LabourNorthampton South

Mike Reader MP: speeches

How to read this

Hansard records words spoken in Parliament. A contribution does not by itself show that policy changed.

Most recent 12 months, since 30 Sept 2025. Newest first within each group. Follow the original source for full context.

Speeches

14 Jul 2026 · NHS Workforce: Sickness Absence · Hansard source
More
We know that sickness absence and stress are often related to people’s workplaces. With £17 million now invested in Northampton general hospital for a new urgent treatment centre, and enhanced A&E opening this summer, does the Secretary of State agree that this is proof again that this Labour Government are investing in the infrastructure that our staff need to keep them safe and keep us safe too?
8 Jul 2026 · European Entry and Exit System · Hansard source
More
As an MP who represents a constituency at the heart of the golden triangle, with one in five of my constituents working in logistics, this issue comes up regularly, including most recently with Steve Deveraux from BSI Transport, who explained to me the costs and the red tape that the current entry system creates. Will the Minister set out what assessment his office has made about the economic impact of the new system on HGV drivers and hauliers, and what measures the Department will take to support that sector going forward?
2 Jul 2026 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source
More
The Northampton-based McManus Pub Company runs 18 pubs and employs 370 people. I spoke to Tom McManus yesterday, who told me that successive Governments have ignored hospitality and that in the past five years business costs have made it harder for him to turn a profit. Tom has asked me to lobby the Government to cut VAT to 10%. What message does the Minister have for family businesses such as Tom’s?
30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend picks up the next point I want to make. Unfortunately, there have been cases, including at Warwick, where complaints of antisemitism have not been handled well and where those raising concerns have felt unsupported, and that creates a wider culture in which people hesitate to speak up. It may not even be about major incidents; it can be the drip, drip, drip of smaller things and their cumulative effect. Lecturers crossing the line in terms of their professional boundaries, protests that blur into hostility, or a sense that standards and processes are not applied equally to Jewish students—all of that feeds into whether a campus feels inclusive. However, we should recognise what works. Warwick has developed a strong, outward-facing Jewish community, and perhaps it is not by accident that the newly elected president of the Union of Jewish Students, Raphi Leon, came through Warwick himself. His focus on building connections across campus, rather than retreating into isolation, is exactly the kind approach universities should be supporting. We know from experiences at Warwick and other places what good practice broadly looks like. It means regular engagement with students and staff. It means clear and accessible reporting systems. It means proper support for chaplaincy and campus groups. Crucially, it means acting consistently and quickly when things go wrong. It should not be complicated, and there is guidance out there, including UJS’s recent “Best Practice Guidance” and “A Good Practice Guide”, published by Lord Mann and the all-party taskforce on antisemitism in higher education, which is supported by the excellent Antisemitism Policy Trust. The expectations are clear: universities have a duty under equality law to provide a safe environment for all students and staff. The issue is not whether universities can get this right once; it is whether they get it right consistently. In the end, it comes down to leadership. Where leadership is clear, we see confidence and inclusion; where we do not have clear leadership, we see confusion and a loss of trust. Our universities, of all places, should not be environments where people feel like they have to hold back who they are.
30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for introducing this important debate. I am fortunate to have had a positive relationship with the small but perfectly formed Jewish community in Northamptonshire for many years. The Northampton Hebrew congregation is a welcoming, open and very hard-working group. Through the work of Michael Necus and the trustees, Jewish students at the University of Northampton have a safe place to pray, to be part of our community and to connect with others. Although antisemitic hate and crime is very low in my county and at my university, the experiences of those at my nearest JSoc at the University of Warwick have been very different. The stories I hear bring home how challenging it can be to be Jewish and attend a UK university and that we must continue to take every step possible to make sure our universities are safe for all students, no matter their religion. Through these stories, I have also heard how universities such as the University of Warwick and the University of Northampton are working hard to create inclusive spaces for all students. In my contribution to this valuable debate, I will focus on the role of universities, because what we are seeing on campuses is not just down to bad actors but to how universities respond. At Warwick, there have been some clear examples of best practice. In the days after the 7 October attacks, several individuals infiltrated the freshers WhatsApp group of Warwick Jewish society and sent a stream of abusive antisemitic messages. At a time when members of the society were trying to get to know each other at a social gathering, they watched this unfold on their phones in real time. It was frightening. Jacob Lederman, the society’s treasurer, told the BBC and other media outlets that, alongside the immediate impact on students, it has put long-term safety and security pressures on the society that other societies at the university simply do not have to face. The positive is that the incident did not slow the society down. It is still running weekly events with security in attendance, and the society praised the campus security team, saying that it could not be more grateful for the support it was given. Thankfully, the police were able to find the individuals responsible, who were not students. They were arrested and rightly prosecuted. That is an example of the kind of incident that universities have to deal with, and it shows the importance of a serious response, working with the police, acting decisively and treating the issue with the gravity it deserves. Unfortunately, that is not the only experience of antisemitism that Warwick students have faced. In the summer of 2020, four members of the University of Warwick Conservative association were filmed singing and dancing to a Nazi propaganda song. That is completely unacceptable. The society was suspended, and disciplinary action was taken. Again, that is what a good response should look like: clear action, visible consequences and a message sent that such behaviour has no place on campuses. That is the reality: it is not just enough to say the right things and put policies and procedures in place; universities have to act, and those actions have to be applied consistently. When they do not act, the consequences can be quite serious.
11 Jun 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source
More
The Minister will be aware that freight services using East West Rail infrastructure already terminate at Northampton Gateway. Will the Minister work with me to ensure Northampton is included in East West Rail’s long-term vision for passenger services, ensuring connectivity across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor?
11 Jun 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source
More
2. What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail services.
9 Jun 2026 · Energy Costs · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. lady give way?
9 Jun 2026 · Energy Costs · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) referred to retrofitting in her speech, and the Minister has talked about its importance. In Northampton, one of the biggest concerns people have about committing to retrofit is getting a dodgy builder. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recognise that, and we have recommended to Government that they bring forward a licensing scheme for contractors and an accreditation scheme for tradespeople. Could the Minister set out how the Government are progressing on that?
