific timetable is that the ball is very much in the government's court. Because they can decide whether or not they are going to implement the provisions of this bill which is put forward by the Home Office. So I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, he will explain why this is something that has to be introduced by regulations on a date yet to be specified. Of course the making of regulations in itself is a further unnecessary administrative burden.
I would be interested to see and hear from the Minister as to why this bill is being treated in a different way from the other bills which the government is hoping will get through today. Mr Speaker, without
**** Possible New Speaker ****
further ado, I beg to move amendment one. The question is that the amendment be made.
I am afraid that this bill in my submission is a trivialisation of legislation by Home Office officials who should be doing other things. But I'm not going to dwell on that now Mr Speaker. What I'm going to do is say why I think, to extend the provisions of this bill beyond that long title, because that long title as a created event of unauthorised entry at football matches for which a football banning order can be imposed the following conviction.
This is not just about unauthorised and, it is an attempt at unauthorised entry which is contained within the provisions of the bill. My amendments are designed to exclude attempts to enter from the provisions of this legislation. Because it seems to me that such attempts are less important than the actual unlawful entry, and that to include them in the same category is disproportionate and unreasonable. When we get to debating other parts of the bill at third reading, then points can be made about the bill more generally.
But it seems to me that if you attempt to enter a football match without authorisation, then you should not be subject to the same penalties as set out in this bill relating to people who actually succeed in getting into a football match. The background to this, as you will know Mr Speaker, 11 July is quite an interesting date because it was on this very day four years ago in the Euro 2020 that we had the final at Wembley which resulted in the unauthorised entry of thousands of fans into Wembley Stadium.
And that resulted in a lot of disorder, and Baroness Casey, who is an expert at producing reports, she was commissioned by the football Association to look into this issue and come forward with recommendations. In her report of more than 100 pages, she emphasises the fact that a lot of the disorder was nothing to do with people coming in without tickets and tailgating. A lot of it was attributed to other failures to deal with the law, particularly the taking of drugs and alcohol on public transport in London, the taking of drugs in the vicinity of the football match, which also should be forbidden.
But it was allowed to proceed with impunity. She also made the point that, unlike many football matches, what happens there was largely exacerbated by the inadequacy of the stewarding arrangements. As a result of that report, the Home Office then decided to bring forward this bill. But nowhere could I find in the Baroness Casey report any reference to the fact that she wanted to treat attempts to enter in exactly the same way as entering.
And that is why I put forward these amendments. why I put forward these amendments. Mr Speaker, it does not need to expand on this except to say that it is in the common law normally an is in the common law normally an attempt to commit a criminal offence is an incorrect action and that can be the subject of proceedings. So you would not need in those circumstances to have this written into the face of the bill in any event.
But it seems to me that if you are creating a penalty which is quite severe, this is a penalty which could affect people's ability to be able to go and watch football matches for many many years into the future. The presumption made under the bill is that, if you are guilty of an offence, then the presumption is that you will also be unable to go and visit football matches again as a spectator. My assessment is that this is a disproportionate, unnecessary, and for those reasons I strongly oppose this aspect of the bill, and seeking through these amendments to remove references to attempts.
Turning now to amendment number six, this is another example of where I think we need to try and tighten up Private Members' Bills when they are brought before this place, so the government does not have it all its own way. You will note Mr Speaker that there are I think four of the report stage is of bills coming forward for debate this morning. All of those other ones have a commencement date which is set out on the face of the bill.
Clause two, two, of this bill says this comes into force as such date as the Secretary of State appoints. The question I ask is why? Why is that necessary? Why can't we in this simple bill say that these provisions will come into effect either on the day of Royal assent or within two months of the Royal assent, which would be the norm. What sometimes happens of course is that the government gives itself powers and does all the talk about supporting bills like this, then it never brings forward the regulations.
The consequent of that without any specific timetable is that the ball is very much in the government's court. Because they can decide whether or not they are going to implement the provisions of this bill which is put forward by the Home Office. So I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, he will explain why this is something that has to be introduced by regulations on a date yet to be specified. Of course the making of regulations in itself is a further unnecessary administrative burden.
I would be interested to see and hear from the Minister as to why this bill is being treated in a different way from the other bills which the government is hoping will get through today. Mr Speaker, without
**** Possible New Speaker ****
further ado, I beg to move amendment one. The question is that the amendment be made.
09:56
Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment be made. Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to thank the honourable member for thank the honourable member for Christchurch for his careful consideration of my bill. Although I am somewhat saddened by his suggestion that this is a trivial matter. As he himself went on to say, we saw scenes in the Carabao Cup final which were very troubling and which warranted a full report from Baroness Casey, who I may say did an excellent report making some very good observations and recommendations.
And indeed said that there should be a deterrent effect to any recommendations that are brought in. I would submit that this bill provides just that. I rise Mr Speaker to oppose amendment one amendment 126. In relation to amendments 1-5, I would say that attempted entry does place a particular pressure on stadium security. It often requires in itself police involvement. It is often extremely crowded outside stadium with struggles, scuffles, and chases through the crowd when people try to enter without a ticket.
Including attempted entry allows law enforcement to act before a breach of the stadium occurs. And this provides an additional level of security. I was at that Carabao Cup final this year, and I was taken down to the turnstiles by the police, with the policing and safety minister with me as well. We witnessed tailgating almost immediately when we got down there. What we also saw was an attempt to tailgate. That involved a man I would say in his 70s or early 80s standing at the turnstile shouting for help, shouting at the stewards for assistance because there was somebody behind him trying to push their way into the ground.
It was frightening for him. He stood his ground and I pay tribute to him for doing so. But it could have been dangerous. It was indeed dangerous for the level of people that were around. So I would submit that it flies in the face of common sense to release people such as that who have a clear intention to get into the stadium. And actually the police told me that those sorts of attempts at the moment are repeated by people time and time again.
At the moment the police don't have the power to arrest them, so they have to detain them and then release them. And they just go back again and try to get in, and it is a constant cat and mouse as it were all the time throughout that period people being put in danger from the action. Two To omit attempts would take us no further in giving police powers. So my submission is this would give the police the best chance at equipping them to deal with this issue and to keep everybody as safe as possible.
Mr Speaker, in relation to amendment six regarding that timescale, my understanding is that the bill is designed to come into force by regulations so that it can be aligned to the start of the football calendar. That will ensure that all relevant organisations have time to prepare, coordinate, and train accordingly. As a Crown Prosecutor for 21 years before I came to this place, I understand firsthand the importance of allowing sufficient time for changes in legislation to be implemented, for staff to be trained, and for proper resources to be put in place by the police, by the Crown persecution service, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
most importantly by the stadium I think the diligence with which she has been approaching the she has been approaching the subject, including having discussed it on several occasions with me, but she says instead of a date being specified in the face of this bill, regulations are getting past in the provisions at the beginning of the football season. When is that, football season. When is that, please? Is there a particular date? CHRISTOPHE GALTIER: I perhaps CHRISTOPHE GALTIER: I perhaps misspoke.
My understanding is that it is aligned with the football it is aligned with the football calendar. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assist with that in due be able to assist with that in due course. But the start of the football season, we are on countdown to it. My husband being a season ticket holder himself a Coventry City FC. He was very disappointed that we are on holiday at the start of the football season in August. Obviously it is unlikely that we won't get started by then, but an important thing is that we will get important thing is that we will get this in place in time for when we co-host the next European finals co-host the next European finals which is 2028, and I think we should be in good time for that.
A fixed date of two months after Royal assent in my submission wouldn't be sufficient lead time to get everything in place. And as I mentioned earlier, the bill has a deterrent element to it, so we need to be ready. As Baroness Casey's recommendation says, we need to make sure it is a proper deterrent and make sure that as soon as the legislation kicks off, we send a clear message that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated any longer and that people will not be able to get away with this.
So I hope I have provided a full and detailed response which satisfies the honourable member for Christchurch and I would respectfully urge him to withdraw his amendment today.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to support my honourable member for Christchurch. It seems to member for Christchurch. It seems to me that the way he introduced his very modest amendment to remove the very modest amendment to remove the words attempt was entirely proper, words attempt was entirely proper, and I support this bill but I think
Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment be made. Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to thank the honourable member for thank the honourable member for Christchurch for his careful consideration of my bill. Although I am somewhat saddened by his suggestion that this is a trivial matter. As he himself went on to say, we saw scenes in the Carabao Cup final which were very troubling and which warranted a full report from Baroness Casey, who I may say did an excellent report making some very good observations and recommendations.
And indeed said that there should be a deterrent effect to any recommendations that are brought in. I would submit that this bill provides just that. I rise Mr Speaker to oppose amendment one amendment 126. In relation to amendments 1-5, I would say that attempted entry does place a particular pressure on stadium security. It often requires in itself police involvement. It is often extremely crowded outside stadium with struggles, scuffles, and chases through the crowd when people try to enter without a ticket.
Including attempted entry allows law enforcement to act before a breach of the stadium occurs. And this provides an additional level of security. I was at that Carabao Cup final this year, and I was taken down to the turnstiles by the police, with the policing and safety minister with me as well. We witnessed tailgating almost immediately when we got down there. What we also saw was an attempt to tailgate. That involved a man I would say in his 70s or early 80s standing at the turnstile shouting for help, shouting at the stewards for assistance because there was somebody behind him trying to push their way into the ground.
It was frightening for him. He stood his ground and I pay tribute to him for doing so. But it could have been dangerous. It was indeed dangerous for the level of people that were around. So I would submit that it flies in the face of common sense to release people such as that who have a clear intention to get into the stadium. And actually the police told me that those sorts of attempts at the moment are repeated by people time and time again.
At the moment the police don't have the power to arrest them, so they have to detain them and then release them. And they just go back again and try to get in, and it is a constant cat and mouse as it were all the time throughout that period people being put in danger from the action. Two To omit attempts would take us no further in giving police powers. So my submission is this would give the police the best chance at equipping them to deal with this issue and to keep everybody as safe as possible.
Mr Speaker, in relation to amendment six regarding that timescale, my understanding is that the bill is designed to come into force by regulations so that it can be aligned to the start of the football calendar. That will ensure that all relevant organisations have time to prepare, coordinate, and train accordingly. As a Crown Prosecutor for 21 years before I came to this place, I understand firsthand the importance of allowing sufficient time for changes in legislation to be implemented, for staff to be trained, and for proper resources to be put in place by the police, by the Crown persecution service, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
most importantly by the stadium I think the diligence with which she has been approaching the she has been approaching the subject, including having discussed it on several occasions with me, but she says instead of a date being specified in the face of this bill, regulations are getting past in the provisions at the beginning of the football season. When is that, football season. When is that, please? Is there a particular date? CHRISTOPHE GALTIER: I perhaps CHRISTOPHE GALTIER: I perhaps misspoke.
My understanding is that it is aligned with the football it is aligned with the football calendar. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assist with that in due be able to assist with that in due course. But the start of the football season, we are on countdown to it. My husband being a season ticket holder himself a Coventry City FC. He was very disappointed that we are on holiday at the start of the football season in August. Obviously it is unlikely that we won't get started by then, but an important thing is that we will get important thing is that we will get this in place in time for when we co-host the next European finals co-host the next European finals which is 2028, and I think we should be in good time for that.
A fixed date of two months after Royal assent in my submission wouldn't be sufficient lead time to get everything in place. And as I mentioned earlier, the bill has a deterrent element to it, so we need to be ready. As Baroness Casey's recommendation says, we need to make sure it is a proper deterrent and make sure that as soon as the legislation kicks off, we send a clear message that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated any longer and that people will not be able to get away with this.
So I hope I have provided a full and detailed response which satisfies the honourable member for Christchurch and I would respectfully urge him to withdraw his amendment today.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to support my honourable member for Christchurch. It seems to member for Christchurch. It seems to me that the way he introduced his very modest amendment to remove the very modest amendment to remove the words attempt was entirely proper, words attempt was entirely proper, and I support this bill but I think
10:03
Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
-
-
Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
and I support this bill but I think it is quite a dangerous aspect if we are going to introduce it into criminal law, just an attempt to enter a football ground. It is quite difficult to gather the evidence of policing it, but I want to assure the honourable lady that I don't want to delay matters much and keep my remarks brief because I support the general principle of this bill. I support the fact that we are going to have to make it a criminal offence to actually enter a designated football match, but of course, that is in the long title and something that we can all agree on, but widening the bill to attempt is quite dangerous.
I just wonder whether, as I assumed my honourable friends amendments will be rejected, I wonder whether his amendments were passed. It would actually unduly weaken the bill. After all, the bill is about a legal deterrent to crowds of people forcing their way into a football ground. And there may be other ways of people to get into football grounds, which may not be riotous disorder. When we are creating criminal law, it is very dangerous to get into aspects of intention, rather than actual legal fact of entering a football ground.
If the law was not to be changed, if you are engaging in this sort of very bad behaviour, you can only be punished from injection from the stadium, but of course, there are laws of trespass. There is a criminal law, and there are many other ways that this bad behaviour can be identified. I'm not sure that when Baroness Casey reviewed, when she identified the absence of specific offences, as a weakness in stadium enforcement, I'm not sure that she was considering or objecting to quite minor infringements, such as attempting to enter a football ground.
Now, I know that the key motivation of the bill was the Euro 2020 final, the chaos at Wembley. And I know that hundreds of ticketless individuals stormed the venue and overwhelmed students, endangered fans and this sort of mass unauthorised entry posed real risks, but I think that is quite a different situation. It is quite a different situation from somebody who may be on their own or maybe a father with their children attempting to get into a football ground where they may not have a ticket or they may have been mis- sold a ticket.
They may have been sold a ticket. They may have been given a ticket by a ticket tout, and apparently now, they are going to face the full force of the criminal law. With the bill, police and courts will be able to ban repeat offences. I mean, this is quite serious consequences for people who may not be riotous at all. They may just be genuine football fans. We are talking about a fine of up to £1000.
We are talking about you being tried in the Magistrate's Court. It will go to a serious mass for people who may be entering a place. They will be told by the members of the bill that the enforcement is practical. I can understand how you can enforce entry into a football ground. I'm not sure how you can enforce an attempt to get into football grounds. Surely police and stewards need clarity, and there is no point us introducing more and more laws we have a whole space of traditional laws against riotous behaviour.
Laws that may be difficult to enforce. They bring the whole system into disrepute. I know that football clubs, fan organisations, they largely support the bill, but I am not sure that they are actually aware of how wide this bill is actually framed and I'm sure that if they could talk these matters through, that they would think that his amendment was a wise and moderate compromise. Because people already assume that it is an offence to enter a football ground without a ticket.
But I agree that the bill removes the gap between the assumption reality. The other thing I got worried about is that I can quite understand that if you are dealing with attempts, if you are Premier League And all the rest of it, it may be possible. You have the whole panoply of a large football club but I want to mention small clubs by Gainsborough Trinity FC in my constituency, and these small clubs have faced huge challenges and we are just introducing more burdens on them.
During COVID, they suspended season tickets and caps to 300. So they are already having to deal with many regulations of public health. Their whole finances are very, very marginal, and the COVID was a financial situation. I hope that, when we come with these undoubtedly worthy bills, when we look at the Euros and all the rest of it, when we impose more obligations on football clubs, that we remember smaller clubs, and the Football Association is not always as helpful as it can be with small clubs, big clubs get support.
So it may well be possible for them to police attempts you're talking about a tiny, a very worthy, very important and wonderful club like Gainsborough FC, and it may be more difficult than actually dealing with the intricacies of the law and understanding the law, because we are talking about enforcement, talking about lease resources, and therefore, when we pass this sort of bill, I think we should be very moderate in how we introduce it. After all, £1000 fine, long banning orders, are we going to drag before the courts the father attempting entry? Are we going to put children and young people sneaking in without harmful intent facing criminal records? Are we really going to do that? Is that the sort of country we want to create? We don't really have a lot of data on this anyway.
We don't know how many attempts there are, how much unauthorised entry there is. So, we should acknowledge that the Euro 2020 final was exceptional. It is unclear whether permanent legislative change of this kind and rejecting the sort of amendment would actually solve the problem.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Just on the point of not knowing the data, the FA reports not knowing the data, the FA reports that approximately 600 people attempt to tailgate at matches regularly at Wembley and competitive games at grounds across the country, games at grounds across the country, so this isn't an issue of the odd person every now and again doing it, this is a regular issue of people this is a regular issue of people trying over and over again to get into the football grounds, and that is why it is really important that is why it is really important that an attempt is included.
With the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
honourable gentleman recognise that? I am making the point about smaller clubs, and why we are here is that there is a political reaction for the embarrassment of reaction for the embarrassment of one major failure, and that is why we are here, and you can't base good law on one major failure which is in law on one major failure which is in front of all industries. You look at all the clubs, all the difficulties all the clubs, all the difficulties that they have an implement in this sort of change.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sort of change. If one thinks about London underground. There is a big issue about tailgating and so on in trying to avoid paying fares. And in comparison with what is going on in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the underground, what is my right honourable friend think about this bill? We know that there is an epidemic
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We know that there is an epidemic of lawlessness in the underground and elsewhere, and no doubt, somebody will try and bring Annabel somebody will try and bring Annabel on that as well, and good luck, but we are talking about a very narrow amendment, and a narrowly focused bill. So, I am just worried about the effect on enforcement. It may the effect on enforcement. It may vary between clubs or regions. Fans may lose trust and they see the Lord may lose trust and they see the Lord applied unevenly.
I don't how they are going to police these attempts. It is unclear whether banning orders It is unclear whether banning orders will leave to frequent appeals. You are actually trying something for an attempt. I know it is only a Magistrate's Court, but if they are faced with long banning orders, could there be appeals? We have got to apply the law fairly and to apply the law fairly and reasonably, otherwise it just risks being a blunt instrument, and surely, when we are considering this surely, when we are considering this sort of bill, we should try to make it highly focused, so I think the amendments imposed actually are quite sensible.
They better tool the legislation towards its rightful and. They focus on the actual harm by removing attempted entry for the offence, the amendments ensure only completed unauthorised entries are criminalised. That is a fact. You can understand it. You can prove it. We should target behaviour that truly compromise the safety and public order. Secondly, they ensure the bill would avoid over criminalisation. Criminalising failed or minor attempts could lead to disproportionate outcomes. Especially for young people or first-time offenders.
My honourable friends amendments promote a more measured legal response. Thirdly, they reduce ambiguity and the great danger in law is ambiguity. Attempted entry is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation by stewards and police. I just ask honourable members if they look at honourable members if they look at the police, and if they try and imagine how they would police this, in a crowded football match, people pouring in, I just wonder whether they think that they may agree with me or start to agree with me that attempted entry is a vague standard We are talking about the criminal law, we are not talking about me being tipped off or told they can't enter a stadium.
So the amendment gives a clear legal threshold for enforcement and prosecution. It is something that everybody, the courts, can understand, and somebody can be tried and sentenced on that basis. My honourable friend amendment protects civil liberties. And I have spent years in this place, many long years, and Fridays, defending civil liberties. I don't believe in overregulation, and ever more laws restricting civil liberties. The amendment guard against penalising individuals where intent or context is unclear.
We are criminalising only intent. We are not criminalising an actual fact. And that is a very dangerous legal proposition. If we start doing it now on this bill, where will it stop? Are we going to criminalise an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
attempt to enter a cinema or theatre? I think we are straight little
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think we are straight little wide, if we are going to go round the world in different areas. I think it is quite narrow and I'm sure you want to get back on track. sure you want to get back on track. This is about football.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is about football. You will be grateful to hear that having made these remarks I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion. We have a duty to ensure that punishment is based on actual misconduct in entering a football misconduct in entering a football ground, not suspicion or misjudged behaviour. My honourable friend behaviour. My honourable friend amendment allows for practical enforcement. Focusing on completed unauthorised and helps police and clubs concentrate their resources on the most serious breaches rather the most serious breaches rather than chasing marginal cases.
They provide necessary implementation provide necessary implementation time. The two month delay for commencement gives football clubs, commencement gives football clubs, police, and stewards time to prepare for the new legal framework, reducing confusion and aiding smooth reducing confusion and aiding smooth enforcement. Finally, they encourage proportionality. These amendments keep the law from becoming an unnecessarily blunt instrument, and instead deserve proportionate targeted response to genuine requests. Thank you.
I just wonder whether, as I assumed my honourable friends amendments will be rejected, I wonder whether his amendments were passed. It would actually unduly weaken the bill. After all, the bill is about a legal deterrent to crowds of people forcing their way into a football ground. And there may be other ways of people to get into football grounds, which may not be riotous disorder. When we are creating criminal law, it is very dangerous to get into aspects of intention, rather than actual legal fact of entering a football ground.
If the law was not to be changed, if you are engaging in this sort of very bad behaviour, you can only be punished from injection from the stadium, but of course, there are laws of trespass. There is a criminal law, and there are many other ways that this bad behaviour can be identified. I'm not sure that when Baroness Casey reviewed, when she identified the absence of specific offences, as a weakness in stadium enforcement, I'm not sure that she was considering or objecting to quite minor infringements, such as attempting to enter a football ground.
Now, I know that the key motivation of the bill was the Euro 2020 final, the chaos at Wembley. And I know that hundreds of ticketless individuals stormed the venue and overwhelmed students, endangered fans and this sort of mass unauthorised entry posed real risks, but I think that is quite a different situation. It is quite a different situation from somebody who may be on their own or maybe a father with their children attempting to get into a football ground where they may not have a ticket or they may have been mis- sold a ticket.
They may have been sold a ticket. They may have been given a ticket by a ticket tout, and apparently now, they are going to face the full force of the criminal law. With the bill, police and courts will be able to ban repeat offences. I mean, this is quite serious consequences for people who may not be riotous at all. They may just be genuine football fans. We are talking about a fine of up to £1000.
We are talking about you being tried in the Magistrate's Court. It will go to a serious mass for people who may be entering a place. They will be told by the members of the bill that the enforcement is practical. I can understand how you can enforce entry into a football ground. I'm not sure how you can enforce an attempt to get into football grounds. Surely police and stewards need clarity, and there is no point us introducing more and more laws we have a whole space of traditional laws against riotous behaviour.
Laws that may be difficult to enforce. They bring the whole system into disrepute. I know that football clubs, fan organisations, they largely support the bill, but I am not sure that they are actually aware of how wide this bill is actually framed and I'm sure that if they could talk these matters through, that they would think that his amendment was a wise and moderate compromise. Because people already assume that it is an offence to enter a football ground without a ticket.
But I agree that the bill removes the gap between the assumption reality. The other thing I got worried about is that I can quite understand that if you are dealing with attempts, if you are Premier League And all the rest of it, it may be possible. You have the whole panoply of a large football club but I want to mention small clubs by Gainsborough Trinity FC in my constituency, and these small clubs have faced huge challenges and we are just introducing more burdens on them.
During COVID, they suspended season tickets and caps to 300. So they are already having to deal with many regulations of public health. Their whole finances are very, very marginal, and the COVID was a financial situation. I hope that, when we come with these undoubtedly worthy bills, when we look at the Euros and all the rest of it, when we impose more obligations on football clubs, that we remember smaller clubs, and the Football Association is not always as helpful as it can be with small clubs, big clubs get support.
So it may well be possible for them to police attempts you're talking about a tiny, a very worthy, very important and wonderful club like Gainsborough FC, and it may be more difficult than actually dealing with the intricacies of the law and understanding the law, because we are talking about enforcement, talking about lease resources, and therefore, when we pass this sort of bill, I think we should be very moderate in how we introduce it. After all, £1000 fine, long banning orders, are we going to drag before the courts the father attempting entry? Are we going to put children and young people sneaking in without harmful intent facing criminal records? Are we really going to do that? Is that the sort of country we want to create? We don't really have a lot of data on this anyway.
We don't know how many attempts there are, how much unauthorised entry there is. So, we should acknowledge that the Euro 2020 final was exceptional. It is unclear whether permanent legislative change of this kind and rejecting the sort of amendment would actually solve the problem.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Just on the point of not knowing the data, the FA reports not knowing the data, the FA reports that approximately 600 people attempt to tailgate at matches regularly at Wembley and competitive games at grounds across the country, games at grounds across the country, so this isn't an issue of the odd person every now and again doing it, this is a regular issue of people this is a regular issue of people trying over and over again to get into the football grounds, and that is why it is really important that is why it is really important that an attempt is included.
With the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
honourable gentleman recognise that? I am making the point about smaller clubs, and why we are here is that there is a political reaction for the embarrassment of reaction for the embarrassment of one major failure, and that is why we are here, and you can't base good law on one major failure which is in law on one major failure which is in front of all industries. You look at all the clubs, all the difficulties all the clubs, all the difficulties that they have an implement in this sort of change.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sort of change. If one thinks about London underground. There is a big issue about tailgating and so on in trying to avoid paying fares. And in comparison with what is going on in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the underground, what is my right honourable friend think about this bill? We know that there is an epidemic
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We know that there is an epidemic of lawlessness in the underground and elsewhere, and no doubt, somebody will try and bring Annabel somebody will try and bring Annabel on that as well, and good luck, but we are talking about a very narrow amendment, and a narrowly focused bill. So, I am just worried about the effect on enforcement. It may the effect on enforcement. It may vary between clubs or regions. Fans may lose trust and they see the Lord may lose trust and they see the Lord applied unevenly.
I don't how they are going to police these attempts. It is unclear whether banning orders It is unclear whether banning orders will leave to frequent appeals. You are actually trying something for an attempt. I know it is only a Magistrate's Court, but if they are faced with long banning orders, could there be appeals? We have got to apply the law fairly and to apply the law fairly and reasonably, otherwise it just risks being a blunt instrument, and surely, when we are considering this surely, when we are considering this sort of bill, we should try to make it highly focused, so I think the amendments imposed actually are quite sensible.
They better tool the legislation towards its rightful and. They focus on the actual harm by removing attempted entry for the offence, the amendments ensure only completed unauthorised entries are criminalised. That is a fact. You can understand it. You can prove it. We should target behaviour that truly compromise the safety and public order. Secondly, they ensure the bill would avoid over criminalisation. Criminalising failed or minor attempts could lead to disproportionate outcomes. Especially for young people or first-time offenders.
My honourable friends amendments promote a more measured legal response. Thirdly, they reduce ambiguity and the great danger in law is ambiguity. Attempted entry is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation by stewards and police. I just ask honourable members if they look at honourable members if they look at the police, and if they try and imagine how they would police this, in a crowded football match, people pouring in, I just wonder whether they think that they may agree with me or start to agree with me that attempted entry is a vague standard We are talking about the criminal law, we are not talking about me being tipped off or told they can't enter a stadium.
So the amendment gives a clear legal threshold for enforcement and prosecution. It is something that everybody, the courts, can understand, and somebody can be tried and sentenced on that basis. My honourable friend amendment protects civil liberties. And I have spent years in this place, many long years, and Fridays, defending civil liberties. I don't believe in overregulation, and ever more laws restricting civil liberties. The amendment guard against penalising individuals where intent or context is unclear.
We are criminalising only intent. We are not criminalising an actual fact. And that is a very dangerous legal proposition. If we start doing it now on this bill, where will it stop? Are we going to criminalise an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
attempt to enter a cinema or theatre? I think we are straight little
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think we are straight little wide, if we are going to go round the world in different areas. I think it is quite narrow and I'm sure you want to get back on track. sure you want to get back on track. This is about football.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is about football. You will be grateful to hear that having made these remarks I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion. We have a duty to ensure that punishment is based on actual misconduct in entering a football misconduct in entering a football ground, not suspicion or misjudged behaviour. My honourable friend behaviour. My honourable friend amendment allows for practical enforcement. Focusing on completed unauthorised and helps police and clubs concentrate their resources on the most serious breaches rather the most serious breaches rather than chasing marginal cases.
They provide necessary implementation provide necessary implementation time. The two month delay for commencement gives football clubs, commencement gives football clubs, police, and stewards time to prepare for the new legal framework, reducing confusion and aiding smooth reducing confusion and aiding smooth enforcement. Finally, they encourage proportionality. These amendments keep the law from becoming an unnecessarily blunt instrument, and instead deserve proportionate targeted response to genuine requests. Thank you.
10:18
Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
Shadow Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank the member for bringing this forward, member for bringing this forward, and my honourable friend from Christchurch for his amendment. At Christchurch for his amendment. At this age we wish only to speak on the amendment. We have nothing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
further to add to the debate. Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I thank the member for Christchurch for tabling these amendments would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank the member for bringing this forward, member for bringing this forward, and my honourable friend from Christchurch for his amendment. At Christchurch for his amendment. At this age we wish only to speak on the amendment. We have nothing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
further to add to the debate. Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I thank the member for Christchurch for tabling these amendments would
10:19
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
tabling these amendments would propose two changes. Firstly, as set out in amendments 1-5, to remove attempted unauthorised and from the scope of the offence. And second, to bring the act into force two months after it receives Royal assent rather than by commencement regulations made by statutory instrument. It is absolutely essential that the bill explicitly covers both attempted and successful unauthorised entry. We have seen widespread issues involving ticketless fans at football matches attempting to force entry and tailgate at high-profile matches including the 2024 Champions League Final.
Premier League fixtures, and at the Euro 2020 tournament. These forms of attempted entry place significant demands on stadium safety and security personnel. And at times require police intervention. Maintaining provisions for attempted unauthorised end to ensure that law enforcement can act before a breach occurs, and thus maintain safety and security at football matches across the country. It also enables the imposition of preventative football banning orders against persons involved in attempted entry. Banning orders are an effective deterrent against those who may seek to compromise public safety.
Mr Speaker turning to amendment six, the bill is designed to allow the measures to come into force regulation, on a date shortly before the start of the domestic football season. This approach will ensure that all organisations involved in safety and security operations are prepared to implement the new offence. A fixed date two months after Royal assent may not coincide with the football calendar or allow sufficient time for the training, communication, and coordination. Therefore I respectfully ask the honourable member for Christchurch to withdraw
**** Possible New Speaker ****
his amendment. Mr Speaker, responding to the
Premier League fixtures, and at the Euro 2020 tournament. These forms of attempted entry place significant demands on stadium safety and security personnel. And at times require police intervention. Maintaining provisions for attempted unauthorised end to ensure that law enforcement can act before a breach occurs, and thus maintain safety and security at football matches across the country. It also enables the imposition of preventative football banning orders against persons involved in attempted entry. Banning orders are an effective deterrent against those who may seek to compromise public safety.
Mr Speaker turning to amendment six, the bill is designed to allow the measures to come into force regulation, on a date shortly before the start of the domestic football season. This approach will ensure that all organisations involved in safety and security operations are prepared to implement the new offence. A fixed date two months after Royal assent may not coincide with the football calendar or allow sufficient time for the training, communication, and coordination. Therefore I respectfully ask the honourable member for Christchurch to withdraw
**** Possible New Speaker ****
his amendment. Mr Speaker, responding to the
10:21
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr Speaker, responding to the ministers last remarks, he says that this is going to be before the start of the football season. And as we have heard from the honourable lady introducing this bill, that season is going to start pretty soon, within four or five weeks. I assume this means that this bill is not actually going to be implemented until the summer of 2026? I think that is the clear implication of what the Minister has said.
If I am wrong in that interpretation, I hope that he will intervene on me. It is important to get it on the record that this is not actually going to be enforced until a years time. On the issue of attempts and, I thought that listening to my right honourable friend for Gainsborough, I thought that I had under egg the pudding a little. Because my honourable Friend produced a whole lot of extra arguments which are reinforcing the case for removing attempts from this bill.
Apart from anything else, I fear that if we allow the issue of attempts to remain as a part of the bill, the easy pickings of people who are still outside the stadium and had never got in, they will be the people who get picked on and arrested and penalised, while the mass of offenders who actually get in without authority, they are going to get away with it. Apart from anything else, in order for any of this to work there has to be an arrest and subsequent prosecution.
So I hope very much that we can test the will of the house in relation to amendment one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment one be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Division, cleared
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr Speaker, responding to the ministers last remarks, he says that this is going to be before the start of the football season. And as we have heard from the honourable lady introducing this bill, that season is going to start pretty soon, within four or five weeks. I assume this means that this bill is not actually going to be implemented until the summer of 2026? I think that is the clear implication of what the Minister has said.
If I am wrong in that interpretation, I hope that he will intervene on me. It is important to get it on the record that this is not actually going to be enforced until a years time. On the issue of attempts and, I thought that listening to my right honourable friend for Gainsborough, I thought that I had under egg the pudding a little. Because my honourable Friend produced a whole lot of extra arguments which are reinforcing the case for removing attempts from this bill.
Apart from anything else, I fear that if we allow the issue of attempts to remain as a part of the bill, the easy pickings of people who are still outside the stadium and had never got in, they will be the people who get picked on and arrested and penalised, while the mass of offenders who actually get in without authority, they are going to get away with it. Apart from anything else, in order for any of this to work there has to be an arrest and subsequent prosecution.
So I hope very much that we can test the will of the house in relation to amendment one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment one be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Division, cleared
10:23
Division: Amdt 1
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes so "No". Tellers for the ayes so Christopher Chope and Sir Edward Leigh. Tellers for the noes Gerald
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The aye to the right, zero. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
note to the left, 47. The aye to the right, zero. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The aye to the right, zero. The note to the left, 47. The nose have note to the left, 47. The nose have Consideration completed. Third reading, what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reading, what day? Thank you. I beg to move that the unauthorised entry to football matches Bill be now read for the matches Bill be now read for the third time. It is an honour to stand here today and present this bill for
Division: Amdt 1
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes so "No". Tellers for the ayes so Christopher Chope and Sir Edward Leigh. Tellers for the noes Gerald
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The aye to the right, zero. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
note to the left, 47. The aye to the right, zero. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The aye to the right, zero. The note to the left, 47. The nose have note to the left, 47. The nose have Consideration completed. Third reading, what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reading, what day? Thank you. I beg to move that the unauthorised entry to football matches Bill be now read for the matches Bill be now read for the third time. It is an honour to stand here today and present this bill for
10:35
Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
-
-
Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
here today and present this bill for third reading, particularly as a lifelong football fan. I would like to put on the record that I am a proud Everton supporter, that my staff are faulty gleefully reminded me that this may be the nearest thing to football -related success that I experience for a long time. The men's team last won a major trophy in 1995, and the women in 2010, so I'm sure members can imagine my delight when I saw the Amber Valley girls and attends team win the plate in a tournament last Sunday.
I'm told the two other teams from my constituency also won trophies that day. I live in hope that Everton can follow suit and get their hands on some silver air at our new ground next season. Football has a rich and impressive history. It bridges communities and brings people together. Putting across generational, gender-based, geographical, cultural and class divides. It is a sport of opportunity and hope which sees girls and boys playing on the streets of their hometowns becoming superstars and role models with platforms through which they can enact real change as we saw with Michael Ratchford's free school meals campaign.
The rules are thought to have been drawn up in thought to have been drawn up in 1863, not far from here. Among other things, in the Freemason's Tavern in London. Here, the important role that carrying the ball with hands is not allowed was agreed upon. Sadly, the referee seem to forget this in the infamous 1986 World Cup final between Argentina and England which Maradona produced his hand of God moment. Today, the introduction of the AR would mean that such a goal would rightly be ruled out.
Not that as England fans are better. But as these examples show, football itself is in a constant state of change and evolution. And it is not only right that, paramount, that as the sport progresses, the regulations around it adapt and reflect and facilitate these changes, and that brings me to my bill today which considers the issue of unauthorised entry to football matches from a fan safety perspective. The bill aims to ensure that proper legislation is in place to protect fans and prevent overcrowding in stadiums.
Unauthorised entry often takes the form of tailgating as we've heard, also called Chipping where a ticketless person pushes through the turnstiles behind an unsuspecting ticket holding fan. Currently, if caught, tailgaters will likely be injected without facing any other consequences, therefore, ticketless individuals can and do repeatedly attempt to gain entry to a match until they give up or are until they give up or are successful. And this is not a trivial matter. It has significant consequences for fans in the stadium and the security staff working and the security staff working there.
According to the four posts stipulation, it results in operational safety and security problems at major events. There are regularly 600 tailgating attempts at major games in Wembley and grounds across the UK. Occasionally, there are also instances of mass entry where crowds of people push their way into the stadium. The potential consequence of this kind of mass entry are both dangerous and tragic. In July 2021 during the euro's final, around 1900 ticketless individuals entered Wembley Stadium. It is estimated that around 12 to 1300 got in to the inner areas of the ground.
Two of my friends Ross and Siobhan were at the match that day. Both of them are extremely experienced supporters of many sports and travel the world and attempt games at many grounds around the world. And they were excited that day, not only to watch the game but to experience first-hand the charged atmosphere of such a significant match and get behind their team. Unfortunately, they didn't have the experience that they usually have and that they rightly hoped for.
Siobhan told me that we arrived at Wembley around an hour before kick-off. It was obvious that things are not as they should be. I felt very uneasy about the atmosphere for so we went to the turn tiles which were very busy and there were people who had managed to get through the 1st to check without a ticket and were asking people to let them push through with them. I have been to many events at Wembley that have been sold out and I have never seen it in such a mess.
We went straight to our seats which we were able to reclaim from people occupying them at the time, and the rows were overfilled and the stairways were full people. The place was clearly filled way past capacity. Overall, I found it unpleasant and potentially dangerous environment. It has put me off attending England games and I haven't been to one sense. My friends were not alone in feeling like this. Baroness Louise Casey was commissioned to construction independent review into the events of the euros final in which she described as turning from a day of described as turning from a day of national pride to a day of shame.
The report finds that drunkenness, drugtaking, irresponsibility, criminality, and abuse of innocent people including staff, families and disabled ticketholders were shocking
I'm told the two other teams from my constituency also won trophies that day. I live in hope that Everton can follow suit and get their hands on some silver air at our new ground next season. Football has a rich and impressive history. It bridges communities and brings people together. Putting across generational, gender-based, geographical, cultural and class divides. It is a sport of opportunity and hope which sees girls and boys playing on the streets of their hometowns becoming superstars and role models with platforms through which they can enact real change as we saw with Michael Ratchford's free school meals campaign.
The rules are thought to have been drawn up in thought to have been drawn up in 1863, not far from here. Among other things, in the Freemason's Tavern in London. Here, the important role that carrying the ball with hands is not allowed was agreed upon. Sadly, the referee seem to forget this in the infamous 1986 World Cup final between Argentina and England which Maradona produced his hand of God moment. Today, the introduction of the AR would mean that such a goal would rightly be ruled out.
Not that as England fans are better. But as these examples show, football itself is in a constant state of change and evolution. And it is not only right that, paramount, that as the sport progresses, the regulations around it adapt and reflect and facilitate these changes, and that brings me to my bill today which considers the issue of unauthorised entry to football matches from a fan safety perspective. The bill aims to ensure that proper legislation is in place to protect fans and prevent overcrowding in stadiums.
Unauthorised entry often takes the form of tailgating as we've heard, also called Chipping where a ticketless person pushes through the turnstiles behind an unsuspecting ticket holding fan. Currently, if caught, tailgaters will likely be injected without facing any other consequences, therefore, ticketless individuals can and do repeatedly attempt to gain entry to a match until they give up or are until they give up or are successful. And this is not a trivial matter. It has significant consequences for fans in the stadium and the security staff working and the security staff working there.
According to the four posts stipulation, it results in operational safety and security problems at major events. There are regularly 600 tailgating attempts at major games in Wembley and grounds across the UK. Occasionally, there are also instances of mass entry where crowds of people push their way into the stadium. The potential consequence of this kind of mass entry are both dangerous and tragic. In July 2021 during the euro's final, around 1900 ticketless individuals entered Wembley Stadium. It is estimated that around 12 to 1300 got in to the inner areas of the ground.
