Ian Sollom MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Nov 2025 · Proposed New Town: Tempsford · Hansard source

  More

  6. What the infrastructure requirements are for supporting the proposed new town at Tempsford.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Proposed New Town: Tempsford · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer. St Neots is the nearest town to the proposed east coast main line and East West Rail interchange station that would be central to any new town development at Tempsford. Many recognise the opportunities of our area, but my constituents also need clarity, particularly on health and education infrastructure. With multiple local authorities potentially being involved across county boundaries, will the Minister meet me to discuss how, in the event of a new town at Tempsford going ahead, St Neots will be supported and, in turn, how St Neots can support the new town?

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure my hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that I will be making a very focused speech. My new clauses 7, 8 and 9 address missed opportunities in the skills devolution elements of this Bill. Skills are the foundation of economic growth, which is supposedly this Government’s overriding mission. We have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, with too many others trapped in poverty, and we face a future that will require training and retraining throughout working life. Critically in the context of this Bill, local areas understand their skills needs better than Whitehall does. That is why skills devolution matters, and it is why the amendments I have tabled are essential to making it work. In Committee, the Minister gave assurances that the Government “remain completely committed” to strengthening the role of strategic authorities in local skills improvement plans. After all, the White Paper promised “joint ownership”, but it is not in the Bill. Not to worry, the Minister said; new statutory guidance would deliver it. That guidance was published last Tuesday. I have read it carefully, as has the Local Government Association, and guess what? It does not deliver joint ownership. The guidance actually says that employer representative bodies retain “overall responsibility”, while strategic authorities merely set out “sector skills priorities at the outset.” That is not joint ownership—it is just a consultation. New clause 9, which is endorsed by the LGA, fixes this. It would require both the strategic authority and the employer representative body to agree before the Secretary of State can approve a local skills improvement plan. Elected mayors are accountable to constituents and responsible for delivering adult skills fund spending. Surely, democratic accountability should not be controversial when devolving substantial public funding. New clause 7 would require strategic authorities to consider existing 16-to-19 and higher education provision when exercising adult skills functions. Again, the Minister said in Committee that schedule 10 already “allows” this, but allowing is not requiring. Without a statutory duty, we risk exactly the same fragmentation that this Bill should prevent: three parts of the education pipeline potentially working to three different plans, with no co-ordination mechanism. Employers need coherent pathways, and young people need clear progression routes from school through college to work. Making that happen should not be controversial, either. Finally, new clause 8 would require strategic authorities to publish annual reports on their adult education functions—how funding is deployed, co-ordination with providers, and outcomes for learners and employers. Again, I emphasise that we are talking about substantial public funding with a significant local impact. Without reporting requirements, how will we know if skills devolution is working? How will we know if employer needs are being met? How will we identify problems before they become failures? Unfortunately, the Minister offered zero response in Committee to such an amendment, so I remain somewhat in the dark about why the Government think that basic transparency and accountability are unnecessary. The three amendments are precision fixes. They do not reorganise institutions, create bureaucracy or move funding; they would just ensure that elected officials have genuine joint leadership and not simply consultation rights, that the skills pipeline is co-ordinated, not fragmented, and that public funding is transparently accounted for. If we believe in effective devolution, we must give devolved institutions the frameworks to succeed. Warm words and non-statutory guidance are not sufficient when devolving substantial powers and public funding. The new clauses would deliver on key parts of what the Government promised in the White Paper. They would provide an accountability framework that any effective public policy requires, and I urge the Government to accept them.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Universities: Research and Development · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. The UK’s universities do indeed produce world-class research, but I would suggest that we are still missing too many opportunities in commercialisation. The Government’s proof of concept fund is really quite inadequate—from the figures, it is 30 times oversubscribed—and equity and intellectual property arrangements are laborious and deter both investors and entrepreneurs. Will the Secretary of State commit to expanding that proof of concept funding and reforming those barriers that hold back university spin-outs?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Universities: Research and Development · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps her Department is taking with universities to develop its research and development policies.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Probation Service · Hansard source

