Local Government Reorganisation

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Let me see if I have understood the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The fair funding review was put in place to reconnect funding with need. We think that we have done so in a way that meets the needs of nine tenths of councils now, which is much better than it was before. We take into account the additional costs of providing services for rural areas, but when it comes to poverty and deprivation, improvements in data now allow us to identify much more closely pockets of poverty that are surrounded by greater wealth. I hope that we will be able to do that much better for his constituents in the future.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is one of the Government’s flagship regional growth priorities, with a ministerial champion in Lord Vallance to ensure joined-up delivery, yet if reports that option D is being taken forward for Cambridgeshire are correct, the Government will be choosing a structure with no realistic path to viability, right at the start of that corridor. Will the Minister confirm what assessment has been made of option D’s viability within the corridor, and whether Lord Vallance was consulted before the decision?

[Alison McGovern]

There is obviously a limit to what I can say, given that the decision will be reported to Parliament later in the week. Perhaps we can come back to this issue then, but I am very happy to say that I have met with Lord Vallance and work very closely with him.

The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 General Committees

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I would like to be clear at the outset that the diagnosis behind the idea of the corporation is one that I and many in the area broadly share. Cambridge’s growth is constrained by water supply, wastewater capacity, and transport and energy infrastructure. They are real problems with real consequences, and not just for the current residents that I and others in the area represent, but for future residents. Nobody disputes that.

However, the Lib Dems cannot support establishing a corporation whose purpose remains undefined at the point at which we are being asked to approve it. This order does one thing: it creates the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation in name. The powers and functions order, which will determine what it actually does, including any planning powers, comes later in the autumn. We are being asked to vote on an institution before we know what it will be for. That is not just a procedural quibble; it goes to the heart of whether development corporations actually work.

The historical cases that genuinely justify optimism—London Docklands and the Olympic Delivery Authority are really good examples of development corporations working—succeeded because they had a clearly defined task, a timeline and a funding commitment to match that ambition. That clarity is what gave them the authority and legitimacy that made the democratic trade-off arguable, at the very least, and worthwhile for those who agreed.

When I asked the Minister recently at departmental questions what infrastructure the corporation would have responsibility for delivering, and by when, he replied that further details would be set out in due course. I do not highlight that as a criticism of him; he has been very constructive in his engagement with my area, and I really appreciate that. In fact, I think one of his first acts as a Minister was to give me a call on the Sunday night after the election to tell me about an intervention in Northstowe in my constituency. However, his answer to my question was telling. We are establishing what will be the largest urban development corporation of its type, covering an area almost double that of all 17 previous urban development corporations combined, and the specific infrastructure it will deliver has not yet even been outlined, never mind detailed.

The powers and functions order will also bring forward planning powers for which I find it difficult to see the justification. In the medium term, the corporation is expected to take over determination of planning applications above 250 dwellings, as the Minister said, and in time it will replace the local plan process entirely. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I would argue that 250 dwellings is not a strategic site; it is a medium-sized development. The greater Cambridge area already has planning permission for 37,000 homes that have not yet been built. The evidence is clear that planning is not the barrier at that level. Water, sewerage and transport—those are the barriers, and none of them is fixed by changing who determines a 250-home planning application.

I am also concerned about the boundary. We have had some discussion about that already. Lord Lansley has tabled a regret motion in the Lords specifically on this point, arguing that the geographic scope should correspond to the functional economic geography of the Cambridge economy and that any planning powers should be focused on very large new sites rather than applications on the 250 scale. I share both his concerns. The functional economic geography of Cambridge extends well beyond Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire district, as the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough independent economic review established back in 2018. The boundary drawn here does not follow the task; it follows two administrative areas.