Two of my friends Ross and Siobhan were at the match that day. Both of them are extremely experienced supporters of many sports and travel the world and attempt games at many grounds around the world. And they were excited that day, not only to watch the game but to experience first-hand the charged atmosphere of such a significant match and get behind their team. Unfortunately, they didn't have the experience that they usually have and that they rightly hoped for.
Siobhan told me that we arrived at Wembley around an hour before kick-off. It was obvious that things are not as they should be. I felt very uneasy about the atmosphere for so we went to the turn tiles which were very busy and there were people who had managed to get through the 1st to check without a ticket and were asking people to let them push through with them. I have been to many events at Wembley that have been sold out and I have never seen it in such a mess.
We went straight to our seats which we were able to reclaim from people occupying them at the time, and the rows were overfilled and the stairways were full people. The place was clearly filled way past capacity. Overall, I found it unpleasant and potentially dangerous environment. It has put me off attending England games and I haven't been to one sense. My friends were not alone in feeling like this. Baroness Louise Casey was commissioned to construction independent review into the events of the euros final in which she described as turning from a day of described as turning from a day of national pride to a day of shame.
The report finds that drunkenness, drugtaking, irresponsibility, criminality, and abuse of innocent people including staff, families and disabled ticketholders were shocking
10:42
Private Members' Bills: Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill: Third reading.
Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
-
-
Private Members' Bills: Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill: Third reading.
Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
and intolerable. Baroness Casey also writes that there were a series of crowds near misses which could have led to significant injuries or even death. Concluding that the existing enforcement mechanisms available to the police and other enforcement officers do not offer enough deterrent against those determined to use the cover of football matches to commit criminal offences. Tailgating for example should become a criminal offence. Sanctions for those breaking into football stadiums and recklessly endangering lives is weak.
My bill aims to rectify this. It inserts a new specific offence into the offences act of 1991, namely attempting or attempting to enter a designated football match in England and without a ticket where the person is eligible to use that. The offence itself is summary only. It carries a maximum sentence of £1000 fine. It can only be tried in the Magistrate's Court which will help with the big core backlog, and a conviction is likely to lead to a court imposed foot or banning order preventing the person in question from attending matches between three and five years.
There is a potential prison sentence for banning order is breached. The offence and the banning order in particular is intended to act as the long-term deterrent that Baroness Casey identified a need for in her report. If passed, the bill would apply to matches set out in orders made under the section 1 of the football offences act of 1991. As it stands, those are matches in the Premier League, the championships Lee, Leagues one and two, the woman super league, the woman super league to previously call the championship, the Premier League and international fixtures held in England and Wales.
After I did an interview with radio Derby about this, I was touched to hear from my friend and Amber Valley longest councillor John McCabe who is incidentally one of the longest suffering Nottingham Forest football club fans. John has sadly passed away since he left me a voicemail message that morning and I still have that message. He opened with his characteristic greeting, a Upland's before then talking about unauthorised entry in his youth saying well done, it has been happening for years.
It used to happen when I was about 11. They used to say lift him over he'll be all right. But it's been happening for years that, Lindsay. John's well done sticks with me and his words and reflections are witnessing unauthorised entry aged 11 only further demonstrates a long-standing need for the kind of reform that this bill proposes. I will now turn to some questions and queries that were put to me throughout the bills various stages. The bill uses the word premises instead of stadium.
This is to allow for arrest to be made for people going through the first Gordon where a ticket would need to be displayed, preventing The challenge to illegally provide entry to matches, and Irish thank the honourable Member and assure him this will be captured by section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a provision which covers the unauthorised resale of match tickets, Connolly referred to as ticket touting. A second point was raised during committee by the honourable member for Wimbledon.
He asked about the changed wording of section 1A subsection 3 of the bill. This bill outlines proposed possible This bill outlines proposed possible defences. Paragraph B of my bill, of my version of the bill has been edited so it covers a case in which a person reasonably believed they had, but did not in fact have, a match ticket for the match. It is to ensure that a person who innocently buys a counterfeit ticket is not criminalised under this offence.
It is specifically about fan safety of preventing overcrowding. As before the defence also applies in relation the defence also applies in relation to a person using a genuine ticket they are not eligible to use, for example adult using a child ticket. Because they have a reserved seat in the stadium already, safety would not be an issue with respect to overcrowding. The bill is about safety and safeguarding of football fans not about penalising genuine supporters. The honourable memo for Wimbledon with this alteration might have an unintended consequence of allowing the defence if the person used a ticket that had already been used regardless of if this was deliberate or not.
I promised I would raise this with the Home Office legal advisers and the office for Parliamentary Counsel, I did. They confirmed that the person attempting to reuse a ticket could not be said to reasonably believe that they possessed a valid authorisation to enter, meaning that the statutory defence under section 1A subsection 3B does not apply. The court is lucky to interpreted as saying a person is not eligible to reuse previously used ticket, system intending to prevent unauthorised access to football stadiums.
I thank the Home Office legal advisers in the office of Parliament and Council for their help in clarifying. A final point I would like to address is why this bill deals with football matches specifically. Of course the danger posed by overcrowding is not limited to football and is prevalent in other highly attended sporting and entertainment events. But given that this Bill is being introduced through the mechanism of the Private Members' Bill, in many instances, as we have heard, it is best to limit it in nature fitted to successfully change the law within a prescribed timeframe.
I have visited Wembley to watch the Carabao Cup final with the Minister for Policing and Crime Act prevention. Here we witnessed tailgating taking place. When I spoke to staff and the police they suggested that football specifically was an event at which unauthorised end regularly happens and poses a serious risk at the most competitive games. In light of the upcoming Euros which I'm glad to say is being jointly hosted by the UK and Ireland, it is necessary that legislation to protect fans passes as soon as possible so it can come into effect and be a proper deterrence before then.
And if past, my bill guarantees that will happen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm going to make some progress. Staff at Wembley did also have some concerns about upcoming sold-out music events. It is clear that unauthorised entry and overcrowding unauthorised entry and overcrowding posed security and safety risks beyond football alone. I hope Parliament may consider legislation Parliament may consider legislation that expands the logic of this bill to address these other areas including music and sports event on another occasion. Thank you Madam
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Deputy Speaker. The question is that the bill be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the bill be read 1/3 time. Continue. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am really pleased to support this am really pleased to support this bill. A lot of the things I was bill. A lot of the things I was wanting to say have been highlighted by my honourable Friend for Amber by my honourable Friend for Amber Valley. It has been quite clear that there is an issue. The honourable there is an issue. The honourable member for Christchurch asked why member for Christchurch asked why was important.
I'm going to say why for me this is personal. On 2 January On 2 January 1971, eight teenage boys from the village where I grew up travelled to Glasgow to watch a game. They walked together to get on the respective supporters buses. Five of them going on that Rangers bus, three of them going on the Celtic bus. Only three of them came home. 66 people lost their
My bill aims to rectify this. It inserts a new specific offence into the offences act of 1991, namely attempting or attempting to enter a designated football match in England and without a ticket where the person is eligible to use that. The offence itself is summary only. It carries a maximum sentence of £1000 fine. It can only be tried in the Magistrate's Court which will help with the big core backlog, and a conviction is likely to lead to a court imposed foot or banning order preventing the person in question from attending matches between three and five years.
There is a potential prison sentence for banning order is breached. The offence and the banning order in particular is intended to act as the long-term deterrent that Baroness Casey identified a need for in her report. If passed, the bill would apply to matches set out in orders made under the section 1 of the football offences act of 1991. As it stands, those are matches in the Premier League, the championships Lee, Leagues one and two, the woman super league, the woman super league to previously call the championship, the Premier League and international fixtures held in England and Wales.
After I did an interview with radio Derby about this, I was touched to hear from my friend and Amber Valley longest councillor John McCabe who is incidentally one of the longest suffering Nottingham Forest football club fans. John has sadly passed away since he left me a voicemail message that morning and I still have that message. He opened with his characteristic greeting, a Upland's before then talking about unauthorised entry in his youth saying well done, it has been happening for years.
It used to happen when I was about 11. They used to say lift him over he'll be all right. But it's been happening for years that, Lindsay. John's well done sticks with me and his words and reflections are witnessing unauthorised entry aged 11 only further demonstrates a long-standing need for the kind of reform that this bill proposes. I will now turn to some questions and queries that were put to me throughout the bills various stages. The bill uses the word premises instead of stadium.
This is to allow for arrest to be made for people going through the first Gordon where a ticket would need to be displayed, preventing The challenge to illegally provide entry to matches, and Irish thank the honourable Member and assure him this will be captured by section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a provision which covers the unauthorised resale of match tickets, Connolly referred to as ticket touting. A second point was raised during committee by the honourable member for Wimbledon.
He asked about the changed wording of section 1A subsection 3 of the bill. This bill outlines proposed possible This bill outlines proposed possible defences. Paragraph B of my bill, of my version of the bill has been edited so it covers a case in which a person reasonably believed they had, but did not in fact have, a match ticket for the match. It is to ensure that a person who innocently buys a counterfeit ticket is not criminalised under this offence.
It is specifically about fan safety of preventing overcrowding. As before the defence also applies in relation the defence also applies in relation to a person using a genuine ticket they are not eligible to use, for example adult using a child ticket. Because they have a reserved seat in the stadium already, safety would not be an issue with respect to overcrowding. The bill is about safety and safeguarding of football fans not about penalising genuine supporters. The honourable memo for Wimbledon with this alteration might have an unintended consequence of allowing the defence if the person used a ticket that had already been used regardless of if this was deliberate or not.
I promised I would raise this with the Home Office legal advisers and the office for Parliamentary Counsel, I did. They confirmed that the person attempting to reuse a ticket could not be said to reasonably believe that they possessed a valid authorisation to enter, meaning that the statutory defence under section 1A subsection 3B does not apply. The court is lucky to interpreted as saying a person is not eligible to reuse previously used ticket, system intending to prevent unauthorised access to football stadiums.
I thank the Home Office legal advisers in the office of Parliament and Council for their help in clarifying. A final point I would like to address is why this bill deals with football matches specifically. Of course the danger posed by overcrowding is not limited to football and is prevalent in other highly attended sporting and entertainment events. But given that this Bill is being introduced through the mechanism of the Private Members' Bill, in many instances, as we have heard, it is best to limit it in nature fitted to successfully change the law within a prescribed timeframe.
I have visited Wembley to watch the Carabao Cup final with the Minister for Policing and Crime Act prevention. Here we witnessed tailgating taking place. When I spoke to staff and the police they suggested that football specifically was an event at which unauthorised end regularly happens and poses a serious risk at the most competitive games. In light of the upcoming Euros which I'm glad to say is being jointly hosted by the UK and Ireland, it is necessary that legislation to protect fans passes as soon as possible so it can come into effect and be a proper deterrence before then.
And if past, my bill guarantees that will happen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm going to make some progress. Staff at Wembley did also have some concerns about upcoming sold-out music events. It is clear that unauthorised entry and overcrowding unauthorised entry and overcrowding posed security and safety risks beyond football alone. I hope Parliament may consider legislation Parliament may consider legislation that expands the logic of this bill to address these other areas including music and sports event on another occasion. Thank you Madam
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Deputy Speaker. The question is that the bill be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the bill be read 1/3 time. Continue. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am really pleased to support this am really pleased to support this bill. A lot of the things I was bill. A lot of the things I was wanting to say have been highlighted by my honourable Friend for Amber by my honourable Friend for Amber Valley. It has been quite clear that there is an issue. The honourable there is an issue. The honourable member for Christchurch asked why member for Christchurch asked why was important.
I'm going to say why for me this is personal. On 2 January On 2 January 1971, eight teenage boys from the village where I grew up travelled to Glasgow to watch a game. They walked together to get on the respective supporters buses. Five of them going on that Rangers bus, three of them going on the Celtic bus. Only three of them came home. 66 people lost their
10:52
Katrina Murray MP (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Labour)
-
-
Katrina Murray MP (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Labour)
lives that day in a tragic crash. Just like Hillsborough years later, Just like Hillsborough years later, the trauma of that event is still there, the grief never truly left. For the families, for the For the families, for the communities, or for those who were there. The names, Ronald Peyton, there. The names, Ronald Peyton, Brian Todd, Mason felt, Douglas Brian Todd, Mason felt, Douglas Morrison 15, Peter Easton, only 13, these were names I grew up with. There lives were lost and remembered There lives were lost and remembered by friends who came home that day who have dedicated their lives to this cause and to remembering them.
this cause and to remembering them. Those tragedies teach us a painful lesson, stadium crashes don't start lesson, stadium crashes don't start as disasters. They begin as overcrowding, begin as bottlenecks, overcrowding, begin as bottlenecks, and poor control at points of entry and exit. The bill won't change the and exit. The bill won't change the past but it can prevent future past but it can prevent future risks. We can make the future what we wanted to be, fun. About whether your team does well, your team does your team does well, your team does badly, something to talk about with your pals, something to become a part of life.
But we need to make sure that we do keep say. This is about fairness. Most fans do exactly the right thing, they queue, they pay, they have their tiny bags which means they are not taking things in. They deserve a system that does not reward those who flout the rules. Stewards often low-paid and young deserve to do the job without being put at risk by hundreds of people surging in unlawfully. This bill is not heavy-handed, it is proportionate and focused.
I thank my friend from Amber Valley for bringing this forward. And allowing me in this chamber to represent, to record the names of those my community have lost. And hope that no other community has to go through that pain. that pain.
this cause and to remembering them. Those tragedies teach us a painful lesson, stadium crashes don't start lesson, stadium crashes don't start as disasters. They begin as overcrowding, begin as bottlenecks, overcrowding, begin as bottlenecks, and poor control at points of entry and exit. The bill won't change the and exit. The bill won't change the past but it can prevent future past but it can prevent future risks. We can make the future what we wanted to be, fun. About whether your team does well, your team does your team does well, your team does badly, something to talk about with your pals, something to become a part of life.
But we need to make sure that we do keep say. This is about fairness. Most fans do exactly the right thing, they queue, they pay, they have their tiny bags which means they are not taking things in. They deserve a system that does not reward those who flout the rules. Stewards often low-paid and young deserve to do the job without being put at risk by hundreds of people surging in unlawfully. This bill is not heavy-handed, it is proportionate and focused.
I thank my friend from Amber Valley for bringing this forward. And allowing me in this chamber to represent, to record the names of those my community have lost. And hope that no other community has to go through that pain. that pain.
10:53
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
Forgive me sorry, was about to say people hoping to contribute they need to Bob throughout. So Christopher Chope.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This bill is an your chairmanship. This bill is an improvement on its predecessor. And I give credit to the honourable lady for that. Because it actually does allow the defence to which she was referring in her earlier remarks. referring in her earlier remarks. And so it is better. I regret that she did not accept the amendment in she did not accept the amendment in relation to removing the attempt issues from it.
I must say, I was issues from it. I must say, I was alarmed when she said that she hoped the provisions in this bill would be the provisions in this bill would be replicated more widely in other bills. In relation to Wimbledon, I asked the question. Relation to asked the question. Relation to Twickenham. It seems to me that the mischief which is being addressed in this bill is one which is peculiar this bill is one which is peculiar to football supporters, soccer supporters.
And I think that the supporters. And I think that the suggestion that we need to go more widely and deal with this type of widely and deal with this type of hooligan behaviour, I declare an interest as a debenture holder at Twickenham, I've never experienced the sort of problems to which the honourable Lady was referring. When I was at university, I remember the first football match I ever went to was in Dundee United. I stood on the terraces, and I did not feel any danger inside the ground.
The danger in Dundee was outside the ground after the event. And then when I had the privilege of representing Southampton Itchen, I was frequently Southampton Itchen, I was frequently a visitor to the Dell, and I did not see any problems there. There were problems associated with the need to ensure there was crowd control, and the football club paid dearly for the costs of police being brought in to enable that to happen. That seems to be a very sensible arrangement, the burden of policing at soccer matches was not just born by the local constabulary and their taxpayers, but also by the club itself.
When we go back to the Wembley incident which prompted this bill in the first place, what we are talking about is essentially, it was, as Baroness Casey's report makes clear, it was a one-off incident caused by a set of different circumstances including of course the fact that we were still during a period of Covid which meant there was severe restriction on the number of people who could attend such matches. And there were also other problems created around the absence of experienced stewards etc.
I remember asking the honourable Lady why the provisions of this bill were not going to be included in the Football Governance Bill that was going to be discussed this week, and she said that although the provisions could have been included in that bill, because of her legal experience, she particularly wanted to have a bill on the statute book in her name. I hope that in the end those dreams will be fulfilled. And that is a very important matter for her.
As far as I'm concerned, I have got reservations about how this is going to work in practice. And I'm concerned about the unintended consequences for the police. If there is a sort of incident to that which took place at Wembley, how are we going to be able to arrest all those people and obviously every time someone is arrested by the police, the policeman has to take the person away, and it means that they are then no longer able to police the ground.
I fear that what'll happen with this bill is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but where there is a problem of mass trespass they won't be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it. So we get a situation similar to that which we have when people witnessing in supermarkets blatant shoplifting, and a failure of the police and the security people to take any action because they choose not to do so.
As my right honourable friend will say in the early debates, there is a danger that bringing the law into these areas will result in disappointment and bringing the law, as a result of that, into disrepute. All these laws on the statute book, then we can't actually do anything about them. I refer to the Home Office, every day you find Home Office is unable to fulfil its existing responsibilities let alone new ones which are placed on it as a result of this legislation.
The Home Office most recently has revealed that it is unable to even record the number of people who have entered this country but have then left. Because that is obviously the way to find out whether people who come in on visas are complying with those visas. The way to find out is to check the visa records when the people leave. The Home Office can't even deal with that and yet here we are talking about extending the role in the belief that some magic piece of new legislation will be able to control and authorise to stadium when The Home Office can't even control the borders of our own country.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am extremely sceptical about this piece of legislation. I think it is a pity in a sense that the private members process is giving rise to this sort of legislation which is, use the expression, trivial early on, and it is relatively trivial. Compared with all the other problems with which this country is faced, and which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Correct me if I'm wrong but if the honourable gentleman is saying the honourable gentleman is saying that the safety of those attending these football matches and the likelihood of them being hurt and killed, is it a trivial matter?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
killed, is it a trivial matter? There are already laws against killing people at football matches. killing people at football matches. There are laws against criminal damage and violent behaviour. The damage and violent behaviour. The honourable lady seems to think that just because there was an incident just because there was an incident in 2021 at Wembley, which was covered that the issue of covered that the issue of tailgating, that the incident of tailgating was not the only problem.
The problem was that there were lots The problem was that there were lots of drunken behaviour, the honourable lady are shaking her head, but that lady are shaking her head, but that is in her report. She finds that there was a lot of drunken behaviour and evidence of drugtaking. Those are criminal offences. And the expression on her face makes it seem as though she believes that Baroness Casey's findings were incorrect or that she has some other reason for disagreeing with that, so I think that the idea that we are bringing criminal law into this narrow and specific field when there are already a host of other criminal offences dealing with covering these issues, I think that is the wrong way forward, but I am obviously in a minority on that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, a discussion should not be taking place while colleagues are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seated. The gentleman says he has no interest in this bill but then he interest in this bill but then he doesn't have to attend, but I had nothing else to add. I was just thinking that the gentleman was seeking to intervene, but he wasn't. seeking to intervene, but he wasn't. He was wanting to make some He was wanting to make some sedentary remark. So, all I will say
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This bill is an your chairmanship. This bill is an improvement on its predecessor. And I give credit to the honourable lady for that. Because it actually does allow the defence to which she was referring in her earlier remarks. referring in her earlier remarks. And so it is better. I regret that she did not accept the amendment in she did not accept the amendment in relation to removing the attempt issues from it.
I must say, I was issues from it. I must say, I was alarmed when she said that she hoped the provisions in this bill would be the provisions in this bill would be replicated more widely in other bills. In relation to Wimbledon, I asked the question. Relation to asked the question. Relation to Twickenham. It seems to me that the mischief which is being addressed in this bill is one which is peculiar this bill is one which is peculiar to football supporters, soccer supporters.
And I think that the supporters. And I think that the suggestion that we need to go more widely and deal with this type of widely and deal with this type of hooligan behaviour, I declare an interest as a debenture holder at Twickenham, I've never experienced the sort of problems to which the honourable Lady was referring. When I was at university, I remember the first football match I ever went to was in Dundee United. I stood on the terraces, and I did not feel any danger inside the ground.
The danger in Dundee was outside the ground after the event. And then when I had the privilege of representing Southampton Itchen, I was frequently Southampton Itchen, I was frequently a visitor to the Dell, and I did not see any problems there. There were problems associated with the need to ensure there was crowd control, and the football club paid dearly for the costs of police being brought in to enable that to happen. That seems to be a very sensible arrangement, the burden of policing at soccer matches was not just born by the local constabulary and their taxpayers, but also by the club itself.
When we go back to the Wembley incident which prompted this bill in the first place, what we are talking about is essentially, it was, as Baroness Casey's report makes clear, it was a one-off incident caused by a set of different circumstances including of course the fact that we were still during a period of Covid which meant there was severe restriction on the number of people who could attend such matches. And there were also other problems created around the absence of experienced stewards etc.
I remember asking the honourable Lady why the provisions of this bill were not going to be included in the Football Governance Bill that was going to be discussed this week, and she said that although the provisions could have been included in that bill, because of her legal experience, she particularly wanted to have a bill on the statute book in her name. I hope that in the end those dreams will be fulfilled. And that is a very important matter for her.
As far as I'm concerned, I have got reservations about how this is going to work in practice. And I'm concerned about the unintended consequences for the police. If there is a sort of incident to that which took place at Wembley, how are we going to be able to arrest all those people and obviously every time someone is arrested by the police, the policeman has to take the person away, and it means that they are then no longer able to police the ground.
I fear that what'll happen with this bill is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but where there is a problem of mass trespass they won't be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it. So we get a situation similar to that which we have when people witnessing in supermarkets blatant shoplifting, and a failure of the police and the security people to take any action because they choose not to do so.
As my right honourable friend will say in the early debates, there is a danger that bringing the law into these areas will result in disappointment and bringing the law, as a result of that, into disrepute. All these laws on the statute book, then we can't actually do anything about them. I refer to the Home Office, every day you find Home Office is unable to fulfil its existing responsibilities let alone new ones which are placed on it as a result of this legislation.
The Home Office most recently has revealed that it is unable to even record the number of people who have entered this country but have then left. Because that is obviously the way to find out whether people who come in on visas are complying with those visas. The way to find out is to check the visa records when the people leave. The Home Office can't even deal with that and yet here we are talking about extending the role in the belief that some magic piece of new legislation will be able to control and authorise to stadium when The Home Office can't even control the borders of our own country.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am extremely sceptical about this piece of legislation. I think it is a pity in a sense that the private members process is giving rise to this sort of legislation which is, use the expression, trivial early on, and it is relatively trivial. Compared with all the other problems with which this country is faced, and which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Correct me if I'm wrong but if the honourable gentleman is saying the honourable gentleman is saying that the safety of those attending these football matches and the likelihood of them being hurt and killed, is it a trivial matter?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
killed, is it a trivial matter? There are already laws against killing people at football matches. killing people at football matches. There are laws against criminal damage and violent behaviour. The damage and violent behaviour. The honourable lady seems to think that just because there was an incident just because there was an incident in 2021 at Wembley, which was covered that the issue of covered that the issue of tailgating, that the incident of tailgating was not the only problem.
The problem was that there were lots The problem was that there were lots of drunken behaviour, the honourable lady are shaking her head, but that lady are shaking her head, but that is in her report. She finds that there was a lot of drunken behaviour and evidence of drugtaking. Those are criminal offences. And the expression on her face makes it seem as though she believes that Baroness Casey's findings were incorrect or that she has some other reason for disagreeing with that, so I think that the idea that we are bringing criminal law into this narrow and specific field when there are already a host of other criminal offences dealing with covering these issues, I think that is the wrong way forward, but I am obviously in a minority on that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, a discussion should not be taking place while colleagues are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seated. The gentleman says he has no interest in this bill but then he interest in this bill but then he doesn't have to attend, but I had nothing else to add. I was just thinking that the gentleman was seeking to intervene, but he wasn't. seeking to intervene, but he wasn't. He was wanting to make some He was wanting to make some sedentary remark. So, all I will say
11:03
Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
sedentary remark. So, all I will say is that I will put on record my opposition and scepticism about the contents of this bill but leave it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at that. Thank you. I thank the member for Amber Valley for bringing this Amber Valley for bringing this forward. The Euro 2020 final was a rollercoaster of ecstasy and disappointment though I appreciate that certain members from other parts of the UK may have felt a parts of the UK may have felt a little less devastated at the result. Beyond heartbreak on the result. Beyond heartbreak on the pitch, the final was a day that nearly ended in catastrophe. Thousands of ticketless fans force Thousands of ticketless fans force their way into Wembley creating chaotic and dangerous scenes.
When disaster are so narrowly avoided, it disaster are so narrowly avoided, it is reasonable to find if anyone made a mistake. Sadly this was not a one-off incident. Tailgating was one-off incident. Tailgating was reported at the 2024 champions final and the 2025 league cup final as we had from the member from Amber had from the member from Amber Valley. 91 arrests were made and 68 Valley. 91 arrests were made and 68 were released into fraud, people trying to get in without a ticket. And we had a member about an And we had a member about an upsetting and fatal day.
These incidents put genuine fans at risk and erode the trust that is necessary to police events of this necessary to police events of this scale. Many people in this country, a trip to the football is the highlight of the year. For many families, it is a hard and act, something they scrimp and save for. What must they think they see people jumped the barriers and get in for free. They must think that they are the mugs for following the rules in the first place.
It is therefore right that we give police and organisers the tools they need, not just remove people in the moment but to prevent repeat offences through banning orders. This bill is on steps taken by the previous government which saw drugtaking take place resulting in stadium bans. I welcome the focus on intent. The offences are thorough and I hope we can confirm that we will be looking at deliberate entry and will not affect fans responsibly passing on spare tickets. Targeted commonsense enforcement is the right approach to tackling this kind of disorder.
We will support the introduction. In this case, the FA seem to support the introduction of tailgating. But I would like to stress that all too often, we do not make enough use of existing powers, and if I understood the sentiment, the laws introduced in this place are often improperly enforced. Following the 68 arrests that I mentioned earlier, not a single person has been charged. Even if a bespoke arrest is introduced, it will make little different and less the Crown Prosecution Service are willing and able to secure convictions.
We must support them in doing so and taking other steps such as cooperating with stadium bans. More broadly, I think that many of us are concerned by the erosion of the social contract. Across society, we are witnessing a disregard for law and order and standards of behaviour. Whether that is people pushing through ticket barriers on pushing through ticket barriers on the tube, or my right honourable friend from Croydon South highlighting migrants working illegally, the principle is the same.
Laws apply to everyone although only apply to those of us who are good enough to stick to them, which is deeply unfair. If we don't take action to withhold those standards, public confidence inevitably suffers. The starting point must be the starting of our existing laws and we must give full support to institutions like the FA as they take steps to improve standards. In light of all this, we are pleased to A our continued support for the Private Member's Bill, and I thank the member from Amber Valley for bringing it forward.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Can I start by warmly commending my honourable friend from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at that. Thank you. I thank the member for Amber Valley for bringing this Amber Valley for bringing this forward. The Euro 2020 final was a rollercoaster of ecstasy and disappointment though I appreciate that certain members from other parts of the UK may have felt a parts of the UK may have felt a little less devastated at the result. Beyond heartbreak on the result. Beyond heartbreak on the pitch, the final was a day that nearly ended in catastrophe. Thousands of ticketless fans force Thousands of ticketless fans force their way into Wembley creating chaotic and dangerous scenes.
When disaster are so narrowly avoided, it disaster are so narrowly avoided, it is reasonable to find if anyone made a mistake. Sadly this was not a one-off incident. Tailgating was one-off incident. Tailgating was reported at the 2024 champions final and the 2025 league cup final as we had from the member from Amber had from the member from Amber Valley. 91 arrests were made and 68 Valley. 91 arrests were made and 68 were released into fraud, people trying to get in without a ticket. And we had a member about an And we had a member about an upsetting and fatal day.
These incidents put genuine fans at risk and erode the trust that is necessary to police events of this necessary to police events of this scale. Many people in this country, a trip to the football is the highlight of the year. For many families, it is a hard and act, something they scrimp and save for. What must they think they see people jumped the barriers and get in for free. They must think that they are the mugs for following the rules in the first place.
It is therefore right that we give police and organisers the tools they need, not just remove people in the moment but to prevent repeat offences through banning orders. This bill is on steps taken by the previous government which saw drugtaking take place resulting in stadium bans. I welcome the focus on intent. The offences are thorough and I hope we can confirm that we will be looking at deliberate entry and will not affect fans responsibly passing on spare tickets. Targeted commonsense enforcement is the right approach to tackling this kind of disorder.
We will support the introduction. In this case, the FA seem to support the introduction of tailgating. But I would like to stress that all too often, we do not make enough use of existing powers, and if I understood the sentiment, the laws introduced in this place are often improperly enforced. Following the 68 arrests that I mentioned earlier, not a single person has been charged. Even if a bespoke arrest is introduced, it will make little different and less the Crown Prosecution Service are willing and able to secure convictions.
We must support them in doing so and taking other steps such as cooperating with stadium bans. More broadly, I think that many of us are concerned by the erosion of the social contract. Across society, we are witnessing a disregard for law and order and standards of behaviour. Whether that is people pushing through ticket barriers on pushing through ticket barriers on the tube, or my right honourable friend from Croydon South highlighting migrants working illegally, the principle is the same.
Laws apply to everyone although only apply to those of us who are good enough to stick to them, which is deeply unfair. If we don't take action to withhold those standards, public confidence inevitably suffers. The starting point must be the starting of our existing laws and we must give full support to institutions like the FA as they take steps to improve standards. In light of all this, we are pleased to A our continued support for the Private Member's Bill, and I thank the member from Amber Valley for bringing it forward.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Can I start by warmly commending my honourable friend from
11:07
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
Amber Valley for bringing forward this Private Member's Bill. As a lifelong football supporter, she has made a powerful case for her bill and I congratulate her on securing support from across the house, and I thank all those members who contributed today, and in particular, the honourable member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch who spoke very movingly about her own experiences. My honourable friend spoke about the rich history of football, and this bill addresses a clear and pressing issue. The growing problem of unauthorised access to football matches, particularly at high profile fixtures.
It does so by creating a new football specific offence of unauthorised entry to designated matches. It captures a wide-ranging behaviours from tailgating and forced entry to the use of forged documents or impersonation of match day staff. Crucially, it also enables courts to impose football banning orders on conviction, providing a strong deterrent and a vital tool to prevent repeat offending and to protect public safety. The bill responds directly to recommendations of the independent review into the serious disorder at the Euro 2020 final where thousands of ticketless individuals gained access to Wembley Stadium, many through force entry or tailgating.
Let me be clear that this is a rear occurring problem. We saw further evidence of this in the 2024 UEFA championship final at Wembley where groups of ticketless fans made repeated attempts to breach security. Similar behaviour is also seen at Premier League matches, particularly where allocations are limited. This is a wider pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed. Such behaviour is not only selfish and dishonest but it is also fundamentally dangerous. Places enormous strain on stadium security, creates risks to public safety and undermines the experience of law- abiding fans.
The government is clear that this cannot and will not Those involved are often aggressive, violent or threatening, and their actions can lead to overcrowding, blocked emergency exits and frightening conditions for innocent fans. In some cases, individuals have even attempt to bribe stewards or turnstile operators to gain access. This will be captured by the new offences. The offence will also apply to those who knowingly use a ticket with a physical or digital that has already been used.
Let me be clear that this is not about criminalising honest mistakes or punishing fans who have been misled. The bill includes important safeguards to ensure that individuals with lawful authority such as emergency workers or stadium staff are not caught by the offence, nor will it apply to those who unwittingly purchased counterfeit tickets in good faith or breach the terms and conditions of a legitimate ticket. That was a point referred to by the father of the house, and also by the shadow minister, and I agree with the points made about enforcement.
So, this is a proportionate targeted and necessary measure. It reflects the unique public order challenges associated with football which are not seen to the same extent in other sports or events. It is also consistent with the broader framework of the football offences act of 1991 and the football spectators act of 1989. The bill has enjoyed cross-party support throughout its passage, and rightly so. It is a fan friendly measure that protects the vast majority of decent supporters from the actions of a disruptive minority.
It will help ensure that football remains a safe, welcoming environment for all. I would like to thank my honourable friend for her excellent work on this bill, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
commend it to the house. With the leave of the house, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
call Lindsay farmers to wind up. I would like to associate myself
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to associate myself with the tribute to the victims of Ibrox that was so movingly given by Ibrox that was so movingly given by the member from Kirk and old. There are many people I would like to thank for helping the build get to thank for helping the build get to this stage, but first, I would like to speak about football, vice captain, much loved daughter and sister who lived in my constituency in hoarsely and passed away tragically in September 2023.
I
It does so by creating a new football specific offence of unauthorised entry to designated matches. It captures a wide-ranging behaviours from tailgating and forced entry to the use of forged documents or impersonation of match day staff. Crucially, it also enables courts to impose football banning orders on conviction, providing a strong deterrent and a vital tool to prevent repeat offending and to protect public safety. The bill responds directly to recommendations of the independent review into the serious disorder at the Euro 2020 final where thousands of ticketless individuals gained access to Wembley Stadium, many through force entry or tailgating.
Let me be clear that this is a rear occurring problem. We saw further evidence of this in the 2024 UEFA championship final at Wembley where groups of ticketless fans made repeated attempts to breach security. Similar behaviour is also seen at Premier League matches, particularly where allocations are limited. This is a wider pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed. Such behaviour is not only selfish and dishonest but it is also fundamentally dangerous. Places enormous strain on stadium security, creates risks to public safety and undermines the experience of law- abiding fans.
The government is clear that this cannot and will not Those involved are often aggressive, violent or threatening, and their actions can lead to overcrowding, blocked emergency exits and frightening conditions for innocent fans. In some cases, individuals have even attempt to bribe stewards or turnstile operators to gain access. This will be captured by the new offences. The offence will also apply to those who knowingly use a ticket with a physical or digital that has already been used.
Let me be clear that this is not about criminalising honest mistakes or punishing fans who have been misled. The bill includes important safeguards to ensure that individuals with lawful authority such as emergency workers or stadium staff are not caught by the offence, nor will it apply to those who unwittingly purchased counterfeit tickets in good faith or breach the terms and conditions of a legitimate ticket. That was a point referred to by the father of the house, and also by the shadow minister, and I agree with the points made about enforcement.
So, this is a proportionate targeted and necessary measure. It reflects the unique public order challenges associated with football which are not seen to the same extent in other sports or events. It is also consistent with the broader framework of the football offences act of 1991 and the football spectators act of 1989. The bill has enjoyed cross-party support throughout its passage, and rightly so. It is a fan friendly measure that protects the vast majority of decent supporters from the actions of a disruptive minority.
It will help ensure that football remains a safe, welcoming environment for all. I would like to thank my honourable friend for her excellent work on this bill, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
commend it to the house. With the leave of the house, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
call Lindsay farmers to wind up. I would like to associate myself
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to associate myself with the tribute to the victims of Ibrox that was so movingly given by Ibrox that was so movingly given by the member from Kirk and old. There are many people I would like to thank for helping the build get to thank for helping the build get to this stage, but first, I would like to speak about football, vice captain, much loved daughter and sister who lived in my constituency in hoarsely and passed away tragically in September 2023.
I
11:12
Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
-
-
Linsey Farnsworth MP (Amber Valley, Labour)
tragically in September 2023. I dedicate this bill to her with the knowledge that she would approve of its contents given her love for the game and the safety of the fans who came to watch her light up the pitch week in and week out. Maggie Q sack foundation has been setup in her honour the aim of continuing her legacy. The foundation has done wonderful work providing opportunities and inspiring young girls and women in football, including sponsoring local teams to ensure that the next generation of footballers are equipped to face the world in the fierce, determined and spirited manner that Maddy did.
I encourage members to look at the work that the foundation is doing. I would like to thank the Football Association of Wales who have supported this bill. The Clarkson civil servants who helped draft the bill and offered support throughout the process, the members who took the bill through the Committee stage, and my friends from Hartlepool who co-sponsored the bill. Of course, Baroness Casey for her important work that she has done around fans safety, and to my staff who includes support.
I must extend my thanks also to Lord Brennan who is the original sponsor of the bill that his work has been invaluable. Football is a game of two halves. And at the risk of creating an overstretched analogy, I believe that it is fitting that the second half of this bill and its journey should be played out by Lord Brennan's capable guidance or captaincy in the other place, and should it pass today, I will happily
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pass the armband. The question is that the bill now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the bill now be read 1/3 time. The aye have it. I be read 1/3 time. The aye have it. I will give the frontbenchers a few
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give the frontbenchers a few Cancers bill to be considered.
I encourage members to look at the work that the foundation is doing. I would like to thank the Football Association of Wales who have supported this bill. The Clarkson civil servants who helped draft the bill and offered support throughout the process, the members who took the bill through the Committee stage, and my friends from Hartlepool who co-sponsored the bill. Of course, Baroness Casey for her important work that she has done around fans safety, and to my staff who includes support.
I must extend my thanks also to Lord Brennan who is the original sponsor of the bill that his work has been invaluable. Football is a game of two halves. And at the risk of creating an overstretched analogy, I believe that it is fitting that the second half of this bill and its journey should be played out by Lord Brennan's capable guidance or captaincy in the other place, and should it pass today, I will happily
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pass the armband. The question is that the bill now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the bill now be read 1/3 time. The aye have it. I be read 1/3 time. The aye have it. I will give the frontbenchers a few
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will give the frontbenchers a few Cancers bill to be considered.
11:15
Private Members' Bills: Rare Cancers Bill: Remaining Stages
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cancers bill to be considered. We start with Amendment one with which it will be convenient to which it will be convenient to
Private Members' Bills: Rare Cancers Bill: Remaining Stages
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cancers bill to be considered. We start with Amendment one with which it will be convenient to which it will be convenient to
11:15
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
consider all other amendments. I beg to move Amendment one, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move Amendment one, and this bill is certainly not a trivial bill. It is a really important piece bill. It is a really important piece of legislation and I congratulate the honourable gentleman on bringing it forward and for pioneering it, and this was not a government and this was not a government handout but something that he thought needed to be the subject of thought needed to be the subject of legislation and he has pursued it and we had a fantastic second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
consider all other amendments. I beg to move Amendment one, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move Amendment one, and this bill is certainly not a trivial bill. It is a really important piece bill. It is a really important piece of legislation and I congratulate the honourable gentleman on bringing it forward and for pioneering it, and this was not a government and this was not a government handout but something that he thought needed to be the subject of thought needed to be the subject of legislation and he has pursued it and we had a fantastic second
11:15
Amdt:1
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
Amdt:1
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
and we had a fantastic second reading debate on this, and there is Can I make it clear at the outset that my amendments are designed to try and strengthen the bill rather than anything else. Talking to the honourable gentleman whose bill it is yesterday, I explained my position. And he understandably said, he is to a large extent constrained because he was trying to negotiate with the government and with the Department of Health, and unless he showed himself to be reasonably compliant he was not going to get a bill into a statement could be accepted by the government.
I note the difference between his position, I fully understand and respect it, and I think the member for Mitcham and Morden has basically said if she had a bill like this, she would have got so steamed up about it, she would have included it a lot more strength and safeguards than there are at the moment. And probably the consequence would have been it would not have got anywhere near being considered at report stage in this House. There are these two different approaches.
Because I am relatively speaking a neutral on this, a sympathetic supporter, I have got a lot of background experience of how the government always tries to give itself wriggle room and to effectively maintain control over everything. A bill like this can be, in my view, could be improved by being amended by the will of the House at this stage, at report. Obviously we can sit and talk about these amendments and other amendments I put forward being taken forward into the House of Lords.
