Charlotte Cane MP: speeches

116 published records · newest first.

Speeches

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.
3 Dec 2025 · Ely: Railway Upgrade · Hansard source
More
It is wonderful that East West Rail is coming, but my constituents need to be able to get to it in Cambridge, which is why we need the upgrade at Ely junction.
3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an East Cambridgeshire district councillor. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. I thank all hon. Members for their strong contributions to the debate. It is good to see cross-party recognition that the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor will play a critical role in the years ahead in growing the UK economy. To achieve that growth sustainably, we need it to go hand in hand with investment in housing and vital infrastructure. First and foremost, we need a land-use framework in place. The consultation closed in April, but there has still not been a Government response. We cannot plan for housing and the infrastructure needed without that framework, because it is that framework that will ensure we have allocated enough land to nature and to all our needs. Will the Minister tell us when the land-use framework will be published? The Liberal Democrats believe that growth without corresponding investment in local infrastructure risks leaving communities behind.
3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source
More
I agree that we need to have the wider transport network, and I will touch on that later in my remarks. Local communities must have a genuine voice in infrastructure decisions that affect them. As we have heard, big projects like East West Rail benefit them in some way, but what would really help communities like Bicester, Cottenham and Milton is investment in proper local bus routes and road upgrades, which would provide an obvious benefit and improvement in people’s everyday lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, connecting people to each other and to work, education and leisure is vital. At the same time as we are going for growth between Oxford and Cambridge, there needs to be investment to ensure that we have good water supplies; waste water and sewage are managed so our rivers are clean; people can get to see a GP; electricity grid capacity is increased; and people can easily access more active travel and public transport options. My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) was right to highlight the need for GPs, schools and shops to grow as our communities grow. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for the rail project along the A40 corridor to Witney and Carterton, for electrification from Didcot to Oxford and along the whole of East West Rail, and for the redevelopment of Oxford station to be finally completed, along with other important rail improvements. We know that rail is the key to growth, and that it can bring opportunities if we invest in it properly. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for supporting my calls for the Ely junction upgrade but, in this speech, I am going to make a different request for rail investment. I would like East West Rail to extend at least to Newmarket, allowing for more frequent, reliable trains through Dullingham into Cambridge and beyond. I welcome plans for a Cambridge east station, and ask that the current Waterbeach station is kept open. Between the new station in north Waterbeach, the current Waterbeach station, Cambridge North, Cambridge, the soon to be completed Cambridge south and the proposed Cambridge east, we have the makings of a metro-style transport network that could help reduce congestion and improve air quality in Cambridge. When undertaking such significant rail projects, it is vital that we ensure that they actually deliver tangible benefits for the communities they serve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) told us, the London Road level crossing in Bicester is due to be closed by East West Rail. While the project will indeed have wide benefits, we should do something to support the local community and ensure that that infrastructure benefits them. For example, the Government could commit to a motorised underpass to keep the town connected, and I hope the Minister will do so today. Recent research revealed that Brexit is costing taxpayers £90 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Let us think how much of that we could invest in the ambitious businesses in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor if we joined the single market. The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about the knowledge clusters, which would be so much stronger with Europe-wide participation. Since being elected, I have had the pleasure of visiting many exciting and dynamic companies in Ely and East Cambridgeshire, including Xampla, Pragmatic, Hologic UK, the Royal Society of Chemistry and Cambridge Future Tech, all of which want to see the full potential of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor unlocked for new investors and for businesses to join that thriving ecosystem. I am proud to be an MP for such a dynamic, innovative and flourishing region. I am fascinated every time I visit one of those local businesses, and I am struck by their ambition not just for themselves but for our region and our country. They need the Government to follow through on their ambition, and work with them and local communities to deliver a sustainable Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source
More
I actually think we need both. Lifting the two-child benefit cap is really important. I was also disappointed that there was no help for farmers in the Budget. The Chancellor is maintaining the inheritance tax, which will destroy many family farms in Ely and East Cambridgeshire and across the country. The Government have abolished the fruit and veg aid scheme from this month, removing much-needed support with the capital costs of increasing productivity and accelerating innovation. The Chancellor increases farmers’ costs, the Home Office restricts their seasonal workforce and the Department for Business and Trade signs trade deals that allow unfair competition, but the Chancellor did not give even a small gesture of help to farmers in this Budget. I visited Christmas fairs this weekend in churches that need hundreds of thousands of pounds’ worth of repairs. People told me of their worries about the listed places of worship grant scheme, which is currently funded only to March 2026. That grant covers the VAT costs of repairs, meaning that fundraisers only have to raise the cost of those repairs, not the additional cost of VAT. I hope the Chancellor will confirm sufficient funding for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for that scheme to be continued and increased back to previous levels. We know that we are struggling to provide good-quality social care. This impacts too many elderly, disabled and vulnerable people who are not getting the support they need. It also impacts kinship carers, many of whom are disgracefully hounded to repay so-called overpayments of carer’s allowance, yet this Budget does not