Clive Jones MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and that a family member has shares in a medical company. My constituents are heartbroken by the Government’s decision to push the start date of the Royal Berks’s construction to 2037, which will disappoint patients and staff. The hon. Member must recognise the role that his party played in creating that situation, so does he agree that his party needs to reflect on its part in the delayed new hospital programme, and will he apologise for it?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this important and timely debate. Not a single stretch of river in my constituency is in good overall health—what a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ failure. Instead of fixing the sewage scandal, they passively allowed it to persist. It is interesting that only one Conservative Member is present. Last month, Ofwat permitted Thames Water—the company responsible for sewage in Wokingham—to raise water bills by 35%. Thames Water has been a disaster for our water quality in Wokingham. In 2023, it was responsible for 130 sewage spills, which lasted for 943 hours. It is failing Wokingham’s rivers, which includes the beautiful River Thames and the River Loddon. Ofwat has allowed Thames Water to charge my constituents 35% more on their water bills for the next five years, and for what? This morning, the Financial Times reported that Thames Water intends to circumvent Ofwat’s cap on bosses’ bonuses by gifting its executives huge pay rises. Neither I nor my constituents will stand for our water bills being hiked during a cost of living crisis only for our money to go into the pockets of the most well-paid company directors. Does the Minister honestly expect us to trust Thames Water to behave responsibly with even higher bills, when it feels like a new story is published every day about its mismanagement of our waterways? Will the Minister make it clear to the Secretary of State that a special administrative regime is absolutely needed—and needed now—to reset this unsalvageable mess; to ensure that the existing situation, where more than a third of customer bills go towards paying interest on Thames Water’s debt, ceases; and to ensure that the money is instead spent on infrastructure improvements? For too long, customers have been asked to pay the price for the company’s failures. That has to stop.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Health and Social Care: Winter Update · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I have a family member who has shares in a medical company. The Secretary of State has a really tough job of clearing up the mess left in the NHS by the Conservatives, but some of the Royal Berkshire hospital estate is not fit for purpose and especially not fit to cope with the winter crisis. Can he confirm that a proper level of funding will be available to rebuild the Royal Berkshire hospital and that there will be no increase in the seven-year delay announced by the Conservatives in April this year? That will help with future winter crises.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Children’s Social Media Accounts · Hansard source

  More

  Ellen Roome has gone through the unimaginable; I am absolutely amazed at her ability to continue fighting for answers for her son Jools. Does the hon. Member agree that social media companies are not in the wild west of the internet age any more and have become an integrated part of our society with certain responsibilities? Does he also agree that one of those responsibilities is ensuring that children in Wokingham and across the UK are protected from harmful content?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  The roads in Wokingham, like everywhere else in the country, have deteriorated in the last few years. We need to stop potholes, not just fix them, and that means regularly resurfacing roads. The unfunded backlog of resurfacing left by the Conservatives in Wokingham is about £16 million and getting bigger; nationally, it is £14 billion. When will the Minister’s Department deliver proper funding for Wokingham’s roads?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Young cancer patients are subject to a three-month qualifying period before they can even apply for disability living allowance or personal independence payments, on top of a 20-week delay for the processing of disability benefits. Children have often died before the benefits have been awarded, due to bureaucratic inertia by the Department for Work and Pensions. Hugh’s law, proposed by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, would seek to remove the three-month qualifying period for DLA and calls for day 1 financial support. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the merits of Hugh’s law?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Finances: Borrowing Costs · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that the Chancellor has a very difficult job. She inherited an economy on its knees, following the Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy, from their terrible trade deal— [ Interruption . ] That extends from their terrible trade deal with Europe, which is holding back businesses in Wokingham, to soaring inflation, stagnant growth and the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which hit so many mortgage holders across the country. However, the Government seem to be repeating some of the same mistakes. Last night, the Treasury issued a statement saying that “meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable”. Will the Chief Secretary reassure this House that protecting the NHS and care is also non-negotiable, and will he rule out any cuts to those services as the Government try to balance the books? Will he work to repair our ties with Europe and cut trade-related red tape, especially in the face of Donald Trump and his oligarch allies such as Elon Musk?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children and Young People with Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children and Young People with Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for leaving the Minister with only a few minutes. I have no idea what he is going to say, but I would like him to make some comment about Hugh’s law, and whether or not he supports it, because it would make a huge difference to every single family.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children and Young People with Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right that there are huge costs, especially for children when they have to face cancer, and for the parents of children, because they have to take time off work to look after the children. There is not always the necessary support. Research from Young Lives vs Cancer highlights that on average, a cancer diagnosis for children and young people delivers £700 of additional costs every month for a patient and their family. Those additional costs come alongside significantly falling household income, with an average drop of over £6,000 a year; for at least one in three, that drop is over £10,000 a year. Cancer does not have the decency to allow people to consider the implications of what happens next, but instead forces people to immediately start spending more. For example, it adds £250 extra a month on travel to hospital, £144 extra on food, often due to specialist requirements and extra hygiene caution, and £68 extra on energy to ensure that the home is always warm and clean, due to young cancer patients being immunocompromised. Those examples and many more all take place from day one.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children and Young People with Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of welfare for children and young people with cancer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, and to discuss an issue that is important to me. As a society we are aware of the cost that cancer has on our lives: it deprives us of a future with our loved ones; it leaves us tormented with constant hospital visits; it forces an anxiety on us about what will happen next; and it causes us relentless emotional, physical and mental pain. It is a pain that does not go away, even when the cancer does. I regret, however, that society fails to understand the literal costs of having cancer not just to us as individuals but to children, young people and their families. Lest we forget the cruel reality of cancer for young patients, which is often different from that of adults, the cancers that they experience are often faster-growing, less common, have unique emotional and mental health impacts, and have significant long-term treatment effects. The support that they require is therefore quite distinct, and has specific financial implications that make it especially hard.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children and Young People with Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a child can try to have a normal life, which includes still going to school, seeing their friends and being educated, that will help them and their family to cope with their treatment. Schools and local authorities should work hard to ensure a normal life for that child very quickly. One family supported by Young Lives vs Cancer received their first DLA payment only in January, after their child was diagnosed in July. In another case, a delay of four months from the start of a DLA application meant that a young cancer patient’s mother was left with no financial support, because her statutory sick pay ended before the DLA started. How the Government expect people to manage with those extra costs is beyond me. This is the very worst form of bureaucratic inflexibility, and it leads to some people not applying for benefits because they see a system stacked against them, quite apart from the burden of applying during the most disruptive time of their lives. People are not going to prioritise form filling when they or their child needs radiotherapy. The process takes so long that sometimes children and young people have either finished their treatment or, most concerningly, passed away before the benefits have been awarded. A child being treated in Leicester sadly died before a DLA decision was made, leaving their family to go through the challenging conversation of wanting the claim form still to be reviewed because the family were owed a back payment. That is unacceptable. The Minister responded to a parliamentary question by arguing that those nearing the end of life can apply for special rules. However, this simply does not work very well, because situations can change quickly and some who are not terminally ill can rapidly deteriorate. Some may still receive potentially curative treatment even if the risk of death is high, or some may wish not to know their prognosis. The Minister needs to urgently assess the benefits of changing to a medical evidence-based eligibility for these patients. There is a precedent for medical evidence being used to expedite access to benefits. The existing special rules process for those with terminal illness definitions means that they do not need to meet the three-month qualifying period with medical evidence. That principle should be applied to all children and young people with cancer, to facilitate immediate access to benefits.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children and Young People with Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right: we could save the NHS a lot of money, because a lot of appointments will be cancelled because people are getting used to the fact that their child has cancer, and that they have to make alternative arrangements in order to take them to the hospital where they will be treated. If they were able to get a payment straightaway, that would save the NHS money in the long term. The money that it might cost to make those payments could be recouped further down the line, so the hon. Member is absolutely right.