But the trouble then is that the government machine says there won't be any more sitting Fridays here in this house, and therefore if the bill was to be amended in the other place, it might fall completely because it would need to be brought back here. It is a reason why it is important that we as a House should consider these amendments now rather than leave amendments now rather than leave them to the other place. Turning to the first amendment, which is clause 1 page 1, it is obviously to be read with amendments to, which is to insert after and, "Set out a timetable for implementing any changes in the law recommended by the review.
" This in a sense is a prime example of the point I was making earlier stop we have got a commitment by the government. The secular state must carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for medicinal products, for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of cancer. Great. And prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review. What is the timescale for that? And what is going to happen after those conclusions are produced? There is no obligation on the government to do anything else.
The review and its conclusions can be left on one side. We in this House are in 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 this amendment, or these two amendments. Looking at another gap which could be exploited by the government, which says that the report must be published before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this act is passed.
I would put an amendment in to say two years. In respect of both of those points, I have had a very helpful email from Diana jupp from the pancreatic cancer organisations she writes on behalf of more than 30 charities representing patients affected by rare and less common cancers. She is commenting on my amendments, I will talk about her comment in relation to what I'm addressing at the moment. She says in relation to my amendment to add in a timetable for implementation changes in the law recommended by the review.
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 her, we can do this now, this House could, instead of leaving it to her and her colleagues to try and pressurise the department later, we in this House have the power to change this 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.
On the issue of the timeline, in response to my amendment, she says 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. The most important part of her comment is this timeline is being agreed with the Department. If this timeline had not been agreed with the Department, the Department and the Minister would not have taken the bill forward in this way, and agreed to it.
Can I, in relation to that timeline, just draw the attention of that House to what is said in the evidence base set out in the impact assessment. What it says there is that the whole process, that process is going to take one year. They reckon it will cost £130,000, and they set out how many civil servants or full-time equivalent will be involved in it. It will take one year. If it will only take one year, why are we saying that it needs to have three years? And that is an example in my view of why we need to tighten this bill up because if this is a review that needs to be carried out, then why don't we get on with it? To suggest that it is going to take longer than a year is to go against the Department's own evidence as set out in the impact assessment.
I am going to quote directly from that because it says, this is on page 6 of the impact assessment. " Mandating a government review of the Galatians, this will place a duty on the government to publish a review which will be a comparison of the regulations, specifically part five of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 top and the international approach to supporting the research and development of medicinal products. " Since the review is concerned with drug regulations, it is by default covering rare cancers.
The findings should be published within three years. Of course that is what the bill says. But then on the next page, page 7, paragraph 19, on financial costs, it says, "It is difficult to estimate resource and costs required for the orphan drug review, since the exact scope remains to be agreed. But 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 £14,000 in relation to staff.
" This reflects the cost of 0.3 multiplied by an SCS staff, 0.3 grade 7 staff and 0.5 SCO staff for one year. That is what the government is saying is going to be necessary. Only one year. In that case, why is my very generous amendment to limit that from three years, restricted from three years to two years, why is that unacceptable to the government? There is a history of the dragging of feet in the Department of Health I'm afraid.
We have heard about that certainly at second reading. I give that House this specific example as to why, on the government's own evidence that they should be accepting from three years to two. And to leave out in line 7, in particular, in carrying out the review, secretary of state must consider regulatory approaches in other countries. That is more in the form of a probing amendment rather than anything else. Why do we need to have the words in particular incorporated in this? Surely it would be much simpler to say the secretary of state must consider regulatory approaches in other countries.
But that is not how it is at the moment. So turning to amendment five, clause two, page two, line 3, I am suggesting that we should leave out the reference to the Secretary of State. This is all to do with that definition of what to do with that definition of what is a rare cancer. The current provision says, the research that the secretary of state must facilitate or otherwise promote includes research into cancers that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are rare cancers.
Why can't we just say, that are rare cancers? Indeed, in the same clause in the bill, clause two, four, in this section it says rare cancer is a cancer that affects not more than one in 2000 people in the United Kingdom. It is an issue of fact. It is not something where the Secretary of State should basically be able to have a veto over the interpretation of what is or is not a rare cancer. This is another example of the control freak are within the department.
I am sorry that the Minister so far does not seem able to have stood up to officials who have persuaded him no doubt that we need to have an expression their "In the opinion of the Secretary of State. Again, it is quite a straightforward argument, and I think that the people from the pancreatic cancer campaigning, they are on my side on that. But obviously very keen that this bill gets onto the statute book. We all have to recognise that it is within the power of the government to prevent it making any further progress.
That is white will be quite difficult to persuade the Minister to accept amendment number five. But turning to amendment number six, which is clause two, page two, line 7, to the end of line 8, insert arrangements in place full stop. To put this in context, in discharging the duty under subsection relation to those cancers, the secular state must ensure that there are such arrangements in place as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Why can't we just say that there are such arrangements in place to enable potential participants in clinical trials etc? Why do we need to give a discretion to the Secretary of State to essentially have a veto on whether he considers those arrangement are appropriate? It seems to me completely redundant, unnecessary, indeed oppressive and counter to the expressed wishes of this House in Second Reading when there was impatience about the delay in the need to get on with this, and suspicion about the failure of the Department of Health under not just this government previous governance as well, to deal with the crisis involving people who are subject to So that is amendment number six.
I am trying to go through this quickly, so other people can participate in this important debate. Turning to amendment number seven. Clause two, page 2, line 12, insert 'within the period of six months, beginning on the day in which this act is passed.' and again, this is to try and tiedown through legislation the issue of when we are going to get clinical trials implemented and looking at, line 12, sorry. It says here, this line 12, sorry. It says here, this is to do with the research and requirement that the Secretary of State should ensure that the person should be known as the national specialty need for rare cancers is appointed, but there is no timescale to which that is to be done.
And I am saying, let's put in six months. There is a wider issue here, and that is that actually, there is no reason why it can't be done now. No reason why it couldn't be done when this bill was first introduced. Because it is also quite clear from the impact assessment, that this policy lead is actually going to be somebody who is going to be appointed by the, essentially, a quango. A quango that has already got policy leads, in respect of a whole lot of other issues.
So, why can't we just appoint this person now? And it is said that the cost of that appointment is going to be near £16,000. I do not understand, Madame Deputy Speaker, why it is necessary Deputy Speaker, why it is necessary to put it onto the face of a bill. A specific requirement that this is done. When we know that the NIHR has a national specialty needs in delivery, within the delivery network, their role is probably to support research delivery within their discipline within healthcare settings.
With the knowledge and experience that the full scope of the NIHR, and the wider health and care delivery infrastructure in England. And so on. It goes on to say that they work with patients, public health and care professionals, including research and development communities within the NHS and wider care system. Academics and life sciences partners, and the National Speciality Lead same to ensure strategic oversight and the focus of continuous improvement of research continuous improvement of research delivery portfolio. Such a specialist lease already exist, they don't exist out of courtesy of specific legislation requiring they exist, they already exist, under the NIHR.
So, why hasn't the NIHR appointed such a specialist leader to deal with rare cancers? And why is it necessary for us to legislate, to require that. At the same time, have legislation that is so weak, because it doesn't put any timetable upon the period within which that appointment has to be made. And so, appointment has to be made. And so, that again, is, in my view, a reason for tightening up this bill. And it says here again, in the policy objectives, in the impact assessment, it says the aim is to ensure the adequate oversight of research delivery for rare cancers, by appointing a named person, in England, to provide leadership and advice for the delivery of rare cancers.
It is envisaged this individual will be employed by the NIHR. -- Delivery of rare cancer research. So if they are employed by the NIHR, why do we have to wait for that person to be employed? And again, it is said the cost of this is going to be some £16,000 a year. So, Madame Deputy Speaker, I am trying to emphasise the need for proportionality, in respect of these amendments. And then, turning to amendment number eight, which is clause three, page 2, line 33, leave out 'in the opinion of NHS England'.
NHS England is not short of opinions, as we know, but that is by the by. After subsection 5, insert, 'in subsection 5 in subsection 5DA, relevant clinical trials means clinical trials in connection with the research and development of medicinal products, for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancers.' that, in the opinion of NHS England are rare cancers. I have already referred to this. The bill defines rare cancers, a cancer that affects one in 1,000 people in the United Kingdom.
It is a matter-of- fact, not something that can be the subject of qualification or second- subject of qualification or second- guessing by NHS England. Why is it in the bill? Because in my submission gives the Department more wriggle room and perhaps it means they're going to have to get a load of people in NHS England working out whether or not a rare cancer complies with the definition of rare cancer that affects not more than cancer that affects not more than one in 2,000 people.
But there was a problem with this issue, Madame Deputy Speaker, it refers to the opinion of NHS England, as I understood it, NHS England is, to my great delight, about to be demolished. Or abolished, perhaps both abolished and demolished. So, why are we seeking to including primary legislation a reference to what, on the government's view, is already a redundant body? I would have expected the government to come forward with an amendment on this. But I am at their service as always, and if they accept amendment number eight, then leave out 'in the opinion of NHS England', that will remove NHS England and any references to that organisation out of this bill.
So, I hope I am tempting the Minister to accept some of my amendments, and attempting other people to speak in support of them. My final amendment is amendment number nine, which is clause three, page 2, line 40, leave out subsection number four, this is about research purposes, currently, subsection 4 asks, insert after subsection 6, in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, a power referred to by the section to process information does not authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation.
That is fine, we can understand That is fine, we can understand that. But what is then in brackets, I would be grateful if the Minister could expand upon responding to this debate. What it says in brackets, it says, but the powers to be taken into account, determining whether the processing would contravene that legislation. If somebody could explain what that means, that would be extremely helpful. Because we know from the notes that have already been produced, that the common law duties of maintaining privacy still apply, they are not removed as a result of this.
So, what do those words mean? That is very much a probing amendment to try and obtain more information. Madame Deputy Speaker, that is a succinct summary of the points I am making, and why brought forward these amendments. One or two people, frankly, out of ignorance have written to me suggesting that I have got something other than their best interests at heart. I have got the best interests at heart which is why I am putting forward these amendments and I hope you get a positive response from the government for stopped? The question is that the amendment be made.
I called Doctor Scott Arthur.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And I do rise to oppose the amendments. But I do thank the honourable member for Christchurch honourable member for Christchurch for tabling them. I do understand for tabling them. I do understand the stated intent of the proposals, but I'm not minded to support them. Over the last 10 months, dozens of Over the last 10 months, dozens of meetings with families, survivors, charities, clinicians, legal charities, clinicians, legal experts, and always with the aim of delivering meaningful change in this field.
And these means were not for
I note the difference between his position, I fully understand and respect it, and I think the member for Mitcham and Morden has basically said if she had a bill like this, she would have got so steamed up about it, she would have included it a lot more strength and safeguards than there are at the moment. And probably the consequence would have been it would not have got anywhere near being considered at report stage in this House. There are these two different approaches.
Because I am relatively speaking a neutral on this, a sympathetic supporter, I have got a lot of background experience of how the government always tries to give itself wriggle room and to effectively maintain control over everything. A bill like this can be, in my view, could be improved by being amended by the will of the House at this stage, at report. Obviously we can sit and talk about these amendments and other amendments I put forward being taken forward into the House of Lords.
But the trouble then is that the government machine says there won't be any more sitting Fridays here in this house, and therefore if the bill was to be amended in the other place, it might fall completely because it would need to be brought back here. It is a reason why it is important that we as a House should consider these amendments now rather than leave amendments now rather than leave them to the other place. Turning to the first amendment, which is clause 1 page 1, it is obviously to be read with amendments to, which is to insert after and, "Set out a timetable for implementing any changes in the law recommended by the review.
" This in a sense is a prime example of the point I was making earlier stop we have got a commitment by the government. The secular state must carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for medicinal products, for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of cancer. Great. And prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review. What is the timescale for that? And what is going to happen after those conclusions are produced? There is no obligation on the government to do anything else.
The review and its conclusions can be left on one side. We in this House are in 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 this amendment, or these two amendments. Looking at another gap which could be exploited by the government, which says that the report must be published before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this act is passed.
I would put an amendment in to say two years. In respect of both of those points, I have had a very helpful email from Diana jupp from the pancreatic cancer organisations she writes on behalf of more than 30 charities representing patients affected by rare and less common cancers. She is commenting on my amendments, I will talk about her comment in relation to what I'm addressing at the moment. She says in relation to my amendment to add in a timetable for implementation changes in the law recommended by the review.
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 her, we can do this now, this House could, instead of leaving it to her and her colleagues to try and pressurise the department later, we in this House have the power to change this 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.
On the issue of the timeline, in response to my amendment, she says 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. The most important part of her comment is this timeline is being agreed with the Department. If this timeline had not been agreed with the Department, the Department and the Minister would not have taken the bill forward in this way, and agreed to it.
Can I, in relation to that timeline, just draw the attention of that House to what is said in the evidence base set out in the impact assessment. What it says there is that the whole process, that process is going to take one year. They reckon it will cost £130,000, and they set out how many civil servants or full-time equivalent will be involved in it. It will take one year. If it will only take one year, why are we saying that it needs to have three years? And that is an example in my view of why we need to tighten this bill up because if this is a review that needs to be carried out, then why don't we get on with it? To suggest that it is going to take longer than a year is to go against the Department's own evidence as set out in the impact assessment.
I am going to quote directly from that because it says, this is on page 6 of the impact assessment. " Mandating a government review of the Galatians, this will place a duty on the government to publish a review which will be a comparison of the regulations, specifically part five of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 top and the international approach to supporting the research and development of medicinal products. " Since the review is concerned with drug regulations, it is by default covering rare cancers.
The findings should be published within three years. Of course that is what the bill says. But then on the next page, page 7, paragraph 19, on financial costs, it says, "It is difficult to estimate resource and costs required for the orphan drug review, since the exact scope remains to be agreed. But 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 £14,000 in relation to staff.
" This reflects the cost of 0.3 multiplied by an SCS staff, 0.3 grade 7 staff and 0.5 SCO staff for one year. That is what the government is saying is going to be necessary. Only one year. In that case, why is my very generous amendment to limit that from three years, restricted from three years to two years, why is that unacceptable to the government? There is a history of the dragging of feet in the Department of Health I'm afraid.
We have heard about that certainly at second reading. I give that House this specific example as to why, on the government's own evidence that they should be accepting from three years to two. And to leave out in line 7, in particular, in carrying out the review, secretary of state must consider regulatory approaches in other countries. That is more in the form of a probing amendment rather than anything else. Why do we need to have the words in particular incorporated in this? Surely it would be much simpler to say the secretary of state must consider regulatory approaches in other countries.
But that is not how it is at the moment. So turning to amendment five, clause two, page two, line 3, I am suggesting that we should leave out the reference to the Secretary of State. This is all to do with that definition of what to do with that definition of what is a rare cancer. The current provision says, the research that the secretary of state must facilitate or otherwise promote includes research into cancers that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are rare cancers.
Why can't we just say, that are rare cancers? Indeed, in the same clause in the bill, clause two, four, in this section it says rare cancer is a cancer that affects not more than one in 2000 people in the United Kingdom. It is an issue of fact. It is not something where the Secretary of State should basically be able to have a veto over the interpretation of what is or is not a rare cancer. This is another example of the control freak are within the department.
I am sorry that the Minister so far does not seem able to have stood up to officials who have persuaded him no doubt that we need to have an expression their "In the opinion of the Secretary of State. Again, it is quite a straightforward argument, and I think that the people from the pancreatic cancer campaigning, they are on my side on that. But obviously very keen that this bill gets onto the statute book. We all have to recognise that it is within the power of the government to prevent it making any further progress.
That is white will be quite difficult to persuade the Minister to accept amendment number five. But turning to amendment number six, which is clause two, page two, line 7, to the end of line 8, insert arrangements in place full stop. To put this in context, in discharging the duty under subsection relation to those cancers, the secular state must ensure that there are such arrangements in place as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Why can't we just say that there are such arrangements in place to enable potential participants in clinical trials etc? Why do we need to give a discretion to the Secretary of State to essentially have a veto on whether he considers those arrangement are appropriate? It seems to me completely redundant, unnecessary, indeed oppressive and counter to the expressed wishes of this House in Second Reading when there was impatience about the delay in the need to get on with this, and suspicion about the failure of the Department of Health under not just this government previous governance as well, to deal with the crisis involving people who are subject to So that is amendment number six.
I am trying to go through this quickly, so other people can participate in this important debate. Turning to amendment number seven. Clause two, page 2, line 12, insert 'within the period of six months, beginning on the day in which this act is passed.' and again, this is to try and tiedown through legislation the issue of when we are going to get clinical trials implemented and looking at, line 12, sorry. It says here, this line 12, sorry. It says here, this is to do with the research and requirement that the Secretary of State should ensure that the person should be known as the national specialty need for rare cancers is appointed, but there is no timescale to which that is to be done.
And I am saying, let's put in six months. There is a wider issue here, and that is that actually, there is no reason why it can't be done now. No reason why it couldn't be done when this bill was first introduced. Because it is also quite clear from the impact assessment, that this policy lead is actually going to be somebody who is going to be appointed by the, essentially, a quango. A quango that has already got policy leads, in respect of a whole lot of other issues.
So, why can't we just appoint this person now? And it is said that the cost of that appointment is going to be near £16,000. I do not understand, Madame Deputy Speaker, why it is necessary Deputy Speaker, why it is necessary to put it onto the face of a bill. A specific requirement that this is done. When we know that the NIHR has a national specialty needs in delivery, within the delivery network, their role is probably to support research delivery within their discipline within healthcare settings.
With the knowledge and experience that the full scope of the NIHR, and the wider health and care delivery infrastructure in England. And so on. It goes on to say that they work with patients, public health and care professionals, including research and development communities within the NHS and wider care system. Academics and life sciences partners, and the National Speciality Lead same to ensure strategic oversight and the focus of continuous improvement of research continuous improvement of research delivery portfolio. Such a specialist lease already exist, they don't exist out of courtesy of specific legislation requiring they exist, they already exist, under the NIHR.
So, why hasn't the NIHR appointed such a specialist leader to deal with rare cancers? And why is it necessary for us to legislate, to require that. At the same time, have legislation that is so weak, because it doesn't put any timetable upon the period within which that appointment has to be made. And so, appointment has to be made. And so, that again, is, in my view, a reason for tightening up this bill. And it says here again, in the policy objectives, in the impact assessment, it says the aim is to ensure the adequate oversight of research delivery for rare cancers, by appointing a named person, in England, to provide leadership and advice for the delivery of rare cancers.
It is envisaged this individual will be employed by the NIHR. -- Delivery of rare cancer research. So if they are employed by the NIHR, why do we have to wait for that person to be employed? And again, it is said the cost of this is going to be some £16,000 a year. So, Madame Deputy Speaker, I am trying to emphasise the need for proportionality, in respect of these amendments. And then, turning to amendment number eight, which is clause three, page 2, line 33, leave out 'in the opinion of NHS England'.
NHS England is not short of opinions, as we know, but that is by the by. After subsection 5, insert, 'in subsection 5 in subsection 5DA, relevant clinical trials means clinical trials in connection with the research and development of medicinal products, for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancers.' that, in the opinion of NHS England are rare cancers. I have already referred to this. The bill defines rare cancers, a cancer that affects one in 1,000 people in the United Kingdom.
It is a matter-of- fact, not something that can be the subject of qualification or second- subject of qualification or second- guessing by NHS England. Why is it in the bill? Because in my submission gives the Department more wriggle room and perhaps it means they're going to have to get a load of people in NHS England working out whether or not a rare cancer complies with the definition of rare cancer that affects not more than cancer that affects not more than one in 2,000 people.
But there was a problem with this issue, Madame Deputy Speaker, it refers to the opinion of NHS England, as I understood it, NHS England is, to my great delight, about to be demolished. Or abolished, perhaps both abolished and demolished. So, why are we seeking to including primary legislation a reference to what, on the government's view, is already a redundant body? I would have expected the government to come forward with an amendment on this. But I am at their service as always, and if they accept amendment number eight, then leave out 'in the opinion of NHS England', that will remove NHS England and any references to that organisation out of this bill.
So, I hope I am tempting the Minister to accept some of my amendments, and attempting other people to speak in support of them. My final amendment is amendment number nine, which is clause three, page 2, line 40, leave out subsection number four, this is about research purposes, currently, subsection 4 asks, insert after subsection 6, in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, a power referred to by the section to process information does not authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation.
That is fine, we can understand That is fine, we can understand that. But what is then in brackets, I would be grateful if the Minister could expand upon responding to this debate. What it says in brackets, it says, but the powers to be taken into account, determining whether the processing would contravene that legislation. If somebody could explain what that means, that would be extremely helpful. Because we know from the notes that have already been produced, that the common law duties of maintaining privacy still apply, they are not removed as a result of this.
So, what do those words mean? That is very much a probing amendment to try and obtain more information. Madame Deputy Speaker, that is a succinct summary of the points I am making, and why brought forward these amendments. One or two people, frankly, out of ignorance have written to me suggesting that I have got something other than their best interests at heart. I have got the best interests at heart which is why I am putting forward these amendments and I hope you get a positive response from the government for stopped? The question is that the amendment be made.
I called Doctor Scott Arthur.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And I do rise to oppose the amendments. But I do thank the honourable member for Christchurch honourable member for Christchurch for tabling them. I do understand for tabling them. I do understand the stated intent of the proposals, but I'm not minded to support them. Over the last 10 months, dozens of Over the last 10 months, dozens of meetings with families, survivors, charities, clinicians, legal charities, clinicians, legal experts, and always with the aim of delivering meaningful change in this field.
And these means were not for
11:41
Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
-
-
Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
me to tell people about the bill, it was for these people to shape the bill. I really fear if we were to pass these amendments today, it would upset the delicate balance of hopes and aspirations, which underpin the bill. And it's not just about the Minister, as the number suggested, but there is a whole coalition of people who all have different opinions about this bill. I don't think anyone person has any right to change that, and I include myself in that.
And it would be a huge disrespect, and disappointment for the coalition, if that was to happen. I do understand the points the honourable gentleman is making. And I know the Minister will go through the amendments one by one, but I want to focus on a few key ones from me. The review of the drugs. This is one of the hardest things in the negotiations we have of the department, and with the charities. We did manage to find a point which we can all agree on.
And I appreciate you might want it to go further, and perhaps we could speculate what the outcome would be and could prepare better for that. But this review is much awaited by these charities and they are grateful for it and I do not want to speak on their behalf, but that is what I hear from them. So, that covers amendments one and two. Amendment five touches on the definition of a rare cancer. This is an aspect of the bill which I haven't spoken about in any great detail at all, so it is worth touching on it.
The bill does define what a rare cancer is and it says that in statute and also aligns it with the definition of array disease, which is quite useful. -- Of a rare disease, which is quite useful to simplify that. But as we move into the future, let's hope that some conditions fall out of that rare specification and so, do need less emphasis. And let's hope that people within ED HSC, looking at what is happening inside the UK outside the UK, in terms of development treatments, so it is right that there is a bit of flexibility at the edges, about what the DHSC do consider to be a rare cancer.
The timeline, three years, again, this is a thing you spend a great deal of time talking about and for some while, it was much longer than three years, and all of us wanted it to be much shorter than three years. But three years was the compromise we reach, like Goldilocks and the three Bears, we reach that compromised together. So I respect
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the discussions we have had in particular on that. In that case, I hear what he says
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In that case, I hear what he says on this. Why is it that the impact on this. Why is it that the impact assessment says that the cost is only going to be of one year's staff for this? If the review is going to take three years, why is it only
**** Possible New Speaker ****
take three years, why is it only going to be funded. For one year? -- Funded for staff for one year. Of course, the review is not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of course, the review is not going to start on day one, those going to start on day one, those members of staff in existing workflow don't have to be reallocated, there will be some initial engagement, I hope and expect, with the sector. Both the charities and companies. So, little charities and companies. So, little bit of flexibility is required. And I will be honest, I would love it, I will be honest, I would love it, if more money are spent on review and we get more depth and has a greater impact and I am sure people greater impact and I am sure people in the chamber will join me in that.
So, I hope you will understand my So, I hope you will understand my position and recognise the strength of cross-party and sector wide of cross-party and sector wide support which has taken this this far. And I do regret not inviting the honourable gentleman to take part in the Bill committee, I think we would have benefited from some of these comments at that stage and I also do feel that some of the points raised were discussed at the Bill committee, it was a reasonably long discussion, it wasn't four hours, but it was nothing short and some have been.
I want to work constructively with colleagues, as the bill progresses today, and let's hope it gets beyond today. But I respectfully ask in the strongest possible terms, that these amendments are pressed, and if they
And it would be a huge disrespect, and disappointment for the coalition, if that was to happen. I do understand the points the honourable gentleman is making. And I know the Minister will go through the amendments one by one, but I want to focus on a few key ones from me. The review of the drugs. This is one of the hardest things in the negotiations we have of the department, and with the charities. We did manage to find a point which we can all agree on.
And I appreciate you might want it to go further, and perhaps we could speculate what the outcome would be and could prepare better for that. But this review is much awaited by these charities and they are grateful for it and I do not want to speak on their behalf, but that is what I hear from them. So, that covers amendments one and two. Amendment five touches on the definition of a rare cancer. This is an aspect of the bill which I haven't spoken about in any great detail at all, so it is worth touching on it.
The bill does define what a rare cancer is and it says that in statute and also aligns it with the definition of array disease, which is quite useful. -- Of a rare disease, which is quite useful to simplify that. But as we move into the future, let's hope that some conditions fall out of that rare specification and so, do need less emphasis. And let's hope that people within ED HSC, looking at what is happening inside the UK outside the UK, in terms of development treatments, so it is right that there is a bit of flexibility at the edges, about what the DHSC do consider to be a rare cancer.
The timeline, three years, again, this is a thing you spend a great deal of time talking about and for some while, it was much longer than three years, and all of us wanted it to be much shorter than three years. But three years was the compromise we reach, like Goldilocks and the three Bears, we reach that compromised together. So I respect
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the discussions we have had in particular on that. In that case, I hear what he says
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In that case, I hear what he says on this. Why is it that the impact on this. Why is it that the impact assessment says that the cost is only going to be of one year's staff for this? If the review is going to take three years, why is it only
**** Possible New Speaker ****
take three years, why is it only going to be funded. For one year? -- Funded for staff for one year. Of course, the review is not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of course, the review is not going to start on day one, those going to start on day one, those members of staff in existing workflow don't have to be reallocated, there will be some initial engagement, I hope and expect, with the sector. Both the charities and companies. So, little charities and companies. So, little bit of flexibility is required. And I will be honest, I would love it, I will be honest, I would love it, if more money are spent on review and we get more depth and has a greater impact and I am sure people greater impact and I am sure people in the chamber will join me in that.
So, I hope you will understand my So, I hope you will understand my position and recognise the strength of cross-party and sector wide of cross-party and sector wide support which has taken this this far. And I do regret not inviting the honourable gentleman to take part in the Bill committee, I think we would have benefited from some of these comments at that stage and I also do feel that some of the points raised were discussed at the Bill committee, it was a reasonably long discussion, it wasn't four hours, but it was nothing short and some have been.
I want to work constructively with colleagues, as the bill progresses today, and let's hope it gets beyond today. But I respectfully ask in the strongest possible terms, that these amendments are pressed, and if they
11:45
Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
I thank you very much and I'm sure to your delight and the whole house is delight and the government delight I will not speak on report stage. How did is because Thai third reading. I want to briefly talk to the amendments in the name of my honourable friend, the member for Christchurch, amendments five and eight. I would like to say in starting I congratulate the honourable member the Edinburgh South West for this bill and I am generally supportive of it.
I think it is entirely necessary. I think my honourable friend for Christchurch is right. He does -- it does concern me in the with the opinion of the Secretary of State are included in clause 2, subsection 2. As my honourable friend for Christchurch has a ready pointed out in section 4, clause 2 and in section 3, sorry clause 3, section 3, the definition of a rare cancer is set out and if this bill passes will become law. Therefore I think it is a contradiction with the legislation, within it you can have an absolute addition of the mission of what rare cancer is -- definition of what rare cancer is and yet add some ambiguity in by adding in the opinion of the Secretary of State.
I would ask the Minister to expand how both of those rings could be true like things rings could be true like things could be true. If the Secretary of State decides there is another definition of a rare cancer how is that in line with the definition written into law? As the honourable member Edinburgh South West has said, the definition parts that have said, the definition parts that have been put into this bill, either that cancer does not affect more than one in 2,000 people in the United Kingdom does align it with the UK Rare Diseases Framework.
It was published by Lord Bethell in the other place in 2021. It does seem to me that is an effective and suitable definition. So again I would ask the Minister when he rises, does he expect there to be some other definition and if he does not expect that, why the necessary, why is it necessary to have the words, opinion of the Secretary of State, inserted into parts of this bill? It is also not even consistent because clause 2, subsection 2 talks about the opinion of the Secretary of State.
Whereas clause 3, subsection 3 talks about the opinion of NHS England. As my honourable friend Christchurch has pointed out and I agree with him, NHS England is fortunately going to be abolished very soon. And therefore does that mean when that does happen we are going to have to bring in either primary legislation or secondary legislation to delete these words from this bill? Would it not be better if we deleted opinion of NHS England now and I do ask the Minister, why he will not consider removing it? Or at least if there is some definition or definitional reason why he thinks the Secretary of State might have to change the definition, why it is not persistent between those two clauses? I hope honourable members, indeed my honourable friend for Christchurch and myself are trying to achieve here.
Which is to have a clear definition of what a rare cancer is and to make sure there is no ambiguity in that definition. And if there is to be an biggest unity -- ambiguity to make the body or the authority will make that change consistent within the legislation.
I think it is entirely necessary. I think my honourable friend for Christchurch is right. He does -- it does concern me in the with the opinion of the Secretary of State are included in clause 2, subsection 2. As my honourable friend for Christchurch has a ready pointed out in section 4, clause 2 and in section 3, sorry clause 3, section 3, the definition of a rare cancer is set out and if this bill passes will become law. Therefore I think it is a contradiction with the legislation, within it you can have an absolute addition of the mission of what rare cancer is -- definition of what rare cancer is and yet add some ambiguity in by adding in the opinion of the Secretary of State.
I would ask the Minister to expand how both of those rings could be true like things rings could be true like things could be true. If the Secretary of State decides there is another definition of a rare cancer how is that in line with the definition written into law? As the honourable member Edinburgh South West has said, the definition parts that have said, the definition parts that have been put into this bill, either that cancer does not affect more than one in 2,000 people in the United Kingdom does align it with the UK Rare Diseases Framework.
It was published by Lord Bethell in the other place in 2021. It does seem to me that is an effective and suitable definition. So again I would ask the Minister when he rises, does he expect there to be some other definition and if he does not expect that, why the necessary, why is it necessary to have the words, opinion of the Secretary of State, inserted into parts of this bill? It is also not even consistent because clause 2, subsection 2 talks about the opinion of the Secretary of State.
Whereas clause 3, subsection 3 talks about the opinion of NHS England. As my honourable friend Christchurch has pointed out and I agree with him, NHS England is fortunately going to be abolished very soon. And therefore does that mean when that does happen we are going to have to bring in either primary legislation or secondary legislation to delete these words from this bill? Would it not be better if we deleted opinion of NHS England now and I do ask the Minister, why he will not consider removing it? Or at least if there is some definition or definitional reason why he thinks the Secretary of State might have to change the definition, why it is not persistent between those two clauses? I hope honourable members, indeed my honourable friend for Christchurch and myself are trying to achieve here.
Which is to have a clear definition of what a rare cancer is and to make sure there is no ambiguity in that definition. And if there is to be an biggest unity -- ambiguity to make the body or the authority will make that change consistent within the legislation.
11:49
Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
Shadow Minister. As His Majesty opposition and its thoughtful and necessary intervention on behalf of a group of patients who are often underresearched and underrepresented and under acknowledged in regards to rare cancer. I would like to commend the honourable member south-west from -- Edinburgh South West for bringing this bill forward and his ongoing pursuit of this issue. The case that the bill is clear. Rare cancer is defined in line with the UK readily framework and conditions affecting fewer than one in 2,000 people.
Our individually uncommon but collectively they account for more than 20% of cancer diagnosis. And yet as we know patients with rare cancers routinely face delayed diagnosis, limited treatment options and far fewer opportunities to participate in clinic research. This bill does not claim to be a silver bullet but it does mark a significant step in how we think about and how we legislate for research, regulation and data access in rare cancer care. It is focused, proportionate and strategically aligned with the existing NHS NIHR framework.
If we turn to the bill itself, clause 1 leases a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the law relating to marketing, authorisations -- marketing authorisations for medicinal products for diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer. It also rightly requires this review includes comparisons with regulatory approaches in other countries. This is vital. The Explanatory Notes rightly observed research into rare cancers is often commercially unattractive because of small patient populations and high development costs. If our regulatory environment creates further barriers to entry then patients suffer.
Not because science does not exist but because the system does not support it. The U.K.'s current approach to designation lacks the pre- authorisation found in systems like the EMA and FTA. This review is the opportunity to ask are we doing enough to attract the research and that rare cancer patients deserve? Clause 2 makes crucial changes to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Secretary of State's duty... I will give way. I am not quite sure whether he is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am not quite sure whether he is responding to the amendments or whether he is making a third reading whether he is making a third reading speech but I hope you will be able to address the amendments which I have moved including the amendments have moved including the amendments in addition to clause 1 about which he has just been speaking.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
he has just been speaking. I am very grateful to the member for Christchurch for his intervention. If he will wait with intervention. If he will wait with me and bear with me I will turn directly to his specific amendment. I think it is important to set the I think it is important to set the context because at report stage we have the clauses placed in front of us and we must understand first if us and we must understand first if we are to debate the amendments coming afterwards.
If he will wait just a few moments, I will be with just a few moments, I will be with him shortly. Clause 2 makes a crucial change to the Secretary of State's duty under the NHS act, 2006. By stating explicitly it must include research into cancers in the include research into cancers in the opinion of the Secretary of State are rare cancers, this matters, the research agenda is often driven by numbers and funding scale, by mandating rare cancers be part of the agenda. The bill begins to shift the agenda.
The bill begins to shift the culture towards inclusion, equity and long-term thinking. I particularly welcome the creation of the National Speciality Lead for Rare Cancers. Modelling on the NIHR existing structure of research delivery leaders. This individual will be tasked with promoting and facilitating research, advising on trials and desires and convening collaboration. This excess of this role will be supported not just in symbolic nature but with a clear remit, adequate funding and strategic alignment with the wider NIHR research delivery network. Clause 3 amends section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 12 to allow NHS England to disclose information from the purpose of identifying and contracting potential clinical, contacting potential clinical trial participants.
This is a significant and necessary step. The builder still wishes to allow a disused registry -- distinguishes between a disused registry and a contact registry making sure the systems can speak to each other will be significant in benefits for patients matching up with opportunities. Importantly the bill reaffirms any datasharing must remain compliant with the Data Protection Act 2018. Subsection 6 A makes clear, a power confirmed by the sector to process information does not authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation.
This is a safeguard we must preserve and not weaken if we are to maintain public trust in the system. At this point I would now like to turn to the amendments tabled by the honourable member for Christchurch. He approaches Private Members Bill in the way a jeweller examines diamonds. With a magnifying glass, a steady hand and absolutely no tolerance for floors. We may global -- rumble as the top clicks on -- we may grumble as the clock on -- we may grumble as the clock ticks on but we will sleep better knowing this bill knows no difference.
I thanking to his commitment for improving clarity, accountability and precision. He pointed out this bill is not trivial. Therefore it is not only right but indeed the duty of this House to scrutinise closely bills and amendments that are laid before us. To that end several of these amendments aim to tighten the bills drafting or introduce further deadlines. For example amendment for would reduce the time frame for clause 1 from three years to two years. Amendment to would require the Secretary of State to set out a timetable for implementing any changes in the law recommended by the review.
While I understand the concerns the reviews can drift, the current three-year period does reflect the complexity of the subject. This is a UK wide review of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 including benchmarking against jurisdictions and engagements of multiple agencies. Compressing that timeline may actually jeopardise the depth or quality of the analysis. Likewise a statutory timetable for implementing could constrain the government prematurely before the review's conclusions are even known. Of course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am very grateful and I am very grateful to the comments my honourable friend has made. Dealing honourable friend has made. Dealing with that point, he will know there with that point, he will know there is only funding, he has said there is funding sufficient to staffing for one year. If there is only funding for one year why does it take three years? take three years?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
take three years? He will also not look at, he will know this far better than I, not to look at legislation in isolation. look at legislation in isolation. The cancer plan being brought forward at some point either government there is going to be a government there is going to be a direct crossover between these two pieces of legislation Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it is right to give Speaker. I think it is right to give the government that freedom to be able to have that space to implemented.
If we rush it there is a problem we could get this wrong a problem we could get this wrong which is even detrimental for those suffering with the rare cancers. suffering with the rare cancers. Either definitions... The definition Either definitions... The definition of rare cancer and amendment eight remove similar wording relating to the NHS England discretion. At first the NHS England discretion. At first glance these may seem like matters glance these may seem like matters of tidy drafting. But detaining but retaining that discretion I believe is important especially with rare cancers.
Prevalence data can be uncertain or lagging and allows for expert judgements of those educators were rigid definitions from unintentionally excluded patients from trials or research that could actually benefit from them. Top that actually benefit from them. Top that with the concerns about the simple definition we are still exploring the difference between precancerous and cancerous cells. If you go for a smear, that is what you are told. This is a new area we are looking at. What knows -- who knows what will come up in the future.
Finding it on lagging prevalence data is a risk and therefore I believe it is right the government and indeed the Secretary of State at the time would be able to direct one way or another and have that discretion. However there is a rightly proposed question I will be ready for the government to answer on who or what will fill the role when it comes to the abolition of NHS England. It is not clear what that would look like and is a question I know the Minister sat opposite me has heard me repeat to him several times when it comes to mental health and many other areas.
It is a question is how should rightly ask, he was responsible for what, when and why? That said, amendment seven with the proposed National Speciality Lead to be posted within six months of Royal assent -- appointed within six months of Royal assent does need considerations. The public has waited long enough. If this will be established properly and correctly I will welcome the ambition being stated today could be stated stated today could be stated directly at the Dispatch Box.
I must express concern about amendment nine which looks to remove the protection of data and safeguards. This may be Declan Tory, in reaffirming -- it may be Declan Tory, in reaffirming it offers charity and reassurance. In an area as sensitive as health data this clarity matters. Its removal could cause unnecessary concern even if the underlying law remains unchanged. In conclusion Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is not grandstanding. It is modest in financial cost, careful in its drafting and realistic in its scope.
But its impact could be significant.. Patients living with rare cancer and patients and clinicians and researchers striving to support then the bill offers real hope. Hope for faster acting to innovation, hope for more inclusive research. And hope for a regular system that works for the many -- regulatory system that works for many not just the minority. Whether they are one in two Whether they are one in 21 in 2000, as stated in the Bill Committee, we support this bill as it goes forward.
I thank the chamber today for their chance to support it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call the Minister.
Our individually uncommon but collectively they account for more than 20% of cancer diagnosis. And yet as we know patients with rare cancers routinely face delayed diagnosis, limited treatment options and far fewer opportunities to participate in clinic research. This bill does not claim to be a silver bullet but it does mark a significant step in how we think about and how we legislate for research, regulation and data access in rare cancer care. It is focused, proportionate and strategically aligned with the existing NHS NIHR framework.
If we turn to the bill itself, clause 1 leases a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the law relating to marketing, authorisations -- marketing authorisations for medicinal products for diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer. It also rightly requires this review includes comparisons with regulatory approaches in other countries. This is vital. The Explanatory Notes rightly observed research into rare cancers is often commercially unattractive because of small patient populations and high development costs. If our regulatory environment creates further barriers to entry then patients suffer.
