Charlotte Cane MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this debate. Ely and East Cambridgeshire is a very rural area, and in many of my villages the pub is the only place left for local people to gather, meet and socialise. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, we have lost or are at risk of losing 609 pubs since January this year, and 60 of those are definitely lost forever because they have been demolished or converted. My village of Reach nearly lost its pub back in 1999. The villagers bought it, and it is now run as a fully commercial business on a long lease, with the freehold belonging to the parish council. It sits at one end of Devil’s Dyke, so it has been renamed the Dyke’s End. It remains a very successful and popular pub. I regularly meet my publican network and the local CAMRA group, and they tell me about what pubs do to support community events and social interaction, combat loneliness and help with mental health, as well as providing young people with their first job and training them in communication and hospitality skills. But they are really struggling financially. National insurance, business rates and energy costs come up over and over again, which is why the Lib Dems are calling for a 5% cut on VAT for pubs, action to reduce their energy costs and the replacement of business rates. All of our communities and publicans deserve better support, but I would like to highlight two in my constituency. The Carpenters Arms in Soham was voted CAMRA’s rural pub of the year in 2024. It has an amazing array of real ales, a beautiful garden out the back and community events. It is a real part of that market town in my constituency. More recently, the Black Horse in Rampton has been voted CAMRA’s East Anglia cider pub of the year 2026. It has a whole wall full of different ciders. Hon. Members would have to visit regularly to try them all. One of them is Foxhay cider, which is made in Rampton using local apples, so the pub supports small local businesses as well. As we have heard, these small, rural pubs are also supporting the wonderful micro and small breweries, which need people who can take small amounts and get through it quickly before it goes off, as it has a shorter life than commercial beers. Our pubs really are the hubs of our communities, but if we continue to over-tax them, we will continue to lose them, with all the impact that will have on our local communities. Will the Minister commit to asking the Government to reduce those taxes and allow our pubs to thrive?

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome investment in NHS dentistry, but it is all just playing around at the edges unless and until we change that contract, because it is the contract that is at fault. I understand the Minister said that he would consult on that in the summer. We are already part way through June. Can we please have a date for the consultation, and a commitment to implement changes to the contract so that it is more attractive and we can get dentists back into the NHS? Can we also have a commitment to when we will have a workforce plan for dentistry, so that one in four NHS dentist roles in my area are no longer vacant?

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  Almost half of children in Cambridgeshire have not seen a dentist in the last 12 months. That will have many impacts that we can only imagine, but one of them is that one in every eight children in East Cambridgeshire have tooth decay by the time they are five. That should be utterly unacceptable to us all. In short, Ely and East Cambridgeshire is an NHS dental desert. We have heard Labour Members make valiant attempts to blame almost anybody else for this situation, but it was a Labour Government who introduced the new dentist contract in 2006, despite lots of people warning that it would lead to dentists leaving the NHS. Indeed, that is exactly what we have seen: they have left in droves. In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, we have a vacancy rate for NHS general dentists of 24%—almost one in four. Even more frustratingly, I have heard from dentists locally who are willing and able to take on more NHS patients, and have contacted the ICB and asked for the funding to do so, but have been refused that funding. I have constituents who cannot get an NHS dentist appointment, and I have dentists who are willing to give them an NHS dentist appointment, but nobody seems willing to give them the money so that that can happen.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that it is vital that everyone supports the PSNI and encourages people from across Northern Ireland to engage with it positively. One would hope that a good, modern training centre would help to present it as a good organisation to join. To develop the site at Kinnegar, investment is needed. Patten recommended a new college 26 years ago, and although the Government accepted that recommendation, the PSNI is still waiting for one. Behind the college’s infrastructure problems sits a deeper funding failure: in real terms, the PSNI has 40% fewer resources than at devolution in 2010. Officer numbers stand at approximately 6,250—the lowest since the service was established—against the Patten recommendation of 7,500, as we have heard. Since 2014, the PSNI has incurred £167 million in legacy costs, with a further £24 million anticipated this year, drawn from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has recommended a dedicated, ringfenced funding stream for legacy obligations, separate from the operational policing budget that the Chief Constable has been asking for. I have three questions for the Minister. The first is on counter-terrorism funding. ASF has been broadened to cover the same threat categories as the Home Office counter-terrorism grant, yet that grant reaches £1.2 billion in 2026-27 while ASF stands at £37.8 million. The Government may point to the Barnett formula, but Barnett allocates on population, not on threat. Even combined, Barnett and ASF do not account for a force in which every officer carries a firearm and 3,200 specialist security deployments took place in a single year. Will the Minister confirm whether ASF is allocated based on need or on population share? If it is the latter, do the Government accept that, even combined, Barnett and ASF fall short for a force with no equivalent anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Secondly, on legacy, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will drive legacy costs higher still, and those costs continue to be met from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. Do the Government accept the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s recommendation for a dedicated, ringfenced funding system to meet