  More

  In July 2024, inspectors rated Cambridgeshire and Peterborough probation service inadequate, with major leadership failures and child safeguarding assessed as adequate in just 28% of cases. The action plan committed to increasing probation officer staffing by 87% by March 2026, but the National Audit Office has now revealed that the Probation Service has underestimated staffing requirements by 34%, which implies that the service in Cambridgeshire has been operating with only half the staff needed. Given that miscalculation, will the Secretary of State commit to revised, accurate staffing targets for Cambridgeshire, and reassure my constituents that child safeguarding will not be compromised as the service tries to manage with inadequate resources?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Probation Service · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps he is taking to support the Probation Service.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Huntingdon Train Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Home Secretary and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), in sending my thoughts to the victims and their families. I pay tribute to Cambridgeshire police, Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, the East of England ambulance service, the staff at Addenbrooke’s hospital, the train crew and the passengers for their response on Saturday evening. While respecting the ongoing investigation and the Independent Office for Police Conduct process, will she assure the House that the extraordinary bravery and professionalism demonstrated by all those involved in containing the incident and providing lifesaving care will be properly recognised in due course?

• 29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate about a decision that demonstrates at the very least a profoundly flawed approach to policymaking and at worst a wilful dismantling of excellence in state education. Let me begin by examining the Government’s stated rationale for this decision. The ministerial response last week said that the Government would “focus large programme uplift funding…on those large programmes which include mathematics, further mathematics and other high value A levels.” The stated aim is to prioritise STEM education and to support the pipeline of students for priority sectors in the industrial strategy. Let me ask the Minister some questions directly. What evidence does the Department have that this targeted approach will achieve better STEM outcomes than maintaining IB funding? What analysis has been conducted comparing the STEM university destinations and career pathways of IB students with those of A-level students? What data supports the assumption that cutting IB funding while maintaining it for multiple STEM A-levels will improve our STEM pipeline? Can he produce that evidence today? Every IB diploma student studies mathematics and a science to the age of 18. They develop research skills through writing a 4,000-word extended essay, critical thinking through studying theory of knowledge and real-world problem-solving through community service. Those are exactly the skills that universities and employers tell us that STEM graduates need. The profound irony is that this Government tell us that they want to prioritise science, technology, engineering and mathematics. However, in making this decision about STEM education, the Department appears to have conducted no impact assessment, carried out no consultation with schools or families, and given no consideration to any unintended consequences. As has been mentioned, the letter that 20 state schools received on 1 October—right in the middle of sixth-form open day season, with prospectuses already printed and families already making choices—gave them no warning. If this is how the Government approach policymaking about scientific education—making decisions without evidence, consultation or even a basic assessment of consequences—one questions what kind of example they think they are setting for young people about the value of scientific thinking. I can declare an interest: I took not just two but three mathematics A-levels. I wanted to specialise early, and I am a strong supporter of university maths schools, such as Cambridge Maths school, which serves my constituency. I note that several university maths schools have been left in limbo for many months, unable to open or expand their offer during the Government’s pause of the free school programme. That is not exactly an example of joined-up thinking from the Department. My point is about choice. A good education system offers pathways to those who want to specialise early and to those who want to maintain breadth. Tony Blair—I am sure the Minister remembers “education, education, education”—understood this. His Labour Government promised an IB school in every local authority. This Labour Government are going in precisely the opposite direction. There is an even more troubling dimension to this choice—one that I sincerely hope will trouble the Minister as well as the Secretary of State. On 15 October, less than two weeks ago, I stood in almost exactly this spot during the Ada Lovelace day debate and highlighted how early specialisation at age 16 disproportionately impacts girls’ participation in STEM. Research shows that students are more likely to take maths A-level if their maths grade is higher than their other grades at GCSE. Girls generally achieve higher GCSE grades than boys across the board, so they often choose other subjects at A-level. That reflects the wider pool of opportunities available to them as generally higher achievers. The international baccalaureate solves this problem. Research from the Engineering Professors Council showed that IB graduates are disproportionately women and twice as likely to pursue further STEM study after their first degree. The research explicitly states that actively recruiting IB candidates would be a pathway to getting more women into male-dominated engineering fields. Here is another direct question for the Minister: how can the Government claim to want more students—particularly more girls—on STEM pathways while cutting funding for a qualification that demonstrably helps to achieve exactly that? The Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), also holds the Women and Equalities brief, so can the Minister say whether she is comfortable with a policy that reduces women’s participation in STEM? Women make up just 15.7% of the engineering and technology workforce. Jobs in those sectors are expected to grow faster than other occupations through to 2030, and the Government’s response is to defund the programme that helps to keep girls in STEM. This is close to home for me: Impington Village college, which has been mentioned already, is in my constituency. It was named the UK’s top comprehensive school for 2025. It credits its IB programme as the key to success. I have met students who have told me that the IB gives them breadth, critical thinking and confidence to succeed throughout their whole lives. However, losing £2,400 per student will force impossible choices about staffing and subject range. The Government are forcing the UK’s top comprehensive to compromise the very quality that earned it that recognition. This is already happening: Tonbridge grammar school, the Sunday Times IB school of the year, announced this week that it will stop offering the IB because it cannot