If the Government intend to proceed with planning powers in the autumn, as I am sure they do, will the Minister make four specific commitments? First, will he publish a clear, evidenced rationale for why removing local plan-making powers is necessary—something that I do not think has yet been provided? Secondly—I think he said this in his opening remarks, so this is more for clarification—will he commit that those powers will not be transferred until the existing draft greater Cambridge local plan has been adopted? That work has been years in development and is already at an advanced stage. Thirdly, will he guarantee that any decision to activate those powers will be accompanied by published reasons and an opportunity for further representations before it takes effect? Fourthly, can he confirm that the powers and functions order will be subject to the same affirmative procedure as the order we are considering today, giving Parliament a proper opportunity to scrutinise the planning powers before they come into force, rather than having them take effect without oversight?

I will be voting against the order today, not because I oppose growth in Cambridge or the principle of strategic intervention where it is justified—I hope the Minister appreciates that I try to engage constructively with him on growth and infrastructure in my constituency; there are lots of brilliant opportunities there and it is a great part of the country to grow—but because establishing a body of this scale and duration, at 25 years, with this level of democratic cost before the purpose has been defined is the wrong way to proceed. I hope that at the very least the Government come back with a powers and functions order that sets out what the corporation will actually build, where and by when, and a clear, evidenced rationale for why planning powers are necessary to deliver it.

Forest City: West Suffolk

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy]

I completely agree, and I will come to the needs of Cambridge and the surrounding area.

You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that none of the examples that I have just given is in a western country. That is because advanced economies do not build artificial communities from scratch in the hope that economic growth will follow. That is the logic of the autocrat and the socialist planner, and there is enough evidence from history to inform us of its chances of success. In truth, the Government know that.

In the small print of the new towns programme, officials were dismissive of Forest City, saying that it had no local support, no landowner backing, no broader development interest, and no route to delivery. They said that Haverhill did not meet their economic tests, and that the area near Exning and Newmarket had too little water. Simon Dudley, the former chairman of Homes England, called Forest City

“a recipe for disaster, paid for by the taxpayer and dressed up as progress.”

Simon Lovegrove, an expert in new towns and cities around the world, has said that there is

“no need for such a city”,

that the proposal has “major flaws”, and that—for the reasons that I have already given—it is “unaffordable”. As Mr Lovegrove says, according to the employment-population ratio and the labour force participation rate, a city of 1 million people would have a working population of nearly 400,000, but the city of Cambridge has a working population of less than 70,000. The developers talk about the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, but I wonder whether they have even looked at a map, because we are on the wrong side of Cambridge for that.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

My constituency is in the path of the Oxford-Cambridge arc. I welcome the proposed development at Cambourne; there is also a proposal for a new town just south of the constituency, in Tempsford. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Forest City could just be a huge distraction from the new towns programme, which is a credible way of getting on with delivering the housing for which we certainly see the need in my constituency?

[Nick Timothy]

I do agree, but it is not just a distraction from the need to build in the way that that is needed in the broader region around Cambridge. Only today I received an email from one of my constituents who said, “I see that you have a debate. Please will you emphasise the damage that this is doing to people’s mental health, and the anxiety that it is causing local residents?”

Why, if this proposal is so flawed, has it not already been killed off? The developers behind Forest City have won fawning media coverage in The Guardian, the Financial Times and the BBC, and to date the Government have refused to say no. In March, the Housing Minister said in answer to a question from me:

“Officials will review this proposal in the usual way, including through a meeting with the promoters.”

In April, he confirmed that the meeting had in fact been held in February. When the developers claimed to be in talks with the Treasury, I asked Ministers there, in April, whether they, their advisers or their officials had met the Forest City team, but they refused to answer. When I asked whether the advisers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had met the Forest City team, I was directed to a publication about meetings held last year—not this year—with senior media figures, not developers. To date, everyone has been completely evasive about the whole thing.

During a debate in the other place two weeks ago, Baroness Taylor, a Housing Minister, told my noble Friend Lord Herbert:

“We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 1423.]

But this is the point: Forest City will not go through local consultations and approvals. Its proposers are asking the Government to circumvent local democracy and create a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. The Government could just say no, but so far they have refused.