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children and Young People with Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right: cancer is the worst thing that can ever cross a family’s doorstep. It affects every family, every person, very differently. Financially we need something called Hugh’s law, which I will talk about later. That could give a family £700 every month from diagnosis. At the moment people have to wait at least three months, then fill in the forms and wait another three or four months. But Hugh’s law, for not an awful lot of money, could change all that very quickly. I will come on to that. I hope I have made it clear that the costs are overwhelming; and yet the existing support from the Government is woefully lacking. I would go as far as to say it is downright cruel. Disability benefits are vital for children and young people with cancer because of the costs associated with diagnosis. They come in the form of personal independence payments, disability living allowance and, subsequently, carer’s allowance. Despite those benefits’ being so crucial and the effects of cancer being so immediate, children and young people face a three-month qualifying period before they can claim PIP or DLA. I would just like to repeat that: children and young people are subject to a three-month qualifying period, which for most is from the point of diagnosis, before they can access support. The very purpose of welfare or social security is to deliver support for the most vulnerable. Young cancer patients go through some of the toughest, unimaginable pain—pain that even I, as a cancer survivor, could not contemplate. They do it with perseverance, with diligence, and somehow they do it with hope. Tragically, some families lose their child to cancer. To be told at the start of that journey through hell that patients and families need to wait three months before applying for vitally needed funds is simply inexplicable. The evidence shows that the costs are immediate, and yet patients and families are deprived of support that they urgently need from day one. Can the Minister please clarify why it is necessary to have a three-month qualifying period? Can he explicitly put it on the record whether he thinks that that is appropriate in the case of children and young people with cancer? Alternatively, could he please publish the advice from civil servants that are insisting on the three-month qualifying period? The argument has to be made that the impact of a condition needs to be evidenced for three months before DLA or PIP can be provided to avoid benefit fraud, but it is very clearly established that children and young people with cancer will be significantly impacted by their cancer from the start, even before it is diagnosed. Surely a confirmed medical diagnosis is enough. The Minister may claim that someone with cancer might have been impacted by the condition before their diagnosis was given and therefore their qualifying period will have begun prior to diagnosis. However, experts make it clear that until the diagnosis is given, it is almost impossible for children and young people to know that they have a serious condition that qualifies them for benefits and to evidence the impact. The diagnosis is key. That is simply the reality. In the experience of charities that I have talked to, children and young people who apply for disability benefits are nearly always successful. Very, very few are rejected at the point of initial application or subsequent appeal. However, I recognise that it may be concluded that that is anecdotal. Therefore it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister could confirm that the majority of children and young people with cancer are successful in their applications for PIP and DLA and that very few, if any, are rejected for benefits. If he could provide the precise statistics, I would be very grateful. Research also shows that once the three-month qualifying period has concluded, there are significant delays in applications’ being processed after they are submitted. This period currently sits at up to 20 weeks. The qualifying period and these additional delays are leaving children and young people without benefits support for several months. For the application processing, the benefits can be backdated, but only to the point of application rather than diagnosis. That leaves people missing out on benefits support for the first three months of their illness. Based on data from Young Lives vs Cancer, it concludes that children and young people with cancer and their families will have incurred additional costs of on average £2,100 before they can even apply for any benefit.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children and Young People with Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should be doing everything, especially in the first few weeks, days and months of a diagnosis, to make it as comfortable for a child as possible. Adults who get cancer have a circle of friends around them and can cope with it. I have no idea what it is like for a child, but I can imagine that it is very difficult, so having a play area and things they are familiar with using must make that experience much easier. I want to ask the Minister if, as per the principles of the existing special rules process, he will consider using medical diagnosis to allow children and young people with cancer to apply for benefits as soon as their diagnosis is confirmed. Does he also recognise that the special rules process in its current form is flawed? One young person treated in London was awarded DLA only a few weeks before they sadly died, despite using the special rules process, which should have expedited their benefits. The stress placed on their family was significant. I pay tribute to the campaign of Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis to establish Hugh’s law, in the name of their six-year-old son, who tragically died from a rare form of cancer. Their story is heartbreaking, but is unfortunately a common reality for parents who are forced into darkness. At one of the lowest moments in their life, with the Government looking away from them, support is a struggle to access, rather than a guarantee. I personally endorse the objectives of Hugh’s law: for financial aid to be granted to the parents of chronically sick children from day one