Charlotte Cane MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2025 · Neurodivergent People: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to hear that example. One thing I am calling for is proper structured apprenticeships.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Neurodivergent People: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who spoke in the debate. It is good to see that across parties we are all agreed on this issue. We have heard about the many barriers that people face, but we have also heard about some really good employers and opportunities. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to build on the Buckland review and to work with the independent panel to come up with ways to overcome the barriers. I really welcome the personalised jobs and careers support, which can make a huge difference, and I am grateful that the Minister recognises the problems with Access to Work and is trying to address them, but mostly— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 9 Sept 2025 · Neurodivergent People: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know about self-employment being “better”, but it is certainly important, because different things will work best for different people. Neurodivergent people need the same full choice as non-neurodivergent people.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Neurodivergent People: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of supporting neurodivergent people into employment. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am pleased to have secured this debate on an important topic and I want to acknowledge that neurodiversity has a huge range of impacts. Many neurodivergent people need no support with employment, while those with certain learning disabilities need significant support.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Neurodivergent People: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely true, and I have seen people trying to deal with filling in the forms. These people are likely to be dyslexic or have similar conditions, so they will inevitably have real trouble with those forms. A scheme designed to grow inclusion and increase support should really do better than that. I hope the Minister will provide a clear update on what action the Government are taking to clear the backlog and what more can be done to make its responses faster and speed up payments. Specialist apprenticeships, as we have heard, would go a long way to helping neurodivergent people into work, with expert support on a daily basis through their employment. That would provide tailored, individual work plans that take their condition into account, allowing them to get work experience while having space to adapt.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Neurodivergent People: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member that helping people to stay and flourish in employment, once they are in employment, is hugely important.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate and for an excellent and heartfelt speech. I want to share the story of my constituent Lisa—I thank her for allowing me to do so—who adopted her children when they were four and six years old. After that, they were able to access what was then called the adoption support fund and specialist occupational therapy, which Lisa called a lifesaver for them. Since then, Lisa’s eldest child has accessed various support options, but the situation has proven more complex with her younger child. In Lisa’s own words, “She did her best to hold things together at school for many years—masking anxiety, struggling with sensory issues, and living in a near-constant state of hypervigilance. At home, however, we saw the cost: meltdowns, self-harming, substance abuse and social withdrawal. In her mid-teens, she was diagnosed with ADHD, complex PTSD, OCD, depression and anxiety. And yet, she has not had access to therapy for over four years.” Recently, a tailored, long-term development approach was finally designed for their child, with plans to deliver it over a three-year period of careful and considered therapeutic intervention, but a few weeks ago Lisa received a devastating blow: the specialist provider, who in their experience was the only one who truly understood their daughter, would no longer be used by the local authority because of the cost. It is impossible not to link that decision to the fund’s cap being lowered by 40%. They are now waiting to hear about possible alternatives from the local authority—plunged back into uncertainty just as her daughter starts her A-level studies. Lisa played her part. They have attended specialist training, driven hundreds of miles for therapy, reduced working hours and given everything to advocate for their children, but there is only so much they can do without Government action. The Government must do the right thing for Lisa, her daughter and families like hers across the UK by reversing the cuts to the individual funding and confirming long-term funding.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last Sunday I visited the River Snail, a chalk stream in my constituency, and was horrified to see not a river but a dried and cracked river bed. Our chalk streams, which are a really important part of our biodiversity, are under increasing threat from climate change. Could the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on how we will protect our precious chalk streams?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I am a sitting member of East Cambridgeshire district council. We can surely all agree that power should be devolved as close to communities as possible, because they know what is best for their areas far better than anyone else. Strong and empowered parish, city and principal councils that are accountable to residents help our democracy and make better decisions for the communities that they serve. Sadly, the Bill does not deliver that. Although the Government’s intention of devolution by default is commendable, the Bill represents centralisation by choice. Instead of providing for genuine decentralisation of power to communities, it empowers regional mayors at the expense of local councils, and the Secretary of State. Local councillors have expressed concerns, including about the uncertainty that these proposals have caused at a time when councils are trying to set their budgets amid the wider crisis in local government funding, and fears that bigger authorities, particularly in rural communities, will lead to weaker connections with the areas they serve. The Bill has caused considerable uncertainty locally because it comes at a time when integrated care boards are being changed, which means that relationships with key health partners are being doubly unsettled. Councillors in my constituency fear that because the Bill has been drafted hastily, it will not fix some obvious anomalies in our existing boundaries, such as what some people have called the “Newmarket bite”. The town of Newmarket is almost completely surrounded by my constituency. Many of my residents look to Newmarket for some of their services, and many in Newmarket look to Cambridgeshire for some of theirs. Newmarket and the surrounding villages should have had the opportunity to choose between a Cambridgeshire-based and a Suffolk-based unitary. I am particularly concerned about the Bill’s provision to enable mayors of strategic authorities to appoint seven unelected commissioners to deliver specific areas of policy. We already have an established system for that very purpose. In most councils, we have an administration consisting of elected councillors, from which the leader of the council chooses a small group to form their cabinet. In other councils, we have committees that are responsible for oversight of policy areas. Like an earlier speaker, I am also worried about the Government’s plans to impose a leader and cabinet model on these authorities. East Cambridgeshire district council has kept the committee system because that is what our residents tell us they want. We cannot have a Minister telling us that we cannot run ourselves in the way our local community wants. Appointing commissioners rides roughshod over the current system of democratically elected councils by allowing mayors to nominate unelected commissioners to lead on policies. How can the public hold these commissioners to account, if not at the ballot box? Who will scrutinise their judgment calls? How can we improve the transparency of their decision making at a political level? The Bill is a missed opportunity to meaningfully decentralise power to our communities and make a fundamental shift in where power lies in this country. Where the Government are claiming to make devolution the default, they have introduced centralisation. These proposals weaken existing systems of accountability, and even in parts of the Bill where progress is made, such as on electoral reform, it tinkers at the edges. We urgently need a system where every vote counts, so we need proportional representation. True devolution comes as a result of grassroots consultation rooted in communities. Top-down attempts at devolution, such as this Bill, sadly end in being well wide of the mark. People in my constituency do not want to be forced into a unitary authority that is, on the one hand, too big to understand local needs and, on the other hand, too small to cover the areas where they work, spend leisure time and receive healthcare. They do not want decisions to be taken by appointed commissioners rather than elected councillors. They would value real devolution and a proper say in the changes they want. I urge the Government to reconsider this Bill so that it delivers the devolution in England that people want.