In the meantime, it is local people who are suffering. I have had emails from people who have told me that they would like to sell their house, but cannot. I have had emails from people who have found their dream home in Suffolk, but cannot commit to buying it as long as this development remains on the table. People in the Bradleys have been told that their village will have to be flooded to make way for a reservoir. People in Great Wratting and the Thurlows have been told that village life will be gone forever. People in Exning, Newmarket and Haverhill have been told that their communities will become suburbs. People in Wickhambrook and Withersfield and Hundon and Kedington and Denston and Stradishall and Ousden and Dalham and Lidgate and Cowlinge—which, like Haverhill, the developers cannot even spell—have been told that they do not matter. Their lives will be ruined, and they have been told that they will have to live amid a building site for decades, often for the remainder of their lives. They have been not only disrespected, but insulted.

The Forest City developers, Shiv Malik and Joe Reeve, bussed in supporters from outside the area to a supposedly local meeting in Haverhill. They cancelled a public meeting in Thurlow because too many locals wanted to come—it was apparently a secret public meeting. Behind our backs, they and their supporters have disparaged local people as too old to have a stake in the future, too white to be interesting, and too rural to understand the obvious joys of city life. In the Financial Times, Mr Malik was photographed next what was called a “deserted field”, seemingly unaware that the farmland in our corner of Suffolk is the best in the country.

The poor behaviour does not end there. Malik and Reeve present their plan as an act of altruism for the country and the next generation, but they want to keep 160 acres of the city for themselves. Based on Cambridge land values, that would be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. The chairman of their company, Dame Patricia Hewitt, is opening doors for them and promoting the proposition as being in the national interest. She is less open about the fact that Mr Malik will soon be her son-in-law, and her family therefore have a direct financial stake in what she promotes.

On different occasions, Mr Malik has claimed the support of local landowners, when only one is believed to support Forest City and the rest oppose it. He has claimed the support of the British Horseracing Authority, which has had to write to him to tell him to stop. He has also claimed the support of the Jockey Club, which has also sent him a legal letter. He threatened to sue me for revealing these things, but when I held my ground, he backed down.

In truth, Forest City has attracted almost universal opposition among the people of West Suffolk—those living in villages and those in the towns; those who were born and bred in the area and those who chose to move there; those who are young and those who are old; the landowners, homeowners and renters; and the businesses and residents. There is value in the rural way of life, even if the Forest City developers disparage it. Local people do not want to see their homes and communities destroyed.

This is not about knee-jerk opposition to new homes, because we have had thousands of new homes built in the last five years. The new local plan proposes 5,000 new homes, on top of the 8,700 already marked for planning permission. Although Government housing targets have been cut for the cities, they have gone up by 57% for us. To put things into context, Haverhill has doubled in size in only 30 years. Given our proximity to Cambridge, this is understandable. As I said in my maiden speech, we should

“embrace the opportunities, not just fear the risks”,—[Official Report, 22 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 445.]

of housing demand connected to Cambridge. That is why I have never been an anti-housing campaigner, but the solution to the demand created by the innovation and enterprise of Cambridge is not Forest City.

The solution is the densification of Cambridge itself, the development of land adjacent to the city, and the construction of transport connections to the towns and villages within a commutable distance. Haverhill, for example, provides Cambridge with workers, including many at Addenbrooke’s hospital. It needs a rail link and not just the often single-lane A1307. The line between Newmarket and Cambridge should be dualled, and there need to be more services through Newmarket and Brandon.

My concern is that this Government, who have been setting and missing ambitious house building targets, will see Forest City not for the impracticability of the plan but as a big idea that they can seize to show that they still have radicalism. The developers are already talking about their pitch to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and some local Labour politicians—we have heard from one today—have already hinted at, or even given, their own support.

Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate.

The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor has had something of a tortured history. For nearly two decades, various iterations of the vision have promised transformational change, only to be shelved, rebranded or, as was reported in 2022, flushed down the toilet in mime by a previous Secretary of State, who is fortunately no longer here. As we discuss the growth corridor, I hope that the knowledge and experience of constituencies such as mine and others represented in the debate, which are already living with rapid growth, can inform a better approach this time.