Not because science does not exist but because the system does not support it. The U.K.'s current approach to designation lacks the pre- authorisation found in systems like the EMA and FTA. This review is the opportunity to ask are we doing enough to attract the research and that rare cancer patients deserve? Clause 2 makes crucial changes to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Secretary of State's duty... I will give way. I am not quite sure whether he is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am not quite sure whether he is responding to the amendments or whether he is making a third reading whether he is making a third reading speech but I hope you will be able to address the amendments which I have moved including the amendments have moved including the amendments in addition to clause 1 about which he has just been speaking.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
he has just been speaking. I am very grateful to the member for Christchurch for his intervention. If he will wait with intervention. If he will wait with me and bear with me I will turn directly to his specific amendment. I think it is important to set the I think it is important to set the context because at report stage we have the clauses placed in front of us and we must understand first if us and we must understand first if we are to debate the amendments coming afterwards.
If he will wait just a few moments, I will be with just a few moments, I will be with him shortly. Clause 2 makes a crucial change to the Secretary of State's duty under the NHS act, 2006. By stating explicitly it must include research into cancers in the include research into cancers in the opinion of the Secretary of State are rare cancers, this matters, the research agenda is often driven by numbers and funding scale, by mandating rare cancers be part of the agenda. The bill begins to shift the agenda.
The bill begins to shift the culture towards inclusion, equity and long-term thinking. I particularly welcome the creation of the National Speciality Lead for Rare Cancers. Modelling on the NIHR existing structure of research delivery leaders. This individual will be tasked with promoting and facilitating research, advising on trials and desires and convening collaboration. This excess of this role will be supported not just in symbolic nature but with a clear remit, adequate funding and strategic alignment with the wider NIHR research delivery network. Clause 3 amends section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 12 to allow NHS England to disclose information from the purpose of identifying and contracting potential clinical, contacting potential clinical trial participants.
This is a significant and necessary step. The builder still wishes to allow a disused registry -- distinguishes between a disused registry and a contact registry making sure the systems can speak to each other will be significant in benefits for patients matching up with opportunities. Importantly the bill reaffirms any datasharing must remain compliant with the Data Protection Act 2018. Subsection 6 A makes clear, a power confirmed by the sector to process information does not authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation.
This is a safeguard we must preserve and not weaken if we are to maintain public trust in the system. At this point I would now like to turn to the amendments tabled by the honourable member for Christchurch. He approaches Private Members Bill in the way a jeweller examines diamonds. With a magnifying glass, a steady hand and absolutely no tolerance for floors. We may global -- rumble as the top clicks on -- we may grumble as the clock on -- we may grumble as the clock ticks on but we will sleep better knowing this bill knows no difference.
I thanking to his commitment for improving clarity, accountability and precision. He pointed out this bill is not trivial. Therefore it is not only right but indeed the duty of this House to scrutinise closely bills and amendments that are laid before us. To that end several of these amendments aim to tighten the bills drafting or introduce further deadlines. For example amendment for would reduce the time frame for clause 1 from three years to two years. Amendment to would require the Secretary of State to set out a timetable for implementing any changes in the law recommended by the review.
While I understand the concerns the reviews can drift, the current three-year period does reflect the complexity of the subject. This is a UK wide review of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 including benchmarking against jurisdictions and engagements of multiple agencies. Compressing that timeline may actually jeopardise the depth or quality of the analysis. Likewise a statutory timetable for implementing could constrain the government prematurely before the review's conclusions are even known. Of course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am very grateful and I am very grateful to the comments my honourable friend has made. Dealing honourable friend has made. Dealing with that point, he will know there with that point, he will know there is only funding, he has said there is funding sufficient to staffing for one year. If there is only funding for one year why does it take three years? take three years?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
take three years? He will also not look at, he will know this far better than I, not to look at legislation in isolation. look at legislation in isolation. The cancer plan being brought forward at some point either government there is going to be a government there is going to be a direct crossover between these two pieces of legislation Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it is right to give Speaker. I think it is right to give the government that freedom to be able to have that space to implemented.
If we rush it there is a problem we could get this wrong a problem we could get this wrong which is even detrimental for those suffering with the rare cancers. suffering with the rare cancers. Either definitions... The definition Either definitions... The definition of rare cancer and amendment eight remove similar wording relating to the NHS England discretion. At first the NHS England discretion. At first glance these may seem like matters glance these may seem like matters of tidy drafting. But detaining but retaining that discretion I believe is important especially with rare cancers.
Prevalence data can be uncertain or lagging and allows for expert judgements of those educators were rigid definitions from unintentionally excluded patients from trials or research that could actually benefit from them. Top that actually benefit from them. Top that with the concerns about the simple definition we are still exploring the difference between precancerous and cancerous cells. If you go for a smear, that is what you are told. This is a new area we are looking at. What knows -- who knows what will come up in the future.
Finding it on lagging prevalence data is a risk and therefore I believe it is right the government and indeed the Secretary of State at the time would be able to direct one way or another and have that discretion. However there is a rightly proposed question I will be ready for the government to answer on who or what will fill the role when it comes to the abolition of NHS England. It is not clear what that would look like and is a question I know the Minister sat opposite me has heard me repeat to him several times when it comes to mental health and many other areas.
It is a question is how should rightly ask, he was responsible for what, when and why? That said, amendment seven with the proposed National Speciality Lead to be posted within six months of Royal assent -- appointed within six months of Royal assent does need considerations. The public has waited long enough. If this will be established properly and correctly I will welcome the ambition being stated today could be stated stated today could be stated directly at the Dispatch Box.
I must express concern about amendment nine which looks to remove the protection of data and safeguards. This may be Declan Tory, in reaffirming -- it may be Declan Tory, in reaffirming it offers charity and reassurance. In an area as sensitive as health data this clarity matters. Its removal could cause unnecessary concern even if the underlying law remains unchanged. In conclusion Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is not grandstanding. It is modest in financial cost, careful in its drafting and realistic in its scope.
But its impact could be significant.. Patients living with rare cancer and patients and clinicians and researchers striving to support then the bill offers real hope. Hope for faster acting to innovation, hope for more inclusive research. And hope for a regular system that works for the many -- regulatory system that works for many not just the minority. Whether they are one in two Whether they are one in 21 in 2000, as stated in the Bill Committee, we support this bill as it goes forward.
I thank the chamber today for their chance to support it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call the Minister.
12:00
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call the Minister. Thank you. I am very grateful indeed to my friend, my honourable friend, the member for Edinburgh friend, the member for Edinburgh South West for bringing this bill before the health -- house today and I congratulate him on getting it to report stage. Amendment ones allows amendment to to be inserted into the bill. Amendment to would require the Secretary of State having carried out described in clause 1 to set out a timetable to implemented changes to the law recommended by the review.
However it would not be appropriate to presume the outcome of the review of drug regulations that is outlined in clause 1. Amendment to presupposes the review will recommend changing the law and also there are changes to Secretary of State would be willing to support following a legal consultation which is not considered appropriate at this stage. Amendment three is unnecessarily restricted and introduces wording that confines the review unnecessarily. We want to ensure a thorough review is conducted. My colleague, the Minister of State will be working Regarding amendment four, the three-year timeframe to publish this review and the necessary resourcing requirements have been discussed with officials in my department and at the Medicines, Healthcare Products Agency, I would like to remind members that text in the bill reflects the statutory deadline but we will endeavour to publish a report ahead of the three-year timeframe which has been put forward to be consistent with the overall work plan.
Now I speak to Amendment five. There are different definitions for a rare cancer and we worked with my honourable friend for Edinburgh South West to agree the definition in the bill, as one affecting not one -- Not more than one in 2,000 people. Discretion of the Secretary of State is required in the bill, since the facts underlying the data on diagnoses is constant changing. This amendment would make it difficult to influence the clause in practical and operational terms. Amendment six removes the ability of the Secretary of State to exercise discretion as to how this duty would be discharged.
This is not considered appropriate, since it makes the operation of clause two less workable, in practice, and would like the government's assessment, of what, in other circumstances, would be the most appropriate manner of implementation. Amendment seven would introduce a specific timeframe just six months, to allow the appointment of the speciality need for a while I agree that we would need to appoint the specialty lead promptly, introducing a statutory timeframe is not considered workable for practical reasons, there could be unforeseen delays, for example with recruitment processes, that might delay the appointment beyond six months.
Looking now to Amendment eight, as mentioned previously, there are different definitions for a rare cancer. This is because the data run cancer diagnoses is constant changing and the decisions on whether the criteria for a rare cancer is met will inevitably involve an element of judgement. Amendment eight would make it difficult to implement the clause in practical and operational terms. Finally, moving to amendment nine, it is essential the information relating to people's health and care is shared appropriately, lawfully, and in line with their reasonable expectations.
Amendment nine would remove provision confirming that any sharing of information pursuant to the powers created by the bell, and under NHS England's existing powers must be in accordance with existing regulation, it must be with key printable, such as lawfulness, and fairness. This is essential for patient's protection, and clause three a standard provision which makes this explicit. It is for these reasons that I ask the honourable member to withdraw all nine of his amendments. Thank you, Madame Deputy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speaker. Amendment one, is it your pleasure that Amendment one be pleasure that Amendment one be withdrawn or pushed? Very briefly, I was basically asking about Amendment one being pushed or withdrawn, if you could alert me to that, that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would be useful. Can I briefly respond to this debate and in so doing, thank my debate and in so doing, thank my honourable friend on the frontbench, and my honourable friend, for their and my honourable friend, for their contributions. And also to say that contributions. And also to say that I listened, tried to listen to what the Minister was going to say on the points about NHS England, I didn't quite hear the expression NHS England come from between his lips, and I wonder whether that was an oversight that has been left out of his brief, deliberately by officials his brief, deliberately by officials from NHS England or what.
But remember that specifically deals with NHS England, my honourable friend on the frontbench referred to it, does the reluctance of the Minister to intervene at this stage show that he is in denial about the show that he is in denial about the policy in relation to NHS England? I assume that he is in such denial. But I think we have had a classic example from the Minister. As to why the Civil Service is ruling OK, coming forward with a valid objection to every possible suggested alternative.
And amendment. And I just don't think this attitude is really going to be very helpful to the people we are trying to help. Namely, people who are suffering from rare cancers and want to make progress in this area. But I am not going to press any of these amendments. But I hope that when this bill gets to the other place, that there will be some more probing, and there will be more persistent probing on, particularly, the issues around NHS England and the definitions.
But, give credit where it is due, I was pleased the Minister did say, in terms of the speciality lead, as I said, he was that dealt with properly but he is that dealt with properly but he is fearful of accepting an amendment in six months, because of unforeseen delays, the possibility of. I take delays, the possibility of. I take it from that, that he is going to get on with that aspect of it get on with that aspect of it anyway, let's hope that goes faster, rather than slower.
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call the Minister. Thank you. I am very grateful indeed to my friend, my honourable friend, the member for Edinburgh friend, the member for Edinburgh South West for bringing this bill before the health -- house today and I congratulate him on getting it to report stage. Amendment ones allows amendment to to be inserted into the bill. Amendment to would require the Secretary of State having carried out described in clause 1 to set out a timetable to implemented changes to the law recommended by the review.
However it would not be appropriate to presume the outcome of the review of drug regulations that is outlined in clause 1. Amendment to presupposes the review will recommend changing the law and also there are changes to Secretary of State would be willing to support following a legal consultation which is not considered appropriate at this stage. Amendment three is unnecessarily restricted and introduces wording that confines the review unnecessarily. We want to ensure a thorough review is conducted. My colleague, the Minister of State will be working Regarding amendment four, the three-year timeframe to publish this review and the necessary resourcing requirements have been discussed with officials in my department and at the Medicines, Healthcare Products Agency, I would like to remind members that text in the bill reflects the statutory deadline but we will endeavour to publish a report ahead of the three-year timeframe which has been put forward to be consistent with the overall work plan.
Now I speak to Amendment five. There are different definitions for a rare cancer and we worked with my honourable friend for Edinburgh South West to agree the definition in the bill, as one affecting not one -- Not more than one in 2,000 people. Discretion of the Secretary of State is required in the bill, since the facts underlying the data on diagnoses is constant changing. This amendment would make it difficult to influence the clause in practical and operational terms. Amendment six removes the ability of the Secretary of State to exercise discretion as to how this duty would be discharged.
This is not considered appropriate, since it makes the operation of clause two less workable, in practice, and would like the government's assessment, of what, in other circumstances, would be the most appropriate manner of implementation. Amendment seven would introduce a specific timeframe just six months, to allow the appointment of the speciality need for a while I agree that we would need to appoint the specialty lead promptly, introducing a statutory timeframe is not considered workable for practical reasons, there could be unforeseen delays, for example with recruitment processes, that might delay the appointment beyond six months.
Looking now to Amendment eight, as mentioned previously, there are different definitions for a rare cancer. This is because the data run cancer diagnoses is constant changing and the decisions on whether the criteria for a rare cancer is met will inevitably involve an element of judgement. Amendment eight would make it difficult to implement the clause in practical and operational terms. Finally, moving to amendment nine, it is essential the information relating to people's health and care is shared appropriately, lawfully, and in line with their reasonable expectations.
Amendment nine would remove provision confirming that any sharing of information pursuant to the powers created by the bell, and under NHS England's existing powers must be in accordance with existing regulation, it must be with key printable, such as lawfulness, and fairness. This is essential for patient's protection, and clause three a standard provision which makes this explicit. It is for these reasons that I ask the honourable member to withdraw all nine of his amendments. Thank you, Madame Deputy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speaker. Amendment one, is it your pleasure that Amendment one be pleasure that Amendment one be withdrawn or pushed? Very briefly, I was basically asking about Amendment one being pushed or withdrawn, if you could alert me to that, that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would be useful. Can I briefly respond to this debate and in so doing, thank my debate and in so doing, thank my honourable friend on the frontbench, and my honourable friend, for their and my honourable friend, for their contributions. And also to say that contributions. And also to say that I listened, tried to listen to what the Minister was going to say on the points about NHS England, I didn't quite hear the expression NHS England come from between his lips, and I wonder whether that was an oversight that has been left out of his brief, deliberately by officials his brief, deliberately by officials from NHS England or what.
But remember that specifically deals with NHS England, my honourable friend on the frontbench referred to it, does the reluctance of the Minister to intervene at this stage show that he is in denial about the show that he is in denial about the policy in relation to NHS England? I assume that he is in such denial. But I think we have had a classic example from the Minister. As to why the Civil Service is ruling OK, coming forward with a valid objection to every possible suggested alternative.
And amendment. And I just don't think this attitude is really going to be very helpful to the people we are trying to help. Namely, people who are suffering from rare cancers and want to make progress in this area. But I am not going to press any of these amendments. But I hope that when this bill gets to the other place, that there will be some more probing, and there will be more persistent probing on, particularly, the issues around NHS England and the definitions.
But, give credit where it is due, I was pleased the Minister did say, in terms of the speciality lead, as I said, he was that dealt with properly but he is that dealt with properly but he is fearful of accepting an amendment in six months, because of unforeseen delays, the possibility of. I take delays, the possibility of. I take it from that, that he is going to get on with that aspect of it get on with that aspect of it anyway, let's hope that goes faster, rather than slower.
12:07
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
Very helpful indeed, but just for the record, is it your pleasure the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment to be withdrawn? I seek leave to withdraw amendment number one. Amendment by leave withdrawn, we now move on. Consideration now move on. Consideration completed. Third reading what day? Doctor Scott Arthur to move third
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment to be withdrawn? I seek leave to withdraw amendment number one. Amendment by leave withdrawn, we now move on. Consideration now move on. Consideration completed. Third reading what day? Doctor Scott Arthur to move third
12:07
Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reading. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move the Bill be now and I beg to move the Bill be now red for a time. -- Now be read for 1/3 time. What a joy it is to say that, it has been 10 months since you broke my little ping-pong ball out of the goldfish bowl and I started this journey. And it is worth remembering that part of the stimulus was the death of my father-in-law, from a rare cancer, and I am grateful to the information the members have given me about that condition, and how it impacts so many people.
Because it has been focused on my father-in-law. A time when the ping-pong ball was pulled out of the goldfish bowl, I got so many emails, about it. But the reality is if someone is diagnosed that day with it, they are more likely to be dead now, that is how likely to be dead now, that is how serious this condition is. And their future would be dominated by uncertainty. We should not forget that is why we are here, the change that reality, for people, and for their families.
This bill has resonated with many members in this House, and the people in my constituency. At second reading, shed the tragic story of a young constituent, who passed away from neuroblastoma, and Kieran, who has lived with the same disease for a decade, half her life. I am proud to wear a badge her mother gave me, when I last met her. But today, I also want to acknowledge the many people from across the UK, not just voters in Edinburgh South West who have contacted me voice their support and share their stories, there was one lady who travelled far to meet me, in July, her daughter had been diagnosed.
She was telling me, in Tesco, to the checkout, the uncertainty facing a diagnosis, and that she found it impossible to understand what trials were available, let alone what access to them. I could see that she felt powerless and lost hope another reason she was in Edinburgh, perhaps the most important reason, she was meeting her ex husband to scatter her daughter's ashes in the local park. Quite incredible what is happening with people who face these conditions. It is absolutely right we seek to address them.
It has been incredible to hear these stories, and when I look at them and reflect and when I look at them and reflect on them, we can see there are three re-occurring themes. The first is frustration. As things stand, our NHS is ill-equipped to deal with these patients, awareness levels are often low, among clinician's, and this leads to the scourge of late diagnosis, and I know this is something that we will address in the cancer plan. Families and patients are also frustrated by the limited access to cutting-edge trials, and I have already given an example of that.
As a result, many rare cancer patients understandably feel like they have to battle not just against the cancer, but also the battle for attention. The second key thing which unites these stories is perseverance. Rare cancer patients are continuously pushing back and advocating for changes they believe must happen. Often fundraising and even setting up and running their own charities to help achieve these goals. And thirdly, each and everyone concludes with an offer of help. Rather than ask what I can do for them, because often they know their options are limited, they want to know what they could do to help with this bill, and help others with the same condition.
And how they can help make this legislation a reality. And I believe this is a testament, to the potential transformational role this bill could have, and I thank those who have already agreed with that point. For far too long, they have been left behind. As medical science makes significant progress in other fields, we have not seen enough progress in this one. They feel this piece of legislation could mark a meaningful shift. For many, and it turns out to be life altering and life saving for some.
Rare cancers are not really rare, they account for 47% of all cancer diagnoses in the UK each year. That is 180,000 people. But if you are one of those 47%, two things are true. You are more likely to face outdated treatments and you are more likely to die. This bill is about justice, it is about creating a more equal playing field for these patients, and for their families. It will achieve this by placing a duty on the Secretary of State for research into rare cancers, including appointing a National Speciality Lead to coordinate across the sector.
And if anyone doubts the need for this, I am sure the member could talk about something happening in the recent years. It will also increase access to clinical trials by threatening and streamlining this part of research, and building a database of willing patients to health research, which finds trial participants more easily. This is key. And lastly, it will trigger a government review, from drug regulations, which is a phrase I dislike, it is about recognition, drug relations define pathways, to file repurposed and innovative treatments are cancer.
Together, these steps will reduce the barriers to research. And attract more trials to the UK, and ultimately, to fast and fair access to life-saving treatments. I don't want to be accused of understating the impact of the bill. I will take the liberty of quoting others if members do not mind for top the brain tumour charities say, they have been so helpful in this bill, they say it will be transformative and help improve access to clinical trials for people living with the rare and less common cancers.
Another helpful charity, Brain Tumour Research, says it could significantly improve research in treatment pathways for patients. An Pancreatic Cancer UK, who have been involved in what we're doing, and in correspondence with the Member for Christchurch, it becomes law, as the improvement of survival rates for upgrade cancer and other cancers that have been -- For pancreas cancer and other cancers that have been left behind. I know the honourable member wanted to be here today, but instead, his sister left a message on my social media and she lives with neuroblastoma, and as a campaign in this field.
She says he will make a significant difference, helping tens of thousands were desperate need more research to find a cure. So, no pressure there for me, or us in the chamber today. There is also strong economic argument for introducing this legislation. By creating the conditions for more rare cancer trials taking place in the UK, we can attract investment, singlet innovation and create new jobs and research. In science and healthcare. This is an opportunity to give This is an opportunity to give science in situations role in tackling these diseases.
I've had the pleasure of visiting Edinburgh University researchers, place in a hospital in Edinburgh. And I was invited along to see a thing called a robotic microscope. It sounded quite exciting, I was looking forward to getting my picture taken next to it, it is actually a very ordinary piece of instrumentation. I got my picture taken, but I don't thing I used to, this is a fantastic piece of equipment, the couple it with a supercomputer and it does what will have previously been a life time is worth of research, it can do it, a lifetime's worth of analysis, it can do it in just a few analysis, it can do it in just a few days.
I think it is fantastic that, in this House, we have all agreed Edinburgh University should get a new supercomputer, so it will change analysis which used to take a few days, into just a few hours. Naturally moving cure is closer to us. As the United States have shown how investment in this area can help similar growth as well. Through their cancers act. And it will offer a real step change here in the UK, if we are able to do the same. So, I will draw to a conclusion now, because I know others want to speak.
I believe there is a strong moral and canonic argument for this bill for supper and I think the progress for supper and I think the progress
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the building are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
read 1/3 time. Once again can I congratulate the honourable member for Edinburgh South West for bringing this
Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reading. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move the Bill be now and I beg to move the Bill be now red for a time. -- Now be read for 1/3 time. What a joy it is to say that, it has been 10 months since you broke my little ping-pong ball out of the goldfish bowl and I started this journey. And it is worth remembering that part of the stimulus was the death of my father-in-law, from a rare cancer, and I am grateful to the information the members have given me about that condition, and how it impacts so many people.
Because it has been focused on my father-in-law. A time when the ping-pong ball was pulled out of the goldfish bowl, I got so many emails, about it. But the reality is if someone is diagnosed that day with it, they are more likely to be dead now, that is how likely to be dead now, that is how serious this condition is. And their future would be dominated by uncertainty. We should not forget that is why we are here, the change that reality, for people, and for their families.
This bill has resonated with many members in this House, and the people in my constituency. At second reading, shed the tragic story of a young constituent, who passed away from neuroblastoma, and Kieran, who has lived with the same disease for a decade, half her life. I am proud to wear a badge her mother gave me, when I last met her. But today, I also want to acknowledge the many people from across the UK, not just voters in Edinburgh South West who have contacted me voice their support and share their stories, there was one lady who travelled far to meet me, in July, her daughter had been diagnosed.
She was telling me, in Tesco, to the checkout, the uncertainty facing a diagnosis, and that she found it impossible to understand what trials were available, let alone what access to them. I could see that she felt powerless and lost hope another reason she was in Edinburgh, perhaps the most important reason, she was meeting her ex husband to scatter her daughter's ashes in the local park. Quite incredible what is happening with people who face these conditions. It is absolutely right we seek to address them.
It has been incredible to hear these stories, and when I look at them and reflect and when I look at them and reflect on them, we can see there are three re-occurring themes. The first is frustration. As things stand, our NHS is ill-equipped to deal with these patients, awareness levels are often low, among clinician's, and this leads to the scourge of late diagnosis, and I know this is something that we will address in the cancer plan. Families and patients are also frustrated by the limited access to cutting-edge trials, and I have already given an example of that.
As a result, many rare cancer patients understandably feel like they have to battle not just against the cancer, but also the battle for attention. The second key thing which unites these stories is perseverance. Rare cancer patients are continuously pushing back and advocating for changes they believe must happen. Often fundraising and even setting up and running their own charities to help achieve these goals. And thirdly, each and everyone concludes with an offer of help. Rather than ask what I can do for them, because often they know their options are limited, they want to know what they could do to help with this bill, and help others with the same condition.
And how they can help make this legislation a reality. And I believe this is a testament, to the potential transformational role this bill could have, and I thank those who have already agreed with that point. For far too long, they have been left behind. As medical science makes significant progress in other fields, we have not seen enough progress in this one. They feel this piece of legislation could mark a meaningful shift. For many, and it turns out to be life altering and life saving for some.
Rare cancers are not really rare, they account for 47% of all cancer diagnoses in the UK each year. That is 180,000 people. But if you are one of those 47%, two things are true. You are more likely to face outdated treatments and you are more likely to die. This bill is about justice, it is about creating a more equal playing field for these patients, and for their families. It will achieve this by placing a duty on the Secretary of State for research into rare cancers, including appointing a National Speciality Lead to coordinate across the sector.
And if anyone doubts the need for this, I am sure the member could talk about something happening in the recent years. It will also increase access to clinical trials by threatening and streamlining this part of research, and building a database of willing patients to health research, which finds trial participants more easily. This is key. And lastly, it will trigger a government review, from drug regulations, which is a phrase I dislike, it is about recognition, drug relations define pathways, to file repurposed and innovative treatments are cancer.
Together, these steps will reduce the barriers to research. And attract more trials to the UK, and ultimately, to fast and fair access to life-saving treatments. I don't want to be accused of understating the impact of the bill. I will take the liberty of quoting others if members do not mind for top the brain tumour charities say, they have been so helpful in this bill, they say it will be transformative and help improve access to clinical trials for people living with the rare and less common cancers.
Another helpful charity, Brain Tumour Research, says it could significantly improve research in treatment pathways for patients. An Pancreatic Cancer UK, who have been involved in what we're doing, and in correspondence with the Member for Christchurch, it becomes law, as the improvement of survival rates for upgrade cancer and other cancers that have been -- For pancreas cancer and other cancers that have been left behind. I know the honourable member wanted to be here today, but instead, his sister left a message on my social media and she lives with neuroblastoma, and as a campaign in this field.
She says he will make a significant difference, helping tens of thousands were desperate need more research to find a cure. So, no pressure there for me, or us in the chamber today. There is also strong economic argument for introducing this legislation. By creating the conditions for more rare cancer trials taking place in the UK, we can attract investment, singlet innovation and create new jobs and research. In science and healthcare. This is an opportunity to give This is an opportunity to give science in situations role in tackling these diseases.
I've had the pleasure of visiting Edinburgh University researchers, place in a hospital in Edinburgh. And I was invited along to see a thing called a robotic microscope. It sounded quite exciting, I was looking forward to getting my picture taken next to it, it is actually a very ordinary piece of instrumentation. I got my picture taken, but I don't thing I used to, this is a fantastic piece of equipment, the couple it with a supercomputer and it does what will have previously been a life time is worth of research, it can do it, a lifetime's worth of analysis, it can do it in just a few analysis, it can do it in just a few days.
I think it is fantastic that, in this House, we have all agreed Edinburgh University should get a new supercomputer, so it will change analysis which used to take a few days, into just a few hours. Naturally moving cure is closer to us. As the United States have shown how investment in this area can help similar growth as well. Through their cancers act. And it will offer a real step change here in the UK, if we are able to do the same. So, I will draw to a conclusion now, because I know others want to speak.
I believe there is a strong moral and canonic argument for this bill for supper and I think the progress for supper and I think the progress
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the building are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
read 1/3 time. Once again can I congratulate the honourable member for Edinburgh South West for bringing this
12:17
Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
essential bill before us and to thank him for the hardware key has been doing to make sure we have got to this place. As I have said many times in this House early detection saves lives. Without meaningful progress and research we will fall behind other countries making major advances in cancer care. We call these rare cancers they are rare in the individual components. But I have been amazed by how many constituents across my constituency and the surrounding villages to support this bill by contacting me and share their experiences.
Despite rare and less common cancers receiving over half of the Cancer Research UK funding in recent years, staggering 82% of patients surveyed by Cancer 52 said they were never offered the chance to participate in a clinical trial. Not because there is no public support, not because the science is not there but because persistent structural barriers are in the way. This bill addresses those barriers directly. If enacted, the Rare Cancers Bill will appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers with the government creating accountability, facilitating research collaboration and embedding coordination across NHS England whilst it still exists.
The NIHR and cancer alliances. Second it would mandate a review of the U.K.'s drug regulations, aligning incentives such as marketing exclusivity and reducing regulatory fees for international best practice. Thirdly it will adapt the NIHR's new part of research platform to create a dedicated proactive registry that directly links patients to the relevant clinical trials. Let us be clear, this bill aims to deploy smarter systems, harness the power of artificial intelligence, expand their access to treatment, and the postcode lottery and ensure every patient no matter the type of cancer has the opportunity to benefit from research and high quality personalised care.
Let us also be clear about the need. Rare and less common cancers in out -- amount for 47% of all cancer diagnoses yet are responsible for 55% of all cancer deaths. That means more than half of those dying from cancer in this country are doing so in conditions that receive disproportionately less investment, less attention and less hope. This sparsity in survival is rare. Only 16% of people diagnosed with cancers of the pancreas, brain, oesophagus, liver or stomach survive beyond five years.
By contrast the five year survival rate across more common cancers is over 55%. This is not a marginal issue, this is a mainstream cancer care just neglected. Our international peers are taking action in countries like France, Germany and the USA, regulatory frameworks are actively incentivising clinical trials for rare cancers. The UK meanwhile has fallen from second to 10th in Europe from access to all medicines. We must reverse that decline, we must unlock the potential of our research base and this bill is the legislative structure to do so.
The NHS 10-Year Plan launched with the ambition to modernise our health service is a wide-ranging document. It rightly challenges early diagnosis, innovation and personalised care. And no doubt many of its pillars, particularly around genomics, digital access and therapeutic innovation can benefit people with rare cancer. Can is not people with rare cancer. Can is not the same as well and should is not the same as must. The plan sets out a national goal to divert some five% of funding to stage I or two by 2028.
This target explicitly includes rare and less common cancers. It is an important and necessary ambition. As campaigners have rightly pointed out without specific structural action on rare cancers we will not hit the target and worse, we believe some of the miserable patients behind. As I have said these are not fringed diseases, they are mainstream and underresearched and under resourced. The 10-Year Plan does include a number of relevant commitments such as the whole-genome sequencing of newborns, supported by £650 million investment.
Which could recognise early detection of genetic cancer syndromes. There are of course some safeguarding issues around that sequencing and I do not want to pre-empt my common politics home on Monday but more of my concerns around the safeguards, please read that. In likewise it has the expansion of genomic and formal genomic services -- pharma can you take genomic services within the NHS being able to offer targeted therapies for rare cancers. Including medicinal products already being rolled out for certain rare blood cancers.
It streamlines the blood cancers. It streamlines the wriggly pathways for -- regulatory pathways to treat patients faster. They are steps in the right direction but let me be frank, the plan does not go far enough for people with rare cancers. There is no dedicated rare cancer Task Force despite repeated calls from Cancer 52, Sako UK and The Brain Tumour Charity. There is no specific ring- fenced funding despite the multidisciplinary care required. There is no rare cancer specific fellowships despite lack of expertise is hampering our plans.
The plan published alongside the NHS 10 year strategy takes long-term out of collaboratively networks and data integration. Again rare cancers are folded into a general framework rather than given the targeted attention they so desperately need.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will. I am here today on behalf of my young constituent imaging. And all young constituent imaging. And all young people facing tongue cancer. It is a rare cancer with a frightening and disabling treatment frightening and disabling treatment option. On behalf of my constituent roles who lost her mother to pancreatic and suggest 24-hour was after diagnosis. -- Pancreatic after diagnosis. -- Pancreatic Cancer UK just 24 hours after diagnosis. Does the House believe that we should be committed to that we should be committed to targeted and practical reforms and research which is supported by charity partners and so many of our constituents desperately want to see passed into law?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
passed into law? I thank the honourable member for her intervention. She is absolutely right. This I hope has cross-party support and she has pointed out a significant number of charities significant number of charities across the UK are hoping this bill passes today and I also do so. That brings me nicely onto what the chief executive like the Chief Executive of Cancer 52 has said and she has of Cancer 52 has said and she has said rare and common cancers make up a huge part of the cancer diagnoses in this country.
They need a in this country. They need a structured targeted approach not structured targeted approach not general plans. She is right we need a single accountable office for rare cancer research and care. Need smarter platforms like adapt being part of research system posed in the rare cancer bill and we need a clear strategy for offering drug access to the UK becomes a destination for innovation to D2. When the NHS 10- Year Plan speaks of transformation we must mean that -- make sure that conservation is inclusive.
We must be honest when we talk about innovation about who gets access and who does not. If we are serious about improving outcomes for all cancer patients then rare cancers must not be treated as an afterthought. They must be recognised for what they are, a major public health challenge hiding in plain sight. The 10-Year Plan gives us the tools and it is now up to this House and to Ministers to ensure those tools are used equitably and strategically and with urgency. That is why I was incredibly sad to hear Doctor Susan founder of the project died a couple of days ago.
Susan's life and legacy shows why this bill matter. Bring cancer affects many women in the UK, it is not rare in the strict legal sense of this bill putting out more than 600,000 are diagnosed ideally. But due to the severe lack of research, awareness and tailor treatment it deserves to be treated such by our systems. Susan was due to meet the Secretary of State this coming month 14 July. To discuss how to accelerate the vital five year research project you have to initiate.
That meeting thankfully will still go ahead and the campaign will not stop in the moonshot project will continue for every woman facing this disease without the lack of options Susan deserved. Susan is far from alone. My constituent recently wrote to me about their mother. Diagnosed with an aggressive and incurable brain. She died in 2011, just three years after diagnosis. The average survival time for this cancer is 12 to 18 months. Only 25% of patient survival is more than one year.
Just five% if you are under five. The cancer patients discussed movingly about how they were moved from different care pathways. Initially undiagnosed and then call too late. There are so many rare cancers whether story repeats. Rare cancers are not rare to those living with them. They are only read not rare to the system. Doctor Jane Lyons said again,... But they account for 51 % of cancer deaths. That is a huge number of challenges but a huge opportunity for impact. Sarcoma UK found one in three sarcoma patients found they waited over six months to be diagnosed.
Referral pathways are previously misapplied. In cancer care this can be fatal. Brain Tumour Charity has pulled this bill essential for any real hope of progress in finding a cure. -- Called this bill essential. The rare cancer Task Force has declared this legislation isn't I again quote, crucial for early diagnosis and equity of access. The rare cancer manifesto calls for urgent structural change to improve data, screening and outcomes. Another UK charity has spoken powerfully about the opportunities to accelerate genetic led AI informed cancer prevention if cancer research is properly funded.
I believe the rare cancer bill will help achieve this. It is three core provisions, a named lead for rare cancer research so this agenda has a home in government and a voice at the top table. A review of the drug regulations to create better commercial incentives for new treatment and trials. A patient focused data system built into the being part of research platform so the bill are no longer left -- the people are no longer left in the dark about trials that change their lives.
It is not just about saving lives but about improving them. It is about ensuring families are left with grief when better systems might have been used. We consider the Rare Cancers Bill and let us remember people like Susan and the countless families who have campaigned for change and they might never live to see it. Let us recognise rare cancers not symbiosis problem. There are public health injustice hiding in plain sight. Let us pass this bill not just for scientists and clinicians but for every patient, every parent, every partner who has watched all of one suffer from a cancer -- a loved one suffer from a cancer few can pronounce.
This is about driving innovation and delivering real lasting change. If we seize this moment we can ensure every patient no matter how rare their cancer can access trials, treatment and the possibility of life. Let us not waste the opportunity, let us be clear about the gaps and build an NHS that genuinely serves every patient with every type of cancer in every part of its country. Together let us leave a legacy worthy of those we have lost and transform care for those still fighting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank and rise to support this bill which will make a real difference improving detection and difference improving detection and treatment of rare cancers. We heard at Second Reading many moving contributions, particularly from my
Despite rare and less common cancers receiving over half of the Cancer Research UK funding in recent years, staggering 82% of patients surveyed by Cancer 52 said they were never offered the chance to participate in a clinical trial. Not because there is no public support, not because the science is not there but because persistent structural barriers are in the way. This bill addresses those barriers directly. If enacted, the Rare Cancers Bill will appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers with the government creating accountability, facilitating research collaboration and embedding coordination across NHS England whilst it still exists.
The NIHR and cancer alliances. Second it would mandate a review of the U.K.'s drug regulations, aligning incentives such as marketing exclusivity and reducing regulatory fees for international best practice. Thirdly it will adapt the NIHR's new part of research platform to create a dedicated proactive registry that directly links patients to the relevant clinical trials. Let us be clear, this bill aims to deploy smarter systems, harness the power of artificial intelligence, expand their access to treatment, and the postcode lottery and ensure every patient no matter the type of cancer has the opportunity to benefit from research and high quality personalised care.
Let us also be clear about the need. Rare and less common cancers in out -- amount for 47% of all cancer diagnoses yet are responsible for 55% of all cancer deaths. That means more than half of those dying from cancer in this country are doing so in conditions that receive disproportionately less investment, less attention and less hope. This sparsity in survival is rare. Only 16% of people diagnosed with cancers of the pancreas, brain, oesophagus, liver or stomach survive beyond five years.
By contrast the five year survival rate across more common cancers is over 55%. This is not a marginal issue, this is a mainstream cancer care just neglected. Our international peers are taking action in countries like France, Germany and the USA, regulatory frameworks are actively incentivising clinical trials for rare cancers. The UK meanwhile has fallen from second to 10th in Europe from access to all medicines. We must reverse that decline, we must unlock the potential of our research base and this bill is the legislative structure to do so.
The NHS 10-Year Plan launched with the ambition to modernise our health service is a wide-ranging document. It rightly challenges early diagnosis, innovation and personalised care. And no doubt many of its pillars, particularly around genomics, digital access and therapeutic innovation can benefit people with rare cancer. Can is not people with rare cancer. Can is not the same as well and should is not the same as must. The plan sets out a national goal to divert some five% of funding to stage I or two by 2028.
This target explicitly includes rare and less common cancers. It is an important and necessary ambition. As campaigners have rightly pointed out without specific structural action on rare cancers we will not hit the target and worse, we believe some of the miserable patients behind. As I have said these are not fringed diseases, they are mainstream and underresearched and under resourced. The 10-Year Plan does include a number of relevant commitments such as the whole-genome sequencing of newborns, supported by £650 million investment.
Which could recognise early detection of genetic cancer syndromes. There are of course some safeguarding issues around that sequencing and I do not want to pre-empt my common politics home on Monday but more of my concerns around the safeguards, please read that. In likewise it has the expansion of genomic and formal genomic services -- pharma can you take genomic services within the NHS being able to offer targeted therapies for rare cancers. Including medicinal products already being rolled out for certain rare blood cancers.
It streamlines the blood cancers. It streamlines the wriggly pathways for -- regulatory pathways to treat patients faster. They are steps in the right direction but let me be frank, the plan does not go far enough for people with rare cancers. There is no dedicated rare cancer Task Force despite repeated calls from Cancer 52, Sako UK and The Brain Tumour Charity. There is no specific ring- fenced funding despite the multidisciplinary care required. There is no rare cancer specific fellowships despite lack of expertise is hampering our plans.
The plan published alongside the NHS 10 year strategy takes long-term out of collaboratively networks and data integration. Again rare cancers are folded into a general framework rather than given the targeted attention they so desperately need.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will. I am here today on behalf of my young constituent imaging. And all young constituent imaging. And all young people facing tongue cancer. It is a rare cancer with a frightening and disabling treatment frightening and disabling treatment option. On behalf of my constituent roles who lost her mother to pancreatic and suggest 24-hour was after diagnosis. -- Pancreatic after diagnosis. -- Pancreatic Cancer UK just 24 hours after diagnosis. Does the House believe that we should be committed to that we should be committed to targeted and practical reforms and research which is supported by charity partners and so many of our constituents desperately want to see passed into law?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
passed into law? I thank the honourable member for her intervention. She is absolutely right. This I hope has cross-party support and she has pointed out a significant number of charities significant number of charities across the UK are hoping this bill passes today and I also do so. That brings me nicely onto what the chief executive like the Chief Executive of Cancer 52 has said and she has of Cancer 52 has said and she has said rare and common cancers make up a huge part of the cancer diagnoses in this country.
They need a in this country. They need a structured targeted approach not structured targeted approach not general plans. She is right we need a single accountable office for rare cancer research and care. Need smarter platforms like adapt being part of research system posed in the rare cancer bill and we need a clear strategy for offering drug access to the UK becomes a destination for innovation to D2. When the NHS 10- Year Plan speaks of transformation we must mean that -- make sure that conservation is inclusive.
We must be honest when we talk about innovation about who gets access and who does not. If we are serious about improving outcomes for all cancer patients then rare cancers must not be treated as an afterthought. They must be recognised for what they are, a major public health challenge hiding in plain sight. The 10-Year Plan gives us the tools and it is now up to this House and to Ministers to ensure those tools are used equitably and strategically and with urgency. That is why I was incredibly sad to hear Doctor Susan founder of the project died a couple of days ago.
Susan's life and legacy shows why this bill matter. Bring cancer affects many women in the UK, it is not rare in the strict legal sense of this bill putting out more than 600,000 are diagnosed ideally. But due to the severe lack of research, awareness and tailor treatment it deserves to be treated such by our systems. Susan was due to meet the Secretary of State this coming month 14 July. To discuss how to accelerate the vital five year research project you have to initiate.
That meeting thankfully will still go ahead and the campaign will not stop in the moonshot project will continue for every woman facing this disease without the lack of options Susan deserved. Susan is far from alone. My constituent recently wrote to me about their mother. Diagnosed with an aggressive and incurable brain. She died in 2011, just three years after diagnosis. The average survival time for this cancer is 12 to 18 months. Only 25% of patient survival is more than one year.
Just five% if you are under five. The cancer patients discussed movingly about how they were moved from different care pathways. Initially undiagnosed and then call too late. There are so many rare cancers whether story repeats. Rare cancers are not rare to those living with them. They are only read not rare to the system. Doctor Jane Lyons said again,... But they account for 51 % of cancer deaths. That is a huge number of challenges but a huge opportunity for impact. Sarcoma UK found one in three sarcoma patients found they waited over six months to be diagnosed.
Referral pathways are previously misapplied. In cancer care this can be fatal. Brain Tumour Charity has pulled this bill essential for any real hope of progress in finding a cure. -- Called this bill essential. The rare cancer Task Force has declared this legislation isn't I again quote, crucial for early diagnosis and equity of access. The rare cancer manifesto calls for urgent structural change to improve data, screening and outcomes. Another UK charity has spoken powerfully about the opportunities to accelerate genetic led AI informed cancer prevention if cancer research is properly funded.
I believe the rare cancer bill will help achieve this. It is three core provisions, a named lead for rare cancer research so this agenda has a home in government and a voice at the top table. A review of the drug regulations to create better commercial incentives for new treatment and trials. A patient focused data system built into the being part of research platform so the bill are no longer left -- the people are no longer left in the dark about trials that change their lives.
It is not just about saving lives but about improving them. It is about ensuring families are left with grief when better systems might have been used. We consider the Rare Cancers Bill and let us remember people like Susan and the countless families who have campaigned for change and they might never live to see it. Let us recognise rare cancers not symbiosis problem. There are public health injustice hiding in plain sight. Let us pass this bill not just for scientists and clinicians but for every patient, every parent, every partner who has watched all of one suffer from a cancer -- a loved one suffer from a cancer few can pronounce.
This is about driving innovation and delivering real lasting change. If we seize this moment we can ensure every patient no matter how rare their cancer can access trials, treatment and the possibility of life. Let us not waste the opportunity, let us be clear about the gaps and build an NHS that genuinely serves every patient with every type of cancer in every part of its country. Together let us leave a legacy worthy of those we have lost and transform care for those still fighting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank and rise to support this bill which will make a real difference improving detection and difference improving detection and treatment of rare cancers. We heard at Second Reading many moving contributions, particularly from my
12:29
Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)
-
-
Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)
contributions, particularly from my honourable friends the Mitcham and Morden and Calder Valley. With the permission from my honourable friend, the member for Edinburgh South West I want to take this opportunity to press the Minister also on research into lobular breast cancer. With the comments that have just come before. 22 people a day in the UK are diagnosed with lobular cancer. It would be outside of the scope of this bill but with the UK population of 70 million, 22 per day would be deemed as rare.
More importantly it has an met, clinical need -- unmet clinical need and that is what matters here. Lobular breast cancer was first identified as a separate type of breast cancer 50 years ago. Whilst breast cancer survival rates in general improved, research specifically into lobular has been rare, grossly underfunded, 50 years after its discovery, the basic biology of the disease remains basically unknown. This has led to two effects. Firstly it is difficult to detect, it is weblike structure meaning it does not have the typical them.
It often spreads before it ever gets detected. And secondly there is no bespoke treatment so doctors will throw the kitchen sink at it, radio, chemo and hope for the Scientists say a treatment can be developed, the only reason it hasn't made a lack of funding for research, so in May 2023, Doctor Susan, who had been diagnosed 12 years earlier, launched for a moonshot project, one of the campaign as my constituent, Katie. A mother of three. A popular local schoolteacher.
I met with Katie recently in her home, along with Susan and her husband. Susan had deteriorated since we met on zoom, and explained her cancer is terminal. That it is too late to save her. But she had a determination to spend her last years campaigning for change. We hoped she would have years to come. Katie, however, still had a hope for treatment and cure. In her lifetime. And she hopes to see her children grow old, she hopes to carry grandchildren.
This could be Monday, which had already, we were due to meet with the Secretary of State to press the case for £20 million for the moonshot project, that is just too old and £40 for every person too old and £40 for every person diagnosed. -- That is just £240 for every person diagnosed. We will press ahead with that meeting, but sadly, two days ago, Wednesday, 9 July, Doctor Susan, the founder of the moonshot project, sadly passed away, 14 years after her initial diagnosis.
She died peacefully at 5pm, proudly wearing her project T- shirt. She was surrounded by her husband, Tristan, and some close friends. The Moonshot project is the most bipartisan campaign in the UK right now, 370 MPs across this House, across all parties, have called on the government to fund this vital research. During her 14 years suffering with this cruel and brutal illness, Susan was given eight different forms of breast cancer treatment. But none of them were able to stop the disease from progressing.
None of the treatments she received were based on the basic biology of lobular breast cancer, because as has already, this has not yet been explored. The women campaigning, who have been touched by the disease have raised £195,000 over the last few years, to setup the infrastructure and carry out this research at the Manchester Breast Centre, by Professor Robert Clark. Her remarkable campaign has touched women across the country. If I may, just a few comments about Susan. As a young girl, she always dreamt of being a pilot.
But there are a few opportunities for women to become commercial pilots in Australia at the time, so she completed a degree in marketing and saved of the money to become a private pilot. After teaching people to fly, she finally became an airline pilot, starting off in the Northern Territory of Australia, flying to remote communities. In 1994, when she was 32, she started flying the British aerospace BAE 146, and immediately noticed a strange smell in the aircraft. The breathing air supply was being contaminated with jet engine oil, and decomposition products.
Despite being told there was nothing to be concerned about, she suffered increasing health effects from these exposures and three years later, in 1997, collapsed after a flight. She felt she was having a stroke. She never flew as an airline pilot again. Three years of exposure to a complex mix of chemicals, including carbon monoxide and endocrine disrupting chemicals seriously impact our health and she lost her air pilot certificate. Two years later, she was partly responsible for an Australian Senate carrying out a year-long investigation into the problem.
They concluded these chemical exposures were impacting flight safety and public health. She undertook the first ever PhD into the subject, and later qualified as an air accident investigator. She published numerous scientific papers on the subject, brief airlines, oil manufacturers, governments, countless others on the topic. It is done seven, 10 years after her first flight as an airline pilot, Australian Senator O'Brien revealed a secret, an Australian airline manufacturer and two airlines, in which a large sum of money was given in settlement with problems relating to oil contaminating the breathing air supply on the aircraft model she flew.
After her injuries sustained as an airline pilot, Susan completed 1/2 Ironman triathlon, and became the first Australian to receive the British citizen award for her and Tristan's work on aviation safety. Last year, a rose, named Doctor Susan's Rose, was shown at the Chelsea flower show. Susan has appeared or been portrayed in numerous documentaries and films, she will be greatly missed, but the campaign she founded will move on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And I wish, once more, to thank the Member for Edinburgh Southwest for all he has done to bring this bill
More importantly it has an met, clinical need -- unmet clinical need and that is what matters here. Lobular breast cancer was first identified as a separate type of breast cancer 50 years ago. Whilst breast cancer survival rates in general improved, research specifically into lobular has been rare, grossly underfunded, 50 years after its discovery, the basic biology of the disease remains basically unknown. This has led to two effects. Firstly it is difficult to detect, it is weblike structure meaning it does not have the typical them.
It often spreads before it ever gets detected. And secondly there is no bespoke treatment so doctors will throw the kitchen sink at it, radio, chemo and hope for the Scientists say a treatment can be developed, the only reason it hasn't made a lack of funding for research, so in May 2023, Doctor Susan, who had been diagnosed 12 years earlier, launched for a moonshot project, one of the campaign as my constituent, Katie. A mother of three. A popular local schoolteacher.
I met with Katie recently in her home, along with Susan and her husband. Susan had deteriorated since we met on zoom, and explained her cancer is terminal. That it is too late to save her. But she had a determination to spend her last years campaigning for change. We hoped she would have years to come. Katie, however, still had a hope for treatment and cure. In her lifetime. And she hopes to see her children grow old, she hopes to carry grandchildren.
This could be Monday, which had already, we were due to meet with the Secretary of State to press the case for £20 million for the moonshot project, that is just too old and £40 for every person too old and £40 for every person diagnosed. -- That is just £240 for every person diagnosed. We will press ahead with that meeting, but sadly, two days ago, Wednesday, 9 July, Doctor Susan, the founder of the moonshot project, sadly passed away, 14 years after her initial diagnosis.
She died peacefully at 5pm, proudly wearing her project T- shirt. She was surrounded by her husband, Tristan, and some close friends. The Moonshot project is the most bipartisan campaign in the UK right now, 370 MPs across this House, across all parties, have called on the government to fund this vital research. During her 14 years suffering with this cruel and brutal illness, Susan was given eight different forms of breast cancer treatment. But none of them were able to stop the disease from progressing.
None of the treatments she received were based on the basic biology of lobular breast cancer, because as has already, this has not yet been explored. The women campaigning, who have been touched by the disease have raised £195,000 over the last few years, to setup the infrastructure and carry out this research at the Manchester Breast Centre, by Professor Robert Clark. Her remarkable campaign has touched women across the country. If I may, just a few comments about Susan. As a young girl, she always dreamt of being a pilot.
But there are a few opportunities for women to become commercial pilots in Australia at the time, so she completed a degree in marketing and saved of the money to become a private pilot. After teaching people to fly, she finally became an airline pilot, starting off in the Northern Territory of Australia, flying to remote communities. In 1994, when she was 32, she started flying the British aerospace BAE 146, and immediately noticed a strange smell in the aircraft. The breathing air supply was being contaminated with jet engine oil, and decomposition products.
Despite being told there was nothing to be concerned about, she suffered increasing health effects from these exposures and three years later, in 1997, collapsed after a flight. She felt she was having a stroke. She never flew as an airline pilot again. Three years of exposure to a complex mix of chemicals, including carbon monoxide and endocrine disrupting chemicals seriously impact our health and she lost her air pilot certificate. Two years later, she was partly responsible for an Australian Senate carrying out a year-long investigation into the problem.
They concluded these chemical exposures were impacting flight safety and public health. She undertook the first ever PhD into the subject, and later qualified as an air accident investigator. She published numerous scientific papers on the subject, brief airlines, oil manufacturers, governments, countless others on the topic. It is done seven, 10 years after her first flight as an airline pilot, Australian Senator O'Brien revealed a secret, an Australian airline manufacturer and two airlines, in which a large sum of money was given in settlement with problems relating to oil contaminating the breathing air supply on the aircraft model she flew.
After her injuries sustained as an airline pilot, Susan completed 1/2 Ironman triathlon, and became the first Australian to receive the British citizen award for her and Tristan's work on aviation safety. Last year, a rose, named Doctor Susan's Rose, was shown at the Chelsea flower show. Susan has appeared or been portrayed in numerous documentaries and films, she will be greatly missed, but the campaign she founded will move on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And I wish, once more, to thank the Member for Edinburgh Southwest for all he has done to bring this bill
12:37
Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)
all he has done to bring this bill forward. We and thousands of families around the UK although him a huge debt and I am proud to have supported this bill. I want to pay due to the ongoing work for the Member for Michigan more than, whose inspirational advocacy has set the examples of these issues, particularly for new MPs, like me, and how to do it. I don't think I need to take up too much time this morning restating why the provisions for the Rare Cancers Bill matter, every honourable member who sat alongside me on the bill committee knows already, which is why we reported back to this House unchanged.
The Minister notes, which is why this government has repeatedly pledged its support, organisations were canonically rare cancer no as well, the brain tumour Charity describes it as a bill of hope, and the Pancreatic Cancer UK talks about this potential to transform survival for rare forms of cancer, and that sits with us today. The Rare Cancers Bill takes concrete and commonsense steps to facilitate research into rare cancers to improve the speed and quality of necessary clinical trials, and to help get orphan drugs, medicines often neglected because they target uncommon conditions, to those patients who so desperately need them.
I urge the House to advance the bill and ensure these provisions become law as rapidly as possible. So much depends on getting this one right, and to that end, I would like to briefly remind the House what exactly is its stake today for families throughout this country. Including my own. When I spoke at Including my own. When I spoke at the second reading, I spoke of the story of a captain, my brother-in- law, who was diagnosed with aggressive stage IV neuroblastoma, in February 2024.
Madame Deputy Speaker, his prognosis, is such that he should not be here today. He is married, has five children, and served in the Royal Air Force, in the Indo, Afghanistan, and in Iraq. And I'm immensely proud of him. But not least his battle against this devastating diagnosis. His family friends of those who love him gather Cover the cost of a cancer treatment, which uses radio frequencies to target and treat malignant cancer cells for I am happier than I can say to be able to tell the House that he is alive and well and the tumour has shrunk from 7 cm to less than 1 cm, as a result of that treatment.
And for his loved ones, of course, this means the world, and Uncle fermionic is winning it for him. -- And this treatment is winning it for him. It means more time for family, but more time for treatments to get his health back. I will give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it right that her -- It is great that her brother-in-law is great that her brother-in-law is For by my late sister is committee For by my late sister is committee situated in a private hospital in London because it would get nowhere near an NHS hospital. And that is the tragedy of the circumstances the tragedy of the circumstances that we find ourselves in, that the system is so restrictive, we cannot
**** Possible New Speaker ****
system is so restrictive, we cannot look for new innovations within our NHS. I thank the honourable member and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable member and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable member and for all her advocacy on this issue, she makes such an important point made previously as well. Rare cancers are not rare for the victims cancers are not rare for the victims and their families, and this is why we need to bring treatments like this into the NHS, so they are available for all, and not just for available for all, and not just for those who set up Go Phoned Me pages, winning tens of thousands of pounds. winning tens of thousands of pounds.
-- Go Phoned Me. He says this is a -- Go Phoned Me. He says this is a very sad disease, of which the cause is unknown and seems to randomly is unknown and seems to randomly strike individuals. It will be just amazing if the policy to support these people was changed by this vote, and I am personally so grateful to everyone who so kindly driving this forward. His successful story, and the challenge of accessing it, underscores equally the importance of this legislation in some innovative new treatments for rare cancers must be brought to patients as fast as possible.
My constituents, particularly those whose lives have been scarred by cancer, also feel this very deeply. In the last few days, many have written to me about today's legislation, sharing with me why success matters so much to them. One told me of his very young son, diagnosed last year with a rare brain tumour, this has turned their lives upside down. One told of their battle with brain cancer, the level of care he has received in the NHS, but the fundamentally limited treatment options available to him, based on treatment and drug of element had marketing for stubborn of the constituent whose daughter has neuroblastoma offered me an important reminder today, about every important issue has to be fought over fiercely before anything is achieved and they are absolutely right.
And I want to take this opportunity to highlight some others, who have fought. And for whom this bill is vitally important for my constituent, Kate Ford, has been campaigning for the Moonshot project as she was diagnosed with Mobil address cancer two years ago. And we have already -- Lobular breast cancer. We have heard about the research has been insufficient for this disease and how necessary the project is right now, and I'm proud to be one of the hundreds of MPs across this House, as we have heard, calling on the government to support this project for stubborn like the honourable members, I was also deeply saddened to hear of the death of Doctor Susan, the project's founder, this week.
Kate, my constituent, is now carrying forward Susan's torch, and I call on the government to arm Susan's call and finally have the moonshot project. I want to raise one important issue. Pip was an army of the pilot and there are a number of helicopter pilots, he was exposed to exhaust fumes during the time of the forces, and are now diagnosed with rare cancers, including blood cancers. This issue has been raised in recent months by members across the House, including my honourable friend, the member for North Shropshire, and the number four Truro -- And the Member for Truro.
To create a clear understanding for these, including rare cancers relating to their service. These are welcome steps were insufficient, and while I am conscious both the MoD does not unequivocally recognise the link between exhaust fumes and these cancers, and that I'm not addressing the Minister, but I do want to urge the Minister do whatever he can to accelerate the collation of veterans health data, an essential project with otherwise could drag on, and I want to make sure he does all he can, to help those veterans who may be at risk, due to their records serving in this country.
Madame Deputy Speaker, cancer can touch any life. It can come unexpectedly and it can come cruelly. Today's bill offers hope to all those whose cancers have been neglected and disregarded in drug research and clinical trials, but have appended clinical trials, but have appended their -- Upended their entire lives. It is the chance to say to those people, you are not alone and you are not forgotten. However, winning the battle against rare cancers requires us to advance on many fronts at once and so I want to gently push the Minister, even as he supports the Rare Cancers Bill into law, to consider the vitally important because, for the outcomes for brain cancer patients, which have shown too little for too long for subliminal commit to a target of getting 200 neuroblastoma patients under promising new clinical trials every year? Will he engage with the private sector to urge pharmaceutical companies to make more rapidly the drugs available for these trials.
Will he consider mandatory training in brain cancer specific in oncology, for all doctors seeking to become medical oncologists? How will he assure that all your oncology multidisciplinary teams have, as a core member, medical oncologist, able to contribute their expertise to a contribute their expertise to a patient's care? Finally, even as we advance this bill today, we must not lose sight that we need to do far better by cancer patients, rare or not. One of the most reassuring aspects of this bill has been its cross-party support, but while I am here, I want to ask the Minister whether he will listen to the Liberal Democrat calls, and turn the current target of starting treatment within 62 days of an urgent cancer referral, with an ironclad guarantee, and will he also consider our call to expand healthcare products, regulatory agencies capacity, as another way, of ensuring innovative chances and not snared up in red tape, and reaching patients faster.
There is much work left to do, but today's legislation is a real step in the right direction and I take note of the honourable member the Edinburgh South West on his humbleness. So I will speak if I make on the reach of this bill. And his work. Because good politics changes lives. And the best politics saves lives. All of us here are in this place are committed to do that. I am proud to support this bill and I urge members to vote today for all those lives that this could help to save and those
The Minister notes, which is why this government has repeatedly pledged its support, organisations were canonically rare cancer no as well, the brain tumour Charity describes it as a bill of hope, and the Pancreatic Cancer UK talks about this potential to transform survival for rare forms of cancer, and that sits with us today. The Rare Cancers Bill takes concrete and commonsense steps to facilitate research into rare cancers to improve the speed and quality of necessary clinical trials, and to help get orphan drugs, medicines often neglected because they target uncommon conditions, to those patients who so desperately need them.
I urge the House to advance the bill and ensure these provisions become law as rapidly as possible. So much depends on getting this one right, and to that end, I would like to briefly remind the House what exactly is its stake today for families throughout this country. Including my own. When I spoke at Including my own. When I spoke at the second reading, I spoke of the story of a captain, my brother-in- law, who was diagnosed with aggressive stage IV neuroblastoma, in February 2024.
Madame Deputy Speaker, his prognosis, is such that he should not be here today. He is married, has five children, and served in the Royal Air Force, in the Indo, Afghanistan, and in Iraq. And I'm immensely proud of him. But not least his battle against this devastating diagnosis. His family friends of those who love him gather Cover the cost of a cancer treatment, which uses radio frequencies to target and treat malignant cancer cells for I am happier than I can say to be able to tell the House that he is alive and well and the tumour has shrunk from 7 cm to less than 1 cm, as a result of that treatment.
And for his loved ones, of course, this means the world, and Uncle fermionic is winning it for him. -- And this treatment is winning it for him. It means more time for family, but more time for treatments to get his health back. I will give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it right that her -- It is great that her brother-in-law is great that her brother-in-law is For by my late sister is committee For by my late sister is committee situated in a private hospital in London because it would get nowhere near an NHS hospital. And that is the tragedy of the circumstances the tragedy of the circumstances that we find ourselves in, that the system is so restrictive, we cannot
**** Possible New Speaker ****
system is so restrictive, we cannot look for new innovations within our NHS. I thank the honourable member and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable member and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable member and for all her advocacy on this issue, she makes such an important point made previously as well. Rare cancers are not rare for the victims cancers are not rare for the victims and their families, and this is why we need to bring treatments like this into the NHS, so they are available for all, and not just for available for all, and not just for those who set up Go Phoned Me pages, winning tens of thousands of pounds. winning tens of thousands of pounds.
-- Go Phoned Me. He says this is a -- Go Phoned Me. He says this is a very sad disease, of which the cause is unknown and seems to randomly is unknown and seems to randomly strike individuals. It will be just amazing if the policy to support these people was changed by this vote, and I am personally so grateful to everyone who so kindly driving this forward. His successful story, and the challenge of accessing it, underscores equally the importance of this legislation in some innovative new treatments for rare cancers must be brought to patients as fast as possible.
My constituents, particularly those whose lives have been scarred by cancer, also feel this very deeply. In the last few days, many have written to me about today's legislation, sharing with me why success matters so much to them. One told me of his very young son, diagnosed last year with a rare brain tumour, this has turned their lives upside down. One told of their battle with brain cancer, the level of care he has received in the NHS, but the fundamentally limited treatment options available to him, based on treatment and drug of element had marketing for stubborn of the constituent whose daughter has neuroblastoma offered me an important reminder today, about every important issue has to be fought over fiercely before anything is achieved and they are absolutely right.
And I want to take this opportunity to highlight some others, who have fought. And for whom this bill is vitally important for my constituent, Kate Ford, has been campaigning for the Moonshot project as she was diagnosed with Mobil address cancer two years ago. And we have already -- Lobular breast cancer. We have heard about the research has been insufficient for this disease and how necessary the project is right now, and I'm proud to be one of the hundreds of MPs across this House, as we have heard, calling on the government to support this project for stubborn like the honourable members, I was also deeply saddened to hear of the death of Doctor Susan, the project's founder, this week.
Kate, my constituent, is now carrying forward Susan's torch, and I call on the government to arm Susan's call and finally have the moonshot project. I want to raise one important issue. Pip was an army of the pilot and there are a number of helicopter pilots, he was exposed to exhaust fumes during the time of the forces, and are now diagnosed with rare cancers, including blood cancers. This issue has been raised in recent months by members across the House, including my honourable friend, the member for North Shropshire, and the number four Truro -- And the Member for Truro.
To create a clear understanding for these, including rare cancers relating to their service. These are welcome steps were insufficient, and while I am conscious both the MoD does not unequivocally recognise the link between exhaust fumes and these cancers, and that I'm not addressing the Minister, but I do want to urge the Minister do whatever he can to accelerate the collation of veterans health data, an essential project with otherwise could drag on, and I want to make sure he does all he can, to help those veterans who may be at risk, due to their records serving in this country.
Madame Deputy Speaker, cancer can touch any life. It can come unexpectedly and it can come cruelly. Today's bill offers hope to all those whose cancers have been neglected and disregarded in drug research and clinical trials, but have appended clinical trials, but have appended their -- Upended their entire lives. It is the chance to say to those people, you are not alone and you are not forgotten. However, winning the battle against rare cancers requires us to advance on many fronts at once and so I want to gently push the Minister, even as he supports the Rare Cancers Bill into law, to consider the vitally important because, for the outcomes for brain cancer patients, which have shown too little for too long for subliminal commit to a target of getting 200 neuroblastoma patients under promising new clinical trials every year? Will he engage with the private sector to urge pharmaceutical companies to make more rapidly the drugs available for these trials.
Will he consider mandatory training in brain cancer specific in oncology, for all doctors seeking to become medical oncologists? How will he assure that all your oncology multidisciplinary teams have, as a core member, medical oncologist, able to contribute their expertise to a contribute their expertise to a patient's care? Finally, even as we advance this bill today, we must not lose sight that we need to do far better by cancer patients, rare or not. One of the most reassuring aspects of this bill has been its cross-party support, but while I am here, I want to ask the Minister whether he will listen to the Liberal Democrat calls, and turn the current target of starting treatment within 62 days of an urgent cancer referral, with an ironclad guarantee, and will he also consider our call to expand healthcare products, regulatory agencies capacity, as another way, of ensuring innovative chances and not snared up in red tape, and reaching patients faster.
There is much work left to do, but today's legislation is a real step in the right direction and I take note of the honourable member the Edinburgh South West on his humbleness. So I will speak if I make on the reach of this bill. And his work. Because good politics changes lives. And the best politics saves lives. All of us here are in this place are committed to do that. I am proud to support this bill and I urge members to vote today for all those lives that this could help to save and those
12:47
Amanda Hack MP (North West Leicestershire, Labour)
-
-
Amanda Hack MP (North West Leicestershire, Labour)
Thank you. I thank the honourable member for Edinburgh South West for his time and work on this bill. If you get the opportunity to listen to a podcast he did a few weeks ago, I think it is well worth listening to. Really insightful. He wants to address the deep inequalities faced by people living with rare and uncommon cancers. This is the second debate this week I have attended on uncommon cancers. As already mentioned I had the pleasure of sitting alongside the member for Truro and Falmouth in her debate on a rare blood cancer that affects just a few thousand people per year in the UK.
However there is that concern and link with flying helicopters and the military. -- In the military. Around 180,000 people are diagnosed with a rare and less common cancer. Last year one of those was my constituent and he will be the basis of my speech. Izaak Walton. I had the pleasure of meeting Isaac and he was diagnosed with a brain to at just 21. He had had a seizure during a work outing. His sister Harriet set up a fundraiser to pay for therapy and within the first six days they had raised £144,000.
Isaac and his family have raised various events to raise money including charity football managers and community events and last September family members join them on a sponsored walk. They covered 30 miles. The campaign is now an incredible £193,000. Just shy of the £200,000 goal to pay for Isaac's treatment. His fundraising not only helps him access his life-saving treatment but raises vital awareness about the urgent need for more brain to which received around just one% of national cancer funding.
Isaac's voice matters much more in this debate than mine and I would like to share something he has written. The disease I am fighting gives every single person diagnosed such a poor prognosis and only allows for a little help. Living a life day-to- day almost waiting for the bad news. I am one of the lucky ones. One of the lucky ones who is able to see a community of over 15,000 people come together to support me. Some of which I knew and some from overseas.
Just to raise enough money for me to explore other options that cannot be given through the NHS. Options that might give me a second chance but for me and others in this fight we should be given a fair chance to win this battle because our chances are now heartbreaking. This bill will give hope to Isaac and others in his position. As we have already heard we are not talking about minority here in the UK 47% of cancer diagnoses and 55% of all cancer deaths from rare and less common cancers.
A system that leaves nearly half cancer patients behind is not a system that is fair. Not for Isaac, not my honourable friend from Edinburgh South West and not from many others we have heard from today. I will be supporting this bill today and I would like to thank the member for Edinburgh South West isn't readily dedicated, hard work in bringing forward this change. in bringing forward this change.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I first of all thank the honourable member for Edinburgh South West for all of his work on this bill and all of those who have this bill and all of those who have supported its progress. I rise briefly for two reasons, first of all to be primarily speak for a constituent, Kate. It was only 40 constituent, Kate. It was only 40 years old and who has an inoperable brain can. -- Cancer. She wrote to brain can. -- Cancer. She wrote to me this week to tell me about her case and encourage me to support case and encourage me to support this bill.
She is under the care of 10 consultants and specialists as her condition worsens. The research her condition worsens. The research on brain cancers and glioblastoma's has hardly progressed in 50 years yet it is the biggest cancer killer yet it is the biggest cancer killer in children and adults under 40 years old. This bill should improve years old. This bill should improve the rate of cancer patients who are
However there is that concern and link with flying helicopters and the military. -- In the military. Around 180,000 people are diagnosed with a rare and less common cancer. Last year one of those was my constituent and he will be the basis of my speech. Izaak Walton. I had the pleasure of meeting Isaac and he was diagnosed with a brain to at just 21. He had had a seizure during a work outing. His sister Harriet set up a fundraiser to pay for therapy and within the first six days they had raised £144,000.
Isaac and his family have raised various events to raise money including charity football managers and community events and last September family members join them on a sponsored walk. They covered 30 miles. The campaign is now an incredible £193,000. Just shy of the £200,000 goal to pay for Isaac's treatment. His fundraising not only helps him access his life-saving treatment but raises vital awareness about the urgent need for more brain to which received around just one% of national cancer funding.
Isaac's voice matters much more in this debate than mine and I would like to share something he has written. The disease I am fighting gives every single person diagnosed such a poor prognosis and only allows for a little help. Living a life day-to- day almost waiting for the bad news. I am one of the lucky ones. One of the lucky ones who is able to see a community of over 15,000 people come together to support me. Some of which I knew and some from overseas.
Just to raise enough money for me to explore other options that cannot be given through the NHS. Options that might give me a second chance but for me and others in this fight we should be given a fair chance to win this battle because our chances are now heartbreaking. This bill will give hope to Isaac and others in his position. As we have already heard we are not talking about minority here in the UK 47% of cancer diagnoses and 55% of all cancer deaths from rare and less common cancers.
A system that leaves nearly half cancer patients behind is not a system that is fair. Not for Isaac, not my honourable friend from Edinburgh South West and not from many others we have heard from today. I will be supporting this bill today and I would like to thank the member for Edinburgh South West isn't readily dedicated, hard work in bringing forward this change. in bringing forward this change.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I first of all thank the honourable member for Edinburgh South West for all of his work on this bill and all of those who have this bill and all of those who have supported its progress. I rise briefly for two reasons, first of all to be primarily speak for a constituent, Kate. It was only 40 constituent, Kate. It was only 40 years old and who has an inoperable brain can. -- Cancer. She wrote to brain can. -- Cancer. She wrote to me this week to tell me about her case and encourage me to support case and encourage me to support this bill.
She is under the care of 10 consultants and specialists as her condition worsens. The research her condition worsens. The research on brain cancers and glioblastoma's has hardly progressed in 50 years yet it is the biggest cancer killer yet it is the biggest cancer killer in children and adults under 40 years old. This bill should improve years old. This bill should improve the rate of cancer patients who are
12:51
-
the rate of cancer patients who are offered trials, 82% currently do not get that which is not good enough and this bill should improve those chances. I also rise to join the tributes to Doctor Susan Michaelis who passed away on Wednesday. For better Tran -- for better treatments for lobular cancer. I met Doctor Susan last year and I was in all of her campaigning and in all of his support for this bill. For Susan and Kate and many others it is important this bill passes today.
I urge this bill passes today. I urge others to support it.
I urge this bill passes today. I urge others to support it.
12:52
Dame Siobhain McDonagh MP (Mitcham and Morden, Labour)
-
-
Dame Siobhain McDonagh MP (Mitcham and Morden, Labour)
I do not want to detain the House too long. I just want to put on record my absolute admiration for the member for Edinburgh South West in guiding this bill to this point. And hopefully forward with the former member of this House, Julie Elliott, now Baroness Elliott. In the House of Lords. When I met with the honourable member to berate him about why he should take up this issue I did not know about his father-in-law. I have to say how proud his family must be of what he has done here.
And I mentioned that point because it is a motivator for all of us. When we understand the true desperation facing these problems it can often be the driver to making us work harder for achievement. I am delighted to say 10 days ago with the kindness of Mr Speaker, we launched the first guy Oblast drug trial glioblastoma drug trial in memory of my late sister. It will be run by Doctor Paul Holland, regretfully too well-known to members in this House because he is Europe's leading consultant on glioblastoma based out of UCLH.
And this trial will include 16 patients at UCL and UCLH who are newly diagnosed and who have had no treatment and no surgery and they will be treated with immunotherapy. We are excited and delighted by this trial, it opened last Friday and Doctor Mulholland met with first recruits last Monday. This could be the start of great things but it is the start of the journey and it is a journey that is in comprehensively difficult and requires a wonderful sense of consensus.
Europe's leading consultant at Sir Martin Moore-Bick teaching Hospital in London next to a world leading university. Together with a group of friends who campaigned tirelessly to raise funds, we have raised over £1 million in the last year. This trial will cost us in the order of that. Together with the Secretary of State in the member for Ilford North who gave us excellent support and intervened in order to help us get to the point of starting the trial.
These efforts are not available to everybody. We need to change things in order to get more trials. Without trials there will be no progress. What I know from my own experience is there will be no progress. Even with this brilliant bill unless we all as members insist on progress. And keep an eye on it. I am so thrilled so many people, so many people on my own Labour side but on all parties across the House are united in their commitment to see progress equally for glioblastoma.
We do not want to just see hope for glioblastoma victims, we want to see hope for the victims of all rare cancers. By starting with glioblastoma, we start with the worst. And we will not see some -- cease our campaign until every has a fair chance of a cure.
And I mentioned that point because it is a motivator for all of us. When we understand the true desperation facing these problems it can often be the driver to making us work harder for achievement. I am delighted to say 10 days ago with the kindness of Mr Speaker, we launched the first guy Oblast drug trial glioblastoma drug trial in memory of my late sister. It will be run by Doctor Paul Holland, regretfully too well-known to members in this House because he is Europe's leading consultant on glioblastoma based out of UCLH.
And this trial will include 16 patients at UCL and UCLH who are newly diagnosed and who have had no treatment and no surgery and they will be treated with immunotherapy. We are excited and delighted by this trial, it opened last Friday and Doctor Mulholland met with first recruits last Monday. This could be the start of great things but it is the start of the journey and it is a journey that is in comprehensively difficult and requires a wonderful sense of consensus.
Europe's leading consultant at Sir Martin Moore-Bick teaching Hospital in London next to a world leading university. Together with a group of friends who campaigned tirelessly to raise funds, we have raised over £1 million in the last year. This trial will cost us in the order of that. Together with the Secretary of State in the member for Ilford North who gave us excellent support and intervened in order to help us get to the point of starting the trial.
These efforts are not available to everybody. We need to change things in order to get more trials. Without trials there will be no progress. What I know from my own experience is there will be no progress. Even with this brilliant bill unless we all as members insist on progress. And keep an eye on it. I am so thrilled so many people, so many people on my own Labour side but on all parties across the House are united in their commitment to see progress equally for glioblastoma.
We do not want to just see hope for glioblastoma victims, we want to see hope for the victims of all rare cancers. By starting with glioblastoma, we start with the worst. And we will not see some -- cease our campaign until every has a fair chance of a cure.
12:55
Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
-
-
Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
Thank you very much. Could I first of all it is a great pleasure to follow my honourable friend, the memo Mitcham and Morden think of everything she has done on this issue. It can I also send my congratulations and thanks to my honourable friend, the member for Edinburgh South West for taking up this bill and getting it to this stage. Like many members I expect I arrange, rearrange my diary to be here because we thought there might be a risk of this bill going through and I am pleased to see that bill -- that does not seem to be happening.
I did that for three reasons and one is because of the merits of this bill, I recommend it entirely to all sides of the House. The second is the excellent whipping done by my honourable friend for Mitcham and Morden. Most of the London PLP are secreted around the building just in case they should be needed at the moment. Above all it is because my experience and I'm sure this goes for all members here of constituents and the emails were pinging and yesterday saying we need to be here today.
I want to mention briefly because I know time is short. I want to mention two cases. One is in relation to the constituent of mine and I will read a few words of his because he will say it more eloquently than I can, during early 2022 his wife Marie felt extreme retired. We thought three children and busy lives. Weeks later she had a diagnosis of pancreatic and we were faced with no treatment options beyond chemotherapy and possibly extending her life by a short while.
We did not know timeframe but she had just six months of life remaining. The chemotherapy was brutal and relentless and she died brutal and relentless and she died aged 39 in October just days before her 40th birthday. She should not have had to endure this and nobody should have to endure this and how those still do is beyond my comprehension. Parents in their 70s lost their daughter, their siblings were left without a sister, without an anti-for their children and a husband left without a wife and three little children left aged at the time one and 1/2, five and seven.
Having the conversation to say is never coming back will haunt me forever. It is a rare cancer and cannot be fixed with treatment. The impact of this role is on -- rolls on as they get older. Rare cancers are not rare, they hugely impact everyone and individuals are all around affected. We need the government to focus on these given those affected some help and longer term season results. The other case briefly mention is a case I know my honourable friend Mitcham and Morden knows about because she helped with that case as well.
Which is Katie Bowen not Katie Byrne are and herself and -- whose son suffered with a brain she which is extremely rare. His parents went at extraordinary lengths to get drugs delivered almost on a daily basis. We were monitoring the pharmacies, hospitals and ensuring he had treatment. He did get that treatment. He did prolong his life but sadly Alex passed away on 30 January this year aged just 23. There are many many more cases like Marie and Alex and it is for them this bill has been brought forward.
It is not only, it is not the only thing that needs to be done but it is an important step forward. I hope by passing it through this House today and in successfully being enacted later this year or early next year, we will make a change and I would like to just say to all members who have contributed and embedded it today, I know my constituents will be listening to this debate and hoping for its success. success.
I did that for three reasons and one is because of the merits of this bill, I recommend it entirely to all sides of the House. The second is the excellent whipping done by my honourable friend for Mitcham and Morden. Most of the London PLP are secreted around the building just in case they should be needed at the moment. Above all it is because my experience and I'm sure this goes for all members here of constituents and the emails were pinging and yesterday saying we need to be here today.
I want to mention briefly because I know time is short. I want to mention two cases. One is in relation to the constituent of mine and I will read a few words of his because he will say it more eloquently than I can, during early 2022 his wife Marie felt extreme retired. We thought three children and busy lives. Weeks later she had a diagnosis of pancreatic and we were faced with no treatment options beyond chemotherapy and possibly extending her life by a short while.
We did not know timeframe but she had just six months of life remaining. The chemotherapy was brutal and relentless and she died brutal and relentless and she died aged 39 in October just days before her 40th birthday. She should not have had to endure this and nobody should have to endure this and how those still do is beyond my comprehension. Parents in their 70s lost their daughter, their siblings were left without a sister, without an anti-for their children and a husband left without a wife and three little children left aged at the time one and 1/2, five and seven.
Having the conversation to say is never coming back will haunt me forever. It is a rare cancer and cannot be fixed with treatment. The impact of this role is on -- rolls on as they get older. Rare cancers are not rare, they hugely impact everyone and individuals are all around affected. We need the government to focus on these given those affected some help and longer term season results. The other case briefly mention is a case I know my honourable friend Mitcham and Morden knows about because she helped with that case as well.
Which is Katie Bowen not Katie Byrne are and herself and -- whose son suffered with a brain she which is extremely rare. His parents went at extraordinary lengths to get drugs delivered almost on a daily basis. We were monitoring the pharmacies, hospitals and ensuring he had treatment. He did get that treatment. He did prolong his life but sadly Alex passed away on 30 January this year aged just 23. There are many many more cases like Marie and Alex and it is for them this bill has been brought forward.
