Clive Jones
MP for Wokingham · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Sir David was renowned for his tireless campaigning on issues ranging from animal welfare to tackling fuel poverty. He was also a passionate advocate for children with learning disabilities. He championed women with endometriosis by launching an all-party parliamentary group.”
“Social media has also transformed political debate; while it has created opportunities for engagement, it has also enabled anonymous abuse, threats against public representatives, and the rapid spread of misinformation. Such behaviour fuels hostility and weakens trust in our democratic institutions.”
“554.] The then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), echoed those sentiments, urging us to “use the memory of Sir David’s life…to recommit ourselves in standing for the things that he stood for…for decency in our disagreements, for kindness in our hearts, for our great democ…”
“Sir David’s killer targeted him because of his parliamentary record. This tragedy reminds us that extremism can take many forms, but its goal is always the same: to intimate, divide and undermine our democracy.”
“I want to raise a concern on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I understand that a number of MPs were not invited to a call this morning outlining the impact of local government reorganisation. I hope that the Leader of the House agrees that that was unacceptable.”
“Nearly a thousand families of children with special educational needs and disabilities are supported by Camp Mohawk and its fantastic daycare centre in my constituency.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Clive Jones, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“2. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of planned SEND reforms on the ability of local authorities to effectively co-operate with multi-academy trusts on the delivery of local area SEND improvement plans.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Without clear levers, accountability cannot be guaranteed and the Department cannot ensure that SEND reforms translate into consistent, high-quality support for children and their families on the ground. Will the Minister clarify what specific and enforceable powers local authorities will have to ensure that multi-academy trusts play their full part in delivering local area SEND plans?”
“Grassroots sports clubs such as Wokingham Town football club are at the heart of our communities, but many clubs struggle to find and maintain facilities and equipment. Would the Secretary of State consider convening twice-yearly meetings with grassroots sports governing bodies to strengthen collaboration and advocacy for community sport?”
“Eight months after changes to FP69 flagging were made, GPs in Wokingham remain concerned that many patients marked for removal from lists are from ethnic minority backgrounds or other vulnerable groups. Will the Leader of the House make time so that Department of Health and Social Care Ministers can update the House on whether an equality impact assessment has been undertaken or whether one is planned?”
“T5. Last month, two people were convicted of spying on Hong Kong dissidents in the UK on behalf of the Hong Kong Government. Alarmingly, one was a UK immigration officer. What is the Minister doing to better protect Hongkongers in Wokingham and across the UK who are concerned about growing Chinese influence threatening their freedom and safety?”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Residents in Wokingham have endured years of sewage dumping by Thames Water and ever-rising bills, while stakeholders have lined their pockets. The current ownership model is unsustainable, so will the Minister consider the Liberal Democrats’ call for water companies to be mutually-owned public benefit corporations, putting customers and the environment first, rather than prioritising the interests of creditors and financial institutions?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing the debate. He is a true champion for people suffering with brain cancers. I also pay tribute to and recognise the excellent work of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). I pay tribute to everyone who worked hard on this important petition, especially Georgie Maynard and Sarah Bainbridge. It was a privilege to join Georgie and other campaigners in March to submit the petition to No. 10. A brain cancer diagnosis is utterly devastating and life changing. More than 12,000 people a year are diagnosed with this brutal condition.”
“Furthermore, the plan’s goal for the UK to be in the top 25% of countries for brain cancer survival rates by 2035 could be seen as a lack of ambition, given the potential of the UK life sciences and research sector. For the UK to become a world leader in cancer research, the Liberal Democrats would pass a cancer survival research Act, requiring the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for the least survivable cancers, including brain cancer.”
“Shamefully, the UK is lagging behind comparable nations in brain cancer treatment. I recognise that research into brain tumours is uniquely challenging, and yet with our world-beating life sciences sector, universities and the NHS, the UK should be a world leader in cancer research. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the national cancer plan. The plan’s commitment to improve early diagnosis of brain cancers, to introduce new target treatments and to incentivise research and investment in rare cancers, including brain cancer, are positive steps forward, but turning those commitments into impacts will need leadership, investment and accountability, all of which are proving difficult in an NHS engaged in a distracting and costly reorganisation, at a time of already highly constrained resources and unprecedented demand.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for talking about Zoe Wilson. For her family, it must have been absolutely devastating to have had that diagnosis. I am happy to mention her, alongside him, in the debate. Brain cancer has one of the lowest survival rates of any type of cancer, with only a quarter of adults surviving five years after they have been diagnosed. Diagnosis is often too late, and access to groundbreaking treatments is not widely available. It is a scandal that so many people live in treatment deserts and are forced to drive long journeys for treatment, often after weeks of waiting for it to begin. My Liberal Democrat colleagues—I am sure everyone in this Chamber—believe that everyone deserves high-quality care, no matter where they live. That is why we have long been calling for an end to the postcode lottery in healthcare.”