invest in social care. I met publicans in Ely and East Cambridgeshire last week who were very disappointed that there was no cut in VAT for hospitality businesses in the Budget. As their costs go up, for staff, supplies, fuel, duty—you name it, their costs go up—they have to increase their prices, and then they have to add 20% VAT to those increases, so a meal costed at £25 will have another £5 of VAT added to it. Reducing the rate of VAT would reduce those businesses’ prices and encourage more customers. These are all matters that people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire have asked me to raise in this debate in just the few days since the Budget. They are things that make businesses and individuals struggle with inflation and the cost of living, and the Budget has not addressed them. The Chancellor told us of the difficult choices she had to make in this Budget, but it did not tackle the main problem, which she herself has identified: our relationship with Europe. If she negotiated a new customs union with Europe, as well as a youth mobility scheme to create new opportunities for our young people, she could fill the £90 billion-a-year black hole left by the Conservatives’ catastrophic Brexit deal. People are going to have to pay higher taxes for less public services because the Chancellor and this Government will not cure that £90 billion Brexit black hole.
1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source
More
I, too, welcome the Chancellor’s decision to remove the two-child benefit cap. I was proud to stand on that policy from the Lib Dem manifesto, because it will lift at least 350,000 children out of poverty. It will go a long way to helping families with the cost of living, but it is no good if the Chancellor gives with one hand and takes away with the other. My local councillors are still waiting to hear how the new crisis and resilience fund will work and how much funding they will receive. It will replace the household support fund, from which they currently pay for the school holiday food vouchers. The new scheme should be in place from April 2026, so the councils are now finalising their budgets for that financial year without knowing if they have the funding needed to continue with the vouchers. I hope the Chancellor will soon confirm to councils that the funding will be provided and increased in line with demand.
17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source
More
I agree that the asylum system is broken, and I welcome the commitment to safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum, but there is much in these measures that I think is cruel, impractical and will not work. One example is making people have reviews every two-and-a-half years for 20 years. It is cruel because those people are not going to be able to get a sense of security and safety, and it is counterproductive because they will struggle to get good-quality, secure and high-paid jobs and contribute to our society. It will not work. We know that the Home Office cannot cope with what it currently has to do. My casework is full of people whose papers get lost when they are trying for immigration status. The digital right-to-work system does not work properly, and we have a backlog of asylum claims. How is the Home Secretary going to make this work?
13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source
More
I also have a chalk stream in my constituency, the River Snail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we give these chalk streams statutory protection through measures such as those set out in Lords amendment 38, rather than relying on national planning frameworks that can be changed without referring back to this place?
11 Nov 2025 · Support for Dyslexic Pupils · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on securing this debate. I thank them for their excellent speeches, and I echo their calls for a national dyslexia strategy. Within six weeks of starting primary school, pupils are tested on their literacy, communication and maths ability, and they are pushed to meet the expected standard in phonics by the end of year 1. Those who fail are pushed in year 2 and re-tested at the end of that year. This pressure, and thoughtless comments by staff or pupils, can make a dyslexic child feel stupid or thick because they struggle to read and write, but they are not; they are different. My constituent Neil contacted me earlier this year about improving SEND provision, giving the example of his dyslexic 15-year-old daughter, Lucy. He told me that Lucy will leave school with, “low self-esteem and low expectations, because the world will judge her based on her grades. She will assume that there are just things that are not within her capability.” That is shocking. Our education system must do better than that. If a child is not diagnosed at an early stage, support is not put in place and students struggle further—albeit we know from Lucy’s experience that even pupils who have been diagnosed with dyslexia do not always get the support they need. They then go on to sit their exams, often remaining undiagnosed, and as we have heard, only one in five dyslexic pupils achieves grade 5 or above in English and maths. As they move into sixth form, they are then further impeded in their sixth form studies because they have to resit English and/or maths. Neil told me this morning that Lucy is sitting two mock exams today, and that she was extremely distressed at the mere thought of going through such a stressful process. I am sure colleagues will join me in wishing Lucy the best of luck today, and in all her exams. Does the Minister agree that more should be done to give dyslexic pupils a fair chance in the assessment process? Will she update us on the steps the Government will take to improve reasonable adjustments for pupils in exams? If we make early diagnosis the norm, we will not only give children more support in the classroom but boost their educational attainment. Teachers too need support to be able to spot the signs of dyslexia from an early stage, and to support dyslexic pupils in their classroom. Neil told me that his wife spends a lot of time emailing Lucy’s teachers to give them constructive feedback on how a dyslexic student learns. No parent should be expected to bear that additional burden, nor should teachers for that matter. What will the Government do to support teachers and better equip them to support dyslexic pupils? I discovered that the Government do not publish data on levels of dyslexia among school-age children, so we do not actually know the full scale of the problem. Will the Minister commit today to exploring this option further? We have heard that many dyslexic people lead successful lives—famously, Richard Branson, Jamie Oliver and Zoë Wanamaker, to name but three—but too many do not. Somewhere between three and five in 10 prisoners have dyslexia, compared with one in 10 in the population as a whole. We see from the many entrepreneurs and brilliant artists that dyslexic people have valuable skills to share. We need an education system that identifies dyslexic pupils early and supports their learning, so that they all have the chance to succeed in life.