It is not only, it is not the only thing that needs to be done but it is an important step forward. I hope by passing it through this House today and in successfully being enacted later this year or early next year, we will make a change and I would like to just say to all members who have contributed and embedded it today, I know my constituents will be listening to this debate and hoping for its success. success.
13:00
Dr Allison Gardner MP (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
-
-
Dr Allison Gardner MP (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
Thank you. Stella Gilbert, nay. As much beloved wife, mother, grandmother and sister to my partner Jim. She died of a rare cancer. Stella was great, my partners only sibling and a huge matriarch. As we found out at her funeral given to bossing the local vicar about. She had bile duct cancer which affects approximately 2,000 people per year in the UK. In terms of this bill this is a rare cancer since classed as one in 2000, bile duct cancer is 0.06 in 2000.
Worryingly research suggests this is increasing and I am grateful the bill allowing for some sex ability because if that would just pop over -- flexibility because it would just pop over that one in 2,000 it will go into different categories of that level of judgement is appreciated. The cause of bile duct cancer is unknown in of bile duct cancer is unknown in 6/7 patients out of 10. We have many cases increasing in prevalence and causes unknown and many year met many people per year die from it.
Would it be better not to prevent this cancer from increasing in prevalence and actually make it even rarer and more curable? This bill opens the door to that. It allows more focus on these rare cancers and indeed their survival. Research is crucial in tackling cancer and I am part of the government commitment to tackling all cancer types with the National Cancer Plan due to be published following the NHS 10-Year Health Plan. The DHSC has also committed over 1.6 billion of research who are quite rightly prioritising and treating cancer as a major priority and forward funding accordingly.
I particularly am grateful as an Officer of the less survivable cancer a PG to note that commitment to tackling brain cancer which I have heard a lot about in this place today in partnership with parties like Tessa Jowell cancer and the range -- brain she. Also the funding called the Brain Tumour funding called the Brain Tumour Of course, I cannot stand in this place and not mention pancreatic cancer, this is relatively rare cancer and less survivable cancer, and is the fifth biggest cancer in and is the fifth biggest cancer in She was diagnosed on a Saturday, and was dead by the following Saturday.
One week after that, my father died of a deal cancer, not a rare cancer believe, but less survivable one. My mother-in-law also died after a battle with cancer, we are indeed surrounded by cancer. The APPG addressed issues of early production of these cancers so we will hopefully, one day, here are stories like my mums and that Pancreatic Cancer UK, and I thank the critic in the UK for their support. I welcome the UK for their support. I welcome this bill which allow steps research for reviewing and enabling the development of so-called orphan drugs and I agree with my honourable friend, but I dislike that term intensely.
We appoint the speciality lever rare cancers, which will be so helpful in and of itself, in passing this bill today, we start the journey to a world where wonderful people like Jim's sister Stella, my mom, my sister's mother-in-law, do not hear the words 'it is inoperable, it is too late to treat, there is nothing more we can do.' and in closing, I thank my honourable friend for Edinburgh South West for introducing this bill. And I will vote for it today
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Doreen. She is making me cry. Thank you
**** Possible New Speaker ****
She is making me cry. Thank you for everyone offering support today, can I thank the Member for Edinburgh South West for bringing forward this South West for bringing forward this really important bill, I have already started. This is particular important to me because my mum died important to me because my mum died of a brain tumour. So this bill is really important. Too many families really important. Too many families face a diagnosis that often comes
Worryingly research suggests this is increasing and I am grateful the bill allowing for some sex ability because if that would just pop over -- flexibility because it would just pop over that one in 2,000 it will go into different categories of that level of judgement is appreciated. The cause of bile duct cancer is unknown in of bile duct cancer is unknown in 6/7 patients out of 10. We have many cases increasing in prevalence and causes unknown and many year met many people per year die from it.
Would it be better not to prevent this cancer from increasing in prevalence and actually make it even rarer and more curable? This bill opens the door to that. It allows more focus on these rare cancers and indeed their survival. Research is crucial in tackling cancer and I am part of the government commitment to tackling all cancer types with the National Cancer Plan due to be published following the NHS 10-Year Health Plan. The DHSC has also committed over 1.6 billion of research who are quite rightly prioritising and treating cancer as a major priority and forward funding accordingly.
I particularly am grateful as an Officer of the less survivable cancer a PG to note that commitment to tackling brain cancer which I have heard a lot about in this place today in partnership with parties like Tessa Jowell cancer and the range -- brain she. Also the funding called the Brain Tumour funding called the Brain Tumour Of course, I cannot stand in this place and not mention pancreatic cancer, this is relatively rare cancer and less survivable cancer, and is the fifth biggest cancer in and is the fifth biggest cancer in She was diagnosed on a Saturday, and was dead by the following Saturday.
One week after that, my father died of a deal cancer, not a rare cancer believe, but less survivable one. My mother-in-law also died after a battle with cancer, we are indeed surrounded by cancer. The APPG addressed issues of early production of these cancers so we will hopefully, one day, here are stories like my mums and that Pancreatic Cancer UK, and I thank the critic in the UK for their support. I welcome the UK for their support. I welcome this bill which allow steps research for reviewing and enabling the development of so-called orphan drugs and I agree with my honourable friend, but I dislike that term intensely.
We appoint the speciality lever rare cancers, which will be so helpful in and of itself, in passing this bill today, we start the journey to a world where wonderful people like Jim's sister Stella, my mom, my sister's mother-in-law, do not hear the words 'it is inoperable, it is too late to treat, there is nothing more we can do.' and in closing, I thank my honourable friend for Edinburgh South West for introducing this bill. And I will vote for it today
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Doreen. She is making me cry. Thank you
**** Possible New Speaker ****
She is making me cry. Thank you for everyone offering support today, can I thank the Member for Edinburgh South West for bringing forward this South West for bringing forward this really important bill, I have already started. This is particular important to me because my mum died important to me because my mum died of a brain tumour. So this bill is really important. Too many families really important. Too many families face a diagnosis that often comes
13:04
Harpreet Uppal MP (Huddersfield, Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with limited access to specialised care and clinical trials. What the honourable lady
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What the honourable lady giveaway? Would she agree -- Would the honourable lady giveaway, would she agree that the drug act referred she agree that the drug act referred to in the bill is essential, because unless we can get the pharmaceutical industry to find it in their financial interests, to start financial interests, to start trials, we are just not going to make any progress?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make any progress? Can I thank the honourable member there, I agree with everything she has said, thank you so much for has said, thank you so much for that. There is no doubt for patients and their families, the additional and their families, the additional challenges of a rare cancer is navigating the system itself, and many are not built with that many are not built with that condition in mind, and I know from conversations with residents and organisations in Huddersfield, just organisations in Huddersfield, just how isolating that can be.
Being told you have a rare form of cancer and struggling to get answers are and struggling to get answers are the standard of treatment this receive is very difficult. We know this bill will play a part in extending the lives of those people facing cancer and also their facing cancer and also their families. Getting the targeted research, and the clear care pathways, will be really important. pathways, will be really important. And I have no doubt that improving patient recruitment into clinical trials for rare cancers will mean so much to those families.
Can I thank again, the member for Edinburgh South West. The ministers for Mitcham and Morden. And all who are Mitcham and Morden. And all who are pushing this forward, thank you.
Harpreet Uppal MP (Huddersfield, Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with limited access to specialised care and clinical trials. What the honourable lady
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What the honourable lady giveaway? Would she agree -- Would the honourable lady giveaway, would she agree that the drug act referred she agree that the drug act referred to in the bill is essential, because unless we can get the pharmaceutical industry to find it in their financial interests, to start financial interests, to start trials, we are just not going to make any progress?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make any progress? Can I thank the honourable member there, I agree with everything she has said, thank you so much for has said, thank you so much for that. There is no doubt for patients and their families, the additional and their families, the additional challenges of a rare cancer is navigating the system itself, and many are not built with that many are not built with that condition in mind, and I know from conversations with residents and organisations in Huddersfield, just organisations in Huddersfield, just how isolating that can be.
Being told you have a rare form of cancer and struggling to get answers are and struggling to get answers are the standard of treatment this receive is very difficult. We know this bill will play a part in extending the lives of those people facing cancer and also their facing cancer and also their families. Getting the targeted research, and the clear care pathways, will be really important. pathways, will be really important. And I have no doubt that improving patient recruitment into clinical trials for rare cancers will mean so much to those families.
Can I thank again, the member for Edinburgh South West. The ministers for Mitcham and Morden. And all who are Mitcham and Morden. And all who are pushing this forward, thank you.
13:06
Anneliese Midgley MP (Knowsley, Labour)
-
-
Anneliese Midgley MP (Knowsley, Labour)
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And I want to thank and congratulate my honourable friend for Edinburgh South West for bringing this crucial bill. I pay tribute to him and to every member who has spoken so powerfully today. It is a bill that when made law will ease pain, save lives, give justice and fairness, to a disease that is indiscriminate. A number of constituents have contacted me urgently to support the bill today. They all have their own stories, their own first-hand experience, each one so moving, and powerful.
But today, I want to powerful. But today, I want to relate the story of one of the constituents. Chelsea is a mother to a ten-year-old boy and was diagnosed a ten-year-old boy and was diagnosed with a rare aggressive form in April 2024. For more than a year before her diagnosis, Chelsea did everything right. Made repeated visits to the GP and A&E. Clearly presenting with symptoms that should have been checked out, but time and again, her concerns were dismissed.
She wasn't listened to, ignored. That led to a devastating delay in diagnosis. By the time she was taken seriously, she had progressed to stage IV cancer. She has endured two major surgeries, and is now on oral chemotherapy, for over a year. She will remain on it for three more. Her risk of re-occurrence is extremely high. Her story is heartbreaking but not unique, I am grateful she is still here for her son and loved ones, and I will do everything I can to ensure she gets her best treatment available as quickly as possible.
Too many people with rare cancers are forced, not just to fight the disease, but also the system. A system that fails to recognise the symptoms early. That underinvestment in research, and leaves patients feeling unheard and alone. I am proud to support this bill and I am so thankful for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Member for bringing it here today. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Like everyone else, I want to thank Like everyone else, I want to thank my honourable friend, the member for Southwest Edinburgh for bringing this important bill to the House. I hadn't intended to speak, I was hadn't intended to speak, I was simply going to intervene on the Member for Mitcham and Morden, but she spoke so completely comprehensive, it would have been comprehensive, it would have been wrong to interrupt her.
But she wrong to interrupt her. But she spoke of the motivation that has caused so many of us to be in the chamber here today for and I was chamber here today for and I was listening to my honourable friend, the honourable member for Mosley, and her speech about her own situation, and all the other situation, and all the other members. It is 60 years ago this year since my father died of a rare year since my father died of a rare cancer. 50 years ago since my mother cancer.
50 years ago since my mother died of stomach cancer, and a rare
But today, I want to powerful. But today, I want to relate the story of one of the constituents. Chelsea is a mother to a ten-year-old boy and was diagnosed a ten-year-old boy and was diagnosed with a rare aggressive form in April 2024. For more than a year before her diagnosis, Chelsea did everything right. Made repeated visits to the GP and A&E. Clearly presenting with symptoms that should have been checked out, but time and again, her concerns were dismissed.
She wasn't listened to, ignored. That led to a devastating delay in diagnosis. By the time she was taken seriously, she had progressed to stage IV cancer. She has endured two major surgeries, and is now on oral chemotherapy, for over a year. She will remain on it for three more. Her risk of re-occurrence is extremely high. Her story is heartbreaking but not unique, I am grateful she is still here for her son and loved ones, and I will do everything I can to ensure she gets her best treatment available as quickly as possible.
Too many people with rare cancers are forced, not just to fight the disease, but also the system. A system that fails to recognise the symptoms early. That underinvestment in research, and leaves patients feeling unheard and alone. I am proud to support this bill and I am so thankful for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Member for bringing it here today. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Like everyone else, I want to thank Like everyone else, I want to thank my honourable friend, the member for Southwest Edinburgh for bringing this important bill to the House. I hadn't intended to speak, I was hadn't intended to speak, I was simply going to intervene on the Member for Mitcham and Morden, but she spoke so completely comprehensive, it would have been comprehensive, it would have been wrong to interrupt her.
But she wrong to interrupt her. But she spoke of the motivation that has caused so many of us to be in the chamber here today for and I was chamber here today for and I was listening to my honourable friend, the honourable member for Mosley, and her speech about her own situation, and all the other situation, and all the other members. It is 60 years ago this year since my father died of a rare year since my father died of a rare cancer. 50 years ago since my mother cancer.
50 years ago since my mother died of stomach cancer, and a rare
13:09
-
died of stomach cancer, and a rare cancer. The treatment in those days was, if I say, rudimentary, I would be lying. It was cruel. It was awful. What they went through. And awful. What they went through. And it is appalling that 60 years later, we are only now trying to change we are only now trying to change that in this House. So, I really do feel that this is a historic bill. feel that this is a historic bill.
And I want to thank my honourable friend for Mitcham and Morden. I know just what this campaign has meant to her. And to all who loved meant to her. And to all who loved her sister. And I would ask the Minister to make sure that everything in this bill is done as swiftly as possible. We cannot wait any longer.
And I want to thank my honourable friend for Mitcham and Morden. I know just what this campaign has meant to her. And to all who loved meant to her. And to all who loved her sister. And I would ask the Minister to make sure that everything in this bill is done as swiftly as possible. We cannot wait any longer.
13:09
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
It is a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman and I share very much his tribute to the honourable lady for Mitcham and Morden, because she has been a pioneer, continues to be a pioneer, in this campaign. And I would describe her as a no-nonsense lady. She has been in here since, I think, 1997 and has made an enormous contribution and continues to. I think the honourable gentleman for Edinburgh South West who introduced this bill, I think his bill will be in exemplars, hopefully, for other people who are successful in the private bad, because so often, the people who are successful are told here is a handout bill, need to fill in a bit of niche here, bit of legislation, but he has used his success in a private members ballot, to bring something forward that he wanted went meant a lot to him, but not selfishly, he did after listening to a whole lot of people and realised this was a subject on which there was a deep-seated consensus on unrest and concern amongst parliamentarians.
And so full marks to him for doing this. And I have never been successful in the private ballot, it was just after they change the rules, I came third out of the hat but was member 17 after the results. They decided they would do it in reverse order because it looks better on television. I think we had the previous deputy chairman, who was responsible for that change. I never had the good fortune of having a build, being able to make progress.
But I think it's something I still look forward to and you and for in the future. -- And yearn for in the future. This is an important subject and when we look back at the second reading debate which I was able to briefly participate in, by way of intervention, we can see the strength of feeling berries. I will go back to the Minister's response, in the debate about the amendments. Let's be a bit more helpful, hopefully, about his response to this reading.
A little bit more helpful about the role of NHS England and what is going to happen. I've already paid tribute to him for agreeing that there should be a priority given to getting on, setting up these research bodies, and looking into these issues. And so, it is asking too much to get the government to agree to these things on the face of the bill. But I think it's clear, from the pressure that is already on the Minister, that his department, however much they may have been dragging their feet in the past, are now intent on rectifying that.
And most important of all, when we get the cancers paper, the cancer plan, and then we will have a chance to look at that. And let's hope that is not going to be on a slow burner at all. We promised it before the end of the year, let's hope it is nearer this end of the year than next year. But that could be very important, and as has been said by my honourable friend on the front bench, that links in with a lot of what we have been discussing today.
Cancer needs to be taken more seriously in this country, we need to invest more, we need to get back in the top of the league table, internationally, as we should be, as a leading nation with a very strong economy. Otherwise, today's news is the economy shrinking, but that shouldn't be a reason why we shouldn't be campaigning to get these cancers shook.
And so full marks to him for doing this. And I have never been successful in the private ballot, it was just after they change the rules, I came third out of the hat but was member 17 after the results. They decided they would do it in reverse order because it looks better on television. I think we had the previous deputy chairman, who was responsible for that change. I never had the good fortune of having a build, being able to make progress.
But I think it's something I still look forward to and you and for in the future. -- And yearn for in the future. This is an important subject and when we look back at the second reading debate which I was able to briefly participate in, by way of intervention, we can see the strength of feeling berries. I will go back to the Minister's response, in the debate about the amendments. Let's be a bit more helpful, hopefully, about his response to this reading.
A little bit more helpful about the role of NHS England and what is going to happen. I've already paid tribute to him for agreeing that there should be a priority given to getting on, setting up these research bodies, and looking into these issues. And so, it is asking too much to get the government to agree to these things on the face of the bill. But I think it's clear, from the pressure that is already on the Minister, that his department, however much they may have been dragging their feet in the past, are now intent on rectifying that.
And most important of all, when we get the cancers paper, the cancer plan, and then we will have a chance to look at that. And let's hope that is not going to be on a slow burner at all. We promised it before the end of the year, let's hope it is nearer this end of the year than next year. But that could be very important, and as has been said by my honourable friend on the front bench, that links in with a lot of what we have been discussing today.
Cancer needs to be taken more seriously in this country, we need to invest more, we need to get back in the top of the league table, internationally, as we should be, as a leading nation with a very strong economy. Otherwise, today's news is the economy shrinking, but that shouldn't be a reason why we shouldn't be campaigning to get these cancers shook.
13:14
Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Can I again emphasise my thanks to the work, the tireless work, of the honourable member for Edinburgh South West for bringing this important bill forward. It has united the House and rightfully so because it speaks to something fundamental. The need for people with rare cancers to be seen, heard, and addressed. The opposition has supported this bill from the outset, and as my honourable friend, the shadow Secretary of State, and my honourable friend, Lenovo Sleaford and North Hykeham, have said, will continue to do so today.
We will also like to thank charities and campaigners, who have worked tirelessly to bring the issue forward, Pancreatic Cancer UK, the brain tumour Charity, Cancer 52, and of course, many more. Their workers helped put rare cancers firmly on the agenda, and this bill is part of their legacy. And on the personal side of things, I have been on the other side, delivering the news, particularly working in an upper GI hospital, in my junior doctors, delivering the news someone has pancreatic cancer is one of the toughest things I have ever had to do.
I long for the day when I never have to have a doctor deliver a death sentence to a patient. At this bill brings out a step further. The Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I want to highlight the purpose of drugs, conditions, and may be life saving for rare cancers, it is vital the bill's scope allows for innovation to thrive. We on this side also urge the government to embed this bill's provisions in the forthcoming National can supplant.
And I hope the Minister will confirm this will happen. And hopefully can be published. And finally, as the expert unit from the back said in the report stage reading, that the key I for a floor is very much important, there is this glaring problem of abolition of NHS England, it indeed poses practical clashes about data, sharing and of course, oversight. We on this side of the House will do all we can to ensure the legislator remains workable under the new structures and I hope the government will do as well.
Madame Deputy Speaker, the bill will not solve everything overnight but it is a serious step forward and a statement that even the rarest conditions deserve our full attention. Meyer Angelou said when you know better, do better. The House knows better, thanks to the tireless work of the Member for Edinburgh South West. The bill helps
We will also like to thank charities and campaigners, who have worked tirelessly to bring the issue forward, Pancreatic Cancer UK, the brain tumour Charity, Cancer 52, and of course, many more. Their workers helped put rare cancers firmly on the agenda, and this bill is part of their legacy. And on the personal side of things, I have been on the other side, delivering the news, particularly working in an upper GI hospital, in my junior doctors, delivering the news someone has pancreatic cancer is one of the toughest things I have ever had to do.
I long for the day when I never have to have a doctor deliver a death sentence to a patient. At this bill brings out a step further. The Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I want to highlight the purpose of drugs, conditions, and may be life saving for rare cancers, it is vital the bill's scope allows for innovation to thrive. We on this side also urge the government to embed this bill's provisions in the forthcoming National can supplant.
And I hope the Minister will confirm this will happen. And hopefully can be published. And finally, as the expert unit from the back said in the report stage reading, that the key I for a floor is very much important, there is this glaring problem of abolition of NHS England, it indeed poses practical clashes about data, sharing and of course, oversight. We on this side of the House will do all we can to ensure the legislator remains workable under the new structures and I hope the government will do as well.
Madame Deputy Speaker, the bill will not solve everything overnight but it is a serious step forward and a statement that even the rarest conditions deserve our full attention. Meyer Angelou said when you know better, do better. The House knows better, thanks to the tireless work of the Member for Edinburgh South West. The bill helps
13:16
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
Thank you very much indeed Madam Deputy Speaker. I once again congratulate my honourable friend, the member for Edinburgh South West. It is a huge achievement for a colleague who has only served in this place for just over one year to have got the bill this far. I would also like to thank honourable members from across the House who spoke in this debate so powerfully and movingly. I would also like to thank all of those who sat on the committee for this bill.
We welcome effective scrutiny from committees. -- plays and holding us to account. I would also like to thank all of those working in the background on the National Cancer Plan. This government wants to go further for everyone diagnosed and this bill will act with incentivising recruitment oversight and accessibility of cancer research. NHS patients are at the front of the queue for cutting-edge treatments. We know the benefits of embedding clinical research across the NHS and beyond. It leads to better care for patients, more opportunities for our workforce and provides a huge economic benefit for our health and care system.
On 3 July we published our 10-Year Health Plan setting out the vision to distribute power to patients and revitalise our NHS making it fit for the future. The plan will deliver three shifts in care to deliver the health service can tackle the problems of today and tomorrow. All of which will be key to tackling cancer. Through the 10- Year Health Plan we will ensure patients will receive the most cutting-edge treatments and everyone can search for research studies through part of the research services on the NHS app.
That is why we welcome this bill that is aligned with our commitment. The Rare Cancers Bill raises the profile of rare cancers research and ensures our international regulatory competitiveness and also allows rare cancer patients to be contacted as quickly as possible about research opportunities. This innovation will be delivered through the be part of research, our flagship research registry delivered through the National Institute for Health and Care Research that allows people from all walks of life to sign up and get involved in research across the UK.
I urge everyone who might be watching this debate and indeed in this chamber who is interested, to sign up to be part of be part of research today and see what research opportunities are relevant to you. The government wants to give all rare cancer patients access to clinical trials and greater choice and control over their healthcare. That is why we are delighted to pledge government support for this bill. As we set out in our manifesto, this government is committed to ensuring clinical ECO system more efficient, competitive and accessible.
And the provisions in this bill align with that. We want the UK to lead the world in this space as the Prime destination for clinical research. This government also wants to give patients a greater choice and control over their healthcare and rare cancer patients should have access to vital research if they choose. Once again I want to thank my honourable friend for presenting this bill, for those members who served on the committee and pay tribute to all of the charities who are backing this important piece of legislation.
The government supports this bill and I look forward to working with all in this House to improve outcomes for rare cancer patients across our country. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With Leader of the House I call the windup.
We welcome effective scrutiny from committees. -- plays and holding us to account. I would also like to thank all of those working in the background on the National Cancer Plan. This government wants to go further for everyone diagnosed and this bill will act with incentivising recruitment oversight and accessibility of cancer research. NHS patients are at the front of the queue for cutting-edge treatments. We know the benefits of embedding clinical research across the NHS and beyond. It leads to better care for patients, more opportunities for our workforce and provides a huge economic benefit for our health and care system.
On 3 July we published our 10-Year Health Plan setting out the vision to distribute power to patients and revitalise our NHS making it fit for the future. The plan will deliver three shifts in care to deliver the health service can tackle the problems of today and tomorrow. All of which will be key to tackling cancer. Through the 10- Year Health Plan we will ensure patients will receive the most cutting-edge treatments and everyone can search for research studies through part of the research services on the NHS app.
That is why we welcome this bill that is aligned with our commitment. The Rare Cancers Bill raises the profile of rare cancers research and ensures our international regulatory competitiveness and also allows rare cancer patients to be contacted as quickly as possible about research opportunities. This innovation will be delivered through the be part of research, our flagship research registry delivered through the National Institute for Health and Care Research that allows people from all walks of life to sign up and get involved in research across the UK.
I urge everyone who might be watching this debate and indeed in this chamber who is interested, to sign up to be part of be part of research today and see what research opportunities are relevant to you. The government wants to give all rare cancer patients access to clinical trials and greater choice and control over their healthcare. That is why we are delighted to pledge government support for this bill. As we set out in our manifesto, this government is committed to ensuring clinical ECO system more efficient, competitive and accessible.
And the provisions in this bill align with that. We want the UK to lead the world in this space as the Prime destination for clinical research. This government also wants to give patients a greater choice and control over their healthcare and rare cancer patients should have access to vital research if they choose. Once again I want to thank my honourable friend for presenting this bill, for those members who served on the committee and pay tribute to all of the charities who are backing this important piece of legislation.
The government supports this bill and I look forward to working with all in this House to improve outcomes for rare cancer patients across our country. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With Leader of the House I call the windup.
13:20
Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the windup. With leave of the House I thank you and the members who have you and the members who have contributed today. I will not thank them all because I do want to keep an eye on time. I will thank of course the member for Mitcham and Morden for helping me get started on this journey. When I first met her I thought she was driven by the grief and loss of her sister but I know she is also driven by the love she had for her sister and I think that is a really important difference.
I also want to thank the many people who used this debate as a chance to celebrate the life of Doctor Susan Michaelis. And also getting the continued support for the campaign she left behind. We wish them well. And wish you all keeping her family in your mind as well today. I thank the civil servants. Some of whom are the civil servants. Some of whom are here today. I must also pay tribute to the Minister for his support today but also the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for health and safety for the compressive backing she has provided throughout.
I have to say I was at an event on Monday with both the pharmaceutical industry and some of the charity supporting this bill and they all have huge respect for the work she is doing. I thank the opposition frontbench for their very supportive comments today. Absolutely. It went well beyond what we wanted and what was reasonable. I really thank them. As 20 phrase that in a proper way there! -- I was trying to phrase that in a proper way! I should thank the member for Bury South for young the Whip on these Friday mornings.
-- Being the Whip on these Friday mornings. I should also thank the charities act the centre of this. Key ones have been mentioned earlier. Many members said quite politely they have received quite a lot of emails over the last few days. Perhaps stimulated by the submission of amendments to the bill. I think the charities have sent out 120,000 emails this week. Absolutely incredible. I can manage my inbox, it is a bit of a mess right now, you can imagine but I think they have waited a long time for this opportunity.
I really do thank them for urging me along. I also have to thank Sonia from the help she has given me over the last few weeks as we approach the Committee stage and also start to think about the transition through to the Lords with some optimism. Here and her husband's help, they have been fantastic actually. I would like to thank my team for the support they have given me. Particularly Tommy, the others in my office, Lucy, Hammer like Hannah, Celine, Joe, EV.
It is because we have got quite a completed situation going on with our interns which is whether such a long list. I do like to see continued support for this bill and I hope it passes today. As we have outlined it is in safe hands when it reaches the House of Lords hopefully. In the hands of an absolute formidable woman actually. I have great confidence in her. I should also thank first and foremost residence in Edinburgh South West for electing me and giving me the chance to bring this forward.
I did not know at the time but without them getting re-elected I would not be standing here. Presenting this bill. I do look forward to this bill hopefully receiving support today. And I look forward to continuing to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
champion it as it moves to the other place. Thank you. The question is the bill be now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the bill be now read the third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes have it. Secure 16 to 19 academies bill. Not amended in Public Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Committee. To be considered. Now. We start with amendment one which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We start with amendment one which with it will be, -- it will be appropriate to consider amendment two.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
two. I beg to move amendment one, clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out
Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the windup. With leave of the House I thank you and the members who have you and the members who have contributed today. I will not thank them all because I do want to keep an eye on time. I will thank of course the member for Mitcham and Morden for helping me get started on this journey. When I first met her I thought she was driven by the grief and loss of her sister but I know she is also driven by the love she had for her sister and I think that is a really important difference.
I also want to thank the many people who used this debate as a chance to celebrate the life of Doctor Susan Michaelis. And also getting the continued support for the campaign she left behind. We wish them well. And wish you all keeping her family in your mind as well today. I thank the civil servants. Some of whom are the civil servants. Some of whom are here today. I must also pay tribute to the Minister for his support today but also the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for health and safety for the compressive backing she has provided throughout.
I have to say I was at an event on Monday with both the pharmaceutical industry and some of the charity supporting this bill and they all have huge respect for the work she is doing. I thank the opposition frontbench for their very supportive comments today. Absolutely. It went well beyond what we wanted and what was reasonable. I really thank them. As 20 phrase that in a proper way there! -- I was trying to phrase that in a proper way! I should thank the member for Bury South for young the Whip on these Friday mornings.
-- Being the Whip on these Friday mornings. I should also thank the charities act the centre of this. Key ones have been mentioned earlier. Many members said quite politely they have received quite a lot of emails over the last few days. Perhaps stimulated by the submission of amendments to the bill. I think the charities have sent out 120,000 emails this week. Absolutely incredible. I can manage my inbox, it is a bit of a mess right now, you can imagine but I think they have waited a long time for this opportunity.
I really do thank them for urging me along. I also have to thank Sonia from the help she has given me over the last few weeks as we approach the Committee stage and also start to think about the transition through to the Lords with some optimism. Here and her husband's help, they have been fantastic actually. I would like to thank my team for the support they have given me. Particularly Tommy, the others in my office, Lucy, Hammer like Hannah, Celine, Joe, EV.
It is because we have got quite a completed situation going on with our interns which is whether such a long list. I do like to see continued support for this bill and I hope it passes today. As we have outlined it is in safe hands when it reaches the House of Lords hopefully. In the hands of an absolute formidable woman actually. I have great confidence in her. I should also thank first and foremost residence in Edinburgh South West for electing me and giving me the chance to bring this forward.
I did not know at the time but without them getting re-elected I would not be standing here. Presenting this bill. I do look forward to this bill hopefully receiving support today. And I look forward to continuing to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
champion it as it moves to the other place. Thank you. The question is the bill be now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the bill be now read the third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes have it. Secure 16 to 19 academies bill. Not amended in Public Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Committee. To be considered. Now. We start with amendment one which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We start with amendment one which with it will be, -- it will be appropriate to consider amendment two.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
two. I beg to move amendment one, clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out
13:24
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out subsection 4. This for some people may be unfamiliar with the detail of this bill because it did not receive a second reading debate. In this place. It went through on the nod on 16 May. And then it went into a public bill committee on Wednesday, 2 July. Which was quite a truncated committee. And now comes back here for us at report stage the reason I have put in amendment is to highlight a concern I have got.
About the consultation arrangements which are proposed in clause 4. In subsection 4. Amendment to -- amendment number two as consequential as an amendment because as people will have noticed in a long title on the fourth line of the long title, and expanded secure 16 to 19 academies and also the consultation required when it is proposed to establish or expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy. If my amendment were to be successful then the consequence would be the Long title of a bill would need to be amended and anticipation of that that is why amendment number two has been tabled and as ever I am most grateful to the public bill office for having ensured I was on the right lines on that and such an amendment could be tabled.
That amendment could be tabled. That takes me to describing the amendment and the justification for it. It arises from the fact at the moment in section 10 of the 2010 Academies Act it is said before entering into an academy arrangement, the provider must carry out a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into. What this amendment that sets out in clause 1, for would do would be to insert into and against that provision and exception which would be but 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 to exempt the requirement for a consultation on the question of whether or not the arrangement should be entered into. I would like to see that is a reasonable thing to do. In the short debate we had on this in the Public Bill Committee I think there was a bit of misrepresentation. Because it was stated secure schools do not compete with other schools. That may be true but they can compete with other institutions, particularly institutions providing alternative institutions providing alternative provision.
So when the substitute for this subsection in section 10 is that the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question and they must in-state -- instead carry out a consultation on how they would carry out this with local partners in connection with local establishment and the carrying on of the Academy. Those local partners are described as potential local partners meaning persons exercising functions for public nature. I think they have in mind organisations like the health service of the Local Education Authority, councillors and so on.
In so far as not falling within paragraph a, proprieties of educational institutions with whom the person carrying out the education thinks is appropriate to cooperate. Again that is left, their 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 because it may well be there would not be any competition as I said between 16 to 19 secure Academy and an ordinary school but there may be between that secure Academy and another such academy which is already in existence although it might be proposed.
Bearing in mind the 2022 legislation on this was on the issue of secure academies, was introduced in the last Parliament. Obviously at that time nobody thought there was any problem with having the same arrangements simulation to 16 to 19 secure 16 to 19 academies in relation to other academies. The short debate on this amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to explain why that change is explain why that change is And why there needs to be a deletion of the existing consultation arrangements rather than an addition to the existing consultation arrangements subject of a consultation that is the subject of the new clause which will be in subsection B.
So it's quite a short point, but I think it's an important one because what was thought to be a very useful, in terms of consultation before, is now regarded as being of secondary importance. It seems to me that proposing to establish or expanding a secure 16 to 19 Academy is a big decision and a big step and it should be the subject of the consultation as originally set out in the Academy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. I beg to move. Question is that the amendment is made. I called the Minister.
About the consultation arrangements which are proposed in clause 4. In subsection 4. Amendment to -- amendment number two as consequential as an amendment because as people will have noticed in a long title on the fourth line of the long title, and expanded secure 16 to 19 academies and also the consultation required when it is proposed to establish or expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy. If my amendment were to be successful then the consequence would be the Long title of a bill would need to be amended and anticipation of that that is why amendment number two has been tabled and as ever I am most grateful to the public bill office for having ensured I was on the right lines on that and such an amendment could be tabled.
That amendment could be tabled. That takes me to describing the amendment and the justification for it. It arises from the fact at the moment in section 10 of the 2010 Academies Act it is said before entering into an academy arrangement, the provider must carry out a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into. What this amendment that sets out in clause 1, for would do would be to insert into and against that provision and exception which would be but 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 to exempt the requirement for a consultation on the question of whether or not the arrangement should be entered into. I would like to see that is a reasonable thing to do. In the short debate we had on this in the Public Bill Committee I think there was a bit of misrepresentation. Because it was stated secure schools do not compete with other schools. That may be true but they can compete with other institutions, particularly institutions providing alternative institutions providing alternative provision.
So when the substitute for this subsection in section 10 is that the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question and they must in-state -- instead carry out a consultation on how they would carry out this with local partners in connection with local establishment and the carrying on of the Academy. Those local partners are described as potential local partners meaning persons exercising functions for public nature. I think they have in mind organisations like the health service of the Local Education Authority, councillors and so on.
In so far as not falling within paragraph a, proprieties of educational institutions with whom the person carrying out the education thinks is appropriate to cooperate. Again that is left, their 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 because it may well be there would not be any competition as I said between 16 to 19 secure Academy and an ordinary school but there may be between that secure Academy and another such academy which is already in existence although it might be proposed.
Bearing in mind the 2022 legislation on this was on the issue of secure academies, was introduced in the last Parliament. Obviously at that time nobody thought there was any problem with having the same arrangements simulation to 16 to 19 secure 16 to 19 academies in relation to other academies. The short debate on this amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to explain why that change is explain why that change is And why there needs to be a deletion of the existing consultation arrangements rather than an addition to the existing consultation arrangements subject of a consultation that is the subject of the new clause which will be in subsection B.
So it's quite a short point, but I think it's an important one because what was thought to be a very useful, in terms of consultation before, is now regarded as being of secondary importance. It seems to me that proposing to establish or expanding a secure 16 to 19 Academy is a big decision and a big step and it should be the subject of the consultation as originally set out in the Academy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. I beg to move. Question is that the amendment is made. I called the Minister.
13:32
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
made. I called the Minister. The Member for Christchurch focuses on the specific issue of why focuses on the specific issue of why this change, it's very much a technical change, these secure schools we have one secure schools the oasis Academy in Kent which I visited, they have young people who are sent to custody so they join the rest of the custodial youth custodial estate which includes three I/O eyes and a secure training centre and AI OI in Wales plus some secure children's homes.
It is a very discreet landscape so there is no competition with alternative provision or any other provision locally because it would be inappropriate for a young person that was sentenced to custody to go to that alternative provision because they have to go to secure provision i.e. Youth offending Institute one of the other secure provision places one of which is the secure school. Therefore it was a bit of an oversight in the original legislation that this time of consultation about whether it should go ahead because there is no competition with the locality however a more useful consultation would be about how, because there are issues about working with other partners including partners that might provide alternative provision and that is the most appropriate way of doing that so I welcome the fact that my honourable friend has brought this bill to us today because it seeks to make more sense of the legislation and therefore be more effective in terms of these particular young people and those particular places.
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
made. I called the Minister. The Member for Christchurch focuses on the specific issue of why focuses on the specific issue of why this change, it's very much a technical change, these secure schools we have one secure schools the oasis Academy in Kent which I visited, they have young people who are sent to custody so they join the rest of the custodial youth custodial estate which includes three I/O eyes and a secure training centre and AI OI in Wales plus some secure children's homes.
It is a very discreet landscape so there is no competition with alternative provision or any other provision locally because it would be inappropriate for a young person that was sentenced to custody to go to that alternative provision because they have to go to secure provision i.e. Youth offending Institute one of the other secure provision places one of which is the secure school. Therefore it was a bit of an oversight in the original legislation that this time of consultation about whether it should go ahead because there is no competition with the locality however a more useful consultation would be about how, because there are issues about working with other partners including partners that might provide alternative provision and that is the most appropriate way of doing that so I welcome the fact that my honourable friend has brought this bill to us today because it seeks to make more sense of the legislation and therefore be more effective in terms of these particular young people and those particular places.
13:34
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
Christopher Chope to windup. Minister has actually answered my challenge and given an explanation and in the light of those
**** Possible New Speaker ****
circumstances I'm going to seek the leave the House to withdraw my amendment. Your pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn. Amendment by leave is withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Consideration completed, withdrawn. Consideration completed, third reading what day? The question is that the bill be now read a third
**** Possible New Speaker ****
circumstances I'm going to seek the leave the House to withdraw my amendment. Your pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn. Amendment by leave is withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Consideration completed, withdrawn. Consideration completed, third reading what day? The question is that the bill be now read a third
13:35
Emma Foody MP (Cramlington and Killingworth, Labour )
-
-
Emma Foody MP (Cramlington and Killingworth, Labour )
is that the bill be now read a third
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time. Emma Foody. I beg to move that the bill is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that the bill is now read a third time. I'm grateful for the honourable members for their contributions and the amendment laid by the Member for Christchurch and by the Member for Christchurch and in the interest of time however I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg to move it be read for 1/3 time. The question is the bill be now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time. Emma Foody. I beg to move that the bill is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that the bill is now read a third time. I'm grateful for the honourable members for their contributions and the amendment laid by the Member for Christchurch and by the Member for Christchurch and in the interest of time however I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg to move it be read for 1/3 time. The question is the bill be now
13:35
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the bill be now read a third time, Trista Mr Chope. In the interest of time I have obviously got the chance to talk obviously got the chance to talk about the bill. We haven't had a chance, we didn't have a second reading because the bill went through On the nod, I wasn't on the public Bill Committee, I'm a loser as a result of that but I wasn't invited. Honourable lady whose abilities, she steered it through abilities, she steered it through that public committee very quickly.
Now it's come back here today and she doesn't feel the need to expand upon it in any way in introducing the third reading. I'm going to take up one particular challenge because during the committee stage on the bill my honourable friend the Member for Spelthorne made a particular, ask a particular question and the Minister said in response I thank the honourable members who contributed so far on the issues just raids by the honourable member for Spelthorne they offer the bill as it makes progress assuming that it does progress however I'm happy to write to him with an answer to those points as they are pertinent.
I don't know whether such a letter has been sent but if so obviously having not been a member of the Public Bill Committee I haven't seen the contents of that letter so I hope that when he responds in his usually helpful way he will share with us the content of the answer of the point raised by the Member for Spelthorne in the debate in committee on 2 July.. That's a relatively detailed point. My greater concern on this bill as a great supporter of academies and what they have done in transforming education provision in our country and removing that provision from the dead hand of so many local authorities, I speak to somebody who early on in my political career succeeded in persuading Margaret Thatcher to abolish the inner London education authority, and that was one of the great success stories in my campaigning.