2 Jun 2026 · Clean Energy Transition: Supporting People in Work · Hansard source
More
Twenty-five per cent of the manufacturing output of the east midlands is in the food and drink sector, but that sector feels left behind in the clean energy transition without support from Government programmes, such as the British industrial competitiveness scheme. What support can the Minister give to the food and drink sector to ensure that it continues to prosper in the east midlands and to create jobs in constituencies such as mine?
27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
The potential rapid closure of St Andrew’s hospital in my constituency puts over 3,000 jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what package of support we can put in place for those people to ensure they can find good quality work in my constituency?
24 Mar 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source
More
Does the Secretary of State share my concern, or dismay, perhaps, that at a time when families are concerned about the cost of energy and the price at the pumps, the Conservatives have become obsessed with oil and gas licensing and not taking any action at all to reduce bills?
24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source
More
The discussion on fracking is perhaps one for another day. We have heard claims that there are billions of pounds to be invested, but in reality, when it comes to development, it is the public who pay the price. In some cases, taxpayers foot around 80% of the development bill. Modelling on Rosebank and ending the energy profits levy shows that there could be a net loss of about £250 million to the Treasury, while operators would receive about £1.5 billion in profits. That should give us pause for thought. Who are we here to represent—our neighbours who are facing high prices at the pumps and high fuel bills, or multimillionaire shareholders? There is also the fundamental question of whether the Government will keep their promise to future generations on the climate crisis. International bodies, including the International Energy Agency, have set out that new exploration licences are not compatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Last year was the first time in history that global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. We have a legal obligation, but, more importantly, we have a duty to act in the best interests of our country and our people in the long term. If we expand fossil fuel extraction in full knowledge of the consequences, we are choosing to delay that responsibility and we will feel the effects. We are already feeling the effects in food prices. The No. 1 issue that our farmers are facing is climate change. We will feel the impact of extreme heat and air quality on health, and we will see the effects in global instability, which feeds straight back into costs here at home. The task ahead of us is to make sure that we stick with the plan, focus on doubling down on renewables, say no to oil and gas, and, ultimately, make sure that we deliver a clean future for our country.
24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source
More
I have found this debate quite fascinating. What nonsense from the Conservatives! We are watching a party rip itself up as it worries about more defections to Reform, and Conservative Back Benchers parrot the lines of their Front Benchers. We know from media coverage that the Conservatives are promoting people to the Front Bench based on their social media clout, so I look forward to many more one-liners and AI-generated speeches as they all try to get to the front. We have heard arguments that sound less like a plan for Britain and much more like they are straight from the Reform playbook, talking down our country and creating more uncertainty and worry for families across the UK. To be clear, I fiercely oppose further oil and gas exploration in the North sea. Expanding new drilling would not address the pressures that families face right now, and it would not give our country long-term energy security and sovereignty. In fact, it would exacerbate the problem. There is a claim that we can simply turn the drilling on, that billions of pounds are available right now without any Government subsidy, and that, all of a sudden, we will get more oil. That is a fairytale—it is nonsense. Drilling and expansion is expensive. The best supplies are already tapped out. Profiteering drillers and exploiters are honest about this. There are other places around the world where they would much prefer to drill, to make much bigger profits for their stakeholders. Drilling is not a magical solution that will benefit British families. Even if North sea fields were opened today, as the motion proposes, the UK would still depend on imported gas by 2050, but it would make up 94% rather than 97% of the total. It would make almost zero impact on our long-term energy security. Let us consider the two projects mentioned in the motion. Jackdaw would reduce import dependence by roughly 2%, with the UK continuing to be heavily reliant on international supplies. Rosebank would reduce oil dependence by around 1%, and all that oil would be destined for exports, not for the pumps.
24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Member give way?
16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source
More
I welcome the Minister’s statement, which will reassure a lot of families in Northamptonshire. Could he give us a bit more detail on the timeline under which this will be brought in, and assure people across Northamptonshire that the process will be easy to access, without bureaucracy?
16 Mar 2026 · Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill · Hansard source
More
I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward this piece of legislation. Can he confirm that the Bill is not only about capital expenditure, but long-term maintenance, to ensure that this is a lasting legacy for the families of Grenfell?
3 Mar 2026 · Geotechnical Data · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the collection of, setting of standards relating to, and secure sharing of geotechnical data derived from ground and site investigations; to require the integration of such data into the National Underground Asset Register; to confer duties on statutory undertakers and public authorities in connection with certain such data; and for connected purposes. Nearly 200 years ago, in 1835, three of Britain’s leading geologists—William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and Charles Lyell—wrote to the Board of Ordnance to argue for something quite simple: that this country should properly understand what lies beneath its feet. They said that proper geological maps would stop money being wasted in the search for coal and materials. Such maps would improve road construction, guide the construction of canals, help drainage, identify building materials and strengthen agriculture. Out of that thinking came what we know today as the British geological survey. Those geologists’ big idea still stands strong today: that when we understand the ground properly, we can build better, build cheaper and build faster. We talk a lot in this House about growth and opportunities. As someone who joined the House after working for the best part of 20 years in construction and infrastructure, I am pretty happy about that, because I come from a sector that is the economy made physical. It creates the homes that people live in, the energy networks that power industry, the transport systems that connect people to work, and the water infrastructure that makes development possible. When infrastructure policy is done properly, it reduces poverty. It reduces living costs, unlocks employment and widens access to opportunities, tackling poverty at its roots. However, growth rests—quite literally—on the ground beneath our feet. Geology underpins everything that we do. It influences groundwater and resilience to flooding, and determines whether a project succeeds or runs into delay and redesign, yet whereas our engineering capability in the UK has advanced enormously over the years, the way we treat data has not kept pace with the digital age. Ground investigation data is collected in vast quantities every year in every corner of the UK, at great public expense. Borehole records, soil classifications, and rock core and groundwater data all get collected from ground investigations, but too often, that data is siloed, commercially locked away, lost between projects, or simply duplicated because it cannot be accessed. That means that we are paying twice to drill the same holes for the same data, facing avoidable surprises, and seeing delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects and planning applications. At the end of the day, that is increasing cost and programme risk. It is a profound waste of money and time that this country cannot afford to leave unresolved. If we are serious about speeding up delivery in this country and getting Britain building again, we cannot ignore the knowledge that we have already paid to collect. The Government have recognised this problem in part, and are rightly investing in the national underground asset register to map 4 million km of pipes and cables beneath British streets, but the register focuses on the assets that we put into the ground, not the factual data about the ground itself. Although we are modernising how we map buried services, we are not yet systematically ensuring that factual ground investigation data, where it exists, can be securely shared and reused through the same national platform. That is what this Bill seeks to address. The Bill is not a radical rewrite but a focused, proportionate extension of existing plans. It would bring factual ground investigation data and underground asset data into one place, and build on UK industry’s initiatives on format to allow data to be readily inputted and accessed digitally. It proposes that we initially limit this information to borehole records, site investigation reports, and soil, rock and groundwater data. It does not mandate the extensive, retrospective and expensive upload of data, but it does mirror the regulations created under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 to determine what data is shared, where and in which format. The Bill builds on the successes of other nations, such as the Netherlands, which has successfully implemented such a scheme and is already seeing great results. In short, it complements the current framework and what the Government intend to do; it does not change it. The economic case for the Bill is very strong. The Government believe that the national underground asset register, even in its current state, will generate over £400 million of savings per year. However, the reuse of ground investigation data has been estimated to be worth an additional £1.2 billion per year to the UK economy, and will massively reduce the carbon footprint of construction. We have some proof for those lofty figures, because the British Geological Survey’s national geological repository, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), has already returned up to £36 for every £1 invested, saving £1.5 billion through data reuse. Those numbers echo the 1835 argument that good geological information prevents waste and improves the use of capital. Early access to ground investigation data sets up projects for success, reducing uncertainty and the chance of delay or cost increases. To give a real example that Members may know about, the cost of ground investigations for High Speed 2 phase 1 is over £300 million. That is £300 million of public money spent on data that will be locked away for decades and lost, but that could be used to help better deliver the growth that we need. Before bringing forward this Bill, I wanted to make sure that what I am proposing is deliverable, not just a great theoretical idea that will never get off the ground. I am truly grateful for the fact that, through thorough engagement with professionals from AtkinsRéalis, Arup, Mott MacDonald, Arcadis, the British Geological Survey, the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, the British Drilling Association and academic experts, it is clear that there is public sector, industry and expert support for my proposals. All were clear that the current system leads to duplication and inefficiency. They want clarity, standards and proportionate regulation that enables the provision and reuse of data, and levels the playing field. Above all, I pay personal tribute to Holger Kessler—he joins us in the Gallery—the geologist and geoscientist who sparked my idea of including ground data in the national underground asset register. I also pay personal tribute to Theo Shaw, my head of office—also sitting in the Gallery—who now knows more about geology and geotechnical engineering than any parliamentary staffer would probably ever want to. Ultimately, this Bill is about delivery. It updates nearly 200 years of legislative thinking for the digital age. For too long in this country, we have announced ambition and failed to modernise the systems around that ambition to ensure that it is realised. If we are serious about building 1.5 million homes, reinforcing our grid, strengthening our water infrastructure and delivering clean energy, we must modernise the way we handle the knowledge that underpins all that. This Bill closes a structural gap, strengthens an existing reform and supports growth. Nearly 200 years ago, Parliament supported the creation of a national geological capability because it understood that better ground data leads to better outcomes. This Bill leads on from that legacy. The United Kingdom, which led the world in establishing the British Geological Survey, should not fall behind. If we understand the ground properly, we can build better and build more, and when we do that right, we will expand opportunity and tackle poverty. That is Labour policy in action, and I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Mike Reader, Alistair Strathern, Mr Luke Charters, Noah Law, Kirsteen Sullivan, Rachel Taylor, Perran Moon, Ms Polly Billington, James Naish, Lizzi Collinge,Amanda Hack and Cat Eccles present the Bill. Mike Reader accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 395). Sustainable Aviation Fuel BilL (Programme) (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 11 June 2025 (Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Programme)): Consideration of Lords Amendments (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. Subsequent stages (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. (3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement . —(Stephen Morgan.) Question agreed to.
10 Feb 2026 · Local Power Plan · Hansard source
More
Northampton is one of the towns across the UK that will benefit from the local power plan. Does the Secretary of State agree that my schools, colleges and universities, the four hospitals in my constituency, and my sports clubs, including the Cobblers—one of the greenest football clubs in the country—will benefit from the plan, and that the wealth generated by local power will be kept in our community?
20 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
T8. In her interview two weeks ago in The Sunday Times , the Foreign Secretary warned that the only person who benefits when NATO is divided is Vladimir Putin. That warning looks even more relevant today, so may I ask her once again to remind her colleagues across the Atlantic that this is the time to come together as an alliance and remember who our true enemies are?
14 Jan 2026 · Offshore Wind · Hansard source
More
This is a fantastic announcement for the UK, and it is also fantastic to hear that the Secretary of State is already preparing for AR8. Can he assure the House that his Department is going to focus as much on the mid-term and long-term storage that we need to support all this growth in generation?
14 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source
More
As chair of the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group, I am pleased that we are running the power of place campaign to encourage colleagues to highlight incredible small businesses that are exporting out of their constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that this initiative and others such as Brand Scotland are invaluable for showcasing the power of Scottish products in markets across the world, and will he meet me to explore the ways in which we can improve exports out of Scotland?
14 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source
More
9. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support economic growth in Scotland.
7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source
More
I wanted to contribute to this debate to celebrate the brilliant food producers in Northamptonshire and across the UK, some of which you sampled on Northamptonshire Day, Madam Deputy Speaker. As chair of the all-party group for food and drink, I have seen first-hand how rural communities play a critical part in our supply chain, and set the standard for global food quality. When preparing for today, I thought I might do as many Opposition Members have done: go and buy myself a fresh Barbour jacket and some shiny wellies, and film a social media video ranting about protecting farmers, completely tone deaf to the hammering that they got under 14 years of Conservative Governments. But no, I will be collegiate, Madam Deputy Speaker; instead, I will focus on supporting food producers, and particularly on how we support growth and prosperity in rural communities. Many will know that my background lies in the construction sector. I am a proud yimby, and a supporter of this Labour Government’s necessary policies to correct the catastrophic and sustained failures of the last Government to “build, baby, build.” While many Opposition Members see development as a threat to communities, if they spent more than five minutes talking to farmers and rural landowners, they would know it is really important that we support sustainable development, which is critical to the prosperity of rural Britain.