5 Nov 2025 · Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an affiliate member of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. Cambridgeshire Scouts’ Archaeology Squad in my constituency gives children a chance to get involved in archaeology and holds an archaeology day at Ely Museum. Does he agree that getting young people involved in archaeology in that way is vital for its future?
4 Nov 2025 · Official Development Assistance Reductions · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. As we have heard today, Britain’s aid budget supports international development in countries facing extreme poverty and conflict. We can see it every night on our television screens—in Gaza and Sudan, to name but two places. The aid budget also helps people in developing countries to address the impact of climate change. We have recently seen the devastating damage wreaked by Hurricane Melissa. Communities will need our help to rebuild their roads and housing and get clean water back again. Those are the sorts of things that our aid budget funds. I am proud that in coalition the Liberal Democrats increased the aid budget to 0.7% of GNI. It is shocking that the Conservatives very quickly reduced it to 0.5%, and I cannot believe that Labour is now planning to reduce it further to just 0.3%. By 2027, as we have heard, that will be £6 billion less than it would have been even at 0.5%. That means £6 billion less for maternity care, vaccination programmes, food aid, education, clean water, flood protection and more. People at the sharp end of the climate crisis and in extreme poverty will die because of the cuts. We should not shy away from that. At 0.3%, ODA stands at the lowest proportion of gross national income since 1999. That represents an abdication of our moral responsibility on the global stage. Of course, we have to strengthen our national security and defence in uncertain times, but not at the cost of withdrawing support from some of the poorest communities around the world. Does the Minister accept that not only is proper investment in ODA critical to tackling poverty, but it can help prevent conflict abroad? Strengthening national security and stability and addressing poverty and development abroad is not a binary choice: they are intertwined; they are essential for each other. The Government’s decision represents a further retreat into insular attitudes when we need to be doing what we can to tackle poverty and security threats abroad as well as here at home. For decades, international aid has been vital in growing our nation’s stature through soft power and building a hard-won reputation for supporting the poorest countries in the world. In opposition, the Labour party agreed with us, so it is regrettable that it abandoned those values upon entering government. I hope that the Government will take the contributions to this debate in the spirit that they are intended. We want the UK to be seen as the gold standard for promoting international development, just like the Labour party said in opposition. This cut is a risk to international security and plays into the hands of Russia and China, so I hope that the Minister will reflect on the message of this debate and explore alternative ways of meeting defence spending commitments, rather than this ill-thought-out cut. In the long term, will the Government consider increasing taxation on social media giants and tech firms to fund defence and increase official development assistance back to 0.7% of GNI? We live in dangerous times, and we are not alone in that. Now is the time to step up on the global stage, not step back.
3 Nov 2025 · Women in the Armed Forces: Defence Committee Recommendations · Hansard source
More
15. Whether he is taking steps to implement the outstanding recommendations of the Defence Committee’s report entitled “Protecting those who protect us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”, published on 25 July 2021.
3 Nov 2025 · Women in the Armed Forces: Defence Committee Recommendations · Hansard source
More
Our servicewomen urgently need investment in female-specific tactical equipment, particularly bras and body armour. What steps is the Minister taking to provide funding for research, development and implementation of kit for the female anatomy and to ensure that fitting services and task-appropriate provision are standard across the forces?
29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source
More
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Students in my constituency are served by Impington Village college for the IB. They are deeply unhappy that the college received a letter from the Department announcing the change with no warning or consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government decision has caused an unacceptable amount of stress for pupils, parents and staff, and that how the Government are acting is the complete opposite—

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →