Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Community Cohesion
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of strengthening community cohesion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important and timely debate. We are living in an increasingly divided world. Strong forces are pulling us apart; strong currents are dragging us out to sea. Powerful intoxicants of the snake-oil variety in commerce and politics, and with the social media companies and beyond, are undermining the sense of community cohesion that we innately know is so valuable.
Community cohesion offers a bulwark against those worrying trends. While our sense of community is under threat from online toxicity and barely concealed racism, it is the everyday patriots—the volunteers, the grafters and the hard-working people who run food banks and other organisations—who show us what community truly means. They show us what it means to be British. I will highlight shining examples from my constituency of Rugby, and argue that human interaction is essential if we are to stave off the threats facing our community cohesion.
Why is this happening? I believe that community hinges on human interaction. We are sociable beings, pack animals at heart—just ask the Whips. We require bonds with those around us, yet in an era of rapid urbanisation, fulfilling that innate need is becoming harder. As cities grow larger, people feel further apart, with 83% of the population now living in urban conurbations. For many, the sense of belonging is evaporating, supercharged by social media, where anything that anyone could wish to know sits at their fingertips, and people can be “friends” with someone they have never met.
Technology and social media detach us from one another. Friendly interactions have become electrical impulses down fibre-optic cables; abuse has been amplified by algorithms designed to promote conflict and by those emboldened by the shield of their keyboards. Never have we felt so far apart while being so close electronically—together, alone.
The deteriorating sense of community has started to manifest itself in ugly ways. People, organisations and vested interests are exploiting our fear, anger and alienation. Nowhere has that been more visible than in the demonstration of flags last summer, which in my eyes did not truly represent community.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. One of our vital tasks in creating stronger communities is to counter how patriotism and national symbols are abused by racists and the far right. I am grateful for the work that British Future and Hope not Hate are doing with me on this, alongside excellent local partners such as the Leyton Orient Trust. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the first steps in community cohesion is learning how to be strong and proud in diversity, and saying clearly that our flags belong to all of us, as do our streets and country?
John Slinger
My hon. and gallant Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will come on to make similar points. I often say in my constituency—as I did at the Chinese new year celebrations only a week or so ago—that our diversity is a strength, not the weakness that, sadly, so many people increasingly feel it to be. It is a strength, and I am proud to say that again.
The misuse of flags represents division, or even a thinly veiled warning. The infamous Overton window has shifted; values that we thought were sacrosanct—battles that were won—now need to be relitigated. Hoisting flags on lampposts, only to allow them to become torn and dirty, denigrates them. They should be flown high from civic buildings and other places with pride, not weaponised to intimidate.
I will never surrender the flag. It represents the diverse, plural, generous nature of our United Kingdom, but recent displays have left people feeling frightened, fragmented and as though they do not belong here. The problem is not patriotism. I support any true patriot, but no one group, party, skin colour, race or ethnicity owns patriotism. Anyone who wants to build this country up rather than kick it down—anyone who cheers on our national teams, works in our health service, educates our young people, volunteers at a food bank or drives the bus with a smile—is a patriot, and I commend them.
Those who stoke fear and division are not patriots. We saw fever-pitch, dangerous rhetoric last summer when Elon Musk and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon addressed the crowds. It is exactly that kind of language that now manifests itself, leaving my constituents, in Rugby of all places, feeling increasingly frightened.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important subject to the House. Liverpool Riverside has the longest established diverse communities in the country, and I am proud that we are a city of sanctuary. When I saw Tommy Robinson galvanising 100,000 people on the streets of London last year, it was very frightening and polarising. However, we have organisations working together. Together Alliance is holding a celebration of the diversity of this country on 28 March, and I recommend that everybody make every attempt to get there. I hope my hon. Friend will attempt to attend.
John Slinger
I concur with my hon. Friend. I commend her and all involved in that event, and I certainly will check my diary—no doubt my head of office is looking at my calendar to see whether there is any space. That is a very important activity, and I hope it is replicated across the country.
In Rugby, the main town in my constituency, I am sad to say that people came up to me after the Unite the Kingdom march to say that they felt not only uneasy, but scared. For the first time, they felt that they were being tutted at, and that people were saying things under their breath as they walked past in the street. They felt glared at. One woman, born and bred in Rugby, who has brown skin, told me as I campaigned that she did not want to go into town on a Saturday. That is absolutely disgraceful.
As an MP, I see my role in part as being a convener. We have the power to bring people together. I campaigned on the theme of “Together we can”. I continue to believe in that and want to espouse it. Last year, I convened an interfaith forum, bringing together leaders of different religions and denominations to discuss how we can strengthen community bonds. I regularly visit churches, temples and other places of worship, as other hon. and right hon. Members do. They play a vital role in promoting tolerance and nurturing belonging.
As an MP, I also have the honour of witnessing the dedication of others. Rugby is a shining example of a town forging community bonds—other constituencies are of course available, as a BBC presenter might say. There are too many initiatives to name, but the Benn Partnership stands out as a shining example of what could and should be replicated across the country. Its community centre in the heart of the Benn ward in Rugby offers meet and eat schemes and community lunches, alongside art and language sessions and very much more—I know that there are similar organisations run by members of staff and volunteers across the country. I hold Joyce Wooding and her team who run the centre in the highest regard.
The peace walk in Rugby, which I had the privilege of attending, is another example of different faiths and non-believers coming together and uniting the community. I have visited the Hill Street, Bradby and Binley Woods youth clubs, and seen their amazing work to bring young people together. I have been on patrols with Rugby’s street pastors, and with the community wardens, who are organised brilliantly by Rugby borough council. They, too, work to strengthen our community. The common denominator in those schemes is the human element and the concept of community: being part of a group larger than ourselves, and having obligations to it as well as receiving benefits from it.
When we meet people who look, speak and worship differently, we discover common ground—“It turns out that you watch rugby too. You enjoy a drink in the pub. You worship the same God, just in a different building on a different road”.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Will he join me in recognising the work that brilliant charities such as the Derby County Community Trust do to bring communities together, whether through the Harrison’s Hub, where it provides meals for those across communities, or its provision of mental health support to men who need it? The work it does in integrating our communities is vital.
John Slinger
I certainly pay tribute to that important organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It knits together different elements of our community, providing support as well as joyous, fun things that people can do together, which strengthens the community.
Through encounters with people who are different from us, horizons broaden and bonds strengthen. We realise that we share the same worries, the same dreams and the same desire for peaceful, happy lives for ourselves, our families and our friends. Exposure to difference does not divide us, it draws us closer—or at least it should. It does not matter what someone’s colour, creed or religion is, or whether they have a religion. If they live in my community, they are my people. Building this cohesion is an active process: it never stops and requires constant nurturing. It is our job to educate children on how to act, to accept difference, to show kindness— a much underrated word—to tolerate and to love.
Different parties will, of course, take different approaches —from David Cameron’s big society to other models of civic renewal—but the principle is the same. If the mainstream fails to strengthen community bonds, others will seek to fracture them. It is not just an exercise in interfaith dialogue, although that is important. It is the other bonds that bring us together: clubs, sports teams, civic society, and public institutions such as libraries, museums and galleries—we have a brilliant one in the heart of Rugby—and faith groups, charities, jobcentres and schools that open themselves up to the community. Of course, as a Labour politician, I believe that the state, both locally and nationally, can, should and must help these groups and organisations, working in partnership with them and with business as well.
I also commend the Jo Cox Foundation, which I met recently, for its tireless work to build bridges where others build barriers. We all have a responsibility for community cohesion, and I am playing my part. The key challenge is to give more opportunities for people to answer the call: to ask not what the community can do for them, but what they can do for the community.
I will hold a strengthening community cohesion roundtable in March. Racism, xenophobia, myths and lies must be called out wherever they lurk. I know the Government are working hard and have been proactive in the face of an increasingly toxic and divisive force operating in our country. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has created various taskforces to deal with some of those issues, particularly around community cohesion, and I commend it for that. Can the Minister update us on the important work that her Department is doing?
In closing, those who strengthen the community are the true patriots: the volunteers, the neighbours, the quiet grafters. They strengthen the bonds between citizens and give us, especially young people—although I am not a young person, just for the record—opportunities to flourish. They ask not what they can receive, but what they can contribute to the community. They are the best of us, and I will champion them for as long as I have the privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament.
I will also do all I can to support the good work that the Government are doing across the piece, because it is not just in my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department that this work needs to be done, but in education, in culture, on the economy, for access to the creative arts and sports, and on housing, law and order, health and more. It is all part of building an ecosystem that creates community cohesion. I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. and right hon. Members.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to have the opportunity to be here. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for allowing us to discuss the important issue of community. I may be giving the hon. Gentleman a big head, but may I say what a joy he brings in his contributions in this House, both in Westminster Hall and the Chamber? He is always soft-spoken, and his voice is filled with compassion. That is important, especially with this subject matter.
In Northern Ireland, we have moved beyond where we were in the past. I am a very proud representative of Strangford, and I am privileged and honoured that my constituents have chosen me to be their MP on a number of occasions—Members will be aware of that already. However, most of that pride does not come from me, but from the people I represent, and I want to speak about them. Although we have a tainted history of anger and violence, that does not adequately represent who we really are.
I represent a community that proudly upholds the Northern Ireland tradition of being the most generous charity givers per capita. We do that without coercion or nudging, because we are generous people. I represent people who have the highest amount of kinship fostering in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is another example of what we do. We care about people and we want to help them. The programmes run by churches and community groups are examples that should be highlighted in this place— I am going to do that, because that is about the people we represent, who make the community and the place we live just that bit better.
Northern Ireland is a place of immense strength, resilience and character. That is found in every community, from the beautiful Portaferry at the tip of the Ards peninsula where I live, to the heart of the constituency in Newtownards and down the other side of the lough to Ballynahinch and Spa. Ours is a community shaped by faith—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and I say that very sincerely. It is also shaped by family, hard work and deep-rooted traditions. Where once there would have been division over faith, I do not see that ever happening today like it happened in the past.
I am a Democratic Unionist party MP, and we firmly believe in the Union—in Northern Ireland’s proud place within the United Kingdom. We want to be part of it, and we maintain that as part of who we are. We believe in strengthening the bonds between the people who share this land—the Scots, the Welsh, the English and ourselves.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised the issue of balancing different opinions. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether in Northern Ireland or across the UK, we always need to keep at the heart of what we say and do the balance that has to be struck between people, however stringent and difficult the circumstances might be? We need to understand those who may have opposing opinions, and try to ensure that life goes on and that we make progress for everybody, whatever their differences.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend and colleague has summed that up incredibly well. That is exactly how I feel about where we are, and the community that we are trying to build for our children and grandchildren. I have six grandchildren, and I want to build a future for them—I want to build a future for every grandchild, by the way, not just mine, because everybody has a share in where we are, and that is where we are coming from.
Community cohesion is not about erasing identity, diluting culture or pretending that our history does not matter. Northern Ireland works best where identity is respected: British identity, Ulster identity, and indeed the Irish identity of those who cherish it. Mutual respect must be the foundation on which we build our future. The Belfast agreement created a framework where differences could be managed peacefully and democratically. That framework must always operate on the principles of consent, fairness and parity of esteem, not on the erosion of one tradition to appease another. That is not about cohesion, resilience or moving forward. I believe with all my heart that we must respect each other.
Cohesion cannot grow where there is imbalance; it requires confidence that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position is secure, which I believe it is. The Prime Minister and the Labour Government have said that very clearly, which we should respect and understand—as did the Conservative party, in fairness. It requires confidence that the position is secure and that decisions are made with cross-community support, and it requires that no section of society feels sidelined. Bringing everybody forward is not always easy; it is incredibly hard at times, but if we focus on the goal we can achieve that together.
Strengthening community cohesion also means strengthening opportunity. Too many working-class communities—Unionist and nationalist alike—feel left behind. Economic regeneration, job creation, investment in apprenticeships and support for local businesses are not just economic policies; they are cohesion policies, and part of what we need to move forward. When people have dignity in work and hope for their children, division loses its grip. People are more relaxed, more positive and more confident about the future.
We must also deal honestly with the past. That does not mean endless relitigation of history, nor does it mean selective memory. It means fairness, proportionality and recognition of the suffering experienced by all victims of terrorism, including the thousands murdered by the IRA and other paramilitary organisations. True reconciliation requires truth, but it also requires balance. Community cohesion is not achieved through slogans; it is built day by day in churches, community halls, sports clubs and businesses and in the home itself, where the family is centre of the home. It is built when neighbours look out for one another, and when cultural expression is carried out with respect.
I sincerely believe that our community is something to be proud of. We are stronger together and can be an example to many other communities in United Kingdom, showing how funding and programmes can build foundations that change mindsets. That has been a long process. I lived through the troubles, having been born a long time ago, being older than anyone in this room without a doubt.
Jim Shannon
With one exception—my colleague sitting to my left, who is two years ahead of me. None the less, we understand that for many other communities in the UK, funding and programmes can build the foundations and change mindsets in a long process. That cannot be done without leadership from our communities. I am thankful for all those across Northern Ireland who have turned from the old ways and are leading generations on to a new path.
I am very fortunate in my constituency. The Minister and others will probably know this story about a leader in the community whose name I may not previously have mentioned but will today. There are those who had a coloured past but walked away from the history that formed them to be the new generational leaders. They have walked the path of aggression, controversy and sometimes violence. Davy Mac—Davy McAlonan—is chair of the Scrabo residents association. When any Minister or shadow Minister comes to Northern Ireland, I take them to meet Davy Mac. Why? Because he epitomises the new Northern Ireland and the way we move forward. The Davy Macs of this world believe in respect through differences, and their legacy is of understanding. A community can celebrate its own culture while accepting and working with anyone else as long as there is respect.
I shall finish as I am conscious of time. There is a hard lesson which is still being taught, but one we must continue to sow into with funding and support from Government and hope for a brighter future. I believe in that brighter future, and others in the room do as well. Let us do that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) on securing this timely and important debate.
Back in 2009, Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson wrote a book called “The Spirit Level”, in which they argued that material inequality harms a country’s social relationships and sense of community. They argued that it is generally people’s similarity in status that makes social trust possible, since people with similar incomes are more likely to relate positively to each other than those who are divided by vastly different experiences of class or wealth. People in egalitarian societies are more likely to share neighbourhoods and public space, which fosters a sense of community among them. In contrast, people in more hierarchical places are literally divided by their unequal incomes, which separate them geographically into starkly different neighbourhoods, and no-go areas for some.
As income inequality becomes entrenched in populations, high earners can find themselves concentrated in wealthier neighbourhoods far away from lower-income individuals. It is therefore no surprise that the more unequal a society, the higher the risk it will become dysfunctional. As income differences widen people are less likely to trust one another, and when we have a breakdown in social trust within a community we see some clear outcomes. Inequality weakens social bonds and civic engagement; people become less involved in community activities, volunteering or helping their neighbours. As a result, social support networks deteriorate and a sense of shared identity and common purpose diminishes.
That low trust and weak social cohesion can lead to increased social isolation, particularly among poorer groups; higher crime rates, which impact all sections of society; reduced social mobility, which holds back our economy; and less effective democratic institutions, as people turn away from the democratic process and either disengage completely or look for an easy solution to complicated problems. That is why reducing inequality will help not only society’s poorest, but people across all social classes. Inequality creates social problems that are not limited to the poor. For example, research shows that across a whole society with greater income equality, death rates are lower and life expectancy is longer.