7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source
More
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The farming productivity review is very clear: if we want a sustainable rural economy, we can do much more to unlock its potential. Planning is one of the areas that we can look to tackle. A farmer can spend millions of hours filling in mountains of paperwork to build new sheds, slurry pits or barns to support better welfare, but our planning system does not support our farmers, the livestock that they keep or the British public, who love what they buy from their supermarkets, butchers and cafés. As set out in the paper “Yes In My Farm Yard”, which I delivered with the YIMBY Initiative and with support from the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), we have identified some clear recommendations as to how the Government can help to reduce paperwork and speed up rural development; I will share a few of them. Through the permitted development regime, this Labour Government can put down instruments to improve part 6 of the regime by abolishing height and volume restrictions on land and machinery improvements. We can change and expand class R regulations to improve anaerobic digestion and storage for digestates, which will help to enhance the circular economy for fertilisers, reduce our reliance on Russia and other states that we get our fertilisers from, and lower river pollution. We can also expand class Q regulations to natural landscapes to ensure that our farmers can build small, sensible and sustainable settlements for their agricultural workers, who in turn can protect these precious environments. Those are all practical steps that will help rural businesses to diversify and bring long-term stability to rural economies. I am really pleased to see that many of the recommendations in our paper are broadly supported in the Batters review into farming profitability, which has also endorsed some of the policies in the paper. I encourage Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to bring forward these planning changes and let our yimby farming communities—or should that be yimfy farming communities?—say, “Yes In My Farm Yard”.
7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source
More
I am not familiar with the Northern Ireland protocol at all, but I am learning more about the SPS agreement in my role as the chair. I hope that Nick Thomas-Symonds will come to see us very soon to explain—
7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source
More
Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite Reform UK banning the showing of support for Ukraine in my county of Northamptonshire, my constituents and those across the whole of the UK should be proud of the extraordinary skill of our British men and women who are involved in this operation?
7 Jan 2026 · Bletchley Railway Station: Eastern Entrance · Hansard source
More
I travel through Bletchley on my way to London, and have done so while commuting for many years. It has been amazing to see the station grow with the arrival of East West Rail and the high line. Does my hon. Friend agree that a fourth benefit of the proposal is that it sends a message that the Government are serious about investing in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, which is something the Chancellor has championed?
6 Jan 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source
More
I think the Bill goes some way on that, and it is clear that future legislation and guidance will start to frame those issues. There are other ways that we can drive businesses to improve their business resilience planning. It is part of the standard Government procurement process to require business continuity planning to be demonstrated, and many large businesses in our constituencies will be trying to transact with Government, whether local or national, with the NHS or others. Business resilience is also required at other times when the state interacts with business; I think of procurement particularly. My background is in one of those key areas. I was just saying to the Minister that one concern I have is that this is a framework Bill. There is to be a lot of future guidance, so we need continued consultation—this message has been made by others as well—so that the standards are really clear. The legislation was getting quite messy. We want to make it a lot clearer. We want to be really clear with business, and we want to give organisations early notice, so that they can adjust, rather than springing this on business as we push to address a real threat that has been recognised right across industry. I come back to my original point: we should consider the human in the loop. When we set guidance and requirements, we should look at how businesses think about the human aspect, as well as the technocratic solutions that would be in a business continuity plan or similar. This is a necessary Bill. I support its aims and focus. It signals real confidence to the market—to those already operating in it, and to those who are coming to invest in great places like Northampton, to build the data centres and other infrastructure that we need.
6 Jan 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source
More
I start with a story; it is a real story, but I have changed the names for obvious reasons. It was a Tuesday afternoon and I had a call from our CEO, David, who said to me, “Mike, I am jumping on a plane, but I need you to speak to a law firm we have been working with. This lady called Sandra will ring you from A&A law firm. I want you to speak to her. She will talk to you about a project we have been working on. Sorry I have not been able to read you in until now.” I think, “This is a bit strange. David’s a very busy man, but why would he ring me jumping on a plane?” Sandra rang me, and it seemed pretty legit. We had a chat and it turns out we may know someone in common. I looked her up on LinkedIn: her firm is legit, she is there, and she has connections similar to mine. She tells me, “I need you to sign a non-disclosure agreement so we can talk to you about the opportunity we are working on with David.” I said that was fine and signed the NDA. I was sent a Teams link and joined a call with Sandra and some of her colleagues. Also on the call was David, my chief exec, whose signal was not good. He said, “Mike, I’m on a plane, but I’ve tried to join just to say thanks so much for being a part of this. We’re looking at an acquisition in your business area. I want you to work with A&A legal partners to ensure they have got the information they need. This is a real opportunity for us to grow. You know that we have been looking to grow the business.” Then his signal dropped off. I carried on the conversation with Sandra and her partners. They started asking for information that perhaps they did not need—for example, about operational matters and how the business worked. They followed up with another call, in which they started asking for financial information about some of our clients. They followed up with another call in which they asked for financial information about the business. At that point, I thought, “I had better ring David and just make sure this is legit.” When I rang David, I found that he had no idea this was going on. Our business was being attacked through a deepfake intrusion. They had mirrored our chief exec, and used his voice for a call and his image for a Teams call. Had I—this story is actually about a friend of mine—not called my boss to say, “Is this legit?” they could have got away with goodness knows what. That seems quite far-fetched, but Arup, another big British firm, got done by a very similar deepfake scam; it lost £20 million to scammers. I start with that real story about something that happened to one of my colleagues, because this Bill is really important. It is a framework Bill that will set out how we put in place better standards, procedures and controls, but actually where many businesses—be they data centre providers, managed service providers or those already covered by legislation—fall down is at the point when a human is in the loop. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) about how to get the culture right, and how to ensure that people are considered in future legislation and guidance that will come off the back of the Bill. I wanted to open up and make that point, because through the Bill, we can do all we can on technical processes and procedures, but it is really important that we focus on the human in the loop and the human aspect, as that is often where these major attacks start. I am really pleased to support the Bill. Cyber-security and cyber-crime impact our daily lives. I will not repeat the stats, which we have heard from many hon. Members on both sides of the House. They impact the businesses that support our economy, our public services and our banking sector—things that we use every day. It is therefore right that the Bill has been brought forward, although there was a considerable delay following the work done in 2022 by the previous Government. I am pleased that the Bill seems to have cross-party support. The Bill recognises that attacks involve a wide range of methods, and may involve data centres, outsourced IT providers and complex supply chains working in the sector. That is critical for my constituents in Northampton, who are on the northbound data super-highway from London. In the last six months, we have heard announcements of over £1 billion of investment in new data centres, in both the public and private sectors. I thank the Minister and his Department for all their hard work in securing that investment, which will create new jobs in my constituency. Without improved regulation and clarity, that investment remains slightly uncertain. The Bill will definitely improve that clarity and certainty for the sector, as well as for the many businesses in my constituency that rely on a managed service provider for their IT or provide data centres. That is particularly important for all hon. Members, because the control centre that looks after our security is in my constituency. That data security is therefore particularly important for our personal wellbeing. I have also looked at this issue from the perspective of the many businesses in my constituency who use managed service providers for their IT. They include large businesses. In my previous business—a business of 7,000 or 8,000 people—an MSP provided our help desk; when I had a problem, I would ring it up. The inclusion of managed service providers is critical to give us better protection and improve standards and resilience, and therefore reduce burdens on the businesses that use them, particularly their cyber insurance costs. I have two asks of Government on this. First, as other Members have done, I ask that we do this proportionately, as change in this area may have a considerable impact on small businesses—both on their MSP costs and their direct costs. I also ask that we work hard to consider how the legislation works with international law, particularly as my experience is that a lot of MSPs, such as HelpDesk, use overseas workforces. I welcome the stronger reporting requirements. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) about his ten-minute rule Bill on regulation and reporting. From a business perspective, as long as there is clarity—the Bill sets out that there will be greater clarity for business—we get honesty, trust and a business environment in which people understand what they have to do and when they have to do it. The Bill moves us towards that. I also welcome the much stronger enforcement powers in the Bill. That sends a real message to criminals that there are significant risks to them. To businesses, I say that money talks, and when there are stronger enforcement risks to someone’s business, all of a sudden cyber-security ends up higher up the corporate risk register. As the Bill is implemented, I ask for genuine consultation with industry. It is particularly important to note that this is a framework Bill.
10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source
More
People in Northampton are on a bit of a rollercoaster: they have seen the benefits of a Labour Government in the £16 million that has been secured for our new urgent care centre at Northampton general, but they will now rightly be worried reading the news. Will the Secretary of State send a message to my constituents to assure them that they will be kept safe should the BMA take this disastrous action?
10 Dec 2025 · Women’s Economic Empowerment · Hansard source
More
Danielle Stone, Northamptonshire’s brilliant police, fire and crime commissioner, has just launched the women’s charter, which brings together employers, community groups and the public sector to create safer workspaces for women across my constituency. Will the Minister join me in commending Danielle’s work and set out what the Government can do to encourage more partnerships like this across the UK?
10 Dec 2025 · Women’s Economic Empowerment · Hansard source
More
13. What steps she is taking to support women’s economic empowerment.
3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The Chancellor said that the Ox-Cam growth corridor has £78 billion of potential for our economy, but only if we get housing and infrastructure right. However, I would argue that it is much more than just housing and infrastructure that is needed to get the connected core of Ox-Cam absolutely right. The south-east midlands local industrial strategy recognised that without the core of Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Luton working together, we cannot drive the growth that the Government need now. The south midlands region is the home of advanced logistics, manufacturing, the automotive—as has been mentioned—agritech, food and drink and growing digital, creative and tourism industries. To deliver the growth that we want to see through the Ox-Cam growth corridor, we have to get a functioning central spine in the area right. There are already great building blocks that we can build on here. The south midlands authorities have worked together to create a shared economic strategy. They were moving towards devolution, but unfortunately some local gerrymandering and faffing about meant that we did not get the devolution deal. There is now an opportunity to look at how we move forward to deliver something that works for the region. There is already transport connectivity through England’s economic heartland and people are getting back to work through the Department for Work and Pensions’ south midlands programme for Connect to Work. There is regional infrastructure connectivity. The south midlands distribution network operator ran out of my constituency, and the DNO is critical for regional energy planning. There are businesses working together for the South Midlands Business Board, led by the fantastic Jason Longhurst. There is connected work in education. As well as the Arc Universities Group in Northampton, we now have a group including the University of Northampton, led by Anne-Marie Kilday; Northampton college, led by Jason Lancaster; and Moulton college, led by Oliver Symons. They are working together to create a skills strategy that delivers the Government industrial strategy at a local level for the benefit of the south midlands corridor. We used to have the pan-regional partnerships. Although I disagree with the Government closing those down en masse, I can understand the reasons—many were bloated, but ours was efficiently run and worked well for the region. Whether it is the taskforce that was recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), or other ways of doing it, I think a designated economic area that starts to put those building blocks in place for the south midlands region as we work towards devolution in the future is how we give the region proper teeth, ensure investment is focused across the region and join up all the things that already exist to create a great, vibrant central spine for the growth corridor.
2 Dec 2025 · Modern Slavery: Global Supply Chains · Hansard source
More
3. What diplomatic steps she is taking with international partners to help tackle modern slavery and unethical labour practices in global supply chains.
2 Dec 2025 · Modern Slavery: Global Supply Chains · Hansard source
More
As the chair of the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group, I have heard at first hand how new technology is making it easier to track supply-chain risks. What is the Minister doing to support better monitoring and data sharing with our international partners to ensure that we can identify forced labour use at source in countries that support the UK economy?
24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source
More
Fantastic advice from a very experienced politician. To continue with my cross-party support, I very much thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), with whom I served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was fascinating: no matter what the issue was, she always brought it back to local authorities. She wants to give a lot of power to these poor parish councils, and she spoke up so much for district and parish councils that we were told to stop intervening on her. I have 14 parish councils in my constituency, and I did ask them what they thought of the many Lib Dem proposals inviting them to engage in every single thing that a mayor may do, and overwhelmingly their view was, “Please leave us alone, and let us get on with doing what we are doing.” But I like the intention none the less. I also want to mention the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). Before the Bill Committee, I did not know that she was a London Assembly member, but boy, do I know now. The experience she brought from being on the London Assembly went a long way. It was a really good Committee, so I do not accept what the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said about there being no constructive engagement. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion tabled amendments that sought to change how the mayoralties that have been brought forward by the Government think about the environment. I see the intention behind new clause 29, and with a bit more refinement of the Bill in the Lords, we may get to something really strong that ensures there is an environmental responsibility on our new mayors. I thank the Minister for acknowledging the work that I and others have done on lane rental schemes, covered by new clause 43. They are a great way to control roadworks and make sure that they are delivered efficiently. The schemes are not a penalty; they are an incentive to make sure that utilities companies work in a way that minimises disruption. Where the companies do not perform, the money goes towards fixing more potholes and sorting out more roads. I particularly thank two of the big industry bodies, Clive Bairsto from Street Works UK and David Capon from the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee UK. They supported me in my work on this. I also pay tribute to our brilliant Transport Committee. The Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), is no longer in her place, but she did fantastic work on the Bill. It really goes to show that when we work collaboratively across the House, through Committees and through Government, we can make changes to legislation that make people’s lives better. If we can say nothing else about this Bill than that we have made sure that there are less roadworks and more potholes filled, I am sure all of our constituents will be quite happy. The Minister and I have engaged quite heavily on upward-only rent reviews. I thank her for being constructive in her consideration of my challenge on how the Government have approached this. I repeat what I said on Second Reading and in Committee: the intention of the Bill is to protect the high streets. Even after amendment, the way the Bill is written means that it potentially impacts the whole of the commercial sector. The UK is really fortunate to have a buoyant commercial property market, with double the investment seen in France and 50% more than in Germany. However, there is a real risk that the uncertainty caused by not putting a ringfence around how the upward-only rent review ban is to be brought forward will stifle investment. It could stop investment in data centres—a big data centre was announced for my constituency by the Government just last week—warehousing, which is critical to my constituents, as about one in five of them work in warehousing and logistics, new hospitals, healthcare and commercial offices—you name it. As we heard in evidence to the Bill Committee, we need to see more from the Government. Will the Minister confirm that before any ban is brought in, we will see a full consultation on the proposals? Off the back of that consultation, will restrictions be put in place, so that we do not see unintended consequences that stop the growth that our country desperately needs? I said that I would talk to new clause 29. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for her tenacity. We met, and she explained that the Greens have to be selective about which Committees they join, owing to their small level of representation. She argued well for mayors to have more responsibility for air quality, environment and the like. It is really positive that the Government have already brought forward changes to that effect, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that she will work with Members in the other place to bring forward further amendments to the Bill in due course, so that that is really well cemented and mayors do have the responsibility to protect our environment. On some days, Northampton has worse air quality than London, Birmingham and many other towns and cities across the UK. Where I live in Northampton town centre, the effect of poor air quality is equivalent to that of smoking 80 cigarettes a year, so anything we can do to improve air quality in my town and across the country is critical.
24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source
More
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this, because we have a similar issue between in Northamptonshire. We have a 15-year difference in life expectancy between Northampton town centre and rural areas such as Brackley. We are talking about an area of 20 or 30 miles. Does she agree that, although it is positive to see changes already in the Bill to address this, more could be done in the other place to improve the Bill further?
24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source
More
I agree. I recognise that this is quite a challenge, because cross-Department working—in these first 16 months of government we have been exploring how siloed the previous Government left Whitehall—will be critical to getting the legislation right. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavillion for tabling the new clause, but it could be refined. Hopefully that will happen in the other place. As a general observation, I listened to Conservative Members’ extensive contributions in Committee but could never quite get their position. At one point, it was that there should be more bureaucracy, more measures and more restrictions on mayors, but at the same time, they were arguing against powers, and wanted more freedom for mayors to choose. We even see that in the amendments before us. Some put restrictions on mayors and combined authorities, and others open up the stocks. Perhaps it is difficult to provide effective opposition in a party without real policy. I particularly appreciate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) trying to bring in changes that would ensure support for oppositions that were ineffective in holding mayors to account. I will finish my observations where I came in. I will talk about the south midlands and how my constituency is impacted. I have written about this publicly, so hopefully I am not overstepping the line. The south midlands region, which is critical to the Oxford to Cambridge arc, has been slightly forgotten in the devolution argument. We had a deal, but it fell apart, partly owing to political wrangling between my party, the Conservatives and a party that is barely here in the House. We need strategic leadership in the south midlands region to drive growth. The Government have centred much of the focus on clean tech, advanced manufacturing and the OxCam corridor. We see a lot of focus on Oxford and a lot of focus on Cambridge, but not a lot of focus on the middle. While we may not be getting a mayor in the early devolution pilot, perhaps the Minister will consider whether an economic development area or something similar could be brought forward, as backed by the South Midlands Business Board and called for by those who want to invest in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire. While I recognise there may not be political consensus on how a mayoral area should be formed—perhaps we will see gerrymandering from both sides—we need direction from the Government to ensure that we are not losing out on billions of pounds of investment that could come into the south midlands region and the OxCam corridor. Overall, I am pleased to speak in support of the Government. The Bill is a great step forward. There have been many observations on the brilliant things buried in the Bill that will help our constituents. I look forward to seeing it further improved in the other place and coming back in due course, so that we can deliver devolution, simplify government and get the best bang for our buck in all our regions.
24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source
More
I have to say, I had a great time on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill’s 400 pages were expertly navigated by the Minister, and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), did an absolutely brilliant job. She unfortunately is not here today, but I should put on record how well she kept us in check as the Conservatives goaded us. I must be cross-party in my thanks and say that I was very impressed with the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Their ability to string out the 10 seconds of what they needed say into about 10 minutes to keep the Bill going was exemplary, and we saw some of that today; the hon. Member for Hamble Valley was cut short by Madam Deputy Speaker.