and for the removal of the three-month qualifying period, which Young Lives vs Cancer has also called for. Its research is right that, for a very small cost, the Government could transform the lives of thousands by delivering parents a limited-time, non-means-tested benefit to cope as their lives completely change. I met Ceri on Monday to discuss her campaign, and I attended the Hugh’s law event today on the Terrace pavilion. Hearing directly about people’s lived experience and from experts at that event reinforced why we urgently need change. Does the Minister support Ceri and Frances’s campaign for Hugh’s law? If not, will he explain why? PIP and DLA are not the only benefits to be severely delayed by a system that does not work. Carers can apply for carers’ allowance and other associated carer support only once PIP and DLA have been approved for the young cancer patient they are caring for. That means that carers may be caring for many months before they can apply for carers’ benefits and get what they are entitled to. I could continue. There exists a loophole in universal credit whereby young people who are at university when they are diagnosed with cancer and then defer their course, with the aim of restarting it when they finish treatment, are not entitled to student finance because they are not actively attending university. However, they not entitled to universal credit either because they are still classed as “in education”. Students should not be forced to totally drop out and start university from the beginning. To state the obvious, a cancer diagnosis is not their fault, and forcing them to disrupt their lives even further is completely pointless. Will the Minister look at the broader welfare support system in relation to children and young people with cancer, in co-operation with expert charities, to close other loopholes and ensure that the full package of support meets their needs? There are too many points to raise in just one debate, but I would like to conclude on a slightly more optimistic note, following the confirmation from the Department of Health and Social Care that the children and young people cancer taskforce will be launched this year, and that it will seek to identify ways to improve the experience and outcomes for children and young people with cancer. Although I await the specifics of the relaunch of the taskforce, the principles are of good intention. I know that the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) has been an incredible champion of this project. Will the Minister work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the children and young people cancer taskforce looks at psychosocial support, which is something I could not address in my speech, along with welfare. Will he also make representations to the Health Minister to ensure that this new body links appropriately with the long-term cancer strategy for England?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate. A number of charities in my constituency of Wokingham, including The Cowshed, First Days and Citizens Advice, have been really disadvantaged by these national insurance charges, one of them by up to £16,000 a year. The Government could have been bold by taxing banks, online gambling and social media giants to raise more money. Can the Minister answer this simple question? Is she content with putting bankers’ bonuses first instead of debt advisers and support for people facing evictions, homelessness and genuine need?

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate. I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and that a family member has shares in a medical company. It is a simple fact that as a result of the last Conservative Government, more patients than ever are waiting for hospital treatments. In October 2024, the national waiting list stood at 7.5 million. House of Commons Library data reveals that the waiting list for hospital treatment locally is seven times worse than it was a decade ago. Ten years ago, 91.9% of patients in West Berkshire waited less than 18 weeks for elective surgery; now that proportion has dropped to 75.5%, which is well below NHS targets and is completely unacceptable. Where is the acknowledgment and apology from the previous Government for the mess they created? A backlog means that people’s conditions worsen, forcing on them more complicated surgeries and leading to slower recoveries, worse outcomes and reduced quality of life. Many people in Wokingham receive treatment at the Royal Berkshire hospital, which is important to me as it is where my children were born and where my cancer was discovered. Its dedicated staff are the pride of our community, and it employs innovative practices to try to reduce the existing backlog. For example, it has expanded its virtual hospital and is now able to treat 124 patients who would normally be in hospital from the comfort of their own home. However, the hospital’s situation is continually worsened by a crumbling estate. Some 95% of its lifts are beyond their end of life, and it has had to cancel operations due to infrastructure issues. Today’s announcement that extra investment will be provided to hospitals that cut waiting times the fastest is putting the cart before the horse. How does the Secretary of State expect the Royal Berkshire hospital to meaningfully cut waiting times when the Department is unable to set out the next steps for its urgently required rebuild? I and other Members will continue to pursue this matter until we get Government action on it. Will the Minister please set out when the new hospital programme review will be published? A rebuild of the Royal Berks is especially important for the cancer centre. Some parts of that building are 164 years old—this is where people who are perhaps in the last years of their lives are being treated. Urgent investment is crucial. I was delighted to secure a commitment from the Government to a national cancer strategy for England, which is a very important step forward. The Government’s cancer strategy needs to clearly set out how it will improve cancer waiting times and tackle outcomes. I hope this can be done before the Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill on 4 July, but I fear that today’s announcement regarding the 18-week target pits knee replacements against radiotherapy. Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and is expected to increase annually, with 30% more patients with cancer, yet we have a staggering workforce shortage in almost every staffing group, insufficient capacity, and more than one in 10 referred patients waiting more than 104 days for treatment. Is the Minister still committed to meeting cancer waiting times in this Parliament?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Knife Offences · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, Thames Valley police’s Wokingham neighbourhood team attended Bohunt school in Arborfield, where they presented to young people the dangers of carrying knives. Early intervention is key to deterring children from violence, and police officers play a crucial role in that. What conversations has the Solicitor General had with her Home Office colleagues on the link between police officer numbers and effective recording of the prevention of knife crime? Has the Solicitor General expressed concerns to her colleagues about the potential decrease in the number of Thames Valley police officers?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Winter Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest: I am a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I have a family member who has shares in a medical company. The Royal Berkshire hospital has experienced its highest increase in emergency department attendances as we head into the winter period, yet the estate of the Royal Berks is crumbling, out of date and not fit for purpose. People with infectious diseases, such as flu, covid and norovirus, cannot easily be isolated due to poor air circulation, which only makes the situation worse. When will the Royal Berkshire hospital be rebuilt, and will the Minister visit it to see the full extent of our challenges? Finally, may I wish the Secretary of State and the Minister a merry Christmas? They should take a short break but come back quickly to continue to clear up the Conservatives’ massive failures on the NHS.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights: Terminal Illness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for securing this debate and for all the campaigning that he has done on this issue for many years. Around 900,000 people of working age live with cancer and each year 127,000 people of working age are diagnosed with cancer. Cancer charities, with the University of Loughborough and the Centre for Progressive Change—they have been particularly helpful to me in preparing for the debate, so I send them my deepest thanks—estimated earlier this year that upwards of 30,000 people are going through their cancer treatment on statutory sick pay, which offers them an income of just £23 a day. We are in a situation in which people do not receive adequate sick pay. Although that impacts millions of people with all types of illness, it is especially pronounced for those with a more advanced or terminal diagnosis, as Macmillan Cancer Support has told me. People are left with very serious concerns. These types of cancers involve prolonged treatment, often leading to substantial additional costs. In 2023, Young Lives vs Cancer, whose representatives I met last week, found that young cancer patients and their families spend almost £700 extra a month following a cancer diagnosis. Reportedly, that figure has increased by 15% since 2017. Quite simply, there are financial costs that follow a cancer diagnosis. Young Lives vs Cancer research found that 96% of young cancer patients and their families had to pay extra for their travel. The average came to more than £250 a month, with £30 extra on childcare, £144 extra on food and £68 extra on energy every month, along with other costs. Higher costs coupled with an inadequate income can put people’s recovery at risk. In the case of a terminal diagnosis, it can cause financial hardship at the point that the person is receiving end of life care. Anthony Nolan’s 2023 survey revealed that the cost of living issues were so severe for some patients that they cut back on food and avoided turning the heating on, and three in 10 people were unable to afford their rent or mortgage during the 12-month treatment period. Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the current, broken rate of sick pay should be fixed, and that reform must be on the table as soon as the financial situation allows? Importantly, does he also agree that we should support small employers with statutory sick pay costs and consult them on the best way to do that? Before I conclude, I want to address a key point about children and young people’s cancer. Although some may not know that they are terminal, the aggressive nature of cancers such as blood cancer, skin cancer and brain tumours means that the situation can change very quickly. Therefore, they may not have immediate access to things such as the special rules for terminal illness route for benefits, because they do not perfectly fit the criteria, which include things such as being on curative treatment or falling under the strict six-month definition of “terminal”. That leaves young patients liable to the three-month qualifying period for access to disability living allowance and personal independence payment, despite having a confirmed diagnosis. On top of that, application processing takes about 20 weeks, so some young people have passed away before their benefits have come through because of red tape. Perhaps the Minister is not aware of that, but how can the Government allow that state of affairs to continue? It really is time for change. Why does having cancer for three months suddenly make it more real to the Department for Work and Pensions than it was at the moment of diagnosis? I would be grateful if the Minister met me and cancer charities to discuss that. It seems deeply cruel to allow this state of affairs, which prevailed under the Conservatives, to continue under the new Government.