We urgently need a war on poverty and inequality. We need the Government to enact the socio-economic duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that public sector decisions do not create more poverty when they are introduced. We need to address some of the fundamental barriers preventing our society from being more equal. Poverty is not just unfair; it is economically reckless. Reducing income inequality to the level of more equal OECD countries would save the UK up to £128 billion annually by reducing costs in areas such as crime and imprisonment rates, tackling poor mental health, improving healthy life expectancy, and welfare.
To conclude, voters by and large, including some of those wealthy individuals, support the idea of greater fairness in our economy and society. What lie ahead if we do not tackle the gap between the haves and the have-nots are the conditions that will nurture the far right. Public services at breaking point, visible inequality on our streets and a general stagnation or decline in living standards will begin to erode public confidence and trust in the political system. That is why it is in all our interests to foster and create a more equal society that has community cohesion at its heart.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for bringing forward this important debate on a subject that is dear to my heart.
Community cohesion is not just a nice to have; it is the foundation of our democratic infrastructure. When people feel connected, valued and heard, democracy is strong, but when they feel ignored, divided or left behind, that creates an opening for something far darker to take root. Over the last few decades across the country, we have seen rising mistrust, loneliness and anger. When community cohesion weakens, it creates fertile ground for extremism, scapegoating and racism. That is not just abstract; history shows us, time and again, that it leads to the downfall of countries and civilisations.
Cohesion is prevention, resilience and the national security that starts at street level. We are now seeing the limitations of an individualistic and fragmented society, and I think that, over the coming years, we will see a swing back towards community as the real unit of organisation. I am already seeing that in my constituency, as I will come back to later.
Cohesion grows when people know their neighbours. We got a brief glimpse of what is possible during the covid lockdowns: people who were working from home or on furlough noticed that they had neighbours, and that maybe those neighbours needed something from them. Then the pandemic ended and that sense of cohesion dissipated again, but it was a promising glimpse of what is still there, waiting to be fanned back into flame. We saw people working together on shared challenges.
People need to feel that local decisions are made with them, not to them. They need shared spaces where they can gather together, such as pubs, village halls and churches. That is one reason why I am concerned about the current challenges facing the hospitality trade. In many small villages in my constituency, once the pub goes, there really is nowhere else for people to meet in an informal setting.
Cohesion is eroded when infrastructure fails and development accelerates. I have seen a number of housing developments bolted on to existing towns and villages, which creates real division and sometimes, in the worst-case scenario, even resentment—especially when existing infrastructure is already struggling to cope with the population.
Cohesion is also eroded when public services such as rural bus routes disappear and when environmental injustice goes unaddressed. It is eroded when people feel powerless, as came up last night in the debate on the Representation of the People Bill. Our current first-past-the-post voting system makes too many people feel powerless, and proportional representation would go a long way towards giving people their voice back in our democracy.
In rural constituencies such as the South Cotswolds, the closure of bus routes, pressure on GP surgeries, pollution in our rivers and unmanaged growth all chip away at trust in Government and the systems that underpin the life of our country. When trust is eroded, narratives of blame rush in to fill the vacuum. Too often, people are tempted to blame a demographic that they can clearly identify rather than the invisible systems that they cannot.
In my constituency, we are attempting an experiment. I am not aware of anything exactly like it that is going on anywhere else. We are calling it Stronger South Cotswolds, and it is based on my belief that over the coming years we are going to see more disruption, whether it is political, economic, technological or climate-related. When things go awry, we fall back on our neighbours and our sense of place. Stronger South Cotswolds is built around four pillars: food and farming, health and wellbeing, flood resilience and water issues, and community energy and nature conservation. At its heart, it is really about connection.
We keep being told by the Government that there is so little money, and so increasingly local government has no money, but I have seen at first hand how a little money can go a very long way when put in the hands of people at the pointy end who know how it can be used. It delivers a fantastic return on investment.
