Clive Jones MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The rebuild at the Royal Berkshire hospital has been delayed twice: six years by the Conservatives and seven years by this Government. At Prime Minister’s questions, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked whether the Government were considering slashing the hospital building programme to fund the defence investment plan. He did not receive an answer. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement to the House to find out the Government’s intention to fund both the new hospital building programme and our national defence?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has outlined the potential benefits of changing default speed limits on urban and rural minor roads to 20 mph. What is the Department’s position on that, and will it be reflected in the next guidance for local transport authorities on setting local speed limits?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, sewage was spilt from the Arborfield treatment works 28 times last year, and in the last few days sewage has poured into the Emm brook. Given the numerous repeated sewage spillages in Wokingham and across the country, will the Minister back the Liberal Democrat proposals for a mutually owned public benefit model for water companies, focusing investment on the environment, customers and replacing and repairing infrastructure rather than on lining the pockets of water company shareholders and senior managers?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Too many abusers are escaping justice in family courts, and my constituents have suffered as a result. Kaleidoscopic UK in my constituency has long called for independent experts to help to spot and advise against the manipulative tactics used by abusers in family courts. When will the Minister commit to implementing independent domestic violence advisers in family courts?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Thames Water is drowning under £20 billion of debt and surviving only through emergency creditor funding. My constituents are deeply concerned by reports that Ofwat may allow Thames Water to avoid paying fines until 2030 as part of a rescue package. Will the Leader of the House make time for DEFRA Ministers to update the House on the Thames Water and Ofwat deal and the company’s future?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Cost of Energy: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Surelock McGill, based in my constituency, is a world leader in the manufacture of door locking systems. It recently acquired a casting foundry to ensure that its manufacturing process proudly remains entirely in the UK, but the foundry is struggling with ever-increasing energy costs. What will the Government do to support local businesses that are proud to contribute to the UK economy yet seem to be suffering as a result of their determination to keep manufacturing in the UK?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Cost of Energy: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  9. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of providing further support to businesses with the cost of energy.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Investment in the UK’s defence sector, especially defence SMEs, is desperately needed. What will the Government do to drive forward investment for defence procurement SMEs?

• 21 May 2026 · Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  It is so easy to make that mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke about the good work of lots of local organisations, but he has real concerns that council changes over the next few years will put the funding for the work of those organisations in jeopardy. Could the Minister tell us what she may be able to do about that? My hon. Friend also spoke about the need for IDVAs, as I and several others did. Is that something the Minister could support over the next year or so? The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) said that children’s voices are not heard in the family court system. How can we, as MPs, and the Minister make sure they are heard over the next few years? My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) spoke about domestic abuse training for everybody in the family courts. Is that something the Minister will champion over the next few years? The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) talked about how important it is to get it right and about the need for a cultural shift. I am sure the Minister has lots of ideas, and I know her predecessor did. It would be nice to hear about them. Finally, I thank the Minister for coming, and for confirming that the welfare of children must always be paramount. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.

• 21 May 2026 · Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. The family courts make some of the most important decisions that any institution can make. They determine where children will live, how they will maintain relationships with their parents, and how families rebuild their lives after separation. At their best, they provide protection, stability and justice, but far too many survivors of domestic abuse do not experience the family court as a place of safety. Instead, many describe it as a continuation of abuse through legal processes, repeated trauma and unsafe decision making. Today’s debate is vital because there is now substantial evidence from survivors, frontline organisations, legal professionals and independent reviews that domestic abuse is too often minimised, misunderstood or inadequately recognised in family court proceedings. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday business”, published in 2025, found evidence of domestic abuse in around 87% of the family court cases that it examined. Yet the report concluded that abuse was frequently not treated as an active safeguarding issue. How can that be right? That finding should concern everyone in this House. If abuse is present in the overwhelming majority of cases but is not consistently recognised in decisions about children and contact arrangements, there is clearly a systemic problem that requires urgent attention. It is important to understand the nature of domestic abuse in this context. Abuse is not always physical violence; it can involve coercive control, intimidation, economic abuse, emotional manipulation, stalking, harassment, and patterns of behaviour designed to dominate and undermine another person. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 rightly recognised coercive and controlling behaviour in law, yet many survivors continue to report that coercive control and post-separation abuse remain poorly understood in family court proceedings. For many perpetrators, separation does not end abuse. Instead, the family court can become another avenue of control through unnecessary litigation, manipulation of child contact arrangements and prolonged interaction with an abusive former partner.