those costs separately? Thirdly, on the college itself, Kinnegar has been purchased, but its development depends on investment funding that has not yet been committed. Will the Government make a specific capital commitment to deliver a new police college for a service with training requirements that have no parallel anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. Before I turn to the substance of the debate, I acknowledge the deeply troubling incident in north Belfast last night, in which a man was seriously injured in a knife attack on Kinnaird Avenue. My thoughts are with the victim and his family, the members of the public who attempted to stop the attack and the PSNI officers who responded. Those officers are precisely who this debate is about, and we should all be asking whether they have the support, resources and facilities that they deserve. As we have heard, 25 years ago the Belfast agreement promised a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. Out of that promise came the Patten commission, which led to the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is worth noting, as many Members have, that policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, with day-to-day funding allocated by Stormont’s Department of Justice. This Parliament does not set the PSNI’s budget, but the UK Government are not disinterested observers. Responsibility for national security rests with Westminster: additional security funding and paramilitary crime taskforce funding are channelled from here, and Treasury decisions—including the refusal to meet Stormont’s reserve claim for the £119 million cost of the 2023 data breach—carry direct consequences. The police college at Garnerville sits at the centre of all this, training every officer who joins the PSNI, and it exports that expertise to forces in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, as well as internationally. Every PSNI officer carries a personal protection firearm, including when they are off-duty—something that applies nowhere else in UK policing, fortunately. The standing authority under Patten recommendation 65 has not been withdrawn because the threat has not gone away. The terrorism threat level was reduced from severe to substantial in March 2024, having been raised to severe following the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell in Omagh in February 2023. The PSNI recently told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that there is no operational difference between the two threat levels: the posture, vigilance and resource commitment remain the same. No other policing workforce in the United Kingdom has to weigh the personal security implications for them and their families when simply deciding whether to join the police force. The latest student officer recruitment figures, released in February this year, underline the scale of the challenge. The 2026 recruitment campaign received more than 4,100 applications, but that was down from more than 4,800 last year. Of those, nearly 27% identified as Catholic, against almost 29% the year before. The current intake runs at 51 student officers per month through Garnerville, barely keeping pace with the number of police leaving at the other end. Each of those officers completes the 22-week programme at a site that Patten identified as inadequate back in 1999. The PSNI told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the continuing terrorist threat, legacy perceptions and resource pressures are active barriers to recruitment from all communities. No training college can resolve those barriers alone, but a modern, accessible facility would at least stop them compounding. It matters that Patten recommendation 131 remains undelivered. The Desertcreat project—a proposed shared police, fire and prison training facility in County Tyrone—was abandoned after costing more than £12 million without a building completed. As we have heard, the PSNI has since purchased the Kinnegar army base in Holywood, which it acquired from the Ministry of Defence for £4.9 million.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  I too have been contacted by a great many trans people, and their families and friends, who have expressed genuine fear about the implications of this guidance. We have heard about the practicalities. I have heard from someone who has cancelled a hip operation because they are not sure that they will be treated with dignity when they go into hospital. I hear from people who are changing their patterns of work, travel and leisure because they cannot be certain that they can use toilets unchallenged, and therefore face an extra risk of violence. However, what comes through very strongly from all of them is the challenge that this presents to their identity. Many of them have lived for decades in their gender, and now they are thinking about potentially having to say to their colleagues at work—people who think of them as being of that gender, because it is all they have ever known them as— “Actually, I was born in a different gender, so can you tell me how I can use the toilets, how I can use the changing room?” This is just unacceptable.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister consider changing the law so that the Equality Act lives up to its name?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  One of the things that shocked me most when I was elected was how much we are failing children with special educational needs. We all get those emails in our inbox, and they are heartrending. When we meet those parents, we can see the stress and the strain etched in their faces, and we can only imagine what it is like for the child to be in a school where they feel that they are not understood and they are not supported. How we are treating these people at the moment is shocking. I really welcome the fact that the Government are trying to do something to change that situation and to make it better. I worry, though, that we need to make sure that there are the resources to deliver what those families deserve. Obviously that means money, but it also means the educational psychologists and the other expertise that we need, and proper training for all school staff so they know how to deal with the various needs of the children in their school. I also worry that parents cannot and must not lose the ability to take action to fight for their children’s rights.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I agree; we must not set things up in competition. I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, what is she going to do to make sure that every school in every area has the specialist resources it needs to deliver for its children? How is she going to make sure that rural areas such as mine in Ely and East Cambridgeshire have access to those resources for all schools and all children? It takes longer and therefore it costs more to get those across the area. What is she going to put in place to make sure that parents retain the right to fight for and enforce their children’s rights?