“The hon. Member makes a very good point, and I absolutely agree with her. In that context, it is it is shocking that much of the funding promised for research in honour of Dame Tessa Jowell in 2018 is yet to be spent. Still about 75% of brain cancer research funding comes from charitable organisations; not enough comes from the Government.”
“As others have already said today, the development of a proper and improved workforce plan is desperately needed. That is why the Liberal Democrats would start a fellowship programme for US cancer scientists who have seen their funding gutted by Donald Trump. We would waive burdensome fees and bureaucracy for international researchers. Astonishingly, global talent visas for top researchers cost £6,000 per person for a five-year visa. So, a leading scientist has to find £24,000 if they have a partner and two children who they want to bring to the UK with them. That is much more expensive than most of our competitor countries, where the cost is typically £200 or £300 per person. Do we really need to make it so expensive for much-needed research talent to come to the UK? And can the Minister look at this issue?”
“Sadly, many people with brain cancer were let down by the last Conservative Government, who broke their promise on a 10-year cancer plan, which would have made a real difference to patients. The national cancer plan will hopefully be an opportunity to address meaningfully many of these issues, including patchy data collection and shortages in the cancer workforce. On that last point, it is worth mentioning that we, NHS staff and patients are still waiting for the long-delayed workforce plan. It was due in the spring, but we will soon be in mid-summer. A workforce plan is so important. We need further investment in the research workforce, with support for clinical and non-clinical career development to build our research capacity.”
“The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to spend more on investment in research and treatment. In addition, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission estimates that just over two thirds of treatment centres in England currently offer whole-genome sequencing, which is essential to provide improved diagnosis and treatment options. Advances in genomics have offered great promise to people with brain cancer and the UK has taken steps to become a world leader in genomic research. However, progress has stalled, with genomic services across the UK not being set up to facilitate research. To ensure that brain cancer patients do not miss out on potentially life-saving treatment, the UK’s national test directories need to be expanded.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that very good intervention, which is also very timely as I come to the end of my speech. She is absolutely right that leadership is needed. I have every confidence in this Minister that there will be some leadership, and I think that the large number of MPs in this Chamber today shows that there are many people in this Parliament who want her to succeed and to show the leadership that we need.”
“Secondary breast cancer occurs when the disease spreads to other parts of the body. Treatments can slow its progression and give people more time, but it cannot be cured. About 11,500 women and 90 men die from breast cancer every year, and most of those deaths are caused by secondary breast cancer. For those living with the disease, every extra month matters, yet too often their voices are not heard, their needs are not recognised and time runs out.”
“I would like to recognise everyone involved in the Moments That Count campaign exhibition last November, particularly the brave testimonies from Claire, Laura, Jo, Lisa and Juliet. As I have mentioned many times in Parliament, I am a breast cancer survivor. That experience showed me the importance of early diagnosis and effective treatment, not only for survival but for the quality of life. My own diagnosis was delayed: I was initially sent away by the first GP I saw, and I waited several months before being diagnosed. During that time, the cancer spread to my lymph glands, which had to be removed. Eighteen years later, I still experience the consequences, most recently just a few weeks ago. Fortunately, my treatment was successful. For those living with secondary breast cancer, however, a cure is not an option.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered secondary breast cancer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital; a family member also holds shares in a medical company. It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate on incurable secondary breast cancer, a debate that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and I have brought to Westminster Hall. I thank the many healthcare professionals, charities and life science organisations that have provided valuable information ahead of the debate. I also thank the patients and the charities Breast Cancer Now, Make 2nds Count and METUP UK, who are represented today in the Public Gallery, for their work and support.”
“The ongoing work of the national disease registration service with NHS trusts to improve data collection is encouraging, but progress will require national leadership and accountability. I am delighted that the hon. Member for West Lancashire is here today. Ashley Dalton was the Minister who drove the national cancer plan through Parliament.”