I am going to get into real trouble if I start listing some of the local legends, as we call them, who we are incorporating into Stronger South Cotswolds—perhaps I will save that for this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on small charities—but I will share the general concept that there is already so much good stuff going on in my constituency. On our website, we are recognising those people and groups already doing incredible work and highlighting them in the hope that other people can adopt and adapt those brilliant ideas elsewhere. My constituency straddles two counties, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, so that presents real opportunities for cross-county border transference of inspiration.
These fantastic local initiatives do more than deliver services to people who are struggling with physical, mental or economic poor health, with dementia or with Parkinson’s. I have seen many people really flourishing through these organisations as they create relationships across age, class and socioeconomic background. That really is cohesion in practice.
What I am seeing is that when communities feel strong, difference can be not alienating but enriching, but when communities feel fragile, difference is weaponised. If people believe that the system works only for the powerful, they are more susceptible to voices offering simplistic answers and easy targets. We need to be honest about that and recognise that cohesion is the antidote to division, but it does not happen automatically; it must be cultivated. That is where we as MPs, as the hon. Member for Rugby mentioned, have a real role to play.
We may not have a budget, and we may only have small teams, but we do have that magical power to convene. When we bring people together, the magic can happen. That is what we are trying to do with Stronger South Cotswolds—bring people together with the aspiration that the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. That cannot be manufactured by Government in Westminster. Belonging, by definition, happens at that nexus of place, nature and neighbourhood.
I call on the Government to properly fund local groups and make those pots of money available, knowing that they will deliver a fantastic ROI. I ask the Government to please support community ownership of energy, land and community assets; invest in youth services and intergenerational spaces; ensure that planning decisions genuinely involve community voices; and restore trust in environmental regulation. Above all, I ask them to please choose to devolve power rather than concentrate it here in London.
If things are going to get rocky over the next few years, we need to be building community cohesion now. Something I learned from expedition planning is that you have to do your preparation when it is calm, because when the storms hit, you just do not have time. Community cohesion is the same: if we invest now in connection, fairness and shared purpose, we can weather those storms together. If we neglect it, we should not be surprised when division grows. The question for the House is whether national policy will strengthen the work of initiatives like Stronger South Cotswolds or make it harder. I ask the Government to please put the power and resources into the hands of local communities, where they really can make a difference.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. We have three colleagues wishing to speak. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am, so that means short speeches, please.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing such an important debate at a particularly important moment. I want to talk about something that, sadly, we seem to talk about only during really challenging periods, but without which everything else becomes much harder—community cohesion.
My accent gives me away; I grew up in a town called Burnley, in the north-west of England. For most of my childhood, the only thing that I knew was culturally different about the place where I grew up was that our school summer holidays started two weeks before they did everywhere else. In the summer of 2001, however—which is 25 years ago this summer, shockingly—around the time of my GCSE exams, race riots ripped through my home town. I remember the fear and anger that they caused. For years afterwards, I remember that when telling people that I was from Burnley, all they knew about the place was defined by the race riots—that there had been that awful summer.
That period left a deep mark on me and contributed to who I am today, because it taught me that community cohesion is not a slogan, or a line in a strategy document; it is the difference between a town that can pull together when things get tough and one that fractures when it feels pressure. Those experiences shaped my politics. They shaped my belief that fairness and honesty matter, and that we must confront injustice directly and not pretend that it will fix itself. The riots also shaped my determination that the communities that I represent today should never feel that sense of division.
In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, we are proud of who we are: a county town with deep roots, growing diversity, and incredibly strong traditions of volunteering and neighbourliness. We are home to people of different faiths, backgrounds and experiences. That diversity is a strength, but it only remains a strength if it is underpinned by public trust.
Community cohesion is built in small, everyday ways. It is built when a school brings parents together from different backgrounds around a shared commitment to their children’s future. It is built when local volunteers organise a food bank, youth club or community clean-up—which the people in my constituency excel at. It is built when faith leaders choose dialogue over distance, and partnership over parallel lives.
A few weeks ago, I brought together local faith leaders in Stafford for a multi-faith roundtable. Leaders from our churches, mosque, gurdwara and other faith communities sat around the same table. We talked openly about the challenges that face our communities— from misinformation online to the rising global tensions that are rippling into our local lives. It struck me that everyone in the room wanted the same thing: safe streets, opportunities for young people, respect and stability. There was a sense that whatever differences we had, we all belonged to the same place. That is what cohesion is. It is not about erasing difference; it is about recognising our shared commonality and humanity.
We cannot be complacent, however. We live in an age in which misinformation spreads faster than facts, social media algorithms reward outrage over understanding, global conflicts inflame local tensions in a matter of hours, and economic pressures can make it easier to burn bridges than build them. In that context, cohesion requires leadership. That is not an abstract thing; it is about standards.
When those elected to represent our communities use racist language, promote prejudice or undermine the dignity of others, it does not just harm individuals; it corrodes trust in everything and the institutions that hold us together. When councillors are forced to resign or are removed because of racist conduct, that should concern us all; I do not care what party they are from. That is not because of the headlines but what it signals about the tone of our public life. I think that leadership means refusing to normalise that kind of politics; we cannot strengthen cohesion locally if we tolerate that in our politics. As Members of this House, we must choose our words carefully to avoid stoking division for short-term political gain, and we must call out racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of hate, consistently and clearly.
It also requires investment in the places that bring us all together. Staffordshire had the third-worst cuts to youth services in the country, and I deal weekly with the impacts of those cuts. Community centres, libraries, sports clubs, and arts and cultural groups—they are not nice to have extras; they are the infrastructure of belonging somewhere. They are the places that 14 years of Conservative austerity have decimated.
Strengthening community cohesion also requires us all to listen. In my constituency, I hold regular coffee mornings and community meetings. In fact, at the one I had just this weekend, people talked about feeling left behind economically. I hear from families worried about the future. I hear from people who feel misunderstood, and when people feel ignored and unheard, resentment breeds.
Cohesion is also about fairness in action. It is about making sure that every opportunity reaches every estate, village and high street. It is also about good jobs, decent housing, strong public services and visible delivery. When people feel secure, they are more open. When they feel abandoned, they are more vulnerable to division.
Growing up in Burnley, I saw what happens when economic decline and racial tension collide. It starts, not with violence, but with really small fractures—with rumours, with a sense that someone else is getting more than you. If we want cohesive communities, we have to tackle the root causes. So I ask the Minister: what steps are the Government taking to ensure that towns, such as Stafford, that have experienced economic pressure over the years, are being supported with real investment and opportunity, rather than becoming targets for those who seek to inflame resentment and prejudice for political gain?
In Stafford, I see huge hope. I see schools where children of different faiths and backgrounds learn side by side and form friendships that defy stereotypes. I see local businesses that bring together apprentices and staff from across our community. I see volunteers who show up week after week for people they have never met before, and I see faith leaders willing to work together rather than retreat into silos. Community cohesion is not about pretending that we do not disagree; it is about how we disagree. It is about holding space for different views without dehumanising one another. It is about ensuring that our identity as a shared community is stronger than any single dividing line.
My message today is simple. Community cohesion does not maintain itself; it must be nurtured, as has been said, and it must be defended and resourced. It must also be modelled by us. In Stafford, we are choosing to build, not to blame; to listen, not to shout; and to stand up for fairness and not allow prejudice to go unchallenged. I know what the alternative looks like—I lived it. Division does not explode overnight; it is cultivated. I am determined that the communities that I represent will always be stronger together than they are apart.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate on this important issue. Community cohesion in Birmingham has never been an abstract concept. It is a lived reality: it is the church that hosts a food bank for families of every background, the neighbour who checks in during Ramadan, and the gurdwara serving langar to anyone who walks through its doors. Our city works because, despite our differences, we choose to stand together.