This really does matter in my constituency, sitting as we do immediately to the west of Cambridge. St Neots is a genuinely strategic location, at the intersection of the east coast main line that runs north to south, the planned East West Rail connection, the A1 running north and south, and the new A428 running east to west. The new towns taskforce has identified the Tempsford area just to the south for a new settlement of potentially 40,000 homes. That area sits at the confluence of multiple local authority boundaries—different authorities with different, overlapping responsibilities.

The complexity I have outlined makes integrated transport planning in particular essential from the outset. Sustainable transport connections between existing towns and villages and new railway stations at Cambourne and Tempsford on East West Rail need to be a key focus from the very beginning of planning. I hope the Minister can commit to that.

There is some understandable uneasiness about the Tempsford proposal. There are worries about local schools and GP practices being stretched, and concerns about water scarcity and flooding issues. How healthcare infrastructure grows is a particular concern, and one with which my constituents are well familiar. Northstowe in my constituency is said to be the UK’s largest new town since Milton Keynes, with 10,000 homes by 2040. Its first residents moved in eight years ago, yet there is still no permanent GP surgery. That places enormous strain on surrounding village practices.

The pattern has been clear: houses get built, but the health infrastructure lags behind. Will the Minister assure my constituents that he is actively working with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to pump-prime healthcare services for new developments, ensuring that services are built to grow sustainably alongside the new communities they serve?

I had much more to say about skills and education—which have already been talked about—and about the environment. The Fens 2100+ programme is grappling with the reality that parts of Cambridgeshire are below sea level and face increasing flood risks. That should be considered.

The growth corridor project is a genuine opportunity, but it will be realised only by genuine cross-governmental working. No single Department can deliver what is needed. We need to ensure that communities such as St Neots can actively participate in and benefit from growth, rather than simply absorbing its pressures.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I would be delighted to visit Glasgow North East and am pleased to hear of the local enthusiasm for our Pride in Place agenda and my hon. Friend’s work in supporting this locally and championing her constituency. We are working closely with the Scotland Office on phase 2 of the Pride in Place programme to confirm the specific neighbourhoods and will be announcing that shortly.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

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

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Although Tempsford—along with Crews Hill in Enfield and Leeds South Bank—looks like a promising site, no final decisions on new town locations will be made until the strategic environmental assessment that was commenced on 28 September has concluded. Alongside the SEA process, my Department will continue to engage with local leaders to further develop our understanding of how different locations might meet the Government’s expectations of what a future new towns programme can deliver.

[Ian Sollom]

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

[Matthew Pennycook]

I stress again that no decisions have been made or will be made until the SEA process concludes. We have been clear that the next generation of new towns must be well connected, well designed, sustainable, healthy and attractive places where people want to live and, importantly, that they must have the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities established from the outset. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman at the point when the SEA concludes and we know the final set of sites that we are taking forward.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales]

I agree with the hon. Member, and recognise those examples. I hear many similar comments in my own constituency.

I welcome the Government’s new clause 43 and new schedule 1, which seek to devolve the power to approve lane rental schemes to mayors of strategic authorities. Locally, we have far too many examples of endless delays to works, such as the recent major road closure scheme on Cowley Road in my constituency, caused by Cadent gas works. That closure caused chaos for weeks on end—a work site left with no works taking place on evenings and weekends while a crucial part of the network was left closed, causing huge disruption. Companies must be held to account, and must be encouraged to carry out works as quickly as possible. Lane rental schemes would make it economically essential for them to conduct out-of-hours works and reduce delays. Armed with new powers, mayors will also be able to incentivise highway authorities to bring in additional lane rental schemes targeting high-priority areas. Crucially, revenue from lane rental schemes can be reinvested to benefit local road users—for instance, by improving the condition of roads and pavements, improvements that are much needed after more than a decade of decline under the Conservatives.

Lastly, as hon. Members will be pleased to hear, I support the new powers to issue mayoral development orders to boost house building. These measures are another step forward in enabling areas to get on, unblocking house building and sites, and to take a more strategic approach to fast-tracking development. In my own constituency, a number of key potential growth areas have stalled in recent years, whether in Uxbridge town centre, near Hillingdon station or in West Drayton. Hundreds if not thousands of homes are stalled at various stages of development, so a more strategic approach to development, enabled at mayoral and regional level, is vital.

I welcome this Bill. I hope the House will agree to the amendments I have spoken to, which will begin giving powers back to communities that will empower them to act and tackle the challenges we all face, now and in the future.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I am sure my hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that I will be making a very focused speech.

My new clauses 7, 8 and 9 address missed opportunities in the skills devolution elements of this Bill. Skills are the foundation of economic growth, which is supposedly this Government’s overriding mission. We have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, with too many others trapped in poverty, and we face a future that will require training and retraining throughout working life. Critically in the context of this Bill, local areas understand their skills needs better than Whitehall does. That is why skills devolution matters, and it is why the amendments I have tabled are essential to making it work.

In Committee, the Minister gave assurances that the Government “remain completely committed” to strengthening the role of strategic authorities in local skills improvement plans. After all, the White Paper promised “joint ownership”, but it is not in the Bill. Not to worry, the Minister said; new statutory guidance would deliver it. That guidance was published last Tuesday. I have read it carefully, as has the Local Government Association, and guess what? It does not deliver joint ownership. The guidance actually says that employer representative bodies retain “overall responsibility”, while strategic authorities merely set out

“sector skills priorities at the outset.”

That is not joint ownership—it is just a consultation. New clause 9, which is endorsed by the LGA, fixes this. It would require both the strategic authority and the employer representative body to agree before the Secretary of State can approve a local skills improvement plan. Elected mayors are accountable to constituents and responsible for delivering adult skills fund spending. Surely, democratic accountability should not be controversial when devolving substantial public funding.

New clause 7 would require strategic authorities to consider existing 16-to-19 and higher education provision when exercising adult skills functions. Again, the Minister said in Committee that schedule 10 already “allows” this, but allowing is not requiring. Without a statutory duty, we risk exactly the same fragmentation that this Bill should prevent: three parts of the education pipeline potentially working to three different plans, with no co-ordination mechanism. Employers need coherent pathways, and young people need clear progression routes from school through college to work. Making that happen should not be controversial, either.

Finally, new clause 8 would require strategic authorities to publish annual reports on their adult education functions—how funding is deployed, co-ordination with providers, and outcomes for learners and employers. Again, I emphasise that we are talking about substantial public funding with a significant local impact. Without reporting requirements, how will we know if skills devolution is working? How will we know if employer needs are being met? How will we identify problems before they become failures? Unfortunately, the Minister offered zero response in Committee to such an amendment, so I remain somewhat in the dark about why the Government think that basic transparency and accountability are unnecessary.

The three amendments are precision fixes. They do not reorganise institutions, create bureaucracy or move funding; they would just ensure that elected officials have genuine joint leadership and not simply consultation rights, that the skills pipeline is co-ordinated, not fragmented, and that public funding is transparently accounted for. If we believe in effective devolution, we must give devolved institutions the frameworks to succeed. Warm words and non-statutory guidance are not sufficient when devolving substantial powers and public funding. The new clauses would deliver on key parts of what the Government promised in the White Paper. They would provide an accountability framework that any effective public policy requires, and I urge the Government to accept them.

[Perran Moon]

I rise to speak to new clause 70 in my name. The case for this new clause is clear, because Cornish national minority status must be respected and upheld. Article 16 of the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities states:

“The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention.”

It is perfectly evident that unless new clause 70 is accepted, this Bill is in direct contravention of the convention.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Ian Sollom Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

When the Government get something right, it is important to acknowledge that. The community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill represent the genuine empowerment that constituents need. I therefore acknowledge that.

