Sir Christopher Chope
MP for Christchurch · Conservative · United Kingdom
“We have now had that review, had the public inquiry and had the outcome, yet we have not had the Government’s acceptance of the clear recommendations to which I have already referred.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), probably about a year ago, she told us that the Government were already reviewing the scheme. We asked her in what respect they were reviewing the scheme, but she said she could not say, although she conceded that they were reviewing it.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is fair to remind everybody that he participated in the first debate I had on this subject, on Friday 10 September 2021.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister for that response and grateful to everybody who has participated in the debate. Nobody can doubt the sincerity of what the Minister said. I hope that she will talk not just to the families but to parliamentarians because this issue affects lots of our constituents.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that the Minister will include within her response an explanation of what the Government are going to do to simplify the scheme, stop blocking legitimate claims through technical measures, and ensure that instead of spending another £82 million over the next four years on bureaucracy, we actually use some of that money to compensat…”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She said that there had been 920 claims by then, but: “The work currently going on is establishing whether there is a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse events that people have been suffering.” —[ Official Report , 2 March 2022; Vol. 709, c.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
5,491 lines on record for Sir Christopher Chope, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 4 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Surely it would be simpler to say that the Secretary of State “must consider regulatory approaches in other countries”—full stop, period. But that is not how it is at the moment. Amendment 5 would leave out the reference to the Secretary of State. This is to do with the definition of a rare cancer. Currently, clause 2 would add this wording to the National Health Service Act 2006: “The research that the Secretary must facilitate or otherwise promote under subsection (1)(a) includes research into cancers that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are rare cancers.” Why cannot it not just say “that are rare cancers”? Indeed, clause 2 would also add this wording to the 2006 Act: “In this section ‘rare cancer’ means a cancer that affects not more than 1 in 2000 people in the United Kingdom.” That is an issue of fact.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In that case, why is my generous amendment, which would restrict the period from three years to two years, unacceptable to the Government? There is a history of dragging of feet at the Department of Health and Social Care, I am afraid; we certainly heard about that on Second Reading. I give the House that specific example of why, on the Government’s own evidence, they should accept the change from three years to two. Amendment 3 would leave out “in particular” from line 7, which reads: “In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider regulatory approaches in other countries.” The amendment is intended to probe rather than anything else. Why do the words “in particular” need to be incorporated?”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since the review is concerned with orphan drug regulations it is by default covering rare cancers. The findings should be published within 3 years.” On page 7, paragraph 19 on financial costs says, “It is difficult to estimate the resourcing costs required for the orphan drug review, since the exact scope remains to be agreed. However, we estimate the cost to the Department of Health and Social Care to produce and publish a report on orphan drug Regulations to incur costs of approximately £0.14m in relation to staff resource. This reflects the cost of 0.3 x SCS staff, 1 x FTE Grade 6 or Grade 7 staff, 0.3 x Grade 7 staff and 0.5 x SEO staff for one year.” That is what the Government say: only one year will be necessary.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an example of why we need to tighten up the Bill, because if this is a review that needs to and will be carried out, why do we not get on with it? To suggest that it will take longer than a year is to go against the Department’s own evidence set out in the impact assessment. The impact assessment says on page 6, under the heading “Mandating a Government review of the orphan drug regulations”: “This will place a duty on the Government to publish a review which will be a comparison of orphan drug Regulations (specifically Part 5 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012) and international regulatory approaches to supporting the research and development of orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancers.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In response to amendment 4, Diana Jupp says that “this timeline has been agreed with the Department and in our opinion would tie into the timelines of other developing cancer policy implementation, including the cancer plan.” Obviously, the most important part of her comment is that the timeline has been agreed with the Department, because if it had not been, the Department and the Minister would not have taken the Bill forward in this way and agreed to it. On the timeline, I draw the House’s attention to the evidence base set out in the impact assessment. It says that the whole process will take one year. The Department reckons that it will cost £130,000 and sets out how many full-time equivalent civil servants will be involved in it. If it will only take one year, why are we saying that it needs to have three years?”