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. The delivery of quality rural healthcare has been neglected for too long. After years of chronic underfunding, and a pandemic from which many areas have not fully recovered, health outcomes in rural areas are on a dangerous downturn. In my own constituency, local populations are growing fast, while GPs and hospitals struggle under the strain. Dental provision in Cambridgeshire is particularly poor, with more than 2,300 people for every single dentist providing NHS services. The picture is particularly bad among children; recent data showed that at least 45% of children have not seen a dentist in the past two years. That is simply not good enough. We know how important it is for children in particular to see a dentist: good oral hygiene has a strong link to heart health, as infections and inflammation can increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases. It is vital that all children have ready access to a dentist to prevent such debilitating conditions and to introduce important hygiene practices. Delivering rural healthcare is not simply about hiring GPs, dentists and other healthcare professionals; it is about delivering access, with reliable transport and connectivity infrastructure that is integrated with local healthcare. In rural areas like mine, many rely on cars for travel, but many older and vulnerable residents are left to manage with public transport, which is too often unreliable and does not always take them where they need to go. A constituent might be referred to a GP in a neighbouring village that is only a short distance away, but entirely inaccessible by foot and served by perhaps only a few buses a day, or in some cases no buses at all. The Government and local ICBs must start using such real-terms information when assessing access to healthcare, to avoid rural communities being left even further behind. I am encouraged that new technologies allow at-home testing and monitoring, which can prevent the need for regular access to GPs and hospitals, but many of my constituents face connectivity barriers as a result of poor broadband and poor mobile reception. Does the Minister agree that the Government must bring forward a strategy to end the neglect of rural healthcare, with new services for left-behind areas and a comprehensive approach to rural connectivity?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. I agree with much of what she said in her speech, and much of what other hon. Members have said. My hon. Friend’s constituency shares many similarities with mine: they are a comparable size, have a comparable population, contain much farmland and have scattering of medium-sized settlements. In my case, those settlements include the city of Ely, which is home to over 20,000 residents. According to Ofcom’s coverage map, the entire city is covered by all mobile network operators, with at least “good outdoor” coverage. Given such confidence, I invite Ofcom inspectors to Ely, where I will challenge them to catch even a single bar of mobile signal in the city centre. They will be sorely disappointed. Instead, the Government could look at data gathered by a number of different independent sources that reports remarkably poor mobile service in areas of my constituency that Ofcom claims are covered. Alternatively, the Government could simply listen to local people. They would hear from local business owners in Ely market square who cannot get a signal for their card machines; residents, such as my constituent Alan, who has tried to install a smart energy meter in his home on four occasions, each unsuccessful because of insufficient mobile signal, which is not only irritating but means he cannot get the cheapest fuel options that are available only to people who have working smart meters; or the new restaurant in the middle of the city centre that cannot take orders because it cannot get internet or mobile signal. Rather fittingly in a debate about mobile connectivity, the major failure in the Government’s approach thus far appears to be a total lack of communication and connection with the lived experiences of citizens on the ground. The Government claim that mobile coverage has reached 96% of the country, but thousands of my constituents in Ely and East Cambridgeshire—and, I am willing to bet, in almost every other rural constituency—would beg to differ. Given the way that the Government are assessing coverage, serious doubts are raised over the sincerity of their connectivity goals overall, including the roll-out of the shared rural network. Although that is due to be complete by this time next year, the Government seem to have minimal capacity to direct investment and new infrastructure to reach their goals, relying instead, as we have heard, on the mobile network operators, who put commercial interests above the interests of our constituents.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our constituents do not want compensation or apologies: they want a mobile signal that they can rely on. How can they have confidence that their digital connectivity will improve if Ofcom does not engage with a reliable reporting system to direct investment in response to on-the-ground need? Conversely, there is bit of my constituency that allegedly has no connectivity, but every time I go there I have no problem getting a mobile signal, so ironically there are some places where the signal is better than Ofcom thinks. In an era when public services are increasingly moving online, rural and digitally excluded populations risk becoming increasingly isolated. Good mobile connectivity must be considered a basic necessity and not an object for compromise. It is especially essential for accessing emergency services, defibrillators and on-call healthcare, a major concern for the many farmers in my constituency who experience lower-than-average health outcomes and work in more accident-prone environments, yet have very limited connectivity. I think the Government would agree with me that we should move towards greater access to healthcare in the community, foster social connection and ensure safely policed neighbourhoods. However, key to each of those is guaranteeing the rights of all, including those in rural areas, to swift and ready access to mobile signal. More than that, it also means a reliable process of reporting and mapping the real-terms coverage and capacity of mobile networks. Fundamentally, improving rural mobile connectivity must start with genuine two-way communication. Will the Minister now agree to overhaul Ofcom’s coverage maps so that they are tied to real-time data, and to revise the coverage goals of the shared rural network accordingly so that my constituents, and the many others we have heard about, can finally get an assurance that a reliable connection is on its way—and soon?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Point of Order: Rectification Procedure · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling three written parliamentary questions to the Treasury and one written parliamentary question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. When I tabled those questions, I inadvertently failed to declare a relevant interest: the receipt of hospitality from the Jockey Club. That was in breach of the rules and I apologise to the House for this error.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend Cotswold district council for that work. Unfortunately, when I tried to get East Cambridgeshire district council to condemn the two-child cap, the Conservatives refused. This policy was poorly conceived from the outset and has amounted to little more than attacks—not on parents, but on vulnerable children growing up in a cost of living crisis. My Ely and East Cambridgeshire constituency, which is relatively wealthy and has relatively high-paid work, is thankfully below the national average for child poverty. However, child poverty has continued to rise there despite the fact that 70% of affected households have at least one parent in work. Clearly, this is not a case of families scrounging off the system, but of family budgets stretched to breaking point. Nationally, the picture looks similarly grim. Child poverty has increased over the past 15 years, pushing 850,000 more children into poverty. In rural areas such as my constituency, poverty can be all the more challenging: parents must travel miles to reach a supermarket or a food bank for affordable food, transport costs for school and work are far higher, fuel costs are higher and children are often socially isolated. We should never have got to this point. The previous Conservative Government should have recognised that the two-child limit was both a failed experiment and salt in the wound for families dealing with spiralling costs in food, energy and basic necessities. I welcome the Government’s decision to make this correction, but it must be seen as the first step in improving the quality of life for children and building a better future. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that child poverty may cost in excess of £39 billion a year, accounting for additional public spending in areas such as health and education, as well as future tax receipt losses from resulting unemployment. Behind that economic loss are children, who will, having missed out on sports clubs and healthy food, face a higher risk of disabilities and long-term health conditions—and, as we heard earlier, they even face an increased chance of early death. They are not afforded the opportunities to develop and pursue their own interests. Many may miss out on higher education, apprenticeships and even early employment. The Bill is about the future of all children living in this country. We must ensure they are equipped with the resources to thrive and the ability to contribute to a society that supports them from the very start. In that spirit, will the Minister agree to annual reviews of the entire universal credit system to ensure that it keeps pace with the cost of living and becomes an effective tool to tackle child poverty?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Like so many Members from across the House, I welcome the Government’s decision finally to scrap the two-child limit on benefits—I just wish they had done so much earlier. The two-child limit is a cruel and unfair penalty on those in the most urgent need of welfare and support. The cap does not tackle the exploitation of the benefits system in order to avoid work and to continue having children; instead, it has been an enormous burden on thousands of household budgets and has pushed more children into poverty. Even if one believes, like the Conservatives, that people have children irresponsibly, I still cannot see how those children should be punished. Every child deserves a good start in life.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the petitioners on bringing forward this important debate. The Government’s immigration White Paper has caused no end of confusion, anxiety and distress since its publication last year. To me, and to countless constituents who have contacted me because they are worried for their livelihoods, it is profoundly and inexcusably unfair. Some people do not know whether they should prepare to leave or continue with plans to invest in a new house, a job or marriage. Others are seriously worried about the status of spouses and dependants under the new rules. They are facing the reality of being entirely displaced and forced to abandon careers, personal lives, colleagues, friends and homes. I have written to the Home Office about the fear and distress of my constituents and to urge it to at the very least offer some certainty on indefinite leave to remain. Yet, time and again, I receive the same formulaic lines from the Minister, who refuses to provide the assurance that changes to ILR will not be applied retrospectively to those who arrived under the five-year rule. Instead, my constituents are told that they must now earn their right to settle by attaining a minimum income level and proving their worth through volunteering. Numerous individuals have been in touch to tell me how, upon their arrival in the UK, they spent time to complete degrees, including master’s degrees, and on-the-job training to secure their places in valuable sectors such as science, innovation and our NHS. Now, they are unsure if they can stay or if they can trust that even an extended ILR term will ultimately ensure their settlement. Others with jobs in areas such as adult social care putting in long, unsociable hours doing invaluable work in to ensure that they are on track to settled status do not have the time to further prove themselves by volunteering. Women are particularly disadvantaged—a fact the Government are yet to acknowledge. Whether it is due to limited access to skills, the gender pay gap, greater caring responsibilities or taking maternity leave, they too fear that they will not meet the Government’s standards to earn their settlement. The Government’s planned changes to the immigration and settlement system are wrong, and treat with contempt the countless people who came to this country fairly and planned their lives around the rules at the time. At the very least, I urge the Government to treat those people with the respect they deserve. Will the Minister now rule out, once and for all, any retrospective application of changes to ILR and the addition of any new requirements to those already on the path to settled status?