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. I recognise and accept the importance of proper funding for areas of high deprivation, but it is important to acknowledge that councils with low deprivation face rising demand for their services. In my constituency of Wokingham, children with special educational needs and disabilities are suffering from this lack of investment. They are deprived, too, but in ways that are not being measured, so their council is not getting the crucial funding to look after SEND services properly. We want Wokingham borough council to get on with the job of delivering more for local residents, so how will the Minister ensure that Wokingham receives what it needs?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  GPs such as those in the Twyford surgery in my constituency have made it clear that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will impact their budgets. They urgently need clarity to determine what they can provide for my constituents and whether they will be forced to make redundancies. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to provide certainty on whether GPs will receive funding for national insurance increases, and not abandon them, as they were abandoned by the previous Government?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Aldridge Train Station · Hansard source

  More

  Aldridge station is projected to have 40 new car parking spaces, but Twyford station in my constituency is having some resurfacing and relining that will see the number of spots decline. That is despite half a million people now using the station, mainly because of the Elizabeth line, leading to a nightmare for commuters in my constituency. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Minister should bring Network Rail, Transport for London, Great Western Railway, and the Department together to find a solution that delivers more car park spaces for stations such as Twyford?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Trades and Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate. We do not have a construction college in Wokingham borough, and residents hoping to undertake a trade apprenticeship will find that the closest colleges are in Bracknell, Reading or even Basingstoke. Anyone who wishes to undertake a civil engineering course will need to travel as far away as Fareham, an hour and 18 minutes away by car. The lack of local training centres has proved to be a challenge for construction companies in the area. Often, young apprentices do not have cars, and so cannot drive long distances, or lack the financial means to travel very far out of the borough. Given that the existing public transport is not very good, the problem is set to get bigger with the Government’s removal of the £2 bus fare cap. More must be done to support young apprentices. It is unfortunate that there is a currently significant skills gap in the construction sector in my constituency of Wokingham, and across Berkshire. I thank Paul Britton of the Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce for its work on Berkshire’s local skills improvement plan. It has calculated a 19% decline, locally, in the number of carpenters’ and joiners’ jobs, an 8% drop in electricians’ and electrical fitters’ jobs, a 9% decrease in construction operatives’ jobs, and a 7% fall in elementary construction occupations. Despite that overall decline, we have an estimated need for an extra 4,300 jobs, and 14,900 replacement workers in those sorts of jobs will be needed by 2035. What will the Minister do to cover the shortages that we know are in the pipeline? Just about everybody will say that they have difficulty finding a carpenter, a plumber or an electrician. Employers state that greater knowledge of the sector is needed in schools to show the opportunities and career progression that is available. Employers also note that the skills gap is not just limited to traditional trades, but to digital and sustainable skills in the construction sector. Can the Minister explain the Government’s plans for building awareness of apprenticeships in schools? The Liberal Democrats would create a new lifelong skills grant for every adult, giving them £5,000 to spend on approved education and training courses to gain skills for the jobs of the future. Our existing system is not set up for a world of work in which the skills we learn at 18 or 21 will not last a lifetime. How will the Minister’s plans for Skills England and reforming the apprenticeship levy yield better opportunities for apprentices in Wokingham, especially in the construction sector? Will the Minister commit to meet me and the companies that offer apprenticeships to discuss what they need from the Government to deliver better opportunities for apprenticeships in Wokingham? Turning to the issue of recruitment and completion rates, there is a perception of trade apprenticeships as muddy boots and jobs for young boys. Through the work of Wokingham’s section 106 employment and skills plan, we hope to change that perception. Locally, 30 community skills events have been held to help break down the stereotype, including work experience, careers talks in schools and site visits. However, there are foundational issues with the existing structures that the Government need to address before firms can consider establishing apprenticeships. Specifically, Wates Construction is currently managing the Gorse Ride redevelopment project in my constituency. It has highlighted a problem that similar and smaller subcontractors experience. They sometimes do not have the capacity to take on apprentices due to the value of the contract and the duration, where they may not be on site for long enough. Although shared apprenticeship schemes are great, they have to pay agency fees on top of apprenticeship wages, which makes it an unaffordable option. Can the Minister address the issues raised by Wates Construction about the affordability of apprentices? What more can be done to ensure businesses like theirs can take on more apprenticeships?