13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend could not be more right. Part of why we set up the cross-party Representative Planning Group was to create an opportunity to bring forward legislation that ensures that all voices are heard in the housing debate, not just the loudest and angriest and those with lots of spare time on their hands. I am surprised by the position taken by the Conservatives. I was fortunate to sit on the Committee for the devolution Bill. I recognise that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), is an absolute expert on local government, and he made some amazing contributions in Committee. As I am sure many Members did, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at the Conservative party conference. She spoke about cutting bureaucracy, making things easier and cutting down on Government waste, but many of the amendments the shadow Minister spoke to do just the opposite. Lords amendment 3 adds layers of process to how planning will work, increasing the risk of judicial review. Lords amendment 33, which the Minister picked up on in his opening remarks, adds more parliamentary processes to trying to fix our housing crisis. I hope when he sums up that the shadow Minister will reflect on whether his position on this Bill reflects the position of his party’s leader and her call to cut regulation and get us building. A big point here is trust. Unfortunately, the debate on this Bill has focused on trust—trust in Government, trust in those who build our homes and trust in our planning system as well. If Members turn their mind back to May 2024, they will remember a soggy former Prime Minister standing with music playing behind him. I was at the UK Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum to discuss housing and how we get Britain building. I listened to a whole industry that is completely fed up with the Conservatives. One of my engagements over the past couple of days was a discussion on trust in the housing sector. I cannot remember the specific numbers, but I am thinking of figures from a couple of years ago: less than 20% of people had trust in developers, and less than 20% of people had trust in our planning process. It is clear that the whole process is broken, and that is why we are working really hard through this Bill to try to fix it. We have talked about the big amendments, but I want to turn to EDPs. If any Member wants to come in on that, I am very happy to discuss it. There are other great measures in the Bill that will get lost. Lords amendment 34 seeks to improve how heritage sites are dealt with. That is fantastic for somewhere like Northamptonshire, which has one of the largest volumes of country houses, manors and stately homes in the country. Lords amendment 39 addresses brownfield sites, and Lords amendment 31 addresses the provision of EV charging, which came up a couple of weeks ago when I was on “Politics East” alongside the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and we were asked for our views. I am pleased that the Bill is returning to a focus on planning. Some of the amendments show that the Government have listened to those who build and those who want to see homes built across our country, and we are taking positive steps. EDPs have been the topic of a number of speeches. It is a contentious point both for my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I have worked in the industry for 20 years, starting out fixing houses that were filling with sewage, and ending my career working on mega and giga projects around the world. I have experience of planning, approvals and consenting processes—in the most developed countries and in some developing countries as well—and I can tell Members that our process is so complicated. I referenced the Corry review in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). The review, commissioned by DEFRA, found that we have some of the most inefficient, inconsistent and difficult-to-navigate nature legislation in the world, and it is not fit for purpose to drive nature recovery. Those who argue against change argue for the status quo, which has led to our country being one of the most nature-depleted in the world. That is what those who argue against this Bill argue for. They argue for more of the same, more nature destruction and a process that does not deliver homes.
13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source
More
I did think that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) was about to slip up in her round-up and say, “Build, baby, build”—we almost had her there. Every single week at my constituency surgeries, people come and talk to me about housing shortages, whether it is people living in overcrowded or temporary accommodation or people facing homelessness, and tomorrow will be no exception. In fact, the impact of the storms in my constituency this weekend will likely mean that hundreds of people—perhaps up to a thousand—will be temporarily removed from their temporary mobile homes in the Billing aquadrome, putting additional pressure on our housing system. It is right that the Government are stepping forward to try to fix this. I have been quite surprised in some of the debates on this Bill that we are not putting more focus on how we deal with homelessness, and that a debate on planning and infrastructure has instead come down in many cases purely to a discussion of nature.
13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source
More
The hon. Lady is completely right that there are lots of empty homes. I am sure that there must have been some amendments tabled by the Greens that I have missed, and that they have been constructive and worked with Government to address that issue through the Bill. Working cross-party is what I have always tried to do in this place. I am proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment and the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure and, even though the Minister and I do not always agree with the membership of the group—I have to say, some of the members do take unwarranted and quite grotty shots at the Minister—I am proud to chair the Representative Planning Group with Simon Dudley, the treasurer of the Conservatives. I am pleased that the Government have recognised a point that I raised on Second Reading that solving the housing crisis will take action from the whole Government. The Bill is part of it, but there are many other things that we need to do to fix the mess that we inherited. I am also reassured that concerns that I and others raised on Second Reading around how EDPs will work have been recognised, particularly in some of the latest amendments, as well as by the Minister’s comments on how brownfield will be dealt with, which is so critical.
13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source
More
I am sure that my hon. Friend has considered the results of the Corry review, which recognises that we have such complex nature legislation in the UK that it makes it incredibly difficult to build. Does he agree that Lords amendment 40 makes it even more complicated for people to build the homes that we desperately need?