The 2022 legislation the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill act obviously dealt with all this issue, set up the secure 16 to 19 academies and I can't understand what it's an oversight that the legislation wasn't changed then to ensure that there was only a guarantee of two years of funding for an Academy? Under the academies act Academy setup were guaranteed a nine year funding and if that didn't work, no there were guaranteed seven years funding and that was curtailed then there would essentially be compensation for the Academy.
Much more important than that, setting up an Academy is a very expensive job. I know in my own constituency that the setting up of what became Parkfield school as an Academy which was transferred from a free school which had been started in Bournemouth and hadn't got premises they would be on the third floor of an office block, they couldn't get planning permission because of hostility from the local education authority that didn't relish the prospect of competition, they then found some premises in my constituency which had already got an education use because it had been the training school for the national air training centre.
In Christchurch. They were ready built facilities but the costs of converting those facilities into premises suitable for an Academy were significant indeed, it was time-consuming and the people, I think critics of the Academy system used against the government then the fact that this was so much money being spent on this provision, but of course it was made more secure by the fact that there was a seven year guarantee that the Academy would be able to stay in place during that time.
I'm sorry to say that Academy at the end of this term, Parkfield school as is known, is going to no longer exist. Because the Academy trust that took over the running of it has decided to pull out, they gave the original notice was given a year ago in this last year the school has been solely dealing with people who are waiting to complete their GCSEs and now the buildings are there, they will revert to the Department of education, what's going to happen to them who knows, but the investment is there.
Maybe it will be used by the local authority for alternative education provision. Maybe it will be used as a secure 16 to 19 Academy. Who knows. The point of this is that that Academy would never have been able to to get started in the premises of Parkfield school if it had only been given eight two-year lease of life. We know that members of this House who elected a year ago this month think that a five year duration is pretty short on the contrary get their feet under the table and invest fit for the future if they've only got a guarantee of being in existence for up to five years, but if you are talking about premises taking on staff and all, everything that goes with that and even more so if were talking about premises which are secured premises and I can't understand why we are saying that the minimum notice of funding under arrangements is going to be reduced from seven to two years.
The argument put forward is that a two-year termination. Will enable the 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. I say to the Minister, that is not expanded upon in any sense in any of the debate I've seen or in the Explanatory Notes as that is just a statement and mere repetition of that statement cannot be a substitute for justification of the statement which is how is limiting the termination.
To two years going to prioritise value for money because it may well mean that the short-term has prevails because the Academy says I can't do this I can't do that, I can't invest in the future because I've only got eight two-year potential lifespan. There is that issue and then in articulating the case that the government puts forward the honourable lady from Cramlington and Killingworth went on to say, this is on page 4 of the Public Bill Committee report, it said, reducing it to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit.
In which government would be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary, but that's exactly the system under the academies. All academies if they fail then there has to be an exit. And I've been describing the situation Parkfield school in relation to that. While ensuring that secure school providers have a certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining specialist staff to work in this environment. I would suggest that actually only being able to have a two-year contract is hardly a very encouraging situation for potential members of staff.
I don't think the number of people wanting to aspire to be members of Parliament would be increased if the knowledge was that there would be an election every two years and they might only find themselves retrospectively on a two-year contract. Then the honourable lady introducing the bill then goes on to justify the disapplication of section 9 which is also contained in the bill, wasn't the subject of my amendment, but this applying section 9 of the primary legislation will stop would remove the requirement that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new Academy funding agreement on other educational establishments at the area.
16 to 19 academies, although it's important that secure schools are established as academies in order to ensure that they mirror breast practice in the community they are fundamentally different. Then she goes on to say, as secure schools do not compete with other They do not compete with other schools but they could compete potentially with other organisations. Because she then says as such we do not expect them to have an impact on the viability of other mainstream schools. Fine. We are not expecting that.
But what about schools that are not mainstream? And so that is used as an argument for saying it would this apply the duty to help any future secure schools open with minimal delay. So Madam Deputy Speaker, we know, I come to this slightly, in a slightly suspicious state of mind. Because we know the government is not actually enthusiastic about academies and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. But I think the government would prefer it if the Academy program, I will not call them experiments because it is succeeding but if that had been able to brought forward under a Labour government, I do not think a Labour government would have ever done it.
I think the Labour government is reluctant, it realises it cannot really abolish academies but I am concerned what he has proposed in this bill may be the starting point of facilitating making academies less financially viable and withering on the vine by removing that all-important seven year guarantee of funding. Or indefinite funding with a seven year notice, which has to be given under that act. So those are the concerns I have got. The fact this bill seems to have consensus across the House makes me even more concerned.
Because when we look at lawmaking many of the laws that have been introduced are the best ones have been introduced by cross-party consensus. I am for that reason concerned about this. The honourable lady refers to time. There should not be any constraints on us being able to debate this today. That is what we are doing. This may be the last of the sitting Fridays that have been allocated. It is the last one that has been allocated by the government but I am sure the government Whip who deals with these things this session is likely to continue well beyond the autumn and there will doubtless be further settings -- further sitting Fridays.
If there are further sitting Fridays then any business today that is not reached will be reached on another occasion, the next sitting Friday which is chosen. As you will know Madam Deputy Speaker, by convention although there is a limit on the although there is a limit on the number of opposition, of 13 days set for private members legislation where a Session of Parliament has been extended significantly then by convention there has also been an addition of sitting Fridays to compensate for that in the same way this by convention there is additional time provided for Opposition days.
Because otherwise streaky speaking under standard laws that would not be sufficient time, sufficient opposition to time. -- Opposition day time. I do not say we should go on debating this into the next Friday but I hope when the Minister responds he will not feel he is inhibited by time constraints being imposed by the Whips. Because they are not Timex -- they are time constraints that are artificial and can be altered. I hope Madam Deputy Speaker, to having my concerns about this bill addressed.
I am open to being reassured and I look forward to the Minister pursuing such a course.
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the bill be now read a third time, Trista Mr Chope. In the interest of time I have obviously got the chance to talk obviously got the chance to talk about the bill. We haven't had a chance, we didn't have a second reading because the bill went through On the nod, I wasn't on the public Bill Committee, I'm a loser as a result of that but I wasn't invited. Honourable lady whose abilities, she steered it through abilities, she steered it through that public committee very quickly.
Now it's come back here today and she doesn't feel the need to expand upon it in any way in introducing the third reading. I'm going to take up one particular challenge because during the committee stage on the bill my honourable friend the Member for Spelthorne made a particular, ask a particular question and the Minister said in response I thank the honourable members who contributed so far on the issues just raids by the honourable member for Spelthorne they offer the bill as it makes progress assuming that it does progress however I'm happy to write to him with an answer to those points as they are pertinent.
I don't know whether such a letter has been sent but if so obviously having not been a member of the Public Bill Committee I haven't seen the contents of that letter so I hope that when he responds in his usually helpful way he will share with us the content of the answer of the point raised by the Member for Spelthorne in the debate in committee on 2 July.. That's a relatively detailed point. My greater concern on this bill as a great supporter of academies and what they have done in transforming education provision in our country and removing that provision from the dead hand of so many local authorities, I speak to somebody who early on in my political career succeeded in persuading Margaret Thatcher to abolish the inner London education authority, and that was one of the great success stories in my campaigning.
The 2022 legislation the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill act obviously dealt with all this issue, set up the secure 16 to 19 academies and I can't understand what it's an oversight that the legislation wasn't changed then to ensure that there was only a guarantee of two years of funding for an Academy? Under the academies act Academy setup were guaranteed a nine year funding and if that didn't work, no there were guaranteed seven years funding and that was curtailed then there would essentially be compensation for the Academy.
Much more important than that, setting up an Academy is a very expensive job. I know in my own constituency that the setting up of what became Parkfield school as an Academy which was transferred from a free school which had been started in Bournemouth and hadn't got premises they would be on the third floor of an office block, they couldn't get planning permission because of hostility from the local education authority that didn't relish the prospect of competition, they then found some premises in my constituency which had already got an education use because it had been the training school for the national air training centre.
In Christchurch. They were ready built facilities but the costs of converting those facilities into premises suitable for an Academy were significant indeed, it was time-consuming and the people, I think critics of the Academy system used against the government then the fact that this was so much money being spent on this provision, but of course it was made more secure by the fact that there was a seven year guarantee that the Academy would be able to stay in place during that time.
I'm sorry to say that Academy at the end of this term, Parkfield school as is known, is going to no longer exist. Because the Academy trust that took over the running of it has decided to pull out, they gave the original notice was given a year ago in this last year the school has been solely dealing with people who are waiting to complete their GCSEs and now the buildings are there, they will revert to the Department of education, what's going to happen to them who knows, but the investment is there.
Maybe it will be used by the local authority for alternative education provision. Maybe it will be used as a secure 16 to 19 Academy. Who knows. The point of this is that that Academy would never have been able to to get started in the premises of Parkfield school if it had only been given eight two-year lease of life. We know that members of this House who elected a year ago this month think that a five year duration is pretty short on the contrary get their feet under the table and invest fit for the future if they've only got a guarantee of being in existence for up to five years, but if you are talking about premises taking on staff and all, everything that goes with that and even more so if were talking about premises which are secured premises and I can't understand why we are saying that the minimum notice of funding under arrangements is going to be reduced from seven to two years.
The argument put forward is that a two-year termination. Will enable the 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. I say to the Minister, that is not expanded upon in any sense in any of the debate I've seen or in the Explanatory Notes as that is just a statement and mere repetition of that statement cannot be a substitute for justification of the statement which is how is limiting the termination.
To two years going to prioritise value for money because it may well mean that the short-term has prevails because the Academy says I can't do this I can't do that, I can't invest in the future because I've only got eight two-year potential lifespan. There is that issue and then in articulating the case that the government puts forward the honourable lady from Cramlington and Killingworth went on to say, this is on page 4 of the Public Bill Committee report, it said, reducing it to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit.
In which government would be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary, but that's exactly the system under the academies. All academies if they fail then there has to be an exit. And I've been describing the situation Parkfield school in relation to that. While ensuring that secure school providers have a certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining specialist staff to work in this environment. I would suggest that actually only being able to have a two-year contract is hardly a very encouraging situation for potential members of staff.
I don't think the number of people wanting to aspire to be members of Parliament would be increased if the knowledge was that there would be an election every two years and they might only find themselves retrospectively on a two-year contract. Then the honourable lady introducing the bill then goes on to justify the disapplication of section 9 which is also contained in the bill, wasn't the subject of my amendment, but this applying section 9 of the primary legislation will stop would remove the requirement that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new Academy funding agreement on other educational establishments at the area.
16 to 19 academies, although it's important that secure schools are established as academies in order to ensure that they mirror breast practice in the community they are fundamentally different. Then she goes on to say, as secure schools do not compete with other They do not compete with other schools but they could compete potentially with other organisations. Because she then says as such we do not expect them to have an impact on the viability of other mainstream schools. Fine. We are not expecting that.
But what about schools that are not mainstream? And so that is used as an argument for saying it would this apply the duty to help any future secure schools open with minimal delay. So Madam Deputy Speaker, we know, I come to this slightly, in a slightly suspicious state of mind. Because we know the government is not actually enthusiastic about academies and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. But I think the government would prefer it if the Academy program, I will not call them experiments because it is succeeding but if that had been able to brought forward under a Labour government, I do not think a Labour government would have ever done it.
I think the Labour government is reluctant, it realises it cannot really abolish academies but I am concerned what he has proposed in this bill may be the starting point of facilitating making academies less financially viable and withering on the vine by removing that all-important seven year guarantee of funding. Or indefinite funding with a seven year notice, which has to be given under that act. So those are the concerns I have got. The fact this bill seems to have consensus across the House makes me even more concerned.
Because when we look at lawmaking many of the laws that have been introduced are the best ones have been introduced by cross-party consensus. I am for that reason concerned about this. The honourable lady refers to time. There should not be any constraints on us being able to debate this today. That is what we are doing. This may be the last of the sitting Fridays that have been allocated. It is the last one that has been allocated by the government but I am sure the government Whip who deals with these things this session is likely to continue well beyond the autumn and there will doubtless be further settings -- further sitting Fridays.
If there are further sitting Fridays then any business today that is not reached will be reached on another occasion, the next sitting Friday which is chosen. As you will know Madam Deputy Speaker, by convention although there is a limit on the although there is a limit on the number of opposition, of 13 days set for private members legislation where a Session of Parliament has been extended significantly then by convention there has also been an addition of sitting Fridays to compensate for that in the same way this by convention there is additional time provided for Opposition days.
Because otherwise streaky speaking under standard laws that would not be sufficient time, sufficient opposition to time. -- Opposition day time. I do not say we should go on debating this into the next Friday but I hope when the Minister responds he will not feel he is inhibited by time constraints being imposed by the Whips. Because they are not Timex -- they are time constraints that are artificial and can be altered. I hope Madam Deputy Speaker, to having my concerns about this bill addressed.
I am open to being reassured and I look forward to the Minister pursuing such a course.
13:51
Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
Shadow Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition and to express our support for the secure express our support for the secure 16 to 19 academies bill. I thank the honourable member for Cramlington and Killingworth are bringing it forward. I note the member for Christchurch is also keen for me to Christchurch is also keen for me to make the most of the time available so I do not intend to. As has been noted during the early stages of this bill, the legislation largely mirrors the provisions of the previous bill introduced before the previous bill introduced before the election by my honourable friend, the Memphis Sleaford and North Hykeham.
My office named as it Hykeham. My office named as it happens to be. The early bill did not complete its passage and I want to pay tribute to her dedication and to pay tribute to her dedication and clear commitment to improving outcomes children customary, her work led a groundbreaking deal which we are debating today and no doubt we are debating today and no doubt she will please to see it return to the House with the support from the cramming Tun Khin with. Secure six cramming Tun Khin with.
Secure six team to 19 academies also secure schools are a new form of custodial provision with education and rehabilitation out there at their rehabilitation out there at their core. They have shaped how we support curvy young people in custody. The last Conservative government opened the first secure school in Medway and the evidence shows it smaller units which focus shows it smaller units which focus on education are most likely to readjust reoffending. By helping these children turn their lives around we can make sure everyone is safer in the long run.
But they are not typical educational institutions and it is both appropriate and necessary different legal and procedural reply to them. -- Requirements are applied to them. As we agree with these provisions we would welcome reassurance from the government these schools will be properly funded and supported and also appropriate steps are put in place to make sure young people in custody are properly supported to reduce their reoffending. If secure schools are to succeed where the parts of the estate have historically struggled there must be effectively resourced and supported and there must be partnerships with local partners.
As has been brought to the House today, it would be interesting to hear a long-term provision for the estate from the government. What further plans do they have to open if any new secure schools and what role do they see these plain in young offenders education? And how will they make sure partners and education providers they are strengthened to maximise the impact of this reform? It would be grateful if the Minister could make some remarks on those lines when he replies.
There is a practical and proportionate bill in this The Opposition supported and we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
look forward to seeing its progress. Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. Thank you. I am grateful to my honourable friend, the member for Cramlington and Killingworth for the excellent work she has done in excellent work she has done in bringing forward this important bill and navigating us to this point. I am also grateful to the opposition
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition and to express our support for the secure express our support for the secure 16 to 19 academies bill. I thank the honourable member for Cramlington and Killingworth are bringing it forward. I note the member for Christchurch is also keen for me to Christchurch is also keen for me to make the most of the time available so I do not intend to. As has been noted during the early stages of this bill, the legislation largely mirrors the provisions of the previous bill introduced before the previous bill introduced before the election by my honourable friend, the Memphis Sleaford and North Hykeham.
My office named as it Hykeham. My office named as it happens to be. The early bill did not complete its passage and I want to pay tribute to her dedication and to pay tribute to her dedication and clear commitment to improving outcomes children customary, her work led a groundbreaking deal which we are debating today and no doubt we are debating today and no doubt she will please to see it return to the House with the support from the cramming Tun Khin with. Secure six cramming Tun Khin with.
Secure six team to 19 academies also secure schools are a new form of custodial provision with education and rehabilitation out there at their rehabilitation out there at their core. They have shaped how we support curvy young people in custody. The last Conservative government opened the first secure school in Medway and the evidence shows it smaller units which focus shows it smaller units which focus on education are most likely to readjust reoffending. By helping these children turn their lives around we can make sure everyone is safer in the long run.
But they are not typical educational institutions and it is both appropriate and necessary different legal and procedural reply to them. -- Requirements are applied to them. As we agree with these provisions we would welcome reassurance from the government these schools will be properly funded and supported and also appropriate steps are put in place to make sure young people in custody are properly supported to reduce their reoffending. If secure schools are to succeed where the parts of the estate have historically struggled there must be effectively resourced and supported and there must be partnerships with local partners.
As has been brought to the House today, it would be interesting to hear a long-term provision for the estate from the government. What further plans do they have to open if any new secure schools and what role do they see these plain in young offenders education? And how will they make sure partners and education providers they are strengthened to maximise the impact of this reform? It would be grateful if the Minister could make some remarks on those lines when he replies.
There is a practical and proportionate bill in this The Opposition supported and we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
look forward to seeing its progress. Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. Thank you. I am grateful to my honourable friend, the member for Cramlington and Killingworth for the excellent work she has done in excellent work she has done in bringing forward this important bill and navigating us to this point. I am also grateful to the opposition
13:54
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
-
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
am also grateful to the opposition spokesperson for his support. For this bill. And the comments he has just made. I assure him the issues he has raised quite rightly we will take forward with him in due course. In answer, the welcome scepticism for the member for Christchurch I did write to the member and indeed copied it to the rest of the committee who were pointing out to the agreement the rationale for the notice period from seven years to two years and for this change to be applied to the funding agreement and there will be no financial impact on the tax.
I did pick up exactly the point that he rightly picked up on that has been dealt with. His issues as he raised in relation to academies in general, academies were of course introduced first by the government of Sir Tony Blair but the issues he raises a matter for the DfE not myself. I commend this bill to the House and I thank my honourable friend for bringing it forward.
I did pick up exactly the point that he rightly picked up on that has been dealt with. His issues as he raised in relation to academies in general, academies were of course introduced first by the government of Sir Tony Blair but the issues he raises a matter for the DfE not myself. I commend this bill to the House and I thank my honourable friend for bringing it forward.
13:55
Emma Foody MP (Cramlington and Killingworth, Labour )
-
-
Emma Foody MP (Cramlington and Killingworth, Labour )
Thank you. With the leave of the House I wanted to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and members from across this House Clerks, the Minister, the shadow Minister for the support and contributions and challenge for the member for Christchurch. It was brilliant to see such consensus on this important issue but I also just wanted to say a quick thank you to my team for the work they have done in supporting me and bringing this forward during my first year along with officials from the Ministry of Justice, without whose support I would not have been able to do so.
I look forward to hopefully the continued support of honourable members for the bill to progress to further stages.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the Bill be now read the third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes have it. Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill,
I look forward to hopefully the continued support of honourable members for the bill to progress to further stages.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the Bill be now read the third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes have it. Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill,
13:56
Private Members' Bills: Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill: Remaining Stages
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not amended in committee. I call secretive church movement in one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in one. I beg to move amendment one. In
Private Members' Bills: Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill: Remaining Stages
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not amended in committee. I call secretive church movement in one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in one. I beg to move amendment one. In
13:56
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
my name this would leave out a subsection 1 of the bill and essentially exclude from the provisions of the bill schedule for to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Enforcement England and Wales. In paragraph 8 In paragraph 81 A. All of the paragraph like all of the references to that would reduce the bill from covering those four areas would then cover section 47 and the family Law act 19 626 and the antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act thousand and 14 and section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2,000 2009.
And why am I concerned about removing provisions relating to local government? I have been instrumental in discussing in the House and elsewhere the costs and burdens of council tax, ever since Council Tax was introduced consequent upon the failure of this legislation for community charges. That was legislation I was privileged to help take through this House. In the late 1980s. I still meet people who think it was a big hysteric -- mistake to abandon the community charge which essentially community charge which essentially insured everybody who is in receipt of government services, medical tradition that is all history.
That has changed. We introduced Council Tax and with it Council Tax administration and enforcement administration and enforcement regulations. It is those regulations which are now seeking to be altered by clause number four of this bill. Because those, instead of what has a ready been set out about -- already been set out about the ability of the courts to be able to deal with Council Tax administrative and enforcement problems, what is being suggested is that those Court hearings should be able to be held remotely.
In other words there would not be any proper ability for people to be able to see what was going on. In my view the deterrent value of such hearings would be lost because they would be remote rather than in person hearings in the local magistrates' court. I am going to just mention the extent of the problem we have got already with enforcement of Council Tax arrears. Which are now of the order of £6 billion. As the Minister will know.
billion. As the Minister will know. £6 billion of Council Tax arrears. Almost I think 10% of the total is attributable to just four local authorities. Those local authorities it will not surprise member is to it will not surprise member is to know, are Liverpool, Birmingham and I think Manchester and Brent. There was four local authorities between them are responsible for more than 10% of the £6 billion in Council Tax So what are we doing, why are we trying to reduce the pressure on council tax payment misprints by enabling them to be able to -- miscreants, to be able to hide behind remote hearings instead of having to face the music in a proper court of law where justice cannot only be done but it can also be seen to be done.
I asked that question, why shouldn't a Council Tax debtor be required to attend the court hearing in person? Because then the courts can make enquiries about the person, they can discuss means to pay, that can be done with witnesses, the magistrates can see the demeanour of the defendant in person, they can look at any other aspect of that demeanour and take that into account. Most important of all they can ensure that the court process acts as a deterrent against people thinking paying their council tax is essentially a voluntary activity.
We got a real debt crisis building in this country, not just on Council Tax but I think I served on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee we've heard evidence that this the arrears in relation to energy payments are now £4 billion or more. With the Council Tax problem why are we seeking this bill to reduce the pressure on those council tax payers who almost make the issue of paying council tax voluntary? And why are we not putting more pressure this on the local authorities that are responsible for a lot of this council tax arrears.
I am lucky enough to live in the new Forest District Council area where they are 286 in the league table for the amount of Council Tax arrears, they amount to about £69 per council tax payer. By contrast, in Liverpool the payer. By contrast, in Liverpool the amount owing is £194 -- £194 million and that means that for every Council Tax dwelling, £869 is owed. So what is being done to put pressure upon Liverpool City Council to do some thing about it? And similar application principles apply in other councils including actually in the area which I am privileged to represent, PCP Council, where they are 109th in the league table but where they have more than £45 million of council arrears amounting to £249 per Council Tax dwelling and in Dorset which is the other half of my constituency they have got £53 million in council tax arrears amounting to £290 per Council Tax dwelling.
The question I have for the Minister and the reason I'm putting forward this amendment is why are we doing this? Why are we proposing to facilitate remote hearings for issues relating to Council Tax, and we know already under the legislation that the Council Tax administration and enforcement regulations enable a council to issue a reminder notice and a final notice and if the debt remains unpaid for more than 14 days after reminder notices sent, the council can apply to the magistrates court for a liability order.
There will then be a hearing and if the magistrate finds that the taxpayers failed to pay Council Tax they will order the taxpayer to pay the outstanding sum as well as paying the council's cost, that is under regulation 34. Once a liability order is granted, the council can use several different enforcement methods to collect the debt. It can instruct an employer to deduct money under an attachment of earnings order, it can make deductions from benefits, it can take control of goods, it can issue a charging order.
It can even in extreme circumstances impose bankruptcy proceedings. Ultimately it can have a committal to prison, the council may apply to commit the taxpayer to prison the bailiffs have been unable to find goods belonging to the taxpayer the cover the debt. In the light of all of those powers that the local authorities got under the Council Tax administration and enforcement regulations, why are they not being used effectively? And why do we think that creating a remote hearing is going to improve matters? It seems to me absolutely ludicrous to propose having remote hearings, if ever there was a good use of magistrates court time it must be in trying to ensure that people in the area that magistrates court find themselves in a situation where the payers of Council Tax, the conscientious payers of Council Tax are not finding themselves having to cross subsidise people who don't pay their council tax with the enormous resultant arrears to which I have already referred.
That's why I am concerned about this. We know that remote hearings were brought in to effect during the pandemic and have been used in other circumstances, but the consequence of a remote hearing is that the price and the public are in the dark. I suggest that one of the best deterrents in terms of Council Tax non-payment would be if people had their names and addresses published in the local paper if they are in receipt of the liability orders in the local magistrates court.
All that is going to be made much more difficult if this proposed bill goes through and includes the references that I have referred to to Council Tax. So on behalf of all those people who are suffering as a result of the £6 billion plus Odin Council Tax, I urge the government not to proceed with this particular part of the bill and that's why I am proposing this amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the amendment be made. I called minister
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Nick Dakin. The Member for Christchurch
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Member for Christchurch raises important concerns but this is not about reducing the pressure on miscreants, it's actually about dealing with them as effectively and dealing with them as effectively and efficiently as possible. It doesn't
And why am I concerned about removing provisions relating to local government? I have been instrumental in discussing in the House and elsewhere the costs and burdens of council tax, ever since Council Tax was introduced consequent upon the failure of this legislation for community charges. That was legislation I was privileged to help take through this House. In the late 1980s. I still meet people who think it was a big hysteric -- mistake to abandon the community charge which essentially community charge which essentially insured everybody who is in receipt of government services, medical tradition that is all history.
That has changed. We introduced Council Tax and with it Council Tax administration and enforcement administration and enforcement regulations. It is those regulations which are now seeking to be altered by clause number four of this bill. Because those, instead of what has a ready been set out about -- already been set out about the ability of the courts to be able to deal with Council Tax administrative and enforcement problems, what is being suggested is that those Court hearings should be able to be held remotely.
In other words there would not be any proper ability for people to be able to see what was going on. In my view the deterrent value of such hearings would be lost because they would be remote rather than in person hearings in the local magistrates' court. I am going to just mention the extent of the problem we have got already with enforcement of Council Tax arrears. Which are now of the order of £6 billion. As the Minister will know.
billion. As the Minister will know. £6 billion of Council Tax arrears. Almost I think 10% of the total is attributable to just four local authorities. Those local authorities it will not surprise member is to it will not surprise member is to know, are Liverpool, Birmingham and I think Manchester and Brent. There was four local authorities between them are responsible for more than 10% of the £6 billion in Council Tax So what are we doing, why are we trying to reduce the pressure on council tax payment misprints by enabling them to be able to -- miscreants, to be able to hide behind remote hearings instead of having to face the music in a proper court of law where justice cannot only be done but it can also be seen to be done.
I asked that question, why shouldn't a Council Tax debtor be required to attend the court hearing in person? Because then the courts can make enquiries about the person, they can discuss means to pay, that can be done with witnesses, the magistrates can see the demeanour of the defendant in person, they can look at any other aspect of that demeanour and take that into account. Most important of all they can ensure that the court process acts as a deterrent against people thinking paying their council tax is essentially a voluntary activity.
We got a real debt crisis building in this country, not just on Council Tax but I think I served on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee we've heard evidence that this the arrears in relation to energy payments are now £4 billion or more. With the Council Tax problem why are we seeking this bill to reduce the pressure on those council tax payers who almost make the issue of paying council tax voluntary? And why are we not putting more pressure this on the local authorities that are responsible for a lot of this council tax arrears.
I am lucky enough to live in the new Forest District Council area where they are 286 in the league table for the amount of Council Tax arrears, they amount to about £69 per council tax payer. By contrast, in Liverpool the payer. By contrast, in Liverpool the amount owing is £194 -- £194 million and that means that for every Council Tax dwelling, £869 is owed. So what is being done to put pressure upon Liverpool City Council to do some thing about it? And similar application principles apply in other councils including actually in the area which I am privileged to represent, PCP Council, where they are 109th in the league table but where they have more than £45 million of council arrears amounting to £249 per Council Tax dwelling and in Dorset which is the other half of my constituency they have got £53 million in council tax arrears amounting to £290 per Council Tax dwelling.
The question I have for the Minister and the reason I'm putting forward this amendment is why are we doing this? Why are we proposing to facilitate remote hearings for issues relating to Council Tax, and we know already under the legislation that the Council Tax administration and enforcement regulations enable a council to issue a reminder notice and a final notice and if the debt remains unpaid for more than 14 days after reminder notices sent, the council can apply to the magistrates court for a liability order.
There will then be a hearing and if the magistrate finds that the taxpayers failed to pay Council Tax they will order the taxpayer to pay the outstanding sum as well as paying the council's cost, that is under regulation 34. Once a liability order is granted, the council can use several different enforcement methods to collect the debt. It can instruct an employer to deduct money under an attachment of earnings order, it can make deductions from benefits, it can take control of goods, it can issue a charging order.
It can even in extreme circumstances impose bankruptcy proceedings. Ultimately it can have a committal to prison, the council may apply to commit the taxpayer to prison the bailiffs have been unable to find goods belonging to the taxpayer the cover the debt. In the light of all of those powers that the local authorities got under the Council Tax administration and enforcement regulations, why are they not being used effectively? And why do we think that creating a remote hearing is going to improve matters? It seems to me absolutely ludicrous to propose having remote hearings, if ever there was a good use of magistrates court time it must be in trying to ensure that people in the area that magistrates court find themselves in a situation where the payers of Council Tax, the conscientious payers of Council Tax are not finding themselves having to cross subsidise people who don't pay their council tax with the enormous resultant arrears to which I have already referred.
That's why I am concerned about this. We know that remote hearings were brought in to effect during the pandemic and have been used in other circumstances, but the consequence of a remote hearing is that the price and the public are in the dark. I suggest that one of the best deterrents in terms of Council Tax non-payment would be if people had their names and addresses published in the local paper if they are in receipt of the liability orders in the local magistrates court.
All that is going to be made much more difficult if this proposed bill goes through and includes the references that I have referred to to Council Tax. So on behalf of all those people who are suffering as a result of the £6 billion plus Odin Council Tax, I urge the government not to proceed with this particular part of the bill and that's why I am proposing this amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the amendment be made. I called minister
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Nick Dakin. The Member for Christchurch
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Member for Christchurch raises important concerns but this is not about reducing the pressure on miscreants, it's actually about dealing with them as effectively and dealing with them as effectively and efficiently as possible. It doesn't
14:09
-
efficiently as possible. It doesn't mandate the use of videos it allows the court the flexible is he. What it means that instead of the police having to be used as taxi drivers moving people across when they should be dealing with other miscreants rings can be dealt with in a much more effective way whether magistrate or the judge needs to be found at short notice. I can assure him that this measure will assist justice and assist dealing with the miscreants that he and I are both concerned about rather than the current situation which makes it more difficult to do that.
more difficult to do that.
more difficult to do that.
14:10
14:11
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
response. So perhaps the logic of what he is saying is that instead of what he is saying is that instead of my amendment to remove this Council my amendment to remove this Council Tax provision from this bill will she be adding to the bill a provision about shoplifters so that shoplifters are subject to remote hearings. And fraudsters, so that fraudsters are subject to remote hearings on the basis that this is going to assist in the administration of justice.
I was too slow to put down amendments to such an effect in order to draw out the an effect in order to draw out the Minister further, but it's implicit in what I've been saying that I in what I've been saying that I don't accept the explanation that he don't accept the explanation that he has given. For that explanation to be correct I urge upon him when the bill gets into the Lords, to add bill gets into the Lords, to add additional categories into the bill so that as he would see it justice so that as he would see it justice can be done.
I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw the amendment. Is your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Abandon by leave withdrawn. -- Amendment. Consideration completed third reading what day? Oliver Ryan to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move third reading. With cover this extensively at
I was too slow to put down amendments to such an effect in order to draw out the an effect in order to draw out the Minister further, but it's implicit in what I've been saying that I in what I've been saying that I don't accept the explanation that he don't accept the explanation that he has given. For that explanation to be correct I urge upon him when the bill gets into the Lords, to add bill gets into the Lords, to add additional categories into the bill so that as he would see it justice so that as he would see it justice can be done.
I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw the amendment. Is your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Abandon by leave withdrawn. -- Amendment. Consideration completed third reading what day? Oliver Ryan to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move third reading. With cover this extensively at
14:12
Oliver Ryan MP (Burnley, Independent)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With cover this extensively at Committee stage and there has been a fairly wholesome debate about the amendment carried, thinks a sensible amendment carried, thinks a sensible and proportionate, it's slim and it sophisticated in its actions I would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ask that we move to third reading. The question is that the Bill be
Oliver Ryan MP (Burnley, Independent)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With cover this extensively at Committee stage and there has been a fairly wholesome debate about the amendment carried, thinks a sensible amendment carried, thinks a sensible and proportionate, it's slim and it sophisticated in its actions I would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ask that we move to third reading. The question is that the Bill be
14:12
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the Bill be now read a third time. Sir Christopher Chope. It won't surprise you to know
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It won't surprise you to know that in the light of the Minister's that in the light of the Minister's response to my amendment that I'm very unhappy about this bill because obviously having failed to be able to amend it the bill now incorporates provisions dealing with local governments nonpayers in the way that I described in the last short debate. I can't get my head round really is... The argument put forward by the Minister and it's replicated in the expire notes -- explanatory notes on the bill which they this bill creates a more efficient process for handling these matters, removing the need to remove people from police cells to courts and for judges and magistrates to travel to attend court in person to hear the cases at the weekend or public holidays.
Obviously that doesn't certainly doesn't refer to cases involving local government debts and it may well apply to some cases in relation to other aspects that are in the bill. It also says in the Explanatory Notes use of remote links in criminal proceedings is relatively common and has delivered significant benefits. Common in civil and family proceedings whereas permitted a right link is permitted that the direction of the court including cases of far greater sensitivity or gravity.
Of course in a family proceeding those are in camera anyway. So Joe public of the local daily Echo in the case of the Bournemouth Echo, they don't get access to that I'm not suggesting that they should. But if they can't get access to information about who is in Council Tax arrears and this being brought before the court and that is going to be much more difficult. So going on with this explanatory provision it says that lack of legal power to order these cases are heard by remote link means that all the rest of the defendant 's defendant must be transported from the police station to the court.
That's obvious. If somebody is ultimately, I went through earlier all the stages that people have to go through if they're going to find themselves threatened with imprisonment for debt, if they go through all those stages then surely it's important they should be brought to court and we shouldn't be concerned about the fact that they going to have to be transported from the police station to the court. Or that the judge may have to travel to the court. All this has been made more difficult because we closed so many magistrates court so the travelling distances, and I see the Minister agreeing with that, so relatively few courts now prepare -- compared with what we had before the people have to travel further with all the inconvenience that leads to.
Then goes on to say this leads to delay in dealing with the case and discuss an effective way of using resources. I just don't think that applies in the case of the Council And if there was some sort of sunset clause on this and we could see whether, as a result of putting more pressure on councils to take action against those that do not pay, there is a reduction in the overall arrears of council tax and we might be getting somewhere.
Absolutely.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am afraid very considered point to the Minister, I think he is making some very reasonable points. making some very reasonable points. And he will answer his own question in that what we have got is a bottleneck in the court system and I bottleneck in the court system and I think what they are inadvertently doing is making it harder for the doing is making it harder for the court system not to see them and the bill is quite reasonable and quite small and we could release some small and we could release some pressure on the bottlenecks in the council tax debtors that after that council tax debtors that after that pressure is released more people will be seen and more depth covered, more will be seen through the more will be seen through the Criminal Justice Act.
And I think they have made some very reasonable points for and set some reasonable questions. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
questions. Thank you. I thank the honourable gentleman for making that point. I am not sure for making that point. I am not sure that I agree with him because, in essence, the Criminal Justice Act essence, the Criminal Justice Act system is there to ensure that there is a level playing field and everyone is equal to the law that everyone is equal to the law that the rule of the law applies and we know from the figures I have given that the rule of is not being consistently applied across the country when it comes to the duty to pay council tax and the fact that quite a lot of enforcement authorities seem to be rather cavalier about not enforcing it.
And the idea that just by allowing that is certainly going to rectify the situation that council tax arrears is in Birmingham and elsewhere, that amounts to £1 billion. And I think that is going to happen and indeed I think in some of the areas where some of the council taxes are and arrears are highest are the areas where we have already seen a complete failure of administration, Birmingham City Council is such an example and as a direct result of the city council's failure to operate effectively, the Government had to intervene, the council of special measures, where they essentially allow the to increase council tax for under 5% threshold which normally applies and the same is true in Croydon and in Suffolk and if the honourable gentleman looks through this, I have got here all the local authorities and the council tax arrears with respect to each of those local authorities, he will see that actually failures to deal with council tax arrears is a very good indicator of local authorities failing, and I have yet to do the work on linking that conversation in with the amount of salary that the chief executives that those local authorities pay themselves but I just do not believe that those large inflexible authorities are going to be motivated by or contained in this bill to have hearings when they are not even allowed to use the existing structures.
It may about be, and this is supporting him, it may well be that in a case like this which is be that in a case like this which is a small district that they are quick and those that do not pay their council tax or do not. Properly, so council tax or do not. Properly, so instead of them having to issue the possibility of having remote hearings which would save the Minister and would save the burden, but in my submission that potential but in my submission that potential small benefit is more than outweighed by the problems that I have been describing, but it was so easy for the Government to put forward this bill on the basis that he was not going to reply in the particular case of council tax, but particular case of council tax, but having said that, the section 47 7.8 of the Family Law Act requires that a person in breach whether they contain a power of arrest must be brought before court within 24-hour is of the arrest and it is because of that that the argument, that the courts have got to be available over a weekend et cetera because, as so often, when we are faced with legislation like this, maybe it would be sensible to change that so that the person does not need to be brought before court within 24-hour is of the arrest if that period would be on a Saturday or a Sunday.
There would be much more indirect way of dealing with this in my suspension. Again, it is an easy copout for the Government to say that the person because the person has to be brought before the court within 24-hour's then we have remote hearings. If we did away for the need to ring the council within 24- hour's. That we would need to have this legislation and section 47 of the Family Law Act. That they can remind the person in breach of a non-molestation order who has been brought before the court pursuant of a warrant and the matter is not disposed with forthwith.
That is again an example where this applies. In section 9 of the crime and policing act following a breach of an antisocial injunction this contains the part of risk must again be involved in Fort within a court within 24-hour is. Why aren't we changing or amending section 9 of the antisocial behaviour act in order to ensure that the circumstances that this takes place within a weekend or 24-hour is does not apply. And, similarly, section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 requires that those arrested following a breach of a gang-related violence in drug dealing injunction must be brought before the court within 24 hours of the arrest.
And that, again, could easily be amended in order to avoid the need for these proposed hearings which is what we are concentrating on in this bill. I have, as a lawyer, as you will know, in my background, somebody who when I was at university doing my law degree or my jurisprudence degree, to be precise, I can remember our law class going to the local assizes and there was a rape trial. Taking place.
And as one might imagine there was a lot of interest from the embryo lawyers into what was happening. And in that, I remember it to this day, the defending counsel asked that the House it in counsel asked that the House it in private. And they put their feet up on the bench in front of him and said I think that he was really speaking in the gallery justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
That was a message that I learned very early on as a law student, and I still think it applies. And I think that five remote hearings during the COVID crisis could be justified. But I think that happening now, I think remote hearings are being used as an excuse. We have already got some examples where they are permitted, but I think that this bill goes to far in extending that. And I know that the honourable member hit introduced the bill may feel that it is rather sad that it has been picked up and picked at by members of this House.