afford to continue. The Secretary of State told the Confederation of School Trusts conference that she wants to “spread excellence” from one school to another— “the best of the best.” Impington Village college is the best; Tonbridge grammar is the best. The Government are defunding them. Is that what the Secretary of State meant by spreading success? Let us examine the value for money argument. This decision will save £2.5 million per year from a Department budget that has been mentioned as exceeding £100 billion. It is invisible in the accounts. For this microscopic saving, we are creating a two-tier system, where a brilliant, internationally recognised qualification becomes exclusive to those who can afford private school fees. Currently, 76 independent schools offer the IB, compared with just 20 state schools, and more state schools need to be able to offer it. This decision does not narrow the gap; it devastates the provision. Indeed, Sir Anthony Seldon wrote in The Times just the other day that this is “the most regressive elective action towards state schools taken by government in the last 25 years.” I have three asks of the Government. First, reverse the decision and reinstate the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate diploma programme. The saving is negligible; the damage is profound. Secondly, protect current IB students and those enrolling to begin in the next academic year, and do not pull the rug out from under young people who have made or are making choices in good faith now. Thirdly, learn from the IB’s success, rather than destroy it. Examine the evidence, consult with schools, students and families, and consider how we can give more, not fewer, students access to this broad and rigorous education. I will close by quoting the international baccalaureate’s mission statement: “The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect…These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.” I hope that the Government have listened to that.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. The Arthur Rank hospice in Cambridgeshire is losing £829,000 in NHS funding, which is forcing the closure of nine beds—40% of its capacity. Does the Minister believe that dying patients are cared for better in overstretched hospital wards than in specialist hospices, and will he please not fob me off with talk of capital investment? This is about operational costs.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I too thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. There is far too much in this White Paper to respond to comprehensively in two minutes, so let me focus on three critical issues. The first issue is V-levels. The Secretary of State talks about ending confusion, yet she is introducing a new qualification that sounds remarkably like BTECs—they are flexible, sector-based and can mix with A-levels. BTECs already work: 200,000 students took them last year, 99% of universities accept them and one in five UK workers have one. If we are recreating BTECs, why scrap them first? We should keep both until 2030, so that we can compare outcomes. T-levels reached 1% uptake after five years, so let us not repeat that mistake. The second issue is lifelong learning. The Secretary of State rightly speaks about the working mother needing to upskill, but will the support be sufficient to make that real? The lifelong learning entitlement is welcome, but the Government have cut over-21 apprenticeships, including those in shortage professions such as nursing and social work. What confidence do the Government have that their LLE can cover the costs of providing that vocational education, particularly in subjects with high operating costs? The third issue is the international student levy. We support maintenance grants—another manifesto commitment we made that the Government have adopted—but funding them by taxing international students is self-defeating. This is incredibly tricky to model, but analysis shows that the levy could cut up to 135,000 domestic student places over five years and reduce our economy by £2.2 billion. That is not helping disadvantaged students. Will the Secretary of State make the modelling transparent and promise that opportunity will not be narrowed by the levy? There are many more questions, but I appreciate that I do not have time to ask them all. There is much to welcome in this White Paper’s ambition, but we must guard against unintended consequences and missed opportunities. The Lib Dems stand ready to work with the Government to get this right.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Ada Lovelace Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) on securing this important debate. Some Members may remember a debate that I held a few months ago on the contribution of maths to the UK. There was, I think, cross-party agreement that increasing the quality and uptake of mathematical education will be central to the Government’s growth mission. I will not repeat the arguments I made in that debate, but I will focus on maths today. Historically, it is one of the worst-performing subjects in terms of gender equality, and one where issues emerge long before women reach the leaky pipeline of STEM careers that others may mention today. The gender imbalance in STEM is not just about fairness; it is about meeting a national need. Jobs in engineering and technology are expected to grow faster than other occupations across the UK through to 2030, yet women make up just 15.7% of the engineering and technology workforce. That is quite stark. Around the country, excellent work is already being done to increase the participation of women and girls in maths. Yesterday evening, I attended a reception to celebrate the achievements of uMaths, the network of university maths schools that tackles under-representation in STEM through core programmes of maths and further maths A-levels, with university-linked enrichment. One of these schools is Cambridge maths school, which serves my constituency, and which I was delighted to visit earlier this year. Already nearly 50% of the school’s year 13 pupils are female, which is something to be proud of—indeed, it is amazing, considering the national figure on the uptake of maths and further maths A-level is nowhere near that level of parity. More than 10,000 male pupils took A-level further maths in 2023-24, but the number of female pupils taking the subject was less than half that. Cambridge maths school has clearly made a huge impact simply through its core offerings and ethos, and it is looking to increase support for female students even more. Over the summer, in partnership with the university and Raspberry Pi, it ran a free Girls Enjoy Maths summer school that offered interactive workshops, talks from leading female mathematicians and time to speak to current Cambridge maths school students about their experience. It gave female students a much-needed opportunity to meet role models and see that mathematics does not have to be the masculine-dominated world it may have been for quite a long time. That is vital to increasing participation. Days such as Ada Lovelace Day should not be a historical anomaly. We should be celebrating Ada as much as possible, and I am really glad that we have this debate to do that. If we are truly to open access to STEM careers to all, I do not think we can rely just on the provision of maths schools that separate students into the STEM versus humanities dichotomy. The