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  It a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the petitioners on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her excellent speech introducing it. We have already heard some great speeches on the benefits of including play in key stage 1 education. We have a wealth of academic evidence on the subject that makes a compelling case—for example, the finding that children’s learning through play produces a 90% retention rate, compared with just 30% through reading and watching. Arguably even more persuasive are the testimonies of parents who stress just how vital play is in their children’s lives and how important it is for play to be properly incorporated into their learning. I want to add that play is fun, and children deserve to have fun in school. Hopefully, it will help them to like and enjoy school, and learn better throughout their school life. Becky from my constituency is a parent of two young children and a teacher at Ely St John’s community primary school. She contacted me recently to stress the importance of play-based learning in key stage 1. She wrote: “I am confident that this approach is not only effective but also essential for young children’s learning and well-being.” She has found already that the children are thriving and that feedback from parents has been very positive. However, she also wrote of her disappointment that she thought hers was the only school in the area able to offer this approach to children. In her opinion, the pressure is coming from the curriculum and from Ofsted. A further pressing concern, as we have heard, is the Government’s strategy on SEND. The upcoming White Paper is expected to call for greater inclusion in mainstream education, yet part of the reason for the strain on local authorities dealing with SEND has been the lack of resources among mainstream schools already under pressure. As teachers like Becky recognise, without the necessary resources, schools feel the pressure from Ofsted to just stick to the basics of the curriculum. We want our schools to be inclusive, to recognise and accommodate the differences in how each child learns, and to emphasise the importance of nurturing natural curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. Adopting a play-based learning approach in key stage 1, and giving each child the space to develop and engage with their education on their own terms, is crucial for that. If the Government are willing to listen to those who know that from experience, the schools White Paper could truly be a turning point; if they are not, serious questions for the future of our children, our schools and proper provision of SEND support will remain. Can the Minister provide details on how the Government are engaging with experts, teachers and parents on play-based learning for key stage 1 children? What consideration is being given to its inclusion in the upcoming schools White Paper?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. When we set up something to deal with an initial crisis, it is really important that we do not take it away too quickly when the crisis may be over but the economy, as the hon. Member said, still has not bounced back. After facing the turmoil of the pandemic, small businesses, many of whose directors were also unable to claim financial support, have been afforded little by way of meaningful relief, all the while barely affording to cover their costs. Those small businesses contribute so much to our local economies and communities as much valued hubs. I see that time and again in the towns and villages across my constituency. One of my constituents suffered particularly badly. He ran a specialist travel business whose income inevitably collapsed during covid. He got no support—he was actually told by a local Conservative that they saw “no point in supporting those whose jobs won’t exist”. He had had hope because Labour in opposition criticised the Conservatives’ lack of support for the 3.8 million, but now he feels “disheartened and abandoned” in what he describes as the “tumbleweed” since Labour came to power. Through determination and hard work, he has rebuilt his business, but he wants to ensure that future self-employed generations do not suffer what he calls the same nightmare. The pandemic has done deep and lasting damage, but we must recognise that simply learning a lesson does not go far enough. It is not too late for the Government to fill the gaps in pandemic financial support, relieve businesses of their burdens and provide meaningful support to those often financially vulnerable people who missed out unnecessarily. Will the Minister now recognise that covid-19 financial relief failed to provide fair and even support, and take steps to ease the ongoing burdens faced as a result?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) on securing the debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for it. As we approach the six-year anniversary of the first lockdown, I am sure that many colleagues will agree that the time of face masks, social distancing and self-isolation feels so very long ago. However, for millions of individuals and countless businesses, it has been an even more arduous six years. As we have heard, research now suggests that about 3.8 million UK taxpayers were excluded from any support and did not enjoy the security that so many of the rest of us did. As we reflect on the ongoing fallout of the pandemic, it is vital that we take on lessons learnt, but the matter of groups excluded from financial support during the pandemic is not one we have learnt about only in retrospect. Issues were raised at the time—in real time—and the failure to listen and act is one that any Government must recognise and make efforts to rectify. We all understood why the initial schemes were targeted to support the majority of people—employees and established self-employed people—but we waited in vain for the then Conservative Government to provide support schemes for the other 3.8 million people. One outstanding issue, as we have heard, was the unnecessarily rigid criteria for the self-employed income support scheme. The glaring issue was the exclusion of the recently self-employed, as entitlement required a tax return from the year 2018-19. That, combined with the 50% income rule, which hon. Members have mentioned, prevented many people from getting any help. We have heard too about women who may have kept their businesses ticking over for a few years while they were on a maternity break or caring for someone, who found that their support was based on a low-income year rather than more representative years. Many small businesses were forced to take out bounce back loans. The Government have estimated that many such loans will not be recoverable because many businesses were forced to close. However, those that have clung on are still working to pay the loans off—all while working in an environment of spiralling energy costs and a business rates system that still does not work properly. I visited one such business in my constituency only last week. To manage current costs, the owners have reduced staff and taken on more of the work themselves. They have run through the figures for next year, and the expected rise in business rates plus their covid loan repayments mean that they are considering selling up or closing the business.