Clive Jones MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Cancer patients are suffering due to variations in cancer care across the country. In particular, clinical nurse specialists—a key part of cancer care—are stretched very thinly and are unable meet patients’ needs in many regions. A Breast Cancer Now survey found that a quarter of respondents had not seen a clinical nurse specialist since their diagnosis. Can we have a debate in Government time on how best to tackle variation in cancer care, and particularly the problems in accessing clinical nurse specialists?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Advanced Brain Cancer: Tissue Freezing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for securing this important debate, and all other hon. Members who have contributed. I would also like to highlight the incredible work done by the campaigners for Owain’s law—you are doing a most remarkable campaign. Owain was diagnosed with a grade 4 tumour in 2022 and sadly died in 2024. Despite showing success, Owain stopped receiving effective treatment because not enough of his brain tissue was frozen to make further immunotherapy vaccines. Owain’s wife, Ellie, is calling for fair and equal access to brain tissue freezing, enabling every patient to access new treatments and research. The Government need to listen to the campaign, to act and to invest in brain tumour freezing so that we can start to save more lives. Brain cancer is already the biggest killer of people under 40, and 45% of brain cancers are diagnosed in an emergency setting, meaning that the cancer has progressed untreated and that the patient is more unlikely to tolerate treatment. Given so many factors affect survival outcomes for brain cancer patients, the Government need to start improving treatment of brain cancer now. Most brain cancer patients in Wokingham cannot access advanced technologies, such as personalised immunotherapy cancer treatments that rely on frozen tissue. The Royal Berkshire NHS foundation trust and the Frimley Health NHS foundation trust do not have any medical-grade freezers suitable for storing tissue samples, and they have no access to the rapid freezing equipment suitable for brain tissue. That situation needs to change. The cost of providing the right freezers would be small for each hospital trust. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and other Members who have today called for other tissues to be frozen, not just brain tissue. Like many other Members today, I am really pleased to see the Minister in her place. I have a very simple question for her: can she confirm that equal access to high-quality tissue storage pathways will be addressed in the upcoming national cancer plan?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister very much for her interesting response. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate, many of whom spoke very personally about their own experiences. From time to time, that can be quite a hard thing to do, so I thank everybody for doing so. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who spoke very movingly. I hope the Minister has taken note of all the things that have come out of the debate. There is a need for better diagnosis and for new and more drug trials; there is a need to share information among organisations and across borders; there is a need for better screening of cancer; there is a need for big improvements in the workforce; there is a need for better equipment and new technologies; and there is a need to embrace innovation. I was pleased to hear that the national cancer plan is still probably going to be announced sometime in February—maybe 4 February—and that it has not been delayed. Everybody is looking forward to seeing that plan. Not just those of us who have come to this debate, but many MPs who have not been able to attend, and millions of our constituents, will be looking to see what is in the national cancer plan. We really hope it covers all the things we have been asking for to date—all the things that the APPGs have been asking for and that individual Members have had meetings with the Minister and others about. All I can say on behalf of the people who have an interest in cancer is that we really hope the Government have been listening, and that it is a cancer plan that everybody in the House is able to get behind—one that will improve diagnosis, treatment and outcomes for people in this country suffering with the most awful diseases. I thank everyone very much for attending the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered less survivable cancers.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I am really sorry to hear about young Billy. The £13.7 million being put into research has to be welcomed and we should thank the Government for that. The first recommendation is to invest in greater research, detection tests, and tools to support GPs when identifying the symptoms of less survivable cancers. GPs face difficulties in identifying vague symptoms linked to less survivable cancers, especially as they see only a small number of cases each year, and many of the symptoms overlap with those of less serious health conditions. For example, a patient with oesophageal cancer might suffer from nausea and have difficulty breathing. I saw that lack of exposure at first hand. The first GP that I saw did not think that as a man I would be able to have breast cancer. Patients often visit their GP multiple times before being referred for further diagnostic tests. For example, currently people with pancreatic cancer visit their GP between two and five times before being referred for a CT scan. GPs lack the necessary detection tools and tests to easily identify vague symptoms earlier. But it does not have to be this way. Innovative technologies, such as Dxcover for brain cancer and Cytosponge for oesophageal cancer, are already in development and can help healthcare professionals to identify those cancers earlier and more easily. The second recommendation is to bring together research and medical communities and establish centres of excellence for each of the less survivable cancers as key forums for knowledge sharing and collaboration. Collaboration between researchers and the medical community is essential for enhancing innovation and successfully embedding new diagnostic tools into the health system. Centres of excellence can connect specialists across research and clinical sectors, bolstering knowledge sharing and enhancing collaboration. Centres of excellence should be established by the national research community, supported by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There should also be more collaboration with colleagues across the world. Thirdly, we have to develop a centralised, nationwide case-finding programme to proactively identify high-risk individuals across multiple cancer types, building on the work already undertaken by the NHS on new onset diabetes and weight loss. To achieve faster diagnosis we must expand efforts to identify those at high risk of developing a less survivable cancer across the country. As I have already said, many healthcare professionals say every day of the week, “When cancer is detected earlier, we significantly increase patients’ chances of survival.” That is particularly true for liver cancer. When detected earlier, nearly 50% of patients with liver cancer survive for over five years compared with only 5% of those who were diagnosed at stage 4. For those diagnosed with less survivable cancers, faster access to treatment is critical. Treatment delays cost lives. That is true of all cancers, but particularly of the less survivable ones, which progress rapidly and require specialised treatment and care. The national cancer plan offers a crucial opportunity to tackle the systemic barriers currently preventing patients from getting faster access to treatment. Variation in patient pathways, lack of diagnostic capacity and shortages across our specialist oncology and supportive care workforce have all contributed to poor access to treatment for patients affected by these cancers. Three in four hospitals are currently failing to meet their cancer waiting time targets. According to analysis in The Guardian , 73% of trusts are failing to meet their 62-day cancer waiting time standard. One statistic I repeat time and again is that not a single NHS trust has met the 62-day target since 2015. That failure has been allowed for 10 years. It is again fair to ask the Conservative shadow Minister why, when the party was in government for so long. This is felt more acutely for less survivable cancers, which already have some of the lowest treatment rates. For instance, 70% of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer receive no active treatment. There is a similar picture at the Royal Berkshire hospital, where many of my constituents are patients. In 2024 alone, more than 70% of stomach cancer patients, 58% of those with pancreatic cancer and 69% of oesophageal cancer patients waited more than 62 days from urgent GP referral to treatment. That is far outside the NHS target of starting treatment for 85% within that time. Some Royal Berkshire hospital patients are left waiting more than four months—in extreme cases more than six months—for treatment to begin, and that is not acceptable. To improve access to treatment, the Government should set tumour-specific standards through the modern service framework that has been committed to in the NHS 10-year plan, starting with the cancers with the poorest operational performance. That must include establishing minimum standards and clearer strategic priorities to support local delivery of pathway improvements for cancer. The best way to achieve that would be to develop national, standardised, optimal pathways across the whole patient journey for different types of cancer. Where already available, those should be based on existing insight from the national clinical audits and the Getting It Right First Time programme. To achieve maximum impact, the Government must ensure that 62-day cancer waiting time targets are met and then reduced to much less than 62 days. The current standard is too low for rapidly increasing cancers such as the less survivable ones. That is crucial, because it would ensure that more people were well enough to tolerate treatment. Research and development is also important as part of improving treatment effectiveness and diagnostics. Research into less survivable cancers has historically been underfunded, and that must change, as recognised by clinicians and many others. Isla, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), has started a petition calling for more funding of research into pancreatic cancer, and it has attracted more than 200,000 signatures. Poor survival outcomes result in fewer patients taking part in clinical trials and studies, and that in turn contributes to fewer breakthroughs and less research investment—a vicious cycle that can and must be broken. Consistent, sustained research is crucial for delivering breakthroughs. The Rare Cancers Bill, which is progressing through Parliament, has the potential to transform research into less survivable cancers. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for sponsoring the Bill and for all his work on cancer policy. He is a true champion for cancer patients in this Parliament. The Rare Cancers Bill is a truly groundbreaking piece of legislation that has the potential to deliver the essential research investment and focus needed to unlock breakthroughs and drive better patient outcomes. If passed, the Bill would ensure there was a named lead in the Government with a responsibility to support research and innovation for these cancers. The Bill would improve patient access to relevant research and clinical trials, and it would place a duty on the Government to review and reform orphan drug regulations to incentivise greater research into treatments for rare cancers. The Government need to act now to improve survival outcomes for less survivable cancers. Investment and reform are needed to speed up diagnosis and improve treatment, and investment in research is essential to reaching this aim. With upcoming legislation on cancer care, there is a real opportunity for the Government to act now, to be bold and to erase the previous Government’s failure to prioritise cancer diagnosis, treatment, care and outcomes. The Minister will know from this debate that I and many other colleagues here today, and many who are not able to attend, will be watching her actions and the actions of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. We will be expecting results and massive improvements in the coming years.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very good intervention. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that this is covered in the national cancer plan. From what I am hearing, I am optimistic that it will be.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered less survivable cancers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital; also, a family member has shares in a medical company. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, which I first asked for six months ago— [ Interruption. ]

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a good point; we definitely need more clinical trials in this country. We have been lagging behind in the last few years, and we need them nationally, rather than just in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland. That would be advantageous for both drug companies and the people who benefit from those trials. For many of these less survivable cancers, survival rates in the UK lag behind other countries. We can see from our international counterparts, including Australia, Belgium, Denmark and the US, that progress is achievable, and that system reforms can play a key role in driving better patient outcomes. For example, the UK is ranked 29th out of 33 countries for pancreatic cancer survival. It is fair to ask the Minister: why is the UK ranked so low? It is also fair to ask the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson): why are we ranked so low after the Conservatives’ 14 years in Government? Perhaps it is due to the challenges in how our healthcare and cancer services are organised, and our service delivery, rather than the availability of treatment options. It is vital that we learn from our international counterparts and understand what systemic changes they have made to drive progress. The all-party parliamentary group on less survivable cancers, of which I am a member, launched an inquiry into earlier detection and faster diagnosis. During the inquiry, the APPG heard from people with lived experience—clinicians, researchers, charities and the industry—about what vital measures are needed in the national cancer plan to improve earlier detection and faster diagnosis. The APPG found that if earlier diagnosis rates were doubled, an additional 7,500 lives would be saved every year. Deaths from those cancers could quickly be reduced by 10%. Faster diagnosis is integral to saving lives and improving outcomes for people impacted by less survivable cancers. Simply put, it enables patients to access treatment and care much quicker, increasing their chances of survival. We are currently far from achieving this: just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 or 2, compared with 54% for all other cancers. Concerningly, brain tumours are diagnosed in emergency settings, which is closely linked to worse outcomes. That is common for myeloma patients—an incurable blood cancer. A third of people with myeloma are diagnosed via emergency presentation. Like the delay in diagnosing less survivable cancers, this means that their cancer has progressed untreated, and the condition has become more advanced, so their ability to tolerate treatments may be seriously hampered. The APPG’s inquiry produced some recommendations for the Government that illustrate the broad range of actions needed to achieve earlier detection and faster diagnosis, from equipping GPs with better tools and rolling out targeted screening programmes to promoting greater research into innovative diagnostics.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  It does. The more that people like me and others who have survived cancer talk about it, and about our experience of a delay and having the cancer spread, the more that will help others to come forward.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, that was the Minister calling me to apologise. [ Laughter. ] I asked the Committee for the debate six months ago, but having it one month before the probable publication of a national cancer plan is not a bad date for it. I also thank the less survivable cancers taskforce, Cancer Research UK and Myeloma UK for their help and guidance in securing and preparing for this debate. As I have mentioned many times here and in the main Chamber, I am a cancer survivor. The experience has shown me how important early diagnosis and effective treatment are to our outcomes. My diagnosis was delayed, because I was sent away by the first GP I saw and had to wait several months again before being diagnosed with breast cancer. Fortunately, my treatment was successful, but many others are not so lucky, especially those with less survivable cancers. Every year in the UK, 90,000 people are diagnosed with a less survivable cancer—cancers of the brain, liver, lungs, pancreas, oesophagus and stomach. Together, they represent 40% of all cancer deaths and account for 67,000 deaths every year. The less survivable cancers have been overlooked for far too long. While many other cancers have seen major advancements in survival, survival rates for those six cancers have remained staggeringly low for the past 25 years. The collective five-year survival rate for those cancers is just 16%. The sad reality for the 90,000 people diagnosed with one of the cancers is that 75,000 will not survive more than five years. That is a school play someone will not see, a set of exam results that they will miss, or a first day at university, a graduation, a significant birthday of their own or of a loved one, or the birth of a grandchild that someone will not see.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this important debate. Thames Water’s assets are in urgent need of repair, and the company is swamped in over £17 billion of debt, which it cannot repay. Thames Water customers, like my constituents in Wokingham, are suffering as a result, with a third of our bills servicing the company’s debt—debt that did not improve services, but largely went towards paying dividends. In return, Thames Water’s customers have to put up with a company pumping raw sewage into our waterways. In Wokingham that means Thames Water is actively harming waterways like our beautiful River Loddon, parts of which are important chalk streams. I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) that water companies should never have been privatised. Sadly, my predecessor in Wokingham was one of the architects of the privatisation of water. The Government must allow Thames Water to go into special administration to ensure that much of its debt can be written off rather than continuing to burden residents, and put the company on a stable financial footing, allowing it to update leaking pipes and reduce the huge amount of raw sewage that it pumps into our rivers. My residents in Wokingham and the environment just cannot afford for Thames Water to continue in its current state.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I wish a very merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone else who works in Parliament? In my constituency, Wokingham in Need is an amazing local charity that provides support for homeless people and the most vulnerable. It does it all through volunteer-led projects. Most recently, it created a sensory garden for Wokingham hospital to provide much-needed respite for its patients and staff. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Wokingham in Need, and particularly its founder Sue Jackson, on receiving the King’s award for voluntary service this year?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Wokingham is the lowest funded unitary authority in the UK and is struggling to find enough money for adult social care and children’s services. I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, has she protected tier 1 local authorities from real-terms cuts? Secondly, have the Government honoured their commitment to a new fair funding formula by removing the recovery grant that undermines it. Lastly, how does the Minister expect local authorities to afford the dedicated schools grant deficits accrued up to 31 March 2028?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  This scheme will help countless young people from Wokingham to gain invaluable life experiences and it is to be welcomed. The Minister says that the Conservative Brexit deal was a bad deal. Will he therefore look to correct it and begin negotiations on a bespoke UK-EU customs union, which would cut the endless red tape and free up many Wokingham businesses to do business with their European customers? A bespoke deal could raise £25 billion—far better than increasing national insurance contributions.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Energy Costs · Hansard source

  More

  In Wokingham we are lucky to have 119 great hospitality businesses. Those businesses are struggling under the burden of rising energy costs, increases in national insurance and business rates and many other cost increases. The Liberal Democrats called for a 5% cut in VAT to help the hospitality sector, but the Chancellor ignored that proposal, which would have gone some way to help businesses cope with rising energy costs. What is the Minister doing to ease the concerns of business owners in Wokingham, who will be worried about their businesses?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Loneliness and social isolation are sadly common problems among older people. In Wokingham, the Link Visiting Scheme has spent 27 years tackling this problem, matching volunteers with the elderly and running projects to build friendships. This year alone they have helped over 1,000 people. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Link Visiting Scheme on being awarded charity of the year at the Great British business and community awards?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  What with the Chancellor’s flip-flopping on the Budget, the various leaks and the misleading comments about the state of the public finances, Labour is beginning to look as incompetent as the Conservatives in its running of the economy and the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour has let the public down, and must start being transparent with us all?

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

  More

  In Wokingham, we are lucky to have CLASP—caring, listening and supporting partnership—which is a charity that gives wonderful support to adults with learning disabilities. It says that there is a serious lack of awareness about the issues faced by adults with learning difficulties and autism, notably that they typically have a shorter life expectancy, often dying up to 20 years younger than most people. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the invaluable role that charities such as CLASP play in supporting and raising awareness for our most vulnerable residents?