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On amendment 2, she says, “We are keen to push for this change with the Department once we reach implementation stage of the Bill.” With the greatest of respect to Diana Jupp, we can do this now. Instead of leaving it to her and her colleagues to try to pressurise the Department later, we in this House have the power to change the legislation in the way that I have suggested, so that there would be a timetable set out for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There should be a timetable for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review.” That is the essence of the two amendments. To look at another gap that could be exploited by the Government, the Bill says that the report must be “published before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the Act is passed”. I have tabled amendment 4 to say that the period should be two years. In respect of both those points, I have had a helpful email from Diana Jupp from Pancreatic Cancer UK, who writes on behalf of more than 30 charities representing patients affected by rare and less common cancers. She comments on my amendments.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 1, which is to be read with amendment 2, is a prime example of the point I made earlier. We have a commitment from the Government that: “The Secretary of State must…carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer”— great— “and…prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.” But what is the timescale for that, and what will happen after those conclusions are produced? There is no obligation on the Government to do anything else. The review and its conclusions could be just left on one side. We in the House are in a position to tighten those provisions up and say, “This is not good enough.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am, relatively speaking, neutral on the matter—I am a sympathetic supporter of the Bill—but I have a lot of background experience of how Governments always try to give themselves wriggle room, in effect to maintain control over everything, and in my view the Bill could be improved by being amended, with the will of the House, on Report. We could talk about taking some of my amendments to the other place, but the trouble is that the Government machine may say that there will not be any more sitting Fridays in this House, so if the Bill were to be amended in the other place it might fall completely, because it would need to be brought back here. That is why it is important that the House should consider these amendments now rather than leave them to the other place.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He said, understandably, that to a large extent he was constrained, because he was trying to negotiate with the Government and with the Department of Health and Social Care, and unless he showed himself to be reasonably compliant, he would not have got the Bill to a state where it could be accepted by the Government. I note the different positions on this, and I fully understand and respect the hon. Gentleman’s position. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) basically said that if she had introduced such a Bill, she would have got so steamed up about it that she would have included a lot more strength and safeguards, and as a consequence it probably would not have got anywhere near being considered on Report. Those are two different approaches.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is certainly not a trivial Bill; it is a really important piece of legislation, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on introducing and pioneering. It was not a Government handout; it was an idea that he thought needed to be the subject of legislation and he has pursued it. We had a fantastic Second Reading debate. There is tremendous interest in the Bill. May I therefore make it clear at the outset that my amendments are designed to try to strengthen the Bill rather than anything else? I explained my position to the hon. Gentleman yesterday.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hear what the hon. Member is saying, but why does the impact assessment say that the costs are for staff for only one year? If the review will take three years, why are the staff funded for only one?”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend is responding to the amendments or making a Third Reading speech. I hope he will address the amendments I have tabled, including those that relate to clause 1, about which he has just spoken.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his unprompted comments. He will know that the funding is sufficient to staff the review only for one year. If there is only funding for one year, why does it take three?”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He said he wants to have that dealt with promptly but is fearful of accepting an amendment that requires it to be done within six months because of the possibility of unforeseen delays. I take it from that that he is going to get on with that aspect, and let us hope that that goes faster rather than slower. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Third Reading”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have had a classic example from the Minister of why the civil service is ruling okay, because it can come forward with a valid objection to every possible suggested alternative and amendment. I do not think that this attitude will be very helpful to the people we are trying to help through the Bill—namely, those who are suffering from rare cancers and who want us to make progress in this area. I will not press any of these amendments to a vote, but I hope that when the Bill gets to the other place there will be more persistent probing, particularly on the issues around NHS England and the definitions. To give credit where it is due, I was pleased with what the Minister said about the specialty lead. As discussed, we do not need legislation for this anyway.