13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source
More
I take the point. The intention behind amendment 40 is well meant: there are situations, as my hon. Friend has said, in which EDPs will not be needed and there are other ways to deal with those situations through existing legislation. Having such a finite definition in the two lines of the amendment, which people have focused on, creates what the Corry review calls the problem: adding more complexity to the process, not simplifying it. I make no complaints about starting my career as a civil engineer and working in industry, and I am sad to hear that some of my colleagues and some of those across the House have the idea of greedy developers taking all our money and making millions of pounds in profit without ever giving back to society. I am interested to see, through this debate, the very well-funded environmental lobby. I am proud to be an environmentalist and to be on the executive committee of SERA, Labour’s environmental campaign, and I am grateful for the debate that I have had with them through this process to inform my thinking. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) mentioned the 3% stat—that only 3% of planning fails because of nature. The truth is that the assessment would be done long before the planning process, and I am surprised that schemes have got to that point on nature, as I am by the 3%. The chances are that when going for early viability on a project, nature challenges will be looked at. The complexity and difficulty of delivering in this country, because of the way our legislation is set up and the risk entailed, means that many schemes do not go ahead in the first place. I recognise the stat that my hon. Friend has presented, but it is slightly erroneous, because when there are particular nature issues, most projects will never get to the planning stage. It is really positive, however, to see so much brought forward by the Government—nearly 30 additional amendments—as they listen to the concerns of both Houses, to the environmental lobby and to those who build the homes we desperately need, and improve the way the law will work. There are great opportunities to support that going forward. I will add a slight observation. Through my career, I coined the three Cs of delivery, whether I was working on the Hudson tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York; on the Peru reconstruction programme, a project that was championed by another former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, as a great example of exporting British expertise to a country and working in partnership to deliver nature restoration, new schools and new hospitals; on airports in places such as Keflavik in Iceland; on regeneration schemes in Greece; or even on the new hospitals and prison programmes and other things that we deliver in our great country. Those three Cs are certainty, commerciality and cost—and that is what it fundamentally comes down to when delivering projects. I am sure that everyone recognises that cost is critical. If we cannot afford it, we cannot deliver it, so we have to get cost right. At the moment, viability particularly impacts our ability to deliver homes, and this legislation will start to improve that. Commerciality is the one that I like to focus on when talking to industry, because how we deal with apportionment of risk, change and commercial incentivisation is how we get projects working well, such as the Silvertown tunnel in Newham, and how we get projects that run very badly, such as HS2 phase 1, where the commerciality is completely wrong. The third C is certainty. That is what we have to give the market after 14 years of failure of a Conservative party that flip-flopped on housing policy, with a revolving door of Housing Ministers—we have all heard the tropes, so I will not keep going. We need certainty in the timescales around how planning works. The Bill simplifies that, making it clear how the judicial review process works and how we go through planning to give certainty to the communities that are impacted and which need those homes. The amendments brought forward by the Lords that the Government are taking forward improve that certainty of the legal process. Even yesterday, in the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, we heard evidence on the planning process for delivering community energy, and I am sure everyone would support more small-scale community energy. We were blown away by the complexity of planning regulation in trying to get, say, solar panels on to a community building or a small-scale district heating scheme delivered in a local community for their benefit. The scale of complexity of our planning process is such a big challenge. As well as improving certainty of the legal process, the Bill improves certainty around nature protection. The engineering design process will help us deliver more homes and protect nature. Since coming to this House, I have chosen to add a fourth C to my three Cs: the C of courage. What I saw in industry was a Government who did not have courage and that flip-flopped on their decisions, and that meant chaos. As has been said, we have inherited a system that fails to deliver the homes that we desperately need. That political courage to do difficult things, find compromise and drive forward is what the Bill represents, and I am proud to give my backing to my Government in pushing it through and ensuring that we deliver homes for people right across our country.
11 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
I am fortunate to get thorough updates from my police, fire and crime commissioner, Danielle Stone. In the latest update, she told me that she sees real improvements in the Probation Service, but Northampton still has a 40% staff vacancy rate. What is the Department doing to support recruitment and retention of the skilled staff that we need in the sector?
11 Nov 2025 · Autistic Adults: Employment · Hansard source
More
I agree that those services are critical—we are seeing that at first hand in Northamptonshire; when placements and employment opportunities collapse, when local provision disappears, and when funding dries up, people lose trust in the system. The reality is that, across the country, the support network available to autistic adults is fragile. We rely on a patchwork of charities, specialist employers and often the good will of large organisations to make the investments needed to open up the opportunities that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke about. When part of that network collapses, the impact is immediate and devastating, and that is exactly what we are seeing in Northampton. For over 40 years, Workbridge has been a lifeline to many in my community. It is a place where people with autism, learning difficulties and mental health challenges are able to build confidence, learn new skills and contribute to our community through meaningful employment and volunteering. It provides a café, garden centre and workshops for many. But it is all set to close. Last week we found out that St Andrew’s Healthcare had withdrawn funding from it to try to patch up its main business, which is rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission. I have been contacted by residents—by email, by letter and, actually, quite a lot on Remembrance Sunday—who are shocked and, frankly, devasted that this community institution will be closing. It is quite unforeseen. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), visited Workbridge in July and described it as a shining example of how social prescribing programmes work and of what we need across our country. There are many questions, including: how can the organisation go from promoting itself to the Government as best in class to closing within six months? I am meeting the chief executive officer next week to ask the questions that constituents are asking me about how this has happened and why Workbridge is being sacrificed to prop up the rest of the business. Before I finish, I will highlight a positive example from Northampton. Nordis Signs, a business supported by Kier Group and Kier Highways, is a local employer that has operated in my constituency for the best part of 50 years. It provides work for adults with disabilities, including autism, by providing signs for the highways network right across the country. It is a great example of how secure work has enabled people to create careers. When I visited this summer, I met people who had worked there for over 30 years and were so proud of the work that they deliver. To have a business like that making such a positive contribution to our community is fantastic. It is a great example of how being both commercially sound and socially responsible can make sure that businesses deliver. The lessons are clear: when we invest in supported employment everyone benefits, but when that support disappears, the fragile system will struggle to replace it. I stand by to support those who will lose their jobs or volunteering opportunities through the closure of Workbridge, and my office is working hard with West Northants council and local groups to try to re-provide that provision in Northampton. I hope the Minister will make time to meet me to discuss this issue, particularly as her Department visited and praised the work of Workbridge in July. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove again for securing this critical debate, and I thank her constituents for joining us in the Public Gallery.
11 Nov 2025 · Autistic Adults: Employment · Hansard source
More
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while we do need that reform, we should recognise the brilliant organisations in our communities that are working so hard to support people—particularly, in Northampton, SEND Mummas, West Northants SEND Action Group and SENDS 4 Dad?
11 Nov 2025 · Autistic Adults: Employment · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing this debate, and to her constituents for joining us today in Westminster Hall. I am proud to be a member of the Labour party—it is the party for workers; it recognises the dignity that we get from work, and that work is the foundation for independence, confidence and wellbeing. I have heard many stories in my constituency about how stable and secure employment has transformed the lives of people with autism and other disabilities. The key words there are “stable” and “secure”; to unlock people’s potential, we must ensure that work is consistent, meaningful and fulfilling.
30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
The Royal & Derngate in Northampton has been named the UK’s most welcoming theatre. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending Jo Gordon, the chief executive; Jesse Jones, our artistic director; and all the team at the Royal & Derngate?

How to read this

Speeches

Earlier years