• 21 May 2026 · Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I start by apologising to the Minister for not welcoming her to her new position. I am pleased that she reiterated the Government’s commitment to halving domestic abuse in 10 years, which I am sure we all want to see. I have a couple of questions that came up in the debate. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the lack of expertise in working with children with special needs. Will the Minister write to all of us who have contributed to the debate on what the Government might be able to do about that specifically? The hon. Member for Wokingham—

• 21 May 2026 · Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right: somebody should not be rewarded when they have been difficult for months and months—probably years—and then at the last minute change their mind to get a reduced sentence. The judge probably sees them as being helpful, but they have not been helpful for a long time. The hon. Member makes a really good point. Some have described the family courts process as very traumatising. We must recognise sophisticated tactics like DARVO—deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender—where perpetrators deny the abuse, attack the credibility of the survivor and then present themselves as the true victim. A survivor may therefore find themselves portrayed as hostile, manipulative or obstructive, and genuine attempts to protect children can be reframed by perpetrators as attempts to alienate a child from the other parent. That is one reason why specialist expertise in the courts is so important. In a child custody case, a constituent of mine was told by a judge to stop making reports of domestic abuse against the ex-partner as it had no relevance to the case, despite their being presented with police reports. The ex-partner also used manipulative DARVO tactics and eventually gained custody of the child. Intimidated by the process, my constituent’s experience highlights the urgent need for stronger protection and specialist expertise in court. I also want to address concerns surrounding the recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse. While many survivors and safeguarding organisations welcomed the reform, there is concern that some perpetrators may increasingly attempt to weaponise allegations against survivors by claiming that they themselves are the victims of abuse, or by claiming parental alienation in response to genuine safeguarding concerns. Domestic abuse specialists like Kaleidoscopic UK have long warned that allegations of so-called parental alienation can be used to discredit survivors and shift attention away from abuse allegations. The charity Right to Equality undertook a survey on child removals and found that 81% of mothers who had their child removed were accused of parental alienation. It is a strategy routinely weaponised by abusers and often backed by unregulated experts who have no place in the courtroom. These bogus allegations can often lead to a child being removed from a safe parent and transferred to an abusive one. That is precisely why independent domestic violence advisers and the newly created children’s domestic abuse advocates are needed as experts. They can help courts to distinguish genuine safeguarding concerns from manipulative litigation tactics and identify patterns of coercive and post-separation abuse that might otherwise be missed. At the centre of all of this is children. Children are not passive witnesses to domestic abuse. We know from extensive evidence that exposure to abuse and an environment of fear and instability can have profound, lifelong effects on emotional wellbeing, mental health, educational attainment and future relationships. The consequences of unsafe decisions in the family courts can be devastating. Women’s Aid has documented 67 child deaths over the last 30 years linked to abusive contact arrangements. We are not talking about abstract statistics, but children whose safety should have been paramount and families left with unimaginable grief. Every one of those cases demands that we ask difficult questions about whether the system is adequately equipped to identify risk and respond appropriately. We must also acknowledge the wider human cost of domestic abuse. Home Office data recorded 98 suspected suicides following domestic abuse in the year to March 2024. Behind each figure is a life lost and a family devastated. The statistics remind us that domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a serious public protection issue. I pay tribute to the work of survivor-led organisations such as Kaleidoscopic UK, whose representatives are in the Gallery. Its members have campaigned tirelessly for reform in this area, and support adults and children affected by domestic abuse. Many of those involved with Kaleidoscopic are themselves survivors of abuse and have first-hand experience of navigating the family court system. Policymakers and justice institutions should listen carefully to those experiences when considering how the family court system can better protect vulnerable families. I want to be clear that there are many dedicated professionals within the family justice system who are committed to safeguarding children and supporting families under immense pressure. This debate is not about criticising individuals; it is about asking whether the system as a whole is sufficiently equipped to deal with the complex realities of domestic abuse. I believe there is a strong case for the mandatory involvement of independent domestic violence advisers as specialist domestic abuse experts within the family court process. IDVAs understand patterns of coercive control, risk escalation, post-separation abuse, and the barriers that victims and children face in disclosing abuse. They possess specialist expertise that can help to identify risks that might otherwise be overlooked. At present, however, access to specialist domestic abuse expertise within the family courts is very inconsistent. That inconsistency can lead to inconsistent outcomes and an unacceptable postcode lottery for survivors and children. Independent domestic abuse experts could help courts to identify patterns of abuse that are not immediately visible; strengthen safeguarding assessments by ensuring that risk assessments fully account for the realities of post-separation abuse; and improve consistency across the system and survivors’ confidence in the family justice process. Importantly, this is not about undermining judicial independence. Judges must of course remain the ultimate decision makers, but they should have access to the best expertise available when dealing with complex safeguarding matters involving domestic abuse and child welfare. Sadly, several of my constituents have experienced being undermined and ignored in court by a judge who has had complaints made against them for overlooking their allegations of abuse and refusing to recognise abusive tactics in court. Having an expert present in this setting would provide my constituents, and all victims, with much more protection and understanding. This House has already recognised the seriousness of domestic abuse through landmark legislation and policy reforms. The Domestic Abuse Act was a significant step forward. The recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse was also welcome and necessary, but legislation alone is not enough if implementation within systems and institutions does not reflect the realities that survivors face. In most cases, relationships between children and parents are important and beneficial, but where abuse is present, safety must always come first. The welfare of a child must remain the court’s paramount consideration, not simply the continuation of contact in principle. There is also the broader issue of the culture in the family justice system. Survivors and advocacy organisations have raised concerns about myths and misconceptions surrounding domestic abuse, including assumptions about why victims remain in abusive relationships, expectations around perfect victim behaviour, and misunderstandings about post-separation abuse. Specialist domestic abuse expertise can help challenge those misconceptions and ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and understanding. I acknowledge the important work carried out by organisations supporting survivors every day: Women’s Aid, Refuge, Rights of Women, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Kaleidoscopic UK and many others have consistently highlighted these issues and advocated for reform. Their work has brought forward evidence that this House cannot ignore. Members across the House will know from their constituency casework that these concerns are not isolated incidents, and will have heard from constituents who feel failed by a system that was supposed to protect them and their children. Those experiences deserve to be heard. This debate is about recognising the complexities of domestic abuse and that improving safeguarding within the family courts is both necessary and achievable. Family court decisions shape lives for years—sometimes generations—so I urge the Government to embed domestic abuse experts more effectively within the family justice system, to ensure that survivors and children are truly protected throughout court proceedings and beyond. Above all, we must build a family justice system that survivors can trust, that properly understands domestic abuse and that places the safety and welfare of children at the heart of every decision.