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Science and Discovery Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing the debate and on his excellent opening speech. Indeed, his speech and all the speeches we have heard today have been really enthusiastic, and that is the whole point of these science centres: to generate enthusiasm. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about how his enthusiasm for astronomy ended up with his becoming a vet, so we do not know precisely where that young person will end up, but giving them that enthusiasm gets them exploring and thinking about STEM and maybe, ultimately, what career they might do. The Liberal Democrats believe that curiosity and engagement in STEM subjects should be encouraged from a very early age. We all know that science, technology and engineering will forge the future of this country, by generating advanced technologies, rethinking national infrastructure and making strides in new medical treatments, yet we face a serious shortage in STEM skills. Science and discovery centres play a central role in engaging millions of young people around the country every year, and lighting that spark of enthusiasm could hopefully form the foundation of their future careers. I agree that the Centre for Alternative Technology is a fantastic place, and it gives many examples of how we can all live more sustainably through things we can easily do in our own homes. As we heard earlier, it is very good that this debate has found a Minister to respond, because, like many people, I was shocked that there does not appear to be a Department wanting responsibility for these wonderful places. I suggest that DSIT grabs it with both hands, before somebody else does. I am proud to host, within my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire, Cambridge Regional College, Cambridge science park and the Cambridge science centre. Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, I do not have a university in my constituency, but I have three around it; the science park hosts many of their spin-outs, and the science centre is what is encouraging young people to study STEM subjects, either into apprenticeships or through to university. Cambridge science centre will soon begin its “building a better future” programme, which will engage young people in STEM by considering real-world problems that our communities face into the future—things such as house building, energy, transport and green technologies. They are all critical to the lives of young people, and it is exciting to consider the potential of science centres in building local skills to tackle issues within our area. However, Cambridge science centre told me that it has serious concerns over, in its words, “the growing chasm existing between innovation in STEM sectors and younger people”. It wants to play a key role in making sure that our young people know what is going on in STEM, with all the new developments—and there are some exciting, cutting-edge ones in my constituency—but it needs money and support to do that. Science and discovery centres are clearly a national asset, with an important role to play in growing our STEM skills base, investing in national renewal and rebuilding our reputation as a leader in science and innovation. As we have heard, they are also important local assets, connected to the local industries and skills needs of the area, and able to mobilise the enthusiasm of local young people for STEM towards tackling the problems facing their communities into the future. I hope that the Minister can give us an update on which Department will be responsible for the science centres, and for developing a coherent strategy with funding. Will the Minister agree to fully engage with science centres across the country on a plan to ensure that the education and engagement of young people keeps up with the pace of change in science, technology and engineering?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this debate and thank him for his hard work as chair of the APPG. I want to pay tribute to Brainkind Fen House in my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire for its incredible work to support people with acquired brain injuries. It provides a safe and secure space for patients, with rehabilitation and support so that people can thrive after brain injury. In preparing for this debate, it shared with me the story of my constituent Florence, which I want to share today. Florence gave birth to twins, which should have been a very special time in her life. Unfortunately, just two weeks later, she suffered a stroke resulting in a brain injury. Her ability to speak became severely impaired. She found it difficult to walk or use her hands. Let us imagine being a new mother and suddenly finding that our body will not let us care for our babies. Florence went to Brainkind Fen House and after just five months of rehabilitation with its clinicians, she regained the use of her hands so she can now change and bathe her babies. Her speech recovered and she is able to walk again. I cannot do her story justice on my own, so I will quote her directly: “I felt helpless. My whole world had crumbled. But Brainkind offered so much support. They made me realise I’m not alone. The staff rallied round, organising donations of toys and clothes for my children so we could spend time together. Then, as I began to recover, they took me shopping so I could buy things for my children for the first time.” Florence’s story is a special one, showing us the vital role that specialists play in ensuring that an acquired brain injury is not the end, and that there can be light at the end of the tunnel. I was also privileged to meet an individual at an event at Parliament this week; the event was on a different subject, but she wanted to talk about acquired brain injuries because, at the age of 16, her brother suffered an injury and was almost a completely different person afterwards—something we have heard from others. Two things she said stood out. She said it was almost as though he had gone through a “factory reset,” and she had to mourn the brother she once knew and bond with the brother she now had, because they were two different people. She said, “His smile is different”. Everyone she spoke to did not notice any difference, but she did. His facial muscles moved differently, and as someone who had known him all his life, she could spot that when others could not. That story shows the pain these injuries can cause to a person’s loved ones. In this case, it caused a sense of grief; her brother had not passed away, but the brother she knew was gone, and she now had someone else to bond with. Brainkind Fen House gives strong support to brain-damaged people and a range of therapies to help them recover. There are strict criteria for continued NHS funding after the first few months, which means that small improvements are not always sufficient to secure funding for ongoing rehabilitation. The person is then moved into long-term care, with little, if any, further support. I have another case in which the person was responding to rehab, but the funding was coming to an end. After significant advocacy from their parents and the staff at Fen House, the funding was extended. That person is now waiting for a suitable flat, and his parents are fighting for a care package to support him in independent living. People should not have to fight for this support, and it should not need an MP’s intervention. We need a clearer, fairer process to ensure that people get the rehab support they need, and then the appropriate housing and care support as they move back into the community. I ask the Government to publish the acquired brain injury action plan as soon as possible, and to include in it the right for those who have suffered to have access to a named GP. That must go hand in hand with better social care for disabled people and free personal care. The stories I have shared highlight that more needs to be done, not only to help patients but to understand the impact on their friends and family. I hope this debate highlights the need for urgent action, so we can do more to support patients and their loved ones.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Ely: Railway Upgrade · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. One of the big advantages of the scheme would be twice as many trains on that route. That would be a huge benefit to everyone along the route. This is a truly national project, with national benefits. Since coming to office, the Government have been very keen to stress their growth credentials and they continue to search for a silver bullet to grow the economy quickly. Ely junction is not a magic bullet, but it can certainly help the Government on their quest. As I said, the scheme has a £4.89 cost to benefit ratio, returning £4.89 in benefits for every £1 invested. But that does not even reflect the full picture and the growth opportunities centred on Cambridge, Peterborough and, as we have heard, the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, so the real economic impact is likely to be significantly higher. Let me give some examples. The Rail Freight Group says that the rail route through Ely is underperforming due to its capacity limitations, and that the upgrade would be an essential first step to achieving a positive outcome for the UK economy. Freightliner says that the junction is one of the principal bottlenecks restricting growth of rail freight volumes from Felixstowe, and that the wider economic benefits will be felt as far as Scotland, the midlands, Wales and the north of England. As I said, this is a truly national project, with national benefits. England’s Economic Heartland has spoken to the freight industry, which has said that there is significant unmet demand for increased levels of rail freight. Maritime Transport said that it has identified a strong demand from both importers and exporters, which see the environmental benefits in their supply chains using rail over road. The Eastern Powerhouse, chambers of commerce and the east of England all-party parliamentary group have all backed the scheme too. The rail industry, rail operators, the maritime sector, the freight sector, local government and elected parliamentarians are all backing the scheme—a remarkably strong show of support. We also have hundreds of commuters waiting at stations for trains delayed by faults around Ely junction. At a time when the Government need to do more to encourage people to use public transport, approving the Ely junction upgrade would stimulate an extra 277,000 rail passenger journeys per year. Network Rail estimates that the proposals would see the doubling of passenger services on the Ely-to-King’s Lynn and Ipswich-to-Peterborough routes. The logic is simple: if we deliver more rail services, passengers will have not only more choice, but more opportunities to travel by rail. A higher-quality, higher-frequency passenger rail service can only encourage more passengers to choose public transport over car journeys, which benefits commuters and the environment. In previous written questions, I have asked the Department to name a specific sum that it would cost to provide Network Rail with the funding needed to undertake detailed planning for the Ely junction upgrade, but I have not yet received an answer. Can the Minister provide the sum today? Stakeholders are very frustrated that we have to wait until the next spending review in the eternal hope that the scheme will finally be progressed. My constituents have been waiting for 25 years for this project. They, and businesses, have gone through reviews, reports, summaries and investigations, and countless proposals have been produced. The business case has been made. We know the arguments and the benefits. We also know the financial situation that the Government find themselves in. What my constituents, businesses, and the rail, freight and maritime sectors need is clarity and a clear route forward. Will the Minister commit to asking the Rail Minister for a meeting with Network Rail and me to agree how we can deliver the Ely junction upgrade? At least then we could all be on the same platform, going in the same direction. I am sure that, deep down, the Government support the scheme; I am confident that they understand its merits. But the Minister needs to understand that the scheme has been in varying states of limbo for 25 years now. The Minister has heard in this debate the support for the scheme from across the House, which shows how important the scheme is to our region. It is time to set Ely junction on track to fulfil the potential we all know it has, and to deliver economic growth for Ely and East Cambridgeshire—and for all the UK.