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for bringing this very important debate to us today. It is an opportunity for the House to condemn the evil actions of Putin in his illegal invasion of Ukraine and to assert our strong support for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. Our support is even more important now, as it is clear that President Trump’s support is constantly wavering. It is so sad that President Trump is ready to once again sell out Ukraine and its people and to agree a carve-up of land with President Putin. This is a Putin who openly says that he is ready for war with NATO. Residents in Wokingham regularly write to me expressing their disgust at Putin and Trump, and they call on the Government to do more to support Ukraine. It is painfully obvious that we cannot rely on Trump to defend European freedoms. For that reason, the Government must continue to focus on defending British territory and playing a leading role with our European neighbours to defend Europe from the Russians. We must build trust with Europe; it is in our national interest. It is also in Europe’s interest that it should work with us—a fact that I am sure is not lost on many Europeans. Our Government must continue to offer support to President Zelensky, along with France, Germany and NATO. They must join him in future negotiations with President Trump, so that Europe can show a strong and united front against the Russian aggressor and against any bullying tactics from President Trump. Trump so often looks more like an appeaser from the 1930s than an important leader in the most successful alliance, which has defended our freedoms in the west, including the USA, for much of the last 30 years. I hope the Minister will reject the joint plan of Putin and Trump and will continue to stand up for Ukraine.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent David worked for 3M for 31 years, 23 of them pre-1997. His pension payment for service prior to 1997 has not increased since 2008, since when it has lost 40% of its purchasing power. Other constituents have lost more. Another constituent worked for ExxonMobil, which he says gave him written documentation that he would receive annual increases at 80% of RPI. However, since legislation changed in 1995, that has not happened. Those are just two of the 40-plus constituents who have contacted me about the injustice experienced by pensioners whose pension schemes are failing to provide an inflation increase on their service prior to 1997. I know that many more across the country face the same injustice. Their stories are deeply troubling. Rather than enjoying a well-earned retirement, pensioners are left struggling to keep pace with the cost of living, often while their pension scheme is in surplus.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There needs to be some sort of plan, and sooner rather than later. The Government appear to recognise the injustice and are proposing to use surplus funds in the PPF to provide inflation increases on some pre-1997 pensions. Why are we not seeking to resolve the same issue for company defined-benefit pension schemes? Many of these pension schemes have a funding surplus but choose not to use it to support their former employees, despite often being asked to do so by trustees who are ignored by foreign-based employers. Surely that cannot be right. Research by the Pensions Regulator has revealed that even among schemes whose rules allow for discretionary benefits, less than a third had provided those benefits in the previous three years. Employer discretion has failed in practice and will continue to fail unless Parliament acts. The Pension Schemes Bill fails to address this issue. Only by amending the original legislation can we ensure fairness for those with pre-1997 service. The Society of Pension Professionals argues that legislation on pre-1997 benefits is unnecessary, but the evidence is clear: discretion, more often than not, is exercised to the detriment of pensioners. As I have said, trustees lack the authority to act and pensioners are left behind. The problem appears to be concentrated in a small number of large companies. They were meant to provide long-term financial security for their employees. We must remember that all defined-benefit schemes paid levies into the PPF, creating a surplus that now funds indexation. If pensioners in the PPF deserve protection, so do those in live schemes who helped build the surplus in those schemes. The Government have taken the first step by restoring indexation for some. They must now take the logical next step by extending inflation protection to all pre-1997 pensioners in live schemes. I believe that pre-1997 pension service should receive inflation protection on the same statutory basis as post-1997 service. This is about fairness, dignity and justice for those who worked hard, paid into schemes, were made promises, and now deserve security in retirement. Pensioners affected by this injustice live in every constituency, and they deserve the support of this House of Commons and the Government. Our constituents affected by these injustices simply ask for fairness, and hopefully the Minister will make sure that it happens soon.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  Under the last Conservative Government, we saw years of chaos, incompetence and mismanagement, and very often a lack of transparency and honesty with the British public. The Government promised change, and had a responsibility to deliver a clean break from the Conservatives’ approach to government. Will the Minister acknowledge the damage that has been done to those efforts, and what steps will the Government take to rectify it?

• 1 Dec 2025 · SEND: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  In Wokingham there are not enough SEND places for pupils, which means that they have to travel outside the borough and sometimes a long way from their homes to go to school. In 2022, Wokingham bid for two SEND schools and were given those two schools, but nothing has happened since then; the Government have still not committed any funding to the schools. Will the Minister tell me now when the funding will be released so that the council can start building them?

• 1 Dec 2025 · SEND: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  15. What steps she is taking to provide adequate funding for special educational needs provision.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  After the Budget last Wednesday, it is clear that the Chancellor does not listen to good advice. The Liberal Democrats have given her so many opportunities of where she could raise extra money for the Treasury. We have called for a windfall tax on the big banks, which could raise £30 billion between now and 2030. The Chancellor could raise an extra £4 billion a year from the likes of Elon Musk by raising the digital services tax on tech giants from 2% to 10%, but Donald Trump will not let the Government do that. We know that we need to grow our economy, and the quickest way to do that is to repair the damage done by the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal. Brexit has lost us £90 billion in tax revenue just this year. That is a black hole that does need fixing. The Government should negotiate a new bespoke EU-UK customs union, cutting the endless red tape and freeing up businesses to concentrate on what they do best: selling their products to Europe. That could raise more than £25 billion a year for the Exchequer. That would benefit many businesses across the country, including in Wokingham. Business owners have told me of their once large and expanding relationship with the EU, but since Brexit they have seen their exports and profits reduced, so why has the Chancellor instead chosen to raise taxes across the board and offered no help to our businesses, having hammered them in the last Budget? A new deal with the EU would benefit local businesses, help tackle the cost of living crisis, lower import costs, lower food prices and boost investment. The revenue raised for the Exchequer could prevent the Chancellor from placing further taxes on working people, perhaps meaning that income tax thresholds might be unfrozen earlier than 2031, as planned, and ahead of a 2028-29 general election. I urge the Government to listen to our calls and the calls of businesses in Wokingham and across the country and to begin negotiating a bespoke customs union with the EU, which would be a major contributor to the growth that we all agree the economy desperately needs.