Mike Reader MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Rapid Deployment Cells Programme · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps he is taking to increase the speed of the delivery of the rapid deployment cells programme.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Rapid Deployment Cells Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answer. However, I understand that following the collapse of the contractor ISG, there are a number of stalled projects in the programme that cannot be brought forward, and that contractors are lacking a long-term pipeline. Given the wider societal benefits of the programme—it is delivered through modern methods, in factory conditions—and the reduced operational impact, as the cells are made offsite, will the Minister ask her officials to review affordability criteria, so that we can bring more projects forward?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate. As you requested, Dr Murrison, I will keep my comments brief. I want to put on the record that I was silver team, accountability, at Mace for this area in my portfolio, and it was my colleague Sam Kennedy who took on the delivery of that. I am sure that her work has made buildings safer in the long term. I want to make sure that her work is recognised, because I forgot to do so the last time that I spoke here on this topic. The Building Safety Regulator was a serious bottleneck. After we spoke about this issue before, I could not go to a single panel event or roundtable, or open my LinkedIn account, without seeing complaints about the BSR and its performance, but the performance change has been substantial under Lord Roe and Charlie Pugsley. Given that the BSR is a public sector organisation that has changed so quickly, I do not think that we can have this debate without recognising the substantial change that they have made to the BSR, as the performance stats show. But as colleagues have mentioned, there are still areas to improve, so rather than focusing on what is happening now, I will focus on what I think will come next. There are two big issues for the Department to focus on. First, there is the implementation of the building safety levy. In Scotland, the scheme has already been paused, because of concerns over its viability and how it can be implemented in such a complex system. For England, the Department needs to look at that with regard to bringing forward the remediation Bill. How does the implementation of that levy apply and does it impact on us delivering the homes that we need? Is it the solution now in a reformed system? The main thing I will talk about, however, is the remediation Bill itself, which has yet to be introduced. I hope that it will contain a number of measures to address some of the issues that colleagues have talked about. First, there is the issue of enforcement deadlines—moving from targets set for the remediation plan to enforceable targets, with the enforcement unit properly equipped to deliver them. There must also be a clear answer on buildings under 11 metres. I welcome the Government’s extension of funding to buildings under 11 metres, but I understand that the funding pot is constrained by budget, rather than addressing the scale of the problem. Much more collection of evidence is needed to understand the amount of money that is needed to ensure that no building in the UK is unsafe. There must be a resolution for non-qualifying leaseholders, who have been excluded for years now and, across our constituencies, still face large bills. We must also address the challenge of defect liability periods, because there has been consultation on expanding to 15 or 30 years. That sounds great for a principal developer or contractor, but it is not mirrored in the Defective Premises Act 1972 and how that rolls through the supply chain. Unfortunately, the big two big winners from the process have been the legal and the insurance professions. I have heard countless stories of contractors who have been encouraged to secure additional professional indemnity insurance to pay for building safety work, only then to be caught out by the insurers using every single technical loophole they can to avoid paying. Ultimately, that means there are buildings and homes across the country that are ready to be lived in that cannot be insured because of the actions of the insurance sector. Contractors are failing; we are seeing an increasing number of collapses among contractors in the construction sector. Certainly, the big winners from all this have been the lawyers. I have unfortunately heard of schemes where the legal fees outweigh the cost of remediation. Something must be done by the Government to address such ambulance-chasing by some members of the legal profession, who are making millions out of a problem that homeowners inherited. I thank the National Housing Federation, Real Estate:UK and many others across the sector who keep us informed, and I extend those thanks further down the chain, because without the stories shared by the contractors and suppliers who are working on this, we would not know the reality of trying to fix the problem day to day and the true scale of the challenges that we face. Does the Minister agree that alongside listening to trade bodies, leaseholders, freeholders and developers, we have to ensure that we are down in the supply chain, talking to suppliers and installers to understand what it is like on the ground?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Kinship Carers: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  13. What plans she has to ensure consistent financial support for kinship carers in local authority areas outside kinship zones pilot areas.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Kinship Carers: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister join me in thanking kinship carers in Northampton and across all our constituencies who give children a stable and loving home? Outside the seven zones that the Minister mentioned, funding is still means-tested. Will he therefore commit to publishing interim findings before the end of the pilot in 2029 so that families have an answer on parity before the next general election?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields · Hansard source

  More

  The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee heard that production rose by a fifth between 2014 and 2019, when there was a much more favourable taxation regime, and that jobs continued to fall in the sector. The evidence is clear: approving Rosebank and Jackdaw will not protect jobs. The sector is unfortunately in decline. But does the Minister agree that if we can fix the transition costs that are stopping renewables, end the ridiculous delays from the National Energy System Operator on connections, end the SNP’s blocking of nuclear and, of course, ramp up support and training for workers, that will help revive the sector and make it sustainable long term?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me so early, Madam Deputy Speaker. Without wanting to upset you, I was going to talk about new clause 31. I will keep my comments on that to a minimum for fear of upsetting you.

• 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.