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Ely: Railway Upgrade · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. This gives us a real opportunity to sort out quite a lot of network issues in Cambridgeshire. I would be delighted if we could resolve them all; that would make a significant difference to rail in the area. The scheme would support sustainable, long-term economic growth. The upgraded junction would increase resilience in our transport network. There is currently a single lead junction, which means that a failure in that section has the effect of practically stopping all rail traffic. Without the upgrade, if there is a failure, the other Peterborough track keeps working for a while, but the other lines, including Ely’s, quickly fill up with stuck trains. Ely station is beautiful and the staff are great, but it is still frustrating to see the notices of delayed and cancelled trains building up as we wait for our own delayed train. Progressing the upgrade would allow us to strengthen the resilience of this network and mitigate the risk of any future bottlenecks. The environmental benefit of the Ely junction upgrade is clear. Through upgrading rail freight capacity and increasing the number of journeys possible, we can take tens of thousands of freight journeys off the road and put them on to rail. Fewer lorry journeys mean not only less congestion, but fewer road accidents. Provisional figures for the first six months of this year show that there were 4,116 road casualties who were occupants of lorries—almost one accident involving a lorry every hour—and I am sad to say that 42 of those were fatal. Taking these lorries off the road can only improve safety, given the clear danger to their drivers and other road users.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Ely: Railway Upgrade · Hansard source

  More

  I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a district councillor for East Cambridgeshire. The outline business case for the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme shows that for every £1 invested, there will be a return of £4.89—so you may wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, why we need a half-hour debate on what is so obviously a great scheme. Yet successive Governments have failed to deliver the scheme. There have been feasibility studies, consultations and task groups aplenty; funding was even promised just in time for the 2024 election, but we could all see at the time that the many promised schemes totalled far more than the money available, so I was not surprised when the incoming Labour Government acknowledged that the outgoing Conservative Government had not put funding in place for the project. The sum of £500 million is a lot of money to find, but it would deliver almost a quarter of a billion pounds in return, so I hope that the Government will commit to the funding soon. The outline business case was submitted in March 2022, after which progress was held at a red signal, where it remains to this day. I was disappointed that the Ely junction project was not one of the projects progressed in the spending review, but I have been heartened by the Department of Transport’s responses to my written questions, in which Ministers recognise the undeniable benefits of the scheme. The Ely area capacity enhancement scheme would upgrade the railway to allow more trains to run through Ely, to improve connectivity and reliability for passenger services and to meet the demand for more rail freight between the port of Felixstowe, the west midlands and the north.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Ely: Railway Upgrade · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that Haughley junction is also very important to making the scheme deliver its full potential. Fewer lorries will also help to protect the crumbling roads in my constituency, which struggle with the wear and tear placed by heavy goods vehicles travelling along them every day. That could save considerable expense in road maintenance and extend the life of those roads. The project is estimated to take 98,000 lorry journeys off the road every single year, and to cut car journeys by 376,000. When that is added to the capacity for more passenger rail services, it is estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 1.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over 60 years, and reduce congestion on our roads by 5.6 million hours every year. In the context of the urgent need to protect our environment and planet, that is a substantial impact. England’s Economic Heartland and Transport East co-produced the “Keeping Trade on Track” document, estimating the upgrade would result in an extra six freight trains per day to and from the port of Felixstowe—the equivalent of over 450 lorries, stretching over six miles every single day. For people who know the area, that is the distance on the A14 from the Quy junction to the east of Cambridge to the M11 junction to the west of Cambridge. I have to say that some mornings it feels like all 450 of them are on that stretch of road in front of me. On that basis alone, the scheme has strong grounds for approval, but the name of the scheme does not give the full context to show just how important it is not only to Ely, but to the whole UK. If approved, it allows for an additional 2,900 extra freight services operating to and from Felixstowe port every year. Those freight services do not stop in Cambridgeshire. Some 70% of containers go from Felixstowe to the midlands, the north of England and Scotland—and, of course, the other way, too. And that is not all. Expanding capacity through the Ely junction upgrade will free up much needed capacity elsewhere. Currently, freight trains from Felixstowe use the great eastern main line and north London line to access routes to the north and midlands, using the growing Thames ports. If Ely junction is approved, the demand for Felixstowe freight trains to use the north London line would be reduced and those would then be available to the London ports. Ely is mentioned in the strategies of Transport for London, Transport for the North and Midlands Connect, showing the benefit the scheme can have for those areas. Transport for the North said that its region will benefit by having access to a rail freight terminal that could result in extra freight trains from the south-east to the north. Transport East has told me it is keen to see improvements, as the project would benefit Norfolk, Suffolk and Greater Essex. England’s Economic Heartland chairs the Ely taskforce, a group of local authorities, industry groups and rail operators, all of whom are desperate to have a clear pathway to the upgrade finally being progressed.