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will respond briefly to the debate. In so doing, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for their contributions. I listened for what the Minister would say in response to my point about NHS England, but I did not hear the expression “NHS England” come from between his lips, and I wonder whether that was an oversight or whether it was left out of his brief deliberately by officials from NHS England. Amendment 8 specifically deals with NHS England, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth referred to it. Does the Minister’s reluctance to intervene at this stage show that he is in denial about the policy in relation to NHS England? I presume that he is in such denial.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to get back to the top of the international league table, where we should be, as a leading nation with a very strong economy. I see in today’s news that the economy is shrinking, but that should not be a reason not to campaign to get these cancers shrunk.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is asking too much for the Government to agree to put those things on the face of the Bill, but I think it is clear from the pressure that is already on the Minister that his Department—however much it may have dragged its feet in the past—is now intent on rectifying that. Most important of all, we will get the Government’s cancer plan. Let us hope that it will not be on the slow burner—we are promised it before the end of the year, and I hope it will be nearer this end of the year than next year. That could be very important, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, it links in with a lot of what we have discussed today. Cancer needs to be taken more seriously in this country. We need to invest more.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have never had the good fortune of having a Bill that has been able to make progress; it is something I still look forward to and yearn for. This is a really important subject. When we look at the Second Reading debate, in which I was briefly able to participate by way of an intervention, we can see the strength of feeling. I go back to the Minister’s response to my amendments on Report. I hope he will be a bit more helpful on Third Reading about the role of NHS England and what will happen. I have paid tribute to him for agreeing that priority should be given to getting on with setting up these research bodies and looking into these issues.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) has used his good fortune in having success in the ballot to bring forward something that he wanted to do and that meant a lot to him, but he did not do it selfishly; he did it after listening to a whole lot of other people and realising that this is a subject on which there is deep-seated consensus, unrest and concern among parliamentarians. Full marks to him for doing this. I was only once successful in the private Members’ Bills ballot, and it was just after the rules were changed, so even though I came third out of the hat, I was No. 17, because it was done in reverse order so that it looked better on television. I think the previous Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means was responsible for that change.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). I echo his tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), who continues to be a pioneer in this campaign and is what I would describe as a no-nonsense lady. She has been in this place since 1997, and she has made and continues to make an enormous contribution. This Bill will hopefully be an exemplar for Members who are successful in the private Members’ Bills ballot. So often, those who are successful in the ballot are told, “Here’s a handout Bill—we need to fill a little niche here in a bit of legislation.” The hon.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This short debate on amendment 1 will give the Minister an opportunity to explain why that change is necessary, how it is justified, and why there needs to be a deletion of the existing consultation arrangements rather than an addition to the existing arrangements of being subject to consultation, which is the subject of proposed new subsection (2A)(b) to section 10 of the Academies Act 2010, as in subsection (4).”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not understand why we are abandoning the much more fundamental issue of the consultation. There might be no competition between a secure 16 to 19 academy and an ordinary school, but there may well be competition between that secure academy and another such academy that is already in existence or that may be proposed. The 2022 legislation on secure academies was introduced in the previous Parliament. At the time, nobody thought there was any problem with having the same arrangements for secure 16 to 19 academies as for other academies.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 1(4) adds to section 10 of the 2010 Act that for a secure 16 to 19 academy, the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question, but “must instead carry out a consultation on the question of how they should cooperate with potential local partners in connection with the establishment and carrying on of the Academy.” Those local partners are described as “potential local partners”, meaning “persons exercising functions of a public nature”— I think the Bill has in mind organisations such as the health service, the local education authority, councillors and so on— “and…so far as not falling within paragraph (a), proprietors of educational institutions…with whom the person carrying out the consultation thinks it appropriate to cooperate.” Again, that discretion is left with the person carrying out the consultation.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the short debate on this matter in the Bill Committee, there was a bit of a misrepresentation when it was stated that “secure schools do not compete with other schools.” –– [ Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 4.] That may be true, but they can compete with other institutions, particularly those providing alternative provision.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As ever, I am most grateful to the Public Bill Office for having ensured that I was on the right lines with that and that such an amendment could be tabled. Amendment 1 arises from the fact that section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 states that before entering into an academy arrangement, the provider “must carry out a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into.” Clause 1(4) would insert into that provision an exception that “where the educational institution, if the arrangements are entered into, is to be a secure 16 to 19 Academy…the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question”. In other words, it is an exemption from the requirement for a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into. I do not see that as a reasonable thing to do.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some people may be unfamiliar with the detail of the Bill because it did not receive a Second Reading debate. It went through on the nod on 16 May. It then went into a quite truncated Public Bill Committee on Wednesday 2 July, and it has now come back to the Chamber on Report. I tabled amendment 1 to highlight my concern about the consultation arrangements proposed in subsection (4). Amendment 2 is a consequential amendment. As people will have noticed, in the Bill’s long title, it states: “expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy; and to alter the consultation question required when it is proposed to establish or expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy.” If amendment 1 were successful, the long title would need to be amended, and in anticipation of that, I tabled amendment 2.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am so grateful to the Minister. What a breath of fresh air that a Minister has actually answered my challenge and given an explanation! In the light of those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Third Reading”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, although there is a limit of 13 days for private Members’ legislation, where a Session of Parliament has been extended significantly there has by convention been an addition of sitting Fridays to compensate for that—in the same way that additional time is provided for Opposition days by convention. Otherwise, strictly speaking, under the Standing Orders there would not be sufficient Opposition days. I am not suggesting we go on debating this Bill into the next Friday, but I hope that when the Minister responds, he does not feel that he is inhibited by time constraints imposed by the Whips, because those time constraints are artificial in the extreme and can be altered. I look forward to having my concerns addressed.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The fact that this Bill seems to have consensus across the House makes me even more concerned. When we look at lawmaking in this House, we see that many of the worst laws are those that were introduced with cross-party consensus. The hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth refers to the issue of time. There is no constraint on us being able to debate this Bill today, which is what we are doing. This is the last sitting Friday that has been allocated by the Government, but I am assured by the Government Whip who deals with these things that this Session of Parliament is likely to continue well beyond the autumn and that there will doubtless be further sitting Fridays. If there are further sitting Fridays and some of the business on the Order Paper today is not reached, we will be able to reach it on the next sitting Friday chosen.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“4.] I come to this Bill in a slightly suspicious state of mind, because we know that the Government are not really enthusiastic about academies. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but if the academy programme—I will not call it an experiment, because it has succeeded —had been in a position to have been brought forward under a Labour Government, I do not think they would ever have done it. This Labour Government are reluctant and realise that they cannot really abolish academies, but I am concerned that what is proposed in this Bill may be the starting point of facilitating the making of academies less financially viable and their 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 the legislation. Those are my concerns.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies, in order to ensure they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different, as secure schools do not compete with other schools.” They do not compete with other schools, but they could potentially compete with other organisations. The hon. Lady then said: “As such, we do not expect them to have an impact on the viability of other local mainstream schools.” That is fine—I do not expect that—but what about schools that are not mainstream? That is used as an argument to say that this Bill would “disapply that duty for this particular type of school, to help any future secure schools open with minimal delay.” –– [ Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not think the number of people aspiring to be Members of Parliament would increase if the knowledge was that there would be an election every two years and they might find themselves retrospectively on a two-year contract. The hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth then went on to justify the disapplication of section 9 of the Academies Act 2010 in this Bill. That was not the subject of an amendment from me, but she said that it would “remove the requirement that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area for secure 16 to 19 academies.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Cramlington and Killingworth went on to say in Committee: “Reducing it to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which Government would be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary”— this is exactly the system for academies: if an academy fails, there has to be an exit period, as has happened in Parkfield school— “while ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment.” –– [ Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 4.] I would suggest that having only a two-year contract is hardly encouraging for potential members of staff.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The argument put forward is that a two-year termination period will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility, should there be a need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. That has not been expanded upon in any of the debates that I have heard or in the explanatory notes. It is just a statement, and a mere repetition of it cannot be a substitute for a justification of it. How will lowering the termination period to two years prioritise value for money? It may well mean that short-termism prevails because the academy says that it cannot do this or that, and invest for the future, because it has only a two-year potential lifespan. In articulating the Government’s case, the hon.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Maybe it will be used as a secure 16 to 19 academy. The point is that an academy would never have been able to get started in the premises at Parkfield school had it been given only a two-year lease of life. Members of this House who were elected one year ago this month think that a five-year duration is pretty short. They cannot really get their feet under the table and invest to be fit for the future if they have a guaranteed existence of only up to five years. If we are talking about premises taking on staff, and everything that goes with that—even more so if we are talking about secured premises—I cannot understand why the minimum notice period under a funding arrangement will be reduced from seven years to two.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was time consuming, and critics of the academy system used the fact that so much money was being spent on this provision against the then Government. However, it was made more secure by the fact that there was a guarantee that the academy could stay in place for seven years. I am sorry to say that, at the end of this term, the academy known as Parkfield school will no longer exist, because the academy trust that took over the running of it has decided to pull out. The original notice was given a year ago, and last year the school dealt solely with people who are waiting to complete their GCSEs. The buildings there will now revert to the Department for Education. What will happen to them, who knows? The investment is there. Maybe it will be used by the local authority for alternative education provision.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It transferred from a free school that started in Bournemouth and did not have premises; it was basically on the third floor of an office block. It could not get planning permission because of hostility from the local education authority, which did not relish the prospect of competition. It then found some premises in my constituency that already had an educational use, because they were the training school for NATS—the national air traffic services—in Christchurch. The cost of converting those facilities into a premises suitable for an academy was significant. It was time consuming, and critics of the academy system used the fact that so much money was being spent on this provision against the then Government.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I speak as someone who, early in my political career, succeeded in persuading Margaret Thatcher to abolish the Inner London Education Authority, which was one of the great success stories of my campaigning. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 dealt with this issue and set out the secure 16-to-19 academies. I cannot understand whether it was an oversight that the legislation was not changed then to ensure that there was a guarantee of only two years’ funding. Under the Academies Act 2010, an academy was guaranteed seven years of funding after being set up, and if that was curtailed, there would essentially be compensation for the academy. More importantly, setting up an academy is an expensive job, as I know from the setting up of what became Parkfield school as an academy in my constituency.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Assuming that it does progress, however, I am happy to write to him with an answer to those points, as they are pertinent.” –– [ Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 6.] I do not know whether such a letter has been sent but, if so, I have not seen the contents as I was not a Committee member. When the Minister responds in his usual helpful way, I hope that he will share his answer to my hon. Friend’s question. That is a relatively detailed point. My greater concern about the Bill comes from being a great supporter of academies and what they have done to transform education provision in our country by removing that provision from the dead hand of so many local authorities.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I now have the chance to talk about the Bill. I did not have a chance on Second Reading, because the Bill went through on the nod, and I was not on the Bill Committee. I am the loser as a result; I was not invited. The hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) steered it through Committee quickly, and now it has come back to the House and she does not feel the need to expand on it in any way. I will take up one particular challenge, because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) asked a question in Committee and the Minister said: “I thank the hon. Members who have contributed so far. On the issues just raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, they are for the Bill as it makes progress.