Liberal Democrats believe in a broad and balanced approach to the curriculum that gives students, no matter what subjects they study, the skills that they will need in careers that are increasingly technology-driven. That matters particularly to women because research shows that the gender gap opens early—by age 10, only 11% of girls aspire to engineering careers compared with 44% of boys. Between 2019 and 2023 alone, interest in science among 11 to 14-year-old girls declined by 10 percentage points. Evidence shows that female students are generally more likely to want to study a broader range of subjects than their male peers. It is speculated that it is partly for that reason that the uptake of further maths, a subject that makes one twice as likely to pursue a mathematically intensive STEM degree, is so low. If someone takes further maths, that means filling two of their A-level options with maths, which narrows the opportunity to choose a broader option with more humanities. As a result, many female pupils opt for only single maths, even if they are capable of much more. Given that suffering from early pigeonholing, the other thing that I would highlight is the opportunity to reskill.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Ada Lovelace Day · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly support the increase in apprenticeships; getting more young people on to any course that offers opportunity is ultimately what it is all about, and I look forward to scrutinising the Government’s White Paper on post-16 education when it comes out—in the near term, I believe. Lifelong opportunities are important as well, giving those people who might have been hampered by the choices they had to make at a young age an opportunity to reskill and join the STEM workforce later in life. I want to highlight an event happening next week: the University of Cambridge’s Institute for Manufacturing is co-hosting the Women in Manufacturing 2025 conference in Coventry—a clear recognition by the sector of the importance of breaking down barriers, and of supporting women to enter and progress in manufacturing careers. Breaking down barriers to women’s inclusion in STEM careers also requires cross-departmental thinking, with the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology all involved with STEM and careers. I hope that promoting such cross-departmental thinking is something that the Minister can commit to today.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that resources need to be put in place to support the many good measures in the Bill and in many of the proposed amendments. In Declan’s case, services were created in the wake of tragedy and funding was found, but too often such services disappear when attention moves elsewhere. I recognise that the implementation challenges are real, and I appreciate that the Minister has committed to providing annual written statements on progress, but I believe the principles in the amendments around crisis provision, proactive intervention, accountability and co-production with autistic people merit consideration. As much as I would like him to, I do not expect that the Minister will have a late change of heart on the amendments today. However, I hope he will be willing to meet me after the Bill receives Royal Assent to discuss how we can work together to ensure the systemic failures that led to Declan’s death are properly addressed during implementation of the measures in the Bill. In stopping those systemic failures, we would honour the memory of Declan.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to amendments 24 to 28 and 36 to 38 in my name, which address gaps in crisis provision and accountability for autistic people and people with learning disabilities. On Second Reading, I told this House about Declan Morrison, my constituent who died aged just 26 after spending 10 days in a section 136 suite that was wholly inappropriate for his complex needs. I remind the House that section 136 suites are designed for 24-hour stays, or a maximum of 36 hours in extreme cases. The coroner who investigated Declan’s death found that “there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken.” The timeline of what happened in the run-up to Declan’s death shows a cascade of systemic failures. Declan’s family, Graeme, Sam and Kaitlyn, have asked me to ensure that Parliament learns from what happened. These amendments in my name reflect those lessons and the coroner’s recommendations. In Committee, the Minister made several points about earlier versions of these amendments, which I have tried to address in these revised versions. In particular, on crisis accommodation, the Minister argued that existing duties on ICBs already cover crisis provision and that the amendment was too prescriptive, potentially restricting ICBs in designing provision, emphasising the importance of flexibility for ICBs to meet local needs. I understand the desire not to be overly prescriptive, but in Declan’s case, over 100 places were contacted and no suitable accommodation could be found anywhere in the country. Flexibility failed Declan. The revised version of the amendment allows for regional solutions beyond the ICB, but I suspect that the Minister will still find it too prescriptive. However, the fundamental question remains: should there not be a duty to ensure that provision exists somewhere? The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB established a crisis service after Declan’s death that operated at 98% capacity, demonstrating both need and viability, but it closed when funding was withdrawn, highlighting the challenge with voluntary provision.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Rail commuters in St Neots face a rise of nearly £400 for an annual season ticket to London next year, paying over £7,000 for the first time for services plagued by delays and cancellations. How does the Secretary of State justify that policy to my constituents?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Life Sciences Investment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his place. It is incredibly disappointing that MSD has pulled out of this billion-pound investment in the UK, including the loss of more than 100 jobs in important life sciences infrastructure. However, this has been on the cards for some time, and the warnings to Government have fallen on deaf ears. Earlier this year, AstraZeneca also cancelled planned upgrades to its production, and Novartis has described the UK as “largely uninvestable”. One pharmaceutical company reducing its UK operations is a problem, but there is a worrying trend that threatens a crisis in the sector. The UK is becoming less and less attractive to the life sciences industry, and with good reason. First, the Budget saw huge rises in costs to all businesses, including through Labour’s jobs tax. Secondly, there has been a notable lack of investment across the life sciences sector, including in job creation, critical skills and creating a commercial environment that can compete internationally. The Lib Dems continue to call for the Government to make research and development investment 3.5% of GDP, and the life sciences would be a key focus. That would be coupled with extra support for academic institutions to commercialise research. How do the Government plan to restore confidence among pharmaceutical companies that the UK is a competitive place for research and development and manufacturing?