“Most importantly, people living with the disease are left feeling that they do not count, because the system cannot guarantee the support that they need. The reality is simple: if we do not know how many people have the disease, we cannot hope to support them effectively. This challenge is not unique to the UK; it is a global issue, and international collaboration can help us to learn from best practice elsewhere, but we should be leading the way. That is why the Government’s national cancer plan is so important. The plan commits to defining and counting recurrent cancers, starting with metastatic breast cancer in 2026. That commitment must now be delivered in full, and Parliament must hold the Government to account on achieving it.”
“Some 20 years ago, data collection on metastatic breast cancer was identified as a priority by Breast Cancer Now’s secondary breast cancer taskforce. Progress was made in 2013 when mandatory data collection was introduced, and subsequent strategies have promised further improvements, but we are still flying blind. The first two national audits of metastatic breast cancer were unable to provide a complete picture, because recurrence data remains insufficient, both in quality and in completeness. The audit has demonstrated just how important it is that the issue be addressed: without accurate data, the NHS cannot properly plan services, allocate resources or understand the scale of need. Better data could also help to address continuing gaps in access to clinical nurse specialists for people with metastatic breast cancer.”
“I thank the hon. Member for putting his support on the record. This debate is very important: it gives us the opportunity to highlight the experiences of people living with secondary breast cancer and the action needed to support them. One of the biggest challenges is the lack of reliable data. It is estimated that about 61,000 people in the UK are living with secondary breast cancer, but we do not know that for certain. The disease remains under-recognised, poorly tracked and inadequately recorded. People living with secondary breast cancer are still not consistently counted. Too often, they are invisible within the health system, making it harder to provide the tailored treatment, services and support that they need.”
“First, will she set out a timeline for delivering the national cancer plan’s commitment to define and count recurrent cancers, starting with metastatic breast cancer in 2026, and will she outline any plans to make the data that is currently held by the national disease registration service publicly available? Secondly, what are the Government doing to support metastatic breast cancer patients who may miss out on life-extending medicines because of pricing and access barriers?”
“We must recognise the profound emotional impact of secondary breast cancer. More than a quarter of patients say that they did not receive enough mental health support. Many need greater support for their family as well. The NHS long-term plan promised every cancer patient access to a clinical nurse specialist or support worker. That commitment must now be delivered for people with secondary breast cancer who need specialist expertise to navigate this complex disease. People living with metastatic breast cancer do not have time to wait. They need to be counted. They need access to the support they deserve. They need rapid access to treatments that can give them more precious time with the people they love. I ask the Minister for two clear commitments.”
“The recent UK-US pharmaceutical agreements, including commitments to strengthen support for the life sciences sector, are likewise welcome, but without meaningful investment in innovative medicines for severe conditions, access will remain limited and patients will continue to miss opportunities for longer and better lives. Support services also remain inadequate. Clinical nurse specialists play a vital role in guiding patients through complex treatment pathways and providing emotional support, yet many people with secondary breast cancer still do not have access to a clinical nurse specialist. Even among those who do, a quarter have not seen their specialist since diagnosis, and only 65% feel that their specialist has enough time for them. The reason is simple: caseloads are too high.”
“More broadly, concerns remain about how NICE assesses medicines and about the impact on innovation and access to treatments, particularly following the introduction of the severity modifier in 2022. Even after recent changes, the threshold for approving some medicines for metastatic cancer remains lower than before 2022. NICE has estimated that the revisions may result in only three to five additional medicines being approved each year. It is the patients who pay the price. Life-extending treatments exist, but they are not always available to those who need them most. That cannot be right. The commitments in the national cancer plan to streamline medicine approvals and accelerate clinical trials are welcome.”
“However, too many patients still struggle to access life-extending treatments on the NHS. One example is Enhertu, a treatment for people with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. It has the potential to extend and improve lives, yet it was rejected for routine NHS use in England in 2024 on cost grounds. As a result, many patients have been unable to access the treatment that they need. Meanwhile, Enhertu is already available in 26 European countries, including Scotland. England is falling behind. Recent changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s cost-effectiveness threshold provide an important opportunity to revisit that decision. I urge Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, NICE and NHS England to work together to reach an agreement so that patients can access and benefit from Enhertu.”
“I did mention the hon. Member’s constituency first, but I take your guidance, Mr Betts—my apologies for that. I recently joined a meeting with the hon. Member and with charities including Breast Cancer Now, Breast Cancer Network Australia and Rethink Breast Cancer. Together those charities are working across the UK, Australia and Canada to improve metastatic breast cancer data and ensure that patients’ voices are heard. The message is clear: if we do not count people, we cannot support them. Collecting and publishing this data is essential, because people with metastatic breast cancer count. Alongside better data, timely access to new treatments is critical. Secondary breast cancer may be incurable, but advances in medicine have transformed outcomes or many patients, giving them more time with the people they love.”
“They also mentioned the effect of cancer on families. I must say, still today, 18 years after I had to have it, the hardest conversation that I have ever had was with my 13-year-old and 14-year-old daughters to tell them that I had breast cancer. The effect that breast cancer has on families is immense. We saw this afternoon one of the most passionate speeches in this House on breast cancer from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). She has been a really, really good—”
“I thank all the hon. Members who contributed to this debate. Many shared their own personal experiences, and those of their constituents. I know that that can be a very difficult thing to share, so I commend everyone for their participation. The debate has made it clear that there is a real need for urgent action, and I hope that the Minister has taken note of the issues that have been shared. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) talked about the need to improve data, as several of us did, because we cannot support people properly without data. I think, from the Minister’s response, that she probably gets that, so that is really good. My hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) highlighted issues relating to lobular cancer and the need for specific pathways to treatment.”
“The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has outlined the potential benefits of changing default speed limits on urban and rural minor roads to 20 mph. What is the Department’s position on that, and will it be reflected in the next guidance for local transport authorities on setting local speed limits?”
“The rebuild at the Royal Berkshire hospital has been delayed twice: six years by the Conservatives and seven years by this Government. At Prime Minister’s questions, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked whether the Government were considering slashing the hospital building programme to fund the defence investment plan. He did not receive an answer. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement to the House to find out the Government’s intention to fund both the new hospital building programme and our national defence?”
“In my constituency, sewage was spilt from the Arborfield treatment works 28 times last year, and in the last few days sewage has poured into the Emm brook. Given the numerous repeated sewage spillages in Wokingham and across the country, will the Minister back the Liberal Democrat proposals for a mutually owned public benefit model for water companies, focusing investment on the environment, customers and replacing and repairing infrastructure rather than on lining the pockets of water company shareholders and senior managers?”
“Too many abusers are escaping justice in family courts, and my constituents have suffered as a result. Kaleidoscopic UK in my constituency has long called for independent experts to help to spot and advise against the manipulative tactics used by abusers in family courts. When will the Minister commit to implementing independent domestic violence advisers in family courts?”
“Thames Water is drowning under £20 billion of debt and surviving only through emergency creditor funding. My constituents are deeply concerned by reports that Ofwat may allow Thames Water to avoid paying fines until 2030 as part of a rescue package. Will the Leader of the House make time for DEFRA Ministers to update the House on the Thames Water and Ofwat deal and the company’s future?”
“9. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of providing further support to businesses with the cost of energy.”
“Surelock McGill, based in my constituency, is a world leader in the manufacture of door locking systems. It recently acquired a casting foundry to ensure that its manufacturing process proudly remains entirely in the UK, but the foundry is struggling with ever-increasing energy costs. What will the Government do to support local businesses that are proud to contribute to the UK economy yet seem to be suffering as a result of their determination to keep manufacturing in the UK?”
“Investment in the UK’s defence sector, especially defence SMEs, is desperately needed. What will the Government do to drive forward investment for defence procurement SMEs?”
“It is important to understand the nature of domestic abuse in this context. Abuse is not always physical violence; it can involve coercive control, intimidation, economic abuse, emotional manipulation, stalking, harassment, and patterns of behaviour designed to dominate and undermine another person. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 rightly recognised coercive and controlling behaviour in law, yet many survivors continue to report that coercive control and post-separation abuse remain poorly understood in family court proceedings. For many perpetrators, separation does not end abuse. Instead, the family court can become another avenue of control through unnecessary litigation, manipulation of child contact arrangements and prolonged interaction with an abusive former partner.”
“Today’s debate is vital because there is now substantial evidence from survivors, frontline organisations, legal professionals and independent reviews that domestic abuse is too often minimised, misunderstood or inadequately recognised in family court proceedings. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday business”, published in 2025, found evidence of domestic abuse in around 87% of the family court cases that it examined. Yet the report concluded that abuse was frequently not treated as an active safeguarding issue. How can that be right? That finding should concern everyone in this House. If abuse is present in the overwhelming majority of cases but is not consistently recognised in decisions about children and contact arrangements, there is clearly a systemic problem that requires urgent attention.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. The family courts make some of the most important decisions that any institution can make. They determine where children will live, how they will maintain relationships with their parents, and how families rebuild their lives after separation. At their best, they provide protection, stability and justice, but far too many survivors of domestic abuse do not experience the family court as a place of safety. Instead, many describe it as a continuation of abuse through legal processes, repeated trauma and unsafe decision making.”