But I think it is important.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not members, just one. Well I do not know, I speak for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well I do not know, I speak for many, I am sure. I, of course I will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will. I think, as he has made through the debate, some reasonable points, the debate, some reasonable points, certainly amended my graduate diploma in a similar exercise, went diploma in a similar exercise, went to court to see these big trials. That is not what this bill would cover. This is small mass cases that cover. This is small mass cases that need to be dealt with the deal with things like council tax and arrears. things like council tax and arrears. We are very short on time, and I know he is aware.
And I would quietly say that I throw myself at quietly say that I throw myself at quietly say that I throw myself at To get through the end of this To get through the end of this before 2:30, I think that would make a great benefit to the legal system and he will know from his days as a lawyer in that system that actually some modernisation is required, not some modernisation is required, not always a good thing, but in the circumstances is a good measure approach, so I would ask him, please, if we can get you to the end
**** Possible New Speaker ****
please, if we can get you to the end of this 10 by 2:30 we can make some progress. The honourable gentleman has a disarming smile and approach to this and there I say it almost seductive, but can I put to him and alternative proposition? And that is that he is in the position to influence the Government to ensure that we have extra sitting Fridays and because his bill is at the third reading stage, and assuming the third reading is not coming today, then the third reading stage will be able to take priority in front of other bills when the additional sitting days are put forward.
And the fact that we have not yet had an announcement about the sitting days for next year, I mean one year ago and I congratulated her at the time give for the whole period until the end of this July. We have not done that in relation to next year, but I understand it is likely that this first session will go on beyond perhaps even Christmas. And, in the meantime, we could have another Friday sitting and the honourable gentleman's bill will be dealt with at third reading then.
Yes, I give way. And the question now arises as to whether I should reflect upon points that have been made by him in his intervention, or whether I should just rely on the Minister and my honourable friend on the front bench to put in there three minutes with, but recognising that, unfortunately, this is always time-limited and regretting the fact that so many of the report stage findings were taken up with one particular bill, I think that is one of the consequences which we are facing today that we are now debating the fourth will at report stage which, if I may set the record, is a pretty big strike rate for a report stage Friday we are now in the middle of debating that bill.
It is an important bill and it affects lots of people, and I do not see there is any reason at all why this important debate should not be able to be continued in the next sitting Friday. And one has very little power in this place as a backbencher, but one thing one does have its power over the time, and I hope that as a result of knowing there is another important bill we want to come onto as well, and I am sure that the powers that be will know that if we are going to be able to get on and discuss the Honourable Member's bill and the control drugs build and we need to have an additional sitting Friday, and at the same time to be able also to deal with my honourable friend he was chairman of the 22 committee whose bill went through on homelessness unopposed at second reading, but has found that the Government has been blocking it ever since, and that is intolerable.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Debate to be resumed what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
day? 12th of September. Debate to be resumed on 12
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Debate to be resumed on 12 Controlled drugs procedure for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
specification bill to be considered. I called Christopher Chope to move amendment one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move amendment one. I beg to move amendment one. Objection taken bill to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken bill to be considered what they -- day? Friday,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
4 September. Hospices and healthcare report on funding Bill Second Reading.
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the Bill be now read a third time. Sir Christopher Chope. It won't surprise you to know
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It won't surprise you to know that in the light of the Minister's that in the light of the Minister's response to my amendment that I'm very unhappy about this bill because obviously having failed to be able to amend it the bill now incorporates provisions dealing with local governments nonpayers in the way that I described in the last short debate. I can't get my head round really is... The argument put forward by the Minister and it's replicated in the expire notes -- explanatory notes on the bill which they this bill creates a more efficient process for handling these matters, removing the need to remove people from police cells to courts and for judges and magistrates to travel to attend court in person to hear the cases at the weekend or public holidays.
Obviously that doesn't certainly doesn't refer to cases involving local government debts and it may well apply to some cases in relation to other aspects that are in the bill. It also says in the Explanatory Notes use of remote links in criminal proceedings is relatively common and has delivered significant benefits. Common in civil and family proceedings whereas permitted a right link is permitted that the direction of the court including cases of far greater sensitivity or gravity.
Of course in a family proceeding those are in camera anyway. So Joe public of the local daily Echo in the case of the Bournemouth Echo, they don't get access to that I'm not suggesting that they should. But if they can't get access to information about who is in Council Tax arrears and this being brought before the court and that is going to be much more difficult. So going on with this explanatory provision it says that lack of legal power to order these cases are heard by remote link means that all the rest of the defendant 's defendant must be transported from the police station to the court.
That's obvious. If somebody is ultimately, I went through earlier all the stages that people have to go through if they're going to find themselves threatened with imprisonment for debt, if they go through all those stages then surely it's important they should be brought to court and we shouldn't be concerned about the fact that they going to have to be transported from the police station to the court. Or that the judge may have to travel to the court. All this has been made more difficult because we closed so many magistrates court so the travelling distances, and I see the Minister agreeing with that, so relatively few courts now prepare -- compared with what we had before the people have to travel further with all the inconvenience that leads to.
Then goes on to say this leads to delay in dealing with the case and discuss an effective way of using resources. I just don't think that applies in the case of the Council And if there was some sort of sunset clause on this and we could see whether, as a result of putting more pressure on councils to take action against those that do not pay, there is a reduction in the overall arrears of council tax and we might be getting somewhere.
Absolutely.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am afraid very considered point to the Minister, I think he is making some very reasonable points. making some very reasonable points. And he will answer his own question in that what we have got is a bottleneck in the court system and I bottleneck in the court system and I think what they are inadvertently doing is making it harder for the doing is making it harder for the court system not to see them and the bill is quite reasonable and quite small and we could release some small and we could release some pressure on the bottlenecks in the council tax debtors that after that council tax debtors that after that pressure is released more people will be seen and more depth covered, more will be seen through the more will be seen through the Criminal Justice Act.
And I think they have made some very reasonable points for and set some reasonable questions. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
questions. Thank you. I thank the honourable gentleman for making that point. I am not sure for making that point. I am not sure that I agree with him because, in essence, the Criminal Justice Act essence, the Criminal Justice Act system is there to ensure that there is a level playing field and everyone is equal to the law that everyone is equal to the law that the rule of the law applies and we know from the figures I have given that the rule of is not being consistently applied across the country when it comes to the duty to pay council tax and the fact that quite a lot of enforcement authorities seem to be rather cavalier about not enforcing it.
And the idea that just by allowing that is certainly going to rectify the situation that council tax arrears is in Birmingham and elsewhere, that amounts to £1 billion. And I think that is going to happen and indeed I think in some of the areas where some of the council taxes are and arrears are highest are the areas where we have already seen a complete failure of administration, Birmingham City Council is such an example and as a direct result of the city council's failure to operate effectively, the Government had to intervene, the council of special measures, where they essentially allow the to increase council tax for under 5% threshold which normally applies and the same is true in Croydon and in Suffolk and if the honourable gentleman looks through this, I have got here all the local authorities and the council tax arrears with respect to each of those local authorities, he will see that actually failures to deal with council tax arrears is a very good indicator of local authorities failing, and I have yet to do the work on linking that conversation in with the amount of salary that the chief executives that those local authorities pay themselves but I just do not believe that those large inflexible authorities are going to be motivated by or contained in this bill to have hearings when they are not even allowed to use the existing structures.
It may about be, and this is supporting him, it may well be that in a case like this which is be that in a case like this which is a small district that they are quick and those that do not pay their council tax or do not. Properly, so council tax or do not. Properly, so instead of them having to issue the possibility of having remote hearings which would save the Minister and would save the burden, but in my submission that potential but in my submission that potential small benefit is more than outweighed by the problems that I have been describing, but it was so easy for the Government to put forward this bill on the basis that he was not going to reply in the particular case of council tax, but particular case of council tax, but having said that, the section 47 7.8 of the Family Law Act requires that a person in breach whether they contain a power of arrest must be brought before court within 24-hour is of the arrest and it is because of that that the argument, that the courts have got to be available over a weekend et cetera because, as so often, when we are faced with legislation like this, maybe it would be sensible to change that so that the person does not need to be brought before court within 24-hour is of the arrest if that period would be on a Saturday or a Sunday.
There would be much more indirect way of dealing with this in my suspension. Again, it is an easy copout for the Government to say that the person because the person has to be brought before the court within 24-hour's then we have remote hearings. If we did away for the need to ring the council within 24- hour's. That we would need to have this legislation and section 47 of the Family Law Act. That they can remind the person in breach of a non-molestation order who has been brought before the court pursuant of a warrant and the matter is not disposed with forthwith.
That is again an example where this applies. In section 9 of the crime and policing act following a breach of an antisocial injunction this contains the part of risk must again be involved in Fort within a court within 24-hour is. Why aren't we changing or amending section 9 of the antisocial behaviour act in order to ensure that the circumstances that this takes place within a weekend or 24-hour is does not apply. And, similarly, section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 requires that those arrested following a breach of a gang-related violence in drug dealing injunction must be brought before the court within 24 hours of the arrest.
And that, again, could easily be amended in order to avoid the need for these proposed hearings which is what we are concentrating on in this bill. I have, as a lawyer, as you will know, in my background, somebody who when I was at university doing my law degree or my jurisprudence degree, to be precise, I can remember our law class going to the local assizes and there was a rape trial. Taking place.
And as one might imagine there was a lot of interest from the embryo lawyers into what was happening. And in that, I remember it to this day, the defending counsel asked that the House it in counsel asked that the House it in private. And they put their feet up on the bench in front of him and said I think that he was really speaking in the gallery justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
That was a message that I learned very early on as a law student, and I still think it applies. And I think that five remote hearings during the COVID crisis could be justified. But I think that happening now, I think remote hearings are being used as an excuse. We have already got some examples where they are permitted, but I think that this bill goes to far in extending that. And I know that the honourable member hit introduced the bill may feel that it is rather sad that it has been picked up and picked at by members of this House.
But I think it is important.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not members, just one. Well I do not know, I speak for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well I do not know, I speak for many, I am sure. I, of course I will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will. I think, as he has made through the debate, some reasonable points, the debate, some reasonable points, certainly amended my graduate diploma in a similar exercise, went diploma in a similar exercise, went to court to see these big trials. That is not what this bill would cover. This is small mass cases that cover. This is small mass cases that need to be dealt with the deal with things like council tax and arrears. things like council tax and arrears. We are very short on time, and I know he is aware.
And I would quietly say that I throw myself at quietly say that I throw myself at quietly say that I throw myself at To get through the end of this To get through the end of this before 2:30, I think that would make a great benefit to the legal system and he will know from his days as a lawyer in that system that actually some modernisation is required, not some modernisation is required, not always a good thing, but in the circumstances is a good measure approach, so I would ask him, please, if we can get you to the end
**** Possible New Speaker ****
please, if we can get you to the end of this 10 by 2:30 we can make some progress. The honourable gentleman has a disarming smile and approach to this and there I say it almost seductive, but can I put to him and alternative proposition? And that is that he is in the position to influence the Government to ensure that we have extra sitting Fridays and because his bill is at the third reading stage, and assuming the third reading is not coming today, then the third reading stage will be able to take priority in front of other bills when the additional sitting days are put forward.
And the fact that we have not yet had an announcement about the sitting days for next year, I mean one year ago and I congratulated her at the time give for the whole period until the end of this July. We have not done that in relation to next year, but I understand it is likely that this first session will go on beyond perhaps even Christmas. And, in the meantime, we could have another Friday sitting and the honourable gentleman's bill will be dealt with at third reading then.
Yes, I give way. And the question now arises as to whether I should reflect upon points that have been made by him in his intervention, or whether I should just rely on the Minister and my honourable friend on the front bench to put in there three minutes with, but recognising that, unfortunately, this is always time-limited and regretting the fact that so many of the report stage findings were taken up with one particular bill, I think that is one of the consequences which we are facing today that we are now debating the fourth will at report stage which, if I may set the record, is a pretty big strike rate for a report stage Friday we are now in the middle of debating that bill.
It is an important bill and it affects lots of people, and I do not see there is any reason at all why this important debate should not be able to be continued in the next sitting Friday. And one has very little power in this place as a backbencher, but one thing one does have its power over the time, and I hope that as a result of knowing there is another important bill we want to come onto as well, and I am sure that the powers that be will know that if we are going to be able to get on and discuss the Honourable Member's bill and the control drugs build and we need to have an additional sitting Friday, and at the same time to be able also to deal with my honourable friend he was chairman of the 22 committee whose bill went through on homelessness unopposed at second reading, but has found that the Government has been blocking it ever since, and that is intolerable.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Debate to be resumed what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
day? 12th of September. Debate to be resumed on 12
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Debate to be resumed on 12 Controlled drugs procedure for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
specification bill to be considered. I called Christopher Chope to move amendment one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move amendment one. I beg to move amendment one. Objection taken bill to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken bill to be considered what they -- day? Friday,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
4 September. Hospices and healthcare report on funding Bill Second Reading.
14:32
Remaining Orders of the Day
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
funding Bill Second Reading. Objection. Objection taken Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection. Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday Friday, 12 September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September. Bank of England inflation target Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday fourth of September
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday fourth of September -- 12th of September. Rule Of Law (Enforcement By Public Authorities) Bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12th of September. European Union withdrawal arrangements bill adjourned debate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on Second Reading. Objection taken, debate to be resumed what day? Friday, 12
**** Possible New Speaker ****
December -- September. Climate and bill adjourned debate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Climate and bill adjourned debate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on Second Reading. -- Nature bill. Objection taken debate to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken debate to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
resumed what day? Friday, 29 May, 2026. Elections proportional representation bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Object.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading what day? Friday,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
29 May, 2026. Debt relief developing countries
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12th of September. Looked after children distance placements adjourned debate on Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Powers of attorney Bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Animal welfare responsibility for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Animal welfare responsibility for dog on dog attacks bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? 29th of May. Freedom of expression religion or
**** Possible New Speaker ****
belief system bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day. 12th of September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Led boxes -- letterboxes positioning bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
positioning bill Second Reading. Objection taken on Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12th of September. Hunting Trophy Import
**** Possible New Speaker ****
(Prohibition) Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday, 12 September. Can what day? Friday, 12 September. Can I remind my members just await until
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I remind my members just await until the person in charge says now. Fireworks bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fireworks bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12 September. Heritage Public Houses Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12 September. Interpersonal abuse and violence against men boys strategy bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken, Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday, 4 September back 12th of September. Terminal relief of pain bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12th of September. Planning Flooding Bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday secondly -- Friday 17th of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
October. Public authority accountability bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading what day. Objection taken Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading what day. No name. Children's hospices funding Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading what day. Friday the trials of September. -- 12th of September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September. -- 12th of September. Equitable Life policyholders
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Compensation Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday, 12 September. Regulatory Impact Assessments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day. Friday, 12 September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday, 12 September. Sale of tickets sporting and cultural events bill Second Reading. what day. Friday the to other
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September -- 12th of September. Rivers streams and lakes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protected status bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday 12 September. Support for infants and et cetera information Bill Lords Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Domestic building works consumer protection Bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protection Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday 12 September. Animal shelters licensing Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday 12 September. Pets (Microchips) Bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day. Friday 12 September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Immigration and visas bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day Friday 12
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September. British Indian Ocean Territory sovereignty and constitutional
**** Possible New Speaker ****
arrangements bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day. Friday the trials of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September. -- 12 September. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do now adjourn. It's an honour to be here in one of the warmest Fridays of the year
Remaining Orders of the Day
**** Possible New Speaker ****
funding Bill Second Reading. Objection. Objection taken Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection. Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday Friday, 12 September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September. Bank of England inflation target Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday fourth of September
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday fourth of September -- 12th of September. Rule Of Law (Enforcement By Public Authorities) Bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12th of September. European Union withdrawal arrangements bill adjourned debate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on Second Reading. Objection taken, debate to be resumed what day? Friday, 12
**** Possible New Speaker ****
December -- September. Climate and bill adjourned debate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Climate and bill adjourned debate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on Second Reading. -- Nature bill. Objection taken debate to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken debate to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
resumed what day? Friday, 29 May, 2026. Elections proportional representation bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Object.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading what day? Friday,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
29 May, 2026. Debt relief developing countries
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12th of September. Looked after children distance placements adjourned debate on Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Powers of attorney Bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Animal welfare responsibility for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Animal welfare responsibility for dog on dog attacks bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? 29th of May. Freedom of expression religion or
**** Possible New Speaker ****
belief system bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day. 12th of September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Led boxes -- letterboxes positioning bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
positioning bill Second Reading. Objection taken on Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12th of September. Hunting Trophy Import
**** Possible New Speaker ****
(Prohibition) Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday, 12 September. Can what day? Friday, 12 September. Can I remind my members just await until
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I remind my members just await until the person in charge says now. Fireworks bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fireworks bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12 September. Heritage Public Houses Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12 September. Interpersonal abuse and violence against men boys strategy bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken, Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday, 4 September back 12th of September. Terminal relief of pain bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday 12th of September. Planning Flooding Bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday secondly -- Friday 17th of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
October. Public authority accountability bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading what day. Objection taken Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading what day. No name. Children's hospices funding Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading what day. Friday the trials of September. -- 12th of September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September. -- 12th of September. Equitable Life policyholders
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Compensation Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday, 12 September. Regulatory Impact Assessments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day. Friday, 12 September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday, 12 September. Sale of tickets sporting and cultural events bill Second Reading. what day. Friday the to other
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September -- 12th of September. Rivers streams and lakes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protected status bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday 12 September. Support for infants and et cetera information Bill Lords Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Domestic building works consumer protection Bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protection Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday 12 September. Animal shelters licensing Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day. Friday 12 September. Pets (Microchips) Bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day. Friday 12 September.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Immigration and visas bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day Friday 12
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September. British Indian Ocean Territory sovereignty and constitutional
**** Possible New Speaker ****
arrangements bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day. Friday the trials of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September. -- 12 September. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do now adjourn. It's an honour to be here in one of the warmest Fridays of the year
14:39
Adjournment: Protection of the Colne Valley Regional Park
-
Adjournment: Protection of the Colne Valley Regional Park
to enjoy and extend our time in the Commons just a little bit more for the final Adjournment Debate of the week. I am delighted to be bringing forward the topic of the comb Valley regional Park. It is a park that straddles London, Slough, Buckinghamshire, Windsor, Maidenhead, it covers so many different constituencies but the importance of this area for both infrastructure and strategic geographical location is second to none, that is why I want to have this Adjournment Debate today for the beautiful South Bucks villages of Denham, et cetera are all part of the comb Valley regional Park.
It's national significance is mainly due to its geographical location, its proximity to Heathrow, HS2 goes right through it, it has all the motorways, it provides the vital break of green belt between London and the rest of the counties outside. We have zero benefit from the ULEZ the mayor's restrictions on how we can go in and out of London, we get no benefit from that, no benefit from TfL, we have is a bit of green space that gives us a buffer between London and Buckinghamshire.
This is true for all of us that straddles London along West London and the M25 in this area. The issue we are having is that area of the green belt, that is that area of the green belt, that little bit, some of it is as smaller dividers this area between both sides of the House. This last remaining bit of green belt that separates us from London is under attack. It's under attack from overdevelopment, Heathrow expansion,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
HS2, for motorway expansion. Does he agree with me that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he agree with me that the Heathrow proposals 900 acres of the regional Park directly not to regional Park directly not to mention indirect points including in my constituency, that will be repairable and that she condemned the Chancellor hitting the panic the Chancellor hitting the panic button and risking in irreversible
**** Possible New Speaker ****
damage to the park? I thank the Member for Windsor whose been a long champion of comb ready comb Valley regional Park. It ready comb Valley regional Park. It will impact us in such a negative way, it is something that I have way, it is something that I have championed, I thought 40 protect and to stop the third runway Heathrow. The problem is we have very little The problem is we have very little green belt here and to increase the impact on that green belt both with impact on that green belt both with cars coming into Heathrow, planes taking off, the amount of green belt that would be consumed would be that would be consumed would be devastating to my area and I'm sure to the right honourable members as well.
I three right honourable on well. I three right honourable on their just because you having a good day. On that point with the Colne Valley regional Park this is a time when the government can do something incredible, they can preserve this Greenspace that provides the vital runs for London while allowing -- lungs. Infrastructure to flourish around it. It is important that what happens now, this greenbelt land is preserved. The reason why there is no protection in this area is it is an area that has passed in loan -- ownership between London, Buckinghamshire and Slough over the years.
There are parts of it that have been in the London councils ownership and then and Buckinghamshire councils ownership and vice versa, it's been going for quite some time. Right now there is no additional protection, is not common land, it is not AONB land, simply land that is green, that provides vital green corridors for wildlife, for farmers, for wildlife conservation across the West London and West Buckinghamshire areas in all of this is under attack from development. Want focus on today is the wonderful landscape and countryside diversity at risk.
In the words of the Colne Valley regional Park itself our countryside is in crisis and the team at Colne Valley regional Park have set out a call for action. In this debate I want to set out my unwavering support for this call to action. I want to thank all the community support that I have seen across Denham and the other South Bucks villages to support the Colne Valley regional Park. It is one of the most pressurised greenbelt areas giving its proximity to London.
It is at the, it is the very to mice is actually lungs of London but it also epitomises why we must take action epitomises why we must take action now. The regional Park is facing an avalanche of developers, they are being posed across the park that would divide the park, that will cause the corridors for wildlife to be closed, they would cause very detrimental impacts on the environment for wildlife and also for those use and access the park. All this is happening while also being in between two of Europe's biggest infrastructure projects, HS2 and Heathrow expansion.
All of this development is happening while the coal Valley regional Parks lacks any protection for AONB. This is a cross-party issue because this path crosses into London -- Colne Valley. Buckinghamshire, Windsor, Slough, Labour constituencies, LibDem constituencies, Conservative constituencies, it touches so many little parties because it's an area that impacts so many constituencies across the West London area. The Member for Slough can be here but he wanted to show their support for the Colne Valley regional Park as well as the Member for Windsor who is here in his play supporting today.
And the Member for Chrysler who has been a long -- why slip whose been a long champion the cerebral many other MPs would like to be here but they wanted to tell me and I pass it on to you as the Minister. This is an issue that matters cross-party, it's not a political issue it's an issue that many members from across issue that many members from across Without a plan, the development on ground around the park and vital green corridors will be lost.
The Colne Valley regional Park has set out a five-point plan to influence local planning, to restore landscape, to reform national planning, to establish and protect nature. I want to focus on two areas that explicitly metaphor this House and for the Government. I also want to touch briefly on funding. Let me start with the protection and establishment of this : Valley regional Park itself. First, when arriving in Parliament, I had been advocating for strong supported for Colne Valley be support.
There is real and urgent need to look at extending Jones to one be to include the Colne Valley Park. If not, and attention of the Chilterns ANP than a specific designation for the park itself needs to be progressed. All the Minister work with me to urgently explore this opportunity? And let me turn now to the plan. The Colne Valley Regional Park represents an opportunity to show how we can plan for Green Spaces Bill around the edges of cities, how we can use the environmental impact of any big structure project that we need to have green space put in, please can Minister look to make sure that green space that is required for any kind of info structure expansion is put into the Colne Valley Regional Park so that we can work in tandem to provide what the residents need while the Government could still put in their infrastructure projects where they choose.
At the moment, our approach to the national planning does not address the very real and strategic risk and opportunity that this could pose and the problems that this could pose for the regional Park. We have a unique opportunity now to address that. The Colne Valley Regional Park spans many local authorities, yet it is of national importance for the reasons set out. We have to think beyond boundaries and integrate areas like the park the Colne Valley Regional Park the Colne Valley Regional Park as should be an integral part of the planning process, not treated as something for a side consideration.
We can plan for how green corridors for people and wildlife can sit alongside the major developments of infrastructure and housing planned around the London area, so would the Minister consider how the national planning framework can be developed urgently for just this purpose? Finally, I want to touch briefly on funding. The Colne Valley Regional Park Park relies for its operational costs on local authorities, grants, and the generosity of local donors. I hope I have set out clearly how effective these resources are used for the good of our landscape, biodiversity, and communities, but given the strategic development challenges, it now faces to its very existence, the park needs funding support to enable the plan and to develop a response, so will the Minister consider ways in which bodies like the Colne Valley Regional Park can be better supported financially in the context of a dramatically changing planning landscape? And could the Minister speak to the Mayor of London to see some of the contributions that have been made by drivers to be used for the park's upkeep and protection.
It is very much impacted by infrastructure projects that are happening in London that receive no funding, so would the Minister speak to the Mayor of London about some of those resources being reallocated to the park? There are many more points that times had not allowed me to cover, so I would ask the Minister to agree to meet with me, there are of Slough, Windsor, and others across this House, to talk about the Colne Valley Regional Park, and to discuss this matter in depth.
The Colne Valley Regional Park matters to me and to my constituents. It has importance both nationally and for our wildlife and, as a case study in how green space can exist alongside our major cities, it means something that matters to us all. It is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
timeless and for us to act before it is too late. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by congratulating the
It's national significance is mainly due to its geographical location, its proximity to Heathrow, HS2 goes right through it, it has all the motorways, it provides the vital break of green belt between London and the rest of the counties outside. We have zero benefit from the ULEZ the mayor's restrictions on how we can go in and out of London, we get no benefit from that, no benefit from TfL, we have is a bit of green space that gives us a buffer between London and Buckinghamshire.
This is true for all of us that straddles London along West London and the M25 in this area. The issue we are having is that area of the green belt, that is that area of the green belt, that little bit, some of it is as smaller dividers this area between both sides of the House. This last remaining bit of green belt that separates us from London is under attack. It's under attack from overdevelopment, Heathrow expansion,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
HS2, for motorway expansion. Does he agree with me that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he agree with me that the Heathrow proposals 900 acres of the regional Park directly not to regional Park directly not to mention indirect points including in my constituency, that will be repairable and that she condemned the Chancellor hitting the panic the Chancellor hitting the panic button and risking in irreversible
**** Possible New Speaker ****
damage to the park? I thank the Member for Windsor whose been a long champion of comb ready comb Valley regional Park. It ready comb Valley regional Park. It will impact us in such a negative way, it is something that I have way, it is something that I have championed, I thought 40 protect and to stop the third runway Heathrow. The problem is we have very little The problem is we have very little green belt here and to increase the impact on that green belt both with impact on that green belt both with cars coming into Heathrow, planes taking off, the amount of green belt that would be consumed would be that would be consumed would be devastating to my area and I'm sure to the right honourable members as well.
I three right honourable on well. I three right honourable on their just because you having a good day. On that point with the Colne Valley regional Park this is a time when the government can do something incredible, they can preserve this Greenspace that provides the vital runs for London while allowing -- lungs. Infrastructure to flourish around it. It is important that what happens now, this greenbelt land is preserved. The reason why there is no protection in this area is it is an area that has passed in loan -- ownership between London, Buckinghamshire and Slough over the years.
There are parts of it that have been in the London councils ownership and then and Buckinghamshire councils ownership and vice versa, it's been going for quite some time. Right now there is no additional protection, is not common land, it is not AONB land, simply land that is green, that provides vital green corridors for wildlife, for farmers, for wildlife conservation across the West London and West Buckinghamshire areas in all of this is under attack from development. Want focus on today is the wonderful landscape and countryside diversity at risk.
In the words of the Colne Valley regional Park itself our countryside is in crisis and the team at Colne Valley regional Park have set out a call for action. In this debate I want to set out my unwavering support for this call to action. I want to thank all the community support that I have seen across Denham and the other South Bucks villages to support the Colne Valley regional Park. It is one of the most pressurised greenbelt areas giving its proximity to London.
It is at the, it is the very to mice is actually lungs of London but it also epitomises why we must take action epitomises why we must take action now. The regional Park is facing an avalanche of developers, they are being posed across the park that would divide the park, that will cause the corridors for wildlife to be closed, they would cause very detrimental impacts on the environment for wildlife and also for those use and access the park. All this is happening while also being in between two of Europe's biggest infrastructure projects, HS2 and Heathrow expansion.
All of this development is happening while the coal Valley regional Parks lacks any protection for AONB. This is a cross-party issue because this path crosses into London -- Colne Valley. Buckinghamshire, Windsor, Slough, Labour constituencies, LibDem constituencies, Conservative constituencies, it touches so many little parties because it's an area that impacts so many constituencies across the West London area. The Member for Slough can be here but he wanted to show their support for the Colne Valley regional Park as well as the Member for Windsor who is here in his play supporting today.
And the Member for Chrysler who has been a long -- why slip whose been a long champion the cerebral many other MPs would like to be here but they wanted to tell me and I pass it on to you as the Minister. This is an issue that matters cross-party, it's not a political issue it's an issue that many members from across issue that many members from across Without a plan, the development on ground around the park and vital green corridors will be lost.
The Colne Valley regional Park has set out a five-point plan to influence local planning, to restore landscape, to reform national planning, to establish and protect nature. I want to focus on two areas that explicitly metaphor this House and for the Government. I also want to touch briefly on funding. Let me start with the protection and establishment of this : Valley regional Park itself. First, when arriving in Parliament, I had been advocating for strong supported for Colne Valley be support.
There is real and urgent need to look at extending Jones to one be to include the Colne Valley Park. If not, and attention of the Chilterns ANP than a specific designation for the park itself needs to be progressed. All the Minister work with me to urgently explore this opportunity? And let me turn now to the plan. The Colne Valley Regional Park represents an opportunity to show how we can plan for Green Spaces Bill around the edges of cities, how we can use the environmental impact of any big structure project that we need to have green space put in, please can Minister look to make sure that green space that is required for any kind of info structure expansion is put into the Colne Valley Regional Park so that we can work in tandem to provide what the residents need while the Government could still put in their infrastructure projects where they choose.
At the moment, our approach to the national planning does not address the very real and strategic risk and opportunity that this could pose and the problems that this could pose for the regional Park. We have a unique opportunity now to address that. The Colne Valley Regional Park spans many local authorities, yet it is of national importance for the reasons set out. We have to think beyond boundaries and integrate areas like the park the Colne Valley Regional Park the Colne Valley Regional Park as should be an integral part of the planning process, not treated as something for a side consideration.
We can plan for how green corridors for people and wildlife can sit alongside the major developments of infrastructure and housing planned around the London area, so would the Minister consider how the national planning framework can be developed urgently for just this purpose? Finally, I want to touch briefly on funding. The Colne Valley Regional Park Park relies for its operational costs on local authorities, grants, and the generosity of local donors. I hope I have set out clearly how effective these resources are used for the good of our landscape, biodiversity, and communities, but given the strategic development challenges, it now faces to its very existence, the park needs funding support to enable the plan and to develop a response, so will the Minister consider ways in which bodies like the Colne Valley Regional Park can be better supported financially in the context of a dramatically changing planning landscape? And could the Minister speak to the Mayor of London to see some of the contributions that have been made by drivers to be used for the park's upkeep and protection.
It is very much impacted by infrastructure projects that are happening in London that receive no funding, so would the Minister speak to the Mayor of London about some of those resources being reallocated to the park? There are many more points that times had not allowed me to cover, so I would ask the Minister to agree to meet with me, there are of Slough, Windsor, and others across this House, to talk about the Colne Valley Regional Park, and to discuss this matter in depth.
The Colne Valley Regional Park matters to me and to my constituents. It has importance both nationally and for our wildlife and, as a case study in how green space can exist alongside our major cities, it means something that matters to us all. It is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
timeless and for us to act before it is too late. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by congratulating the
14:51
Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-
Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
honourable lady of Bakersfield on securing this important debate? She and I agree on many areas of politics and policy but no one can be in any doubt of the strength that she speaks on behalf of those that she speaks. We recognise that the vital role this value plays in providing access to the countryside and green space for the millions of people that live in close proximity to it and we appreciate fully that it is highly valued by the local committees. We also recognise its importance for biodiversity as the park contains part of one special protection area, part of one national nature reserve, 13 triple size and several local nature reserves and if I can assure her that we have the desire to make sure that the Colne Valley is protected for future and current innovations to enjoy and I hope that in the time I have I might reassure her of the Governments commitment to the housing infrastructure growth that our country so desperately needs is not at odds with safeguarding the park for future generations.
It may be useful if I start by setting out the protections that are already afforded by existing national planning laws. A set out in paragraph 7 of the framework the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial develop movement, and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The framework makes it clear that sustainable develop movement should be pursued both in the preparation and implementation of local develop movement plans and the application of policy in the framework.
Achieving sustainable movement means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, economic, social, and environmental puzzle to support its environment objective, the MPF assets at the plant courses decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural local environment by protecting the valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity or geological value any matter commensurate with their status, but as the honourable lady has made clear, the regional Park does not presently have identified quality in the development plan. To supported social objective they set out strong safeguards to prevent the loss of open space, making clear that it should not be built on, unless there is clear evidence that it is no longer required, equivalent better provision is secured in application or develop movement of the site for alternative sports and recreational provision and benefits that clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.
I want to turn now to the greenbelt policy and issue that I know the honourable lady has strong views that she has expressed forcefully in the past. The Government is committed to preserving green blocks which have served England's towns and cities will over many decades, not least in terms of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large build up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. The Colne Valley Regional Park mentions and occupies the inner belt in London and I am aware that is integral to the future.
I think it is important to note that this Government is not changing the five purposes of the greenbelt set out in paragraph 143 of the MPD event we do not propose to alter its general extent. Nor is the greenbelt altered in any way by the provisions contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that is currently in The Other Place. We did, however, act quickly to replace the piecemeal and haphazard approach taken by the previous Government of greenbelt designation release with a more strategic and targeted approach.
I want to emphasise that Government Ministers do not determine what, if any, greenbelt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for local planning authorities themselves to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist or are justified in doing so and we expect them first to demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting and identifying the need for develop movement, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites, underutilised land, the density of development and working with authorities to assess whether identifying a need might be sensibly accommodated elsewhere.
National planning and our recently published guidance on the assessment are clear that the release of or develop movement of the greenbelt should not fundamentally undermine the ability of the remaining greenbelt across the area from serving all five of the greenbelt purposes and where it is necessary to release greenbelt land for development the national policy makes clear that they must take a sequential approach, first prioritising previously developed land, then greenbelt land which has not been previously developed and only then considering other greenbelt locations.
Under our revised approach, the sustainability of greenbelt sites must also be prioritised and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to this when deciding whether they are sustainably located and because we recognise the value placed on the greenbelt by the public we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary develop mental deliver high levels of affordable housing, the provision of new or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public and the making of necessary improvements to local or national in our new golden rules that are the mechanism by which we will deliver the public aim apply where a major housing develop movement is proposed Application.
I wanted to touch very briefly, although the honourable lady did not mention it but it is pertinent to the issue she raises about the development Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The fact is that when it comes to development and the environment we know that we can do better than the status quo which too often sees both sustainable housebuilding and nature recovery stolen. Part three of the infrastructure planning bill introduces she window in your major is restoration fund that will unlock an excel emission while going through the positive impact that it can have in driving nature recovery and environmental delivery plans as proposed in part three will introduce any potential negative In National Park landscapes or elsewhere, and they can only be put in place when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures are likely to outweigh the negative effects of the development and where this is not the case, existing environmental obligations, including those arising under the habitats regulations will remain in place and in addition EDPS and the consequential measures must be evidence-based and properly scrutinised before being put into place and this may include backups that can be deployed if monitoring shows the environmental outcomes not been delivered and policy safeguards related to the protection of national national landscapes, including those set out in the national framework and policy statements remaining in place.
Listening to the honourable lady's contributions, I think that the bulk of her concerns stem from the fact that Colne Valley Regional Park does not have any statutory status. That is not something I can give her commitment to and the lead Valley Park, the specific act of Parliament is what forward that status but I am more than willing enclosing to sit down with her and her Honourable Members undertake the point very much that it is a cross-party value attributed to the park to discuss further how we can ensure it is protected for current and future generations to enjoy, but what I have noted the concerns that you has reasonable reflect on them and I look forward to it I clear that appropriate protections are in place to protect and safeguard the countries parked in green space and similarly that Planning and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Infrastructure Bill will unlock a win-win for the economy. Thank you very much. The question is that this House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", The "Ayes"
It may be useful if I start by setting out the protections that are already afforded by existing national planning laws. A set out in paragraph 7 of the framework the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial develop movement, and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The framework makes it clear that sustainable develop movement should be pursued both in the preparation and implementation of local develop movement plans and the application of policy in the framework.
Achieving sustainable movement means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, economic, social, and environmental puzzle to support its environment objective, the MPF assets at the plant courses decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural local environment by protecting the valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity or geological value any matter commensurate with their status, but as the honourable lady has made clear, the regional Park does not presently have identified quality in the development plan. To supported social objective they set out strong safeguards to prevent the loss of open space, making clear that it should not be built on, unless there is clear evidence that it is no longer required, equivalent better provision is secured in application or develop movement of the site for alternative sports and recreational provision and benefits that clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.
I want to turn now to the greenbelt policy and issue that I know the honourable lady has strong views that she has expressed forcefully in the past. The Government is committed to preserving green blocks which have served England's towns and cities will over many decades, not least in terms of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large build up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. The Colne Valley Regional Park mentions and occupies the inner belt in London and I am aware that is integral to the future.
I think it is important to note that this Government is not changing the five purposes of the greenbelt set out in paragraph 143 of the MPD event we do not propose to alter its general extent. Nor is the greenbelt altered in any way by the provisions contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that is currently in The Other Place. We did, however, act quickly to replace the piecemeal and haphazard approach taken by the previous Government of greenbelt designation release with a more strategic and targeted approach.
I want to emphasise that Government Ministers do not determine what, if any, greenbelt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for local planning authorities themselves to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist or are justified in doing so and we expect them first to demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting and identifying the need for develop movement, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites, underutilised land, the density of development and working with authorities to assess whether identifying a need might be sensibly accommodated elsewhere.
National planning and our recently published guidance on the assessment are clear that the release of or develop movement of the greenbelt should not fundamentally undermine the ability of the remaining greenbelt across the area from serving all five of the greenbelt purposes and where it is necessary to release greenbelt land for development the national policy makes clear that they must take a sequential approach, first prioritising previously developed land, then greenbelt land which has not been previously developed and only then considering other greenbelt locations.
Under our revised approach, the sustainability of greenbelt sites must also be prioritised and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to this when deciding whether they are sustainably located and because we recognise the value placed on the greenbelt by the public we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary develop mental deliver high levels of affordable housing, the provision of new or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public and the making of necessary improvements to local or national in our new golden rules that are the mechanism by which we will deliver the public aim apply where a major housing develop movement is proposed Application.
I wanted to touch very briefly, although the honourable lady did not mention it but it is pertinent to the issue she raises about the development Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The fact is that when it comes to development and the environment we know that we can do better than the status quo which too often sees both sustainable housebuilding and nature recovery stolen. Part three of the infrastructure planning bill introduces she window in your major is restoration fund that will unlock an excel emission while going through the positive impact that it can have in driving nature recovery and environmental delivery plans as proposed in part three will introduce any potential negative In National Park landscapes or elsewhere, and they can only be put in place when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures are likely to outweigh the negative effects of the development and where this is not the case, existing environmental obligations, including those arising under the habitats regulations will remain in place and in addition EDPS and the consequential measures must be evidence-based and properly scrutinised before being put into place and this may include backups that can be deployed if monitoring shows the environmental outcomes not been delivered and policy safeguards related to the protection of national national landscapes, including those set out in the national framework and policy statements remaining in place.
Listening to the honourable lady's contributions, I think that the bulk of her concerns stem from the fact that Colne Valley Regional Park does not have any statutory status. That is not something I can give her commitment to and the lead Valley Park, the specific act of Parliament is what forward that status but I am more than willing enclosing to sit down with her and her Honourable Members undertake the point very much that it is a cross-party value attributed to the park to discuss further how we can ensure it is protected for current and future generations to enjoy, but what I have noted the concerns that you has reasonable reflect on them and I look forward to it I clear that appropriate protections are in place to protect and safeguard the countries parked in green space and similarly that Planning and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Infrastructure Bill will unlock a win-win for the economy. Thank you very much. The question is that this House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", The "Ayes"