In my constituency, I have a village community that is desperate to buy the local pub—an asset of community value that has been up for sale for some time. They have raised the funds for the asking price and they have community support, but the owner simply refuses to sell to them. Under the current system, they have no right of purchase and no right of refusal, and although they have raised the money, more time to organise the complex legal and financial arrangement required for community ownership would have been appreciated. The new community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill are therefore welcome.

Just as the Bill gets community empowerment right in one policy area, it misses the opportunity to do so in many others. I draw a contrast with one in particular: the skills architecture. The Bill creates new skills responsibilities for strategic authorities without clarifying how they will co-ordinate with the national role of Skills England—another new body—or the existing employer-led local skills improvement plans, or LSIPs. We have a system in which Skills England sets national priorities, LSIPs identify local employer needs and strategic authorities deliver adult education funding, but the Bill has no clear mechanisms for ensuring that those layers align or avoid costly duplication.

This fragmentation is compounded by the separation of adult skills from the broader skills and education ecosystem. The Bill devolves responsibility for adult education to strategic authorities but leaves 16-to-19 education with central Government and provides no clear role at all for universities in local economic development. This is despite the Education Secretary herself calling for universities to make a stronger contribution to economic growth through closer alignment to skills needs and economic growth plans. How can we develop coherent local skills strategies when we artificially separate the pipeline that feeds skilled employment?

The funding arrangements are also concerning. Strategic authorities will hold the adult skills budgets but have only joint ownership of the LSIPs that should guide their spending priorities. It is difficult to see how democratically accountable bodies can be responsible for outcomes when they lack control over the full planning process. Furthermore, current LSIP boundaries do not align with the proposed strategic authority boundaries, and the Government’s solution appears to be to hope that it all works out in the end. The Bill provides no mechanism for resolving conflicts and no timeline for achieving the geographical coherence that effective planning requires.

Possibly most troubling is the absence of any performance framework linking those different institutional layers. Strategic authorities must produce local growth plans, but there is no requirement for them to align with LSIPs or with Skills England workforce forecasting. We risk having three different bodies in each area producing conflicting skills priorities with no clear co-ordination mechanism. That is a recipe for confusion, waste and ultimately a failure to address the skills shortages that our economy desperately needs to resolve.

I wanted to draw a contrast, so here it is. On community assets, the Bill trusts local people and provides clear, enforceable rights. However, on skills—one of the most critical challenges facing our economy—it creates institutional complexity and lacks accountability and clear lines of responsibility. I hope the Government will go away and think again, and come back with a more coherent approach that actually delivers the local responsiveness on skills that communities and our economy so desperately need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

The shadow Minister may not have listened closely to the statement on Monday, because that was confirmed by the Home Secretary. He may want to know that earlier this year, the Financial Times told us the reality of what went on inside the previous Government after Alexis Jay’s report. The FT said that No. 10 urged Home Office Ministers to

“do more to ‘engage with Alexis’ and draw up a…plan for her recommendations.”

One veteran admitted that

“The report came out at an unfortunate time and was maybe to some extent forgotten or deprioritised.”

“Forgotten or deprioritised”—yet now the Conservatives have the cheek to lecture this Government about the action we are taking to support and protect victims.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

I am proud to be driving our opportunity mission, as part of this Government’s plan for change, to break the link between background and success. In our spending review, we announced that we are extending free school meals to all children with a parent on universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

[Ian Sollom]

My constituent Theo, who is blind and a Braillist, has not received a single useable Braille past paper, despite being nearly a year into his A-levels, and reports that his GCSE papers last year contained so many errors that they were nearly impossible to use. Will the Minister take immediate action to ensure that exam boards fulfil their legal duty under the Equality Act 2010 to provide accessible examination materials, and urgently review Ofqual’s monitoring?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am concerned to hear of the experience of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. If he provides me with some information, I can make sure that this is properly investigated.