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 5 of 12.
“To improve access to treatment, the Government should set tumour-specific standards through the modern service framework that has been committed to in the NHS 10-year plan, starting with the cancers with the poorest operational performance. That must include establishing minimum standards and clearer strategic priorities to support local delivery of pathway improvements for cancer. The best way to achieve that would be to develop national, standardised, optimal pathways across the whole patient journey for different types of cancer. Where already available, those should be based on existing insight from the national clinical audits and the Getting It Right First Time programme. To achieve maximum impact, the Government must ensure that 62-day cancer waiting time targets are met and then reduced to much less than 62 days.”
“This is felt more acutely for less survivable cancers, which already have some of the lowest treatment rates. For instance, 70% of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer receive no active treatment. There is a similar picture at the Royal Berkshire hospital, where many of my constituents are patients. In 2024 alone, more than 70% of stomach cancer patients, 58% of those with pancreatic cancer and 69% of oesophageal cancer patients waited more than 62 days from urgent GP referral to treatment. That is far outside the NHS target of starting treatment for 85% within that time. Some Royal Berkshire hospital patients are left waiting more than four months—in extreme cases more than six months—for treatment to begin, and that is not acceptable.”
“The national cancer plan offers a crucial opportunity to tackle the systemic barriers currently preventing patients from getting faster access to treatment. Variation in patient pathways, lack of diagnostic capacity and shortages across our specialist oncology and supportive care workforce have all contributed to poor access to treatment for patients affected by these cancers. Three in four hospitals are currently failing to meet their cancer waiting time targets. According to analysis in The Guardian , 73% of trusts are failing to meet their 62-day cancer waiting time standard. One statistic I repeat time and again is that not a single NHS trust has met the 62-day target since 2015. That failure has been allowed for 10 years. It is again fair to ask the Conservative shadow Minister why, when the party was in government for so long.”
“To achieve faster diagnosis we must expand efforts to identify those at high risk of developing a less survivable cancer across the country. As I have already said, many healthcare professionals say every day of the week, “When cancer is detected earlier, we significantly increase patients’ chances of survival.” That is particularly true for liver cancer. When detected earlier, nearly 50% of patients with liver cancer survive for over five years compared with only 5% of those who were diagnosed at stage 4. For those diagnosed with less survivable cancers, faster access to treatment is critical. Treatment delays cost lives. That is true of all cancers, but particularly of the less survivable ones, which progress rapidly and require specialised treatment and care.”
“Collaboration between researchers and the medical community is essential for enhancing innovation and successfully embedding new diagnostic tools into the health system. Centres of excellence can connect specialists across research and clinical sectors, bolstering knowledge sharing and enhancing collaboration. Centres of excellence should be established by the national research community, supported by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There should also be more collaboration with colleagues across the world. Thirdly, we have to develop a centralised, nationwide case-finding programme to proactively identify high-risk individuals across multiple cancer types, building on the work already undertaken by the NHS on new onset diabetes and weight loss.”
“Patients often visit their GP multiple times before being referred for further diagnostic tests. For example, currently people with pancreatic cancer visit their GP between two and five times before being referred for a CT scan. GPs lack the necessary detection tools and tests to easily identify vague symptoms earlier. But it does not have to be this way. Innovative technologies, such as Dxcover for brain cancer and Cytosponge for oesophageal cancer, are already in development and can help healthcare professionals to identify those cancers earlier and more easily. The second recommendation is to bring together research and medical communities and establish centres of excellence for each of the less survivable cancers as key forums for knowledge sharing and collaboration.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I am really sorry to hear about young Billy. The £13.7 million being put into research has to be welcomed and we should thank the Government for that. The first recommendation is to invest in greater research, detection tests, and tools to support GPs when identifying the symptoms of less survivable cancers. GPs face difficulties in identifying vague symptoms linked to less survivable cancers, especially as they see only a small number of cases each year, and many of the symptoms overlap with those of less serious health conditions. For example, a patient with oesophageal cancer might suffer from nausea and have difficulty breathing. I saw that lack of exposure at first hand. The first GP that I saw did not think that as a man I would be able to have breast cancer.”
“All I can say on behalf of the people who have an interest in cancer is that we really hope the Government have been listening, and that it is a cancer plan that everybody in the House is able to get behind—one that will improve diagnosis, treatment and outcomes for people in this country suffering with the most awful diseases. I thank everyone very much for attending the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered less survivable cancers.”
“I was pleased to hear that the national cancer plan is still probably going to be announced sometime in February—maybe 4 February—and that it has not been delayed. Everybody is looking forward to seeing that plan. Not just those of us who have come to this debate, but many MPs who have not been able to attend, and millions of our constituents, will be looking to see what is in the national cancer plan. We really hope it covers all the things we have been asking for to date—all the things that the APPGs have been asking for and that individual Members have had meetings with the Minister and others about.”
“I thank the Minister very much for her interesting response. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate, many of whom spoke very personally about their own experiences. From time to time, that can be quite a hard thing to do, so I thank everybody for doing so. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who spoke very movingly. I hope the Minister has taken note of all the things that have come out of the debate. There is a need for better diagnosis and for new and more drug trials; there is a need to share information among organisations and across borders; there is a need for better screening of cancer; there is a need for big improvements in the workforce; there is a need for better equipment and new technologies; and there is a need to embrace innovation.”
“Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) that water companies should never have been privatised. Sadly, my predecessor in Wokingham was one of the architects of the privatisation of water. The Government must allow Thames Water to go into special administration to ensure that much of its debt can be written off rather than continuing to burden residents, and put the company on a stable financial footing, allowing it to update leaking pipes and reduce the huge amount of raw sewage that it pumps into our rivers. My residents in Wokingham and the environment just cannot afford for Thames Water to continue in its current state.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this important debate. Thames Water’s assets are in urgent need of repair, and the company is swamped in over £17 billion of debt, which it cannot repay. Thames Water customers, like my constituents in Wokingham, are suffering as a result, with a third of our bills servicing the company’s debt—debt that did not improve services, but largely went towards paying dividends. In return, Thames Water’s customers have to put up with a company pumping raw sewage into our waterways. In Wokingham that means Thames Water is actively harming waterways like our beautiful River Loddon, parts of which are important chalk streams. I totally agree with my hon.”
“May I wish a very merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone else who works in Parliament? In my constituency, Wokingham in Need is an amazing local charity that provides support for homeless people and the most vulnerable. It does it all through volunteer-led projects. Most recently, it created a sensory garden for Wokingham hospital to provide much-needed respite for its patients and staff. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Wokingham in Need, and particularly its founder Sue Jackson, on receiving the King’s award for voluntary service this year?”
“This scheme will help countless young people from Wokingham to gain invaluable life experiences and it is to be welcomed. The Minister says that the Conservative Brexit deal was a bad deal. Will he therefore look to correct it and begin negotiations on a bespoke UK-EU customs union, which would cut the endless red tape and free up many Wokingham businesses to do business with their European customers? A bespoke deal could raise £25 billion—far better than increasing national insurance contributions.”
“Wokingham is the lowest funded unitary authority in the UK and is struggling to find enough money for adult social care and children’s services. I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, has she protected tier 1 local authorities from real-terms cuts? Secondly, have the Government honoured their commitment to a new fair funding formula by removing the recovery grant that undermines it. Lastly, how does the Minister expect local authorities to afford the dedicated schools grant deficits accrued up to 31 March 2028?”
“In Wokingham we are lucky to have 119 great hospitality businesses. Those businesses are struggling under the burden of rising energy costs, increases in national insurance and business rates and many other cost increases. The Liberal Democrats called for a 5% cut in VAT to help the hospitality sector, but the Chancellor ignored that proposal, which would have gone some way to help businesses cope with rising energy costs. What is the Minister doing to ease the concerns of business owners in Wokingham, who will be worried about their businesses?”
“Loneliness and social isolation are sadly common problems among older people. In Wokingham, the Link Visiting Scheme has spent 27 years tackling this problem, matching volunteers with the elderly and running projects to build friendships. This year alone they have helped over 1,000 people. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Link Visiting Scheme on being awarded charity of the year at the Great British business and community awards?”
“What with the Chancellor’s flip-flopping on the Budget, the various leaks and the misleading comments about the state of the public finances, Labour is beginning to look as incompetent as the Conservatives in its running of the economy and the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour has let the public down, and must start being transparent with us all?”
“In Wokingham, we are lucky to have CLASP—caring, listening and supporting partnership—which is a charity that gives wonderful support to adults with learning disabilities. It says that there is a serious lack of awareness about the issues faced by adults with learning difficulties and autism, notably that they typically have a shorter life expectancy, often dying up to 20 years younger than most people. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the invaluable role that charities such as CLASP play in supporting and raising awareness for our most vulnerable residents?”
“Trump so often looks more like an appeaser from the 1930s than an important leader in the most successful alliance, which has defended our freedoms in the west, including the USA, for much of the last 30 years. I hope the Minister will reject the joint plan of Putin and Trump and will continue to stand up for Ukraine.”
“It is painfully obvious that we cannot rely on Trump to defend European freedoms. For that reason, the Government must continue to focus on defending British territory and playing a leading role with our European neighbours to defend Europe from the Russians. We must build trust with Europe; it is in our national interest. It is also in Europe’s interest that it should work with us—a fact that I am sure is not lost on many Europeans. Our Government must continue to offer support to President Zelensky, along with France, Germany and NATO. They must join him in future negotiations with President Trump, so that Europe can show a strong and united front against the Russian aggressor and against any bullying tactics from President Trump.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for bringing this very important debate to us today. It is an opportunity for the House to condemn the evil actions of Putin in his illegal invasion of Ukraine and to assert our strong support for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. Our support is even more important now, as it is clear that President Trump’s support is constantly wavering. It is so sad that President Trump is ready to once again sell out Ukraine and its people and to agree a carve-up of land with President Putin. This is a Putin who openly says that he is ready for war with NATO. Residents in Wokingham regularly write to me expressing their disgust at Putin and Trump, and they call on the Government to do more to support Ukraine.”
“Rather than enjoying a well-earned retirement, pensioners are left struggling to keep pace with the cost of living, often while their pension scheme is in surplus.”
“My constituent David worked for 3M for 31 years, 23 of them pre-1997. His pension payment for service prior to 1997 has not increased since 2008, since when it has lost 40% of its purchasing power. Other constituents have lost more. Another constituent worked for ExxonMobil, which he says gave him written documentation that he would receive annual increases at 80% of RPI. However, since legislation changed in 1995, that has not happened. Those are just two of the 40-plus constituents who have contacted me about the injustice experienced by pensioners whose pension schemes are failing to provide an inflation increase on their service prior to 1997. I know that many more across the country face the same injustice. Their stories are deeply troubling.”
“Our constituents affected by these injustices simply ask for fairness, and hopefully the Minister will make sure that it happens soon.”
“If pensioners in the PPF deserve protection, so do those in live schemes who helped build the surplus in those schemes. The Government have taken the first step by restoring indexation for some. They must now take the logical next step by extending inflation protection to all pre-1997 pensioners in live schemes. I believe that pre-1997 pension service should receive inflation protection on the same statutory basis as post-1997 service. This is about fairness, dignity and justice for those who worked hard, paid into schemes, were made promises, and now deserve security in retirement. Pensioners affected by this injustice live in every constituency, and they deserve the support of this House of Commons and the Government.”
“Employer discretion has failed in practice and will continue to fail unless Parliament acts. The Pension Schemes Bill fails to address this issue. Only by amending the original legislation can we ensure fairness for those with pre-1997 service. The Society of Pension Professionals argues that legislation on pre-1997 benefits is unnecessary, but the evidence is clear: discretion, more often than not, is exercised to the detriment of pensioners. As I have said, trustees lack the authority to act and pensioners are left behind. The problem appears to be concentrated in a small number of large companies. They were meant to provide long-term financial security for their employees. We must remember that all defined-benefit schemes paid levies into the PPF, creating a surplus that now funds indexation.”
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There needs to be some sort of plan, and sooner rather than later. The Government appear to recognise the injustice and are proposing to use surplus funds in the PPF to provide inflation increases on some pre-1997 pensions. Why are we not seeking to resolve the same issue for company defined-benefit pension schemes? Many of these pension schemes have a funding surplus but choose not to use it to support their former employees, despite often being asked to do so by trustees who are ignored by foreign-based employers. Surely that cannot be right. Research by the Pensions Regulator has revealed that even among schemes whose rules allow for discretionary benefits, less than a third had provided those benefits in the previous three years.”
“In Wokingham there are not enough SEND places for pupils, which means that they have to travel outside the borough and sometimes a long way from their homes to go to school. In 2022, Wokingham bid for two SEND schools and were given those two schools, but nothing has happened since then; the Government have still not committed any funding to the schools. Will the Minister tell me now when the funding will be released so that the council can start building them?”
“Under the last Conservative Government, we saw years of chaos, incompetence and mismanagement, and very often a lack of transparency and honesty with the British public. The Government promised change, and had a responsibility to deliver a clean break from the Conservatives’ approach to government. Will the Minister acknowledge the damage that has been done to those efforts, and what steps will the Government take to rectify it?”
“The revenue raised for the Exchequer could prevent the Chancellor from placing further taxes on working people, perhaps meaning that income tax thresholds might be unfrozen earlier than 2031, as planned, and ahead of a 2028-29 general election. I urge the Government to listen to our calls and the calls of businesses in Wokingham and across the country and to begin negotiating a bespoke customs union with the EU, which would be a major contributor to the growth that we all agree the economy desperately needs.”
“The Government should negotiate a new bespoke EU-UK customs union, cutting the endless red tape and freeing up businesses to concentrate on what they do best: selling their products to Europe. That could raise more than £25 billion a year for the Exchequer. That would benefit many businesses across the country, including in Wokingham. Business owners have told me of their once large and expanding relationship with the EU, but since Brexit they have seen their exports and profits reduced, so why has the Chancellor instead chosen to raise taxes across the board and offered no help to our businesses, having hammered them in the last Budget? A new deal with the EU would benefit local businesses, help tackle the cost of living crisis, lower import costs, lower food prices and boost investment.”
“After the Budget last Wednesday, it is clear that the Chancellor does not listen to good advice. The Liberal Democrats have given her so many opportunities of where she could raise extra money for the Treasury. We have called for a windfall tax on the big banks, which could raise £30 billion between now and 2030. The Chancellor could raise an extra £4 billion a year from the likes of Elon Musk by raising the digital services tax on tech giants from 2% to 10%, but Donald Trump will not let the Government do that. We know that we need to grow our economy, and the quickest way to do that is to repair the damage done by the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal. Brexit has lost us £90 billion in tax revenue just this year. That is a black hole that does need fixing.”
“That is seriously undermining the trust built with Hongkongers and violating any sense of good faith. Will the Minister reassure Hongkongers in Wokingham, and across the country, that the rules for BNO visa applications will not be altered mid-process? BNO visa holders are not foreigners; they are British nationals. It is time the Government treated them as such.”
“The proposed income thresholds for BNO visa holders have created an awful lot of anxiety. Many Hongkongers contribute to essential sectors in Wokingham and across the country, even though their salary may fall below the proposed £12,570 threshold. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not impose a new income threshold for BNO visa holders? The Government’s new 20-year residency requirement for refugees would inflict serious hardship on those fleeing Chinese persecution from Hong Kong, particularly those who could not access the BNO route. Does the Minister recognise that applying these rules to Hongkongers who missed out on the BNO route is unfair and inhumane? Many of my constituents have shared their anxiety with me about the Government altering immigration requirements while they are mid-application.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing today’s debate. As I have said before, Wokingham is home to a strong Hong Kong community who have had a positive effect on the area. Many have written to me to express their grave concerns about the Government’s immigration reforms and what they mean for them and their loved ones. First, there have been significant changes to the language requirements for ILR. Previously, those applying for the BNO visa had to pass a B1 English test; now they must meet the higher B2 standard. That creates unnecessary barriers, especially for the elderly, and those with families and with trauma from their experiences in Hong Kong. Will the Minister reassure my residents that ILR English requirements will remain at B1?”
“Frimley Park hospital is in wave 1 of the new hospital programme, with construction expected to start in 2028-29. Many of my constituents use the hospital, and they are rightly concerned about possible delays to its build, especially with the issue of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Patients and staff cannot be expected to work in an unsafe environment longer than necessary, if at all. Will the Minister reassure my constituents and confirm that the construction on Frimley Park hospital will begin no later than 2029?”
“T5. Hundreds of residents scramble to Twyford train station in my constituency every morning to get to work either in London or in other nearby towns. The village has become overwhelmed, with many struggling to find somewhere to park. Will the Minister meet me to update me on plans for improving local travel links to help residents to access new services such as the Elizabeth line, and even a rail link to Heathrow?”
“In Wokingham there is a Ukrainian refugee community that has made a positive difference to the area. I have worked with local groups to help supply aid to civilians in Ukraine, and many have shared their concerns about the war and the safety of their relatives back home. I fully support the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her comments about the 20,000 Ukrainian children stolen by the Russians. What are the Government doing to reassure the many Ukrainians in my constituency that UK support for Ukraine will remain steadfast against the Russian invasion, that Putin will be held to account for his war crimes, and that Trump will not be allowed to backtrack on his support for Ukraine and NATO?”
“Brain Tumour Research states that one in three people are likely to know someone with a brain tumour; they could be our friends, family or constituents. Brain tumours are a cruel disease, and yet drug development and research has stagnated, denying patients access to lifesaving treatment. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the need for immediate investment to improve brain tumour research and outcomes?”
“A national screening programme is urgently needed. It would result in earlier diagnosis, and we all know that when prostate cancer is identified early, survival outcomes are dramatically improved. As I said, I am sure that the Secretary of State will ensure that prostate cancer will be a priority in the upcoming national cancer plan, but could he confirm that? Can he also confirm that GP guidelines will be updated so that they can start lifesaving conversations with men at risk? There must also be clear advice on a simple online risk checker, and the Government need to fund nationwide awareness programmes so that every man knows his risk and can act early. Implementation of those four things would dramatically improve outcomes for many with prostate cancer. I am afraid there will be no dad jokes from me.”
“As we mark International Men’s Day, we have an opportunity to address the biggest inequality in men’s health: prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, yet it is the only major cancer without a screening programme. Hopefully, the Secretary of State will ensure that that changes in the national cancer plan. We are approaching a pivotal moment on the path towards the UK’s first prostate cancer screening programme. We cannot afford to wait while more men miss out on lifesaving early diagnosis. Some men face greater inequalities than others. Prostate Cancer UK reports that black men face twice the risk of prostate cancer, and men in deprived communities are 29% more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage, incurable prostate cancer. Without targeted and urgent action, those inequalities will only deepen.”
“Only in 2024 was the Elizabeth Emblem introduced, to be given to the next-of-kin of deceased police officers, firefighters and public servants. Surely an award is equally needed to recognise those who have been severely injured and medically retired from those services. Those people, who served our communities, deserve an award. Like so many others, I urge the Government to establish an official injury in service award to honour and acknowledge the sacrifices made by those brave individuals.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate. We all know how important emergency service personnel are to us. They often put their lives on the line to protect others. I have met many police officers, firefighters and paramedics in Wokingham, and have seen their selflessness and bravery at first hand. My constituent Ian, who I think is in the Public Gallery, has contacted me. He served in the Thames Valley police for 30 years, often putting himself in difficult and dangerous situations while protecting us, the general public. Although he has not been injured himself, he knows of too many colleagues who have been—some have had to end their service—but have not been recognised.”
“In Wokingham, we have a really strong Hong Kong community, and they tell me regularly how concerned they are about the growing threat of Chinese espionage and China’s influence in our politics. Many of them have bounties levied on their heads. What is the Minister doing to ease the concerns in our Hong Kong community, especially among my constituents, and what is he doing to protect them and our institutions?”
“T4. In Wokingham, many businesses have created their own text warning system to notify each other when known shoplifters are about in the town. Their priority should not be preventing crime; it should be selling their products. Will the Government commit to reversing Conservative cuts to police officer numbers by increasing the number of police officers on the beat, in order to tackle crime, ease residents’ concerns and protect high street businesses?”
“After my intervention, the social housing provider agreed to decant the residents while remedial work is done to the houses. It is now backtracking on that commitment, and it has taken far too long for the builder and the social housing provider to acknowledge fault, which has had a serious toll on my residents. It is clear that the builder and social housing provider cannot be trusted to build and maintain quality housing going forward. I have one question for the Minister: does he agree that house builders and social housing providers must be held to account, and that local authorities must be able to end relationships with underperforming house builders and social housing providers to protect residents?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for securing this important debate. A house builder and social housing provider have treated some of my constituents disgracefully. Three families with children bought shared ownership homes in Wokingham. One family refused to move in due to mould and damp in the house and the other two found mould all over the cupboards. It has been found that the houses were missing a crucial damp-proof membrane and course, both vital to keeping moisture out of the house. There has been a real lack of communication and empathy from the company and housing provider, and they have ignored the residents’ claims for many months.”
“That is why my constituent is calling on the Government to build specialist workforce capacity, including educational psychologists, therapists and specialist teachers, alongside new places for children with SEND. In areas where there are severe shortages, the Government need to introduce fast-tracked training pathways to tackle the backlog. They also need to implement guaranteed minimum SEND training for all teaching staff, as well as incentives to retain specialist staff, many of whom have high caseload pressures. Surely the Minister agrees that the Government need to listen to families such as the residents of my constituency and Folkestone and Hythe, who have had such negative experiences of the SEND system and know what needs to be done to fix it.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. I was born in Kent and attended St Paul’s infant school in Maidstone in the 1960s. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, SEND education is clearly an issue in Kent. Many families in Wokingham tell me about similar serious difficulties in getting appropriate SEND provision for their children, with mainstream schools declaring that they are unable to meet their needs. One constituent wrote to me that increasing specialist school places is essential, but schools are reporting that they cannot offer SEND places because of workforce shortages, not just because of a lack of building space. The issue needs to be tackled in Kent, as it needs to be tackled in Wokingham.”