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

  More

  I thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), for securing this important debate. I would like to use my time to focus on some of the great work being carried out by organisations in my constituency and to share some of the practical suggestions they have made to me for improving the current system for those organisations and the people they work with. One organisation that I have had the good fortune to visit, and whose work I have witnessed at first hand, is Switch Now. It is a qualified alternative education and training provider that supports neurodivergent people—whom it refers to as co-workers—into employment and, importantly, helps to keep them there. Switch Now was formed 10 years ago in St Neots and predominantly works with 18 to 35-year-old neurodiverse people. It works through the British Association of Supported Employment model—the BASE model—which sees it collaborate with the local community and partner organisations to find suitable jobs in inclusive workspaces. To do that, it works closely with employers to support them in hiring neurodiverse people and in making the adaptations that make a difference. Sometimes those can be as simple as swapping from analogue to digital clocks in the workplace. That can make a huge difference to the inclusion of some neurodiverse people. One of the key elements with alternative providers such as Switch Now is how they look at the individual and their needs, and support them in the learning, skills development and work experience required to get into employment or regular voluntary activity—as others have noted, it is important that we do not take a one-size-fits-all approach to training and skills if we are going to support neurodiverse people into work. Switch Now’s founder, Catherine, says that its model of looking at and securing an individual’s development and training needs means that, when they do gain employment, they are less reliant on social care and benefits in the long term, and can look forward to a more fulfilling future. At present, Switch Now is working with nearly 30 young people, who are given both on and off-site training and gaining work-based qualifications. However, there are not nearly enough organisations like Switch Now, and there are barriers to these providers. Changes to the post-16 alternative provision framework have meant that organisations such as Switch Now have less direct contact with the young people they wish to help. They now see referrals on paper, and they do not have the opportunity to meet people in person. That is very slow and makes planning quite difficult. As always with this type of provision, funding is a challenge, particularly when it comes to best practice. However, Switch Now’s long-term success means that, over the past 10 years, 83% of its co-workers have been supported into full-time, part-time or voluntary work, because it uses that person-centred method. I encourage the Minister to reflect on the BASE approach, and on providers such as Switch Now, and to see how levers in the DWP can be used to support those providers and to support individuals into work.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has made a number of announcements about skills in the defence industrial strategy, which is much appreciated, but can he explain how they will integrate with existing skills frameworks and whether the industry will be given the flexibility to develop new courses at the “wartime pace” that the strategic defence review referenced?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Support for Trans People · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that many trans people with gender recognition certificates followed all the legal processes in good faith, often over many years, and made legally binding commitments to live in their acquired gender for life. Yet now that they find themselves legally bound to live in one gender, they are at the same time being denied access to services and facilities aligned with that gender. How does the Minister plan to resolve those contradictory legal obligations, and what will she do to provide immediate support to the trans community?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Support for Trans People · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps she is taking to support trans people in the context of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v . Scottish Ministers of 16 April 2025.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. A constituent with muscular dystrophy reports facing a wait of eight to 12 months for AJM Healthcare to deliver a new wheelchair, which is far beyond the 18-week target. What steps will the Minister take with her health colleagues to address the really poor performance by AJM Healthcare nationwide, particularly its equalities implications?