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The national cancer plan has many ambitious and urgently needed targets, but they will only be delivered when the Government properly invest in the NHS workforce. Healthcare professionals and charities want clarity on when the Government will commit to this. Can the Leader of the House urge his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to update the House on when the workforce plan will be launched?

• 20 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 20 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Life science companies such as Becton Dickinson in my constituency play a key role in advancing the research and innovation that will help deliver the national cancer plan and transform cancer care. What is the Minister doing to increase funding on research and development for life science companies such as those in my constituency?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Conversion Practices · Hansard source

  More

  One school in my constituency is concerned about a year 6 pupil with significant support needs. As a result of his progress, with the school’s help, he has been assessed as not needing specialist provision at secondary school, which his teachers feel to be wrong. What will the Minister do to ensure that children are not punished for the success of their previous schools when making the transition to other schools?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100%. It is not a small administrative fee: it can amount to tens of thousands of pounds. That charge exists outside the protections that most homeowners take for granted. In the mainstream housing market, sellers are protected by competition and choice. Estate agent fees are negotiated. Services must be delivered to justify the costs and, if someone does not like the terms, they can walk away. Park home residents do not have that freedom. We would not accept this in any other part of the housing system—we would not accept a mandatory 10% charge simply for the right to sell our own homes. People delay moving closer to their families and put off downsizing further. Even when their health declines, some remain in homes that no longer meet their needs simply because they cannot afford to lose such a large portion of their asset. No group of homeowners should face a system that strips away rights and imposes disproportionate financial penalties. It is time to bring fairness back into the system. That is why I support the PHOJC’s calls for the 10% charge to be ended without delay or replaced with a fairer system that does not penalise residents. Changes should also be made to ensure that park home residents have the same protection and fair treatment as all other homeowners, bringing park home living in line with normal consumer and housing rights.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate. There are six park home estates in my constituency. They provide vital accommodation and a strong sense of community among residents who take pride in their homes and their estates. This debate raises a fundamental issue of fairness. Many of my park home residents are retirees, often on fixed incomes. Many downsize into park homes precisely to release equity, reduce costs and secure greater financial stability. When they come to sell their home, the requirement to hand over 10% of the sale price to the site owner causes real distress.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Twelve weeks ago, I raised four cases with the DWP, and I am still waiting for a response, despite chasing. These delays are upsetting for my Wokingham constituents. What is the Minister doing to address this backlog, and when can my constituents expect a response?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In February, it was announced in the national cancer plan that a rare cancers clinical lead and a rare cancers research lead would be appointed, but no time frame was given for these appointments. These new positions are key to progressing outcomes for people with rare cancers, who have been left out of previous cancer plans. Can the Leader of the House make time for a Health Minister to update the House on progress with these appointments?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For the pre-1997 pensioners in companies such as Hewlett Packard and many others, the trustees are not able to act on behalf of the pensioners because a board, usually in the USA, says, “No, we are not going to give you a pension increase, even though the trustees say you should have it.” To ease surplus extraction without first addressing that injustice risks locking it in permanently. It is the wrong thing to do. Once surplus is removed, there may be no realistic prospect of restoring the value lost by pre-1997 pensioners. There will not be any spare cash available to restore their pensions. The spare cash will have gone to the company with the Minister’s blessing. The Minister said, during the Adjournment debate on 19 March, that there was a need to build