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the best deterrents to council tax non-payment would be for people who are in receipt of liability orders in the local magistrates court to have their names and addresses published in the local paper. That is going to be made much more difficult if the Bill contains references to council tax when it becomes law, so on behalf of all those people who are suffering as a result of the more than £6 billion owed in council tax, I urge the Government not to proceed with this particular part of the Bill. That is why I have tabled my amendment.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that local authorities possess all those powers under the council tax administration and enforcement regulations, why are they not being used effectively? Why do we think that creating remote hearings is going to improve matters? That seems absolutely ludicrous to me. If ever there were a good use of a magistrates court’s time, it is to ensure that conscientious payers of council tax in the area covered by that court do not have to subsidise people who do not pay their council tax, resulting in the enormous arrears to which I have referred. That is why I am concerned about this proposal. Remote hearings were introduced during the pandemic and have been used in other circumstances, but the consequence of a remote hearing is that the press and the public are in the dark.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There will then be a hearing, and if the magistrate finds that the taxpayer has failed to pay council tax, they will order the taxpayer to pay the outstanding sum as well as the council’s costs—that is set out in 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, or it can issue a charging order. In extremis, the council can even initiate bankruptcy proceedings, and ultimately, it can apply to commit the taxpayer to prison if bailiffs have been unable to find goods belonging to the taxpayer that cover the debt.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“BCP council is 109th in the league table with more than £45 million of council arrears, amounting to £249 per council tax dwelling. Dorset council, in the other half of my constituency, has £53 million in council tax arrears, amounting to £290 per council tax dwelling. I have tabled the amendment to ask the Minister this: why we are proposing to facilitate remote hearings for issues relating to council tax? The council tax administration and enforcement regulations enable a council to issue a reminder notice and a final notice. If the debt remains unpaid for more than 14 days after a reminder notice is sent, the council can apply to the magistrates court for a liability order.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I serve on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee; we have heard evidence that the arrears on energy payments are now £4 billion or more. Why are we seeking in this Bill to reduce the pressure on people who almost make paying council tax seem voluntary? Why do we not put more pressure on the local authorities responsible for a lot of the council tax arrears? I am lucky enough to live in the New Forest district council area; it is 286th in the council tax arrears league table; that amounts to about £69 per council tax payer. By contrast, in Liverpool the arrears are £194,721,000, which means that for every council tax dwelling £869 is owing. What is being done to put pressure on Liverpool city council to do something about the situation? The same applies to other councils, including in the area that I am privileged to represent.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Why are we trying to reduce the pressure on council tax payment miscreants by enabling them to hide behind remote hearings instead of having to face the music in a proper court of law, where justice can not only be done but be seen to be done? Why should a council tax debtor not be required to attend a court hearing in person? The court can then make inquiries about the person and discuss means of payment. It can all be done with witnesses. The magistrates can see aspects of the demeanour of the defendant in person and take those into account. Most importantly of all, they can ensure that the court process acts as a deterrent against people thinking that paying their council tax is essentially a voluntary activity. A real debt crisis is building in this country, and not just on council tax.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my view, the deterrent value of such hearings would be lost, because they would be remote hearings, rather than in-person hearings in the local magistrates court. Let me also mention the extent of the problem we already have with the enforcement of council tax arrears. They are now in the order of £6 billion, as the Minister will know—some £6 billion in council tax arrears. I think almost 10% of that total is attributable to just four local authorities. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that those local authorities are Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and Brent. Between them, those four local authorities are responsible for more than 10% of the £6 billion in council tax arrears at the moment. What are we doing?”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I still meet people who think it was a big mistake to abandon the community charge, which would have ensured that everybody in receipt of local government services, if they were over 18, would have made a contribution. That is all history. It was changed. We introduced council tax, and with it council tax administration and enforcement regulations. It is those regulations that would now be altered by clause 4 of the Bill. Instead of what is already set out on the ability of the courts to deal with council tax administrative and enforcement problems, it is suggested that those court hearings should be able to be held remotely. In other words, there would not be any proper ability for people to see what was going on.”
House of Commons11 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