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

  More

  When the Government get something right, it is important to acknowledge that. The community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill represent the genuine empowerment that constituents need. I therefore acknowledge that. In my constituency, I have a village community that is desperate to buy the local pub—an asset of community value that has been up for sale for some time. They have raised the funds for the asking price and they have community support, but the owner simply refuses to sell to them. Under the current system, they have no right of purchase and no right of refusal, and although they have raised the money, more time to organise the complex legal and financial arrangement required for community ownership would have been appreciated. The new community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill are therefore welcome. Just as the Bill gets community empowerment right in one policy area, it misses the opportunity to do so in many others. I draw a contrast with one in particular: the skills architecture. The Bill creates new skills responsibilities for strategic authorities without clarifying how they will co-ordinate with the national role of Skills England—another new body—or the existing employer-led local skills improvement plans, or LSIPs. We have a system in which Skills England sets national priorities, LSIPs identify local employer needs and strategic authorities deliver adult education funding, but the Bill has no clear mechanisms for ensuring that those layers align or avoid costly duplication. This fragmentation is compounded by the separation of adult skills from the broader skills and education ecosystem. The Bill devolves responsibility for adult education to strategic authorities but leaves 16-to-19 education with central Government and provides no clear role at all for universities in local economic development. This is despite the Education Secretary herself calling for universities to make a stronger contribution to economic growth through closer alignment to skills needs and economic growth plans. How can we develop coherent local skills strategies when we artificially separate the pipeline that feeds skilled employment? The funding arrangements are also concerning. Strategic authorities will hold the adult skills budgets but have only joint ownership of the LSIPs that should guide their spending priorities. It is difficult to see how democratically accountable bodies can be responsible for outcomes when they lack control over the full planning process. Furthermore, current LSIP boundaries do not align with the proposed strategic authority boundaries, and the Government’s solution appears to be to hope that it all works out in the end. The Bill provides no mechanism for resolving conflicts and no timeline for achieving the geographical coherence that effective planning requires. Possibly most troubling is the absence of any performance framework linking those different institutional layers. Strategic authorities must produce local growth plans, but there is no requirement for them to align with LSIPs or with Skills England workforce forecasting. We risk having three different bodies in each area producing conflicting skills priorities with no clear co-ordination mechanism. That is a recipe for confusion, waste and ultimately a failure to address the skills shortages that our economy desperately needs to resolve. I wanted to draw a contrast, so here it is. On community assets, the Bill trusts local people and provides clear, enforceable rights. However, on skills—one of the most critical challenges facing our economy—it creates institutional complexity and lacks accountability and clear lines of responsibility. I hope the Government will go away and think again, and come back with a more coherent approach that actually delivers the local responsiveness on skills that communities and our economy so desperately need.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the Minister for his statement, in particular the fact that IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. Sir Brian Langstaff concluded that the current approach to compensation perpetuates harm by creating different treatment for registered and unregistered victims. Can the Minister confirm whether that includes interim payments for unregistered victims, which was another recommendation in Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report?