the evidence base, but decades have already passed. Why has that not been done before? Pensioners are dying at a rate of 15 a week. Delay at this point is not neutral: it is a choice to delay, deny and wait until they die. Those pensioners have families. What message does the pension failure send to young people about the security of pensions? If the House can legislate in detail on how pensions are invested, it can legislate to ensure that surplus extraction does not come at the expense of those who have already borne nearly 30 years of erosion. I end with a direct question for the Minister. Will he commit to ensuring that secondary legislation requires that each scheme seeking surplus extraction must have an independent professional examination of the effect of pre-1997 pension erosion, and that funds will be withheld to ensure restoration of full pension value for pre-1997 pensioners?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak to Lords amendment 15 and, ultimately, what it still fails to address: the long-standing injustice faced by almost 1 million pensioners. The Chancellor’s decision last year diverted attention, with her announcement of the restoration of indexation to a quarter of a million pensioners in some of the schemes in the PPF. While 250,000 now have their indexation back, 90,000 in the PPF do not. In addition to the 90,000 who have lost out, there are 139,000 in the financial assistance scheme. Some of those pensioners were once part of the civil service where functions were privatised. I specifically refer to members of the AEA Technology and Carillion public sector pension schemes, who were promised that their civil service pensions would be honoured after privatisation. Imagine being legally cheated out of your pension by your country’s Government and then ignored when you plead your case. Finally, 750,000 people in private defined-benefit schemes, the pre-1997 pensioners, have also lost out. We are talking about 979,000 people—almost 1 million pensioners—who have lost out on the regular increase for part, or for the whole part, of their pension. The Bill is trying to paper over an enormous crack in our national pension framework. Ministers themselves have acknowledged the problem for pre-1997 pensioners. Most recently, the Minister confirmed that around 17% of defined-benefit pensioners have not received discretionary increases—in some cases, for nearly 30 years. It is not a minor anomaly. Many have lost more than half the real value of the pensions they have earned. Many will not live long enough to see any redress, but their survivors will receive a fraction of the pension at a time when food costs are projected to go up by 9% this year alone, and who knows what will happen with energy costs. What is particularly difficult to justify is the piecemeal nature and inconsistency of the Government’s approach. They have been entirely willing to mandate how defined-contribution schemes invest, yet they remain unwilling to mandate even basic fairness for the 17% of defined-benefit pensioners whose sponsoring companies are following a law and avoiding doing the right thing. The Lords amendment would return us to a Bill that would make it easier to extract surpluses from defined benefit schemes. The Minister tells us that the trustees will be in the driving seat, but for the pre-1997 pensioners, trustees have never been in the driving seat. In most cases, trustees cannot compel discretionary increases. They cannot even advocate effectively for those who have already lost out, and they cannot override employers’ decisions. The imbalance is clear: employers decide, trustees administer. Trustees are told that it is not their role to seek to change benefits for pre-1997 pensioners. What is the value of a trustee? Surely it is not just to be a rubber stamp for boards of directors, usually based inthe USA.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cancer Research · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps the Government are taking with the National Institute for Health and Care Research to support cancer research in Scotland.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cancer Research · Hansard source

  More

  Cancer Research UK’s manifesto for cancer research and care in Scotland recommends that the Government should increase “strategic institutional research and innovation funding…investing in and supporting the delivery of a new Scottish Health and Biomedicine Institute (SHBI) to deliver new innovations that will benefit people and the economy in Scotland.” What is the Minister doing to support that manifesto?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Last week, the Secretary of State announced £10 million for the Royal Berkshire hospital to fund a new site, which is very welcome news. After years of Conservative neglect, £400 million is needed to maintain the existing Royal Berks until rebuilding starts in 2039. What is the Minister doing to support the hospital and its excellent staff to help fix its many maintenance issues?