“Above all, we must build a family justice system that survivors can trust, that properly understands domestic abuse and that places the safety and welfare of children at the heart of every decision.”
“Members across the House will know from their constituency casework that these concerns are not isolated incidents, and will have heard from constituents who feel failed by a system that was supposed to protect them and their children. Those experiences deserve to be heard. This debate is about recognising the complexities of domestic abuse and that improving safeguarding within the family courts is both necessary and achievable. Family court decisions shape lives for years—sometimes generations—so I urge the Government to embed domestic abuse experts more effectively within the family justice system, to ensure that survivors and children are truly protected throughout court proceedings and beyond.”
“Survivors and advocacy organisations have raised concerns about myths and misconceptions surrounding domestic abuse, including assumptions about why victims remain in abusive relationships, expectations around perfect victim behaviour, and misunderstandings about post-separation abuse. Specialist domestic abuse expertise can help challenge those misconceptions and ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and understanding. I acknowledge the important work carried out by organisations supporting survivors every day: Women’s Aid, Refuge, Rights of Women, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Kaleidoscopic UK and many others have consistently highlighted these issues and advocated for reform. Their work has brought forward evidence that this House cannot ignore.”
“The recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse was also welcome and necessary, but legislation alone is not enough if implementation within systems and institutions does not reflect the realities that survivors face. In most cases, relationships between children and parents are important and beneficial, but where abuse is present, safety must always come first. The welfare of a child must remain the court’s paramount consideration, not simply the continuation of contact in principle. There is also the broader issue of the culture in the family justice system.”
“Judges must of course remain the ultimate decision makers, but they should have access to the best expertise available when dealing with complex safeguarding matters involving domestic abuse and child welfare. Sadly, several of my constituents have experienced being undermined and ignored in court by a judge who has had complaints made against them for overlooking their allegations of abuse and refusing to recognise abusive tactics in court. Having an expert present in this setting would provide my constituents, and all victims, with much more protection and understanding. This House has already recognised the seriousness of domestic abuse through landmark legislation and policy reforms. The Domestic Abuse Act was a significant step forward.”
“At present, however, access to specialist domestic abuse expertise within the family courts is very inconsistent. That inconsistency can lead to inconsistent outcomes and an unacceptable postcode lottery for survivors and children. Independent domestic abuse experts could help courts to identify patterns of abuse that are not immediately visible; strengthen safeguarding assessments by ensuring that risk assessments fully account for the realities of post-separation abuse; and improve consistency across the system and survivors’ confidence in the family justice process. Importantly, this is not about undermining judicial independence.”
“I want to be clear that there are many dedicated professionals within the family justice system who are committed to safeguarding children and supporting families under immense pressure. This debate is not about criticising individuals; it is about asking whether the system as a whole is sufficiently equipped to deal with the complex realities of domestic abuse. I believe there is a strong case for the mandatory involvement of independent domestic violence advisers as specialist domestic abuse experts within the family court process. IDVAs understand patterns of coercive control, risk escalation, post-separation abuse, and the barriers that victims and children face in disclosing abuse. They possess specialist expertise that can help to identify risks that might otherwise be overlooked.”
“Home Office data recorded 98 suspected suicides following domestic abuse in the year to March 2024. Behind each figure is a life lost and a family devastated. The statistics remind us that domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a serious public protection issue. I pay tribute to the work of survivor-led organisations such as Kaleidoscopic UK, whose representatives are in the Gallery. Its members have campaigned tirelessly for reform in this area, and support adults and children affected by domestic abuse. Many of those involved with Kaleidoscopic are themselves survivors of abuse and have first-hand experience of navigating the family court system. Policymakers and justice institutions should listen carefully to those experiences when considering how the family court system can better protect vulnerable families.”
“We know from extensive evidence that exposure to abuse and an environment of fear and instability can have profound, lifelong effects on emotional wellbeing, mental health, educational attainment and future relationships. The consequences of unsafe decisions in the family courts can be devastating. Women’s Aid has documented 67 child deaths over the last 30 years linked to abusive contact arrangements. We are not talking about abstract statistics, but children whose safety should have been paramount and families left with unimaginable grief. Every one of those cases demands that we ask difficult questions about whether the system is adequately equipped to identify risk and respond appropriately. We must also acknowledge the wider human cost of domestic abuse.”