In recent years, we have seen how damaging political language can be. When politicians make statements that create suspicion or feed division, the consequences are felt far beyond Westminster. Words matter and narratives matter. When race or religion is weaponised for short-term political gain, it erodes trust between communities who have lived side by side for generations. We have also seen the constant drip-feed of misinformation from some politicians and commentators—misinformation that paints entire communities as problems to be solved, rather than partners in building our future. That kind of politics does not strengthen Britain; it weakens it. It does not make us safer; it makes us more fractured.
No one knows that fact more than the people of Birmingham, who have seen their city trounced by people who take no effort to understand it. During the bin strikes, a narrative from outside was not about the council refusing to negotiate or the impact of years of austerity, but about blaming residents for the mess and asking silly questions like, “Why don’t they simply clean up the streets and take their rubbish to the tip?” We even saw the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) roam the streets for an hour, blaming residents for the supposed lack of integration in an area that not only hosts a vibrant community, but has been decimated by 14 years of austerity under his previous Government. We saw that again during the Maccabi Tel Aviv saga, when those raising legitimate concerns about safety and cohesion were smeared as extremists.
We see the same story every time. The people of Birmingham have been subject to ridicule from outsiders who have made no effort to understand them—from politicians to media outlets who have stirred hate and division against a community they have never tried to understand. That is why measures such as the Hillsborough law matter so much. The principle behind the Hillsborough law, a duty of candour on public authorities and officials, is about more than one historical injustice. It is about changing the culture of public life and ensuring that those in authority act with honesty, transparency and responsibility.
The tone set at the top shapes the reality on our streets, and that does not apply just to Birmingham. The same goes for all the towns and cities up and down the country that have been neglected and stripped of their identities. Those places have been left behind by successive Governments and are now being kicked while they are down. It is in these places, where people have lost all sense of community, that resentment and hate take hold. Many will channel that anger into taking to the streets to raise flags or mount protests at asylum hotels and, before someone knows it, they are not a true patriot unless they look on non-white neighbours from abroad, even fellow British nationals, with contempt. Of course, the exception is those they know on a personal level.
That is why it is so crucial that we get this right, not just by holding politicians and media outlets to a higher standard, but by investing in the very places that have been deprived of the means to understand and interact with one another. Community centres, youth clubs and grassroots sports are all things that we need to create cohesion, yet they are dwindling in supply. Birmingham Perry Barr lost out on £20 million over 10 years in Pride in Place funding. We have the highest unemployment, the highest inequality and high rates of homelessness and crime, but we still received none of the Pride in Place funding. There are 10 Birmingham constituencies, eight of which are represented by Labour parliamentarians. My constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr was left out.
Birmingham has always shown that people of different races, religions and backgrounds can live, work and thrive together, but we must protect that legacy. We must challenge misinformation wherever we see it. We must refuse to let division define us, and we must demand better from those who represent us. Will the Minister address my point about funding for Birmingham Perry Barr? Pride in Place funding should be for communities that have the highest levels of deprivation in all indices. Birmingham Perry Barr has, but it has not received that funding.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this important and timely debate.
Social cohesion can feel like quite an abstract, nebulous term, but we all know, and have heard today, that the practice of social cohesion and how it is lived are vital for healthy, dynamic and thriving communities where people feel that they want to stay, live, socialise, invest and start and grow businesses. When we have the opposite of social cohesion, we have discord and division. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeing that in many of our communities. We have heard countless examples of how that is lived out.
We very much see the opposite of social cohesion present in my community in Hillingdon. We see instances of hate crime. I have councillors who are British being told to go back home. I have residents telling me how they are abused in the street. Police are attacked at apparently peaceful protests. Just last week, the doctors surgery in Otterfield emailed me to say that doctors at the surgery face countless instances of racial abuse every week. Even now, the GP surgery has been vandalised and attacked. That is clearly unacceptable and needs addressing.
So how do we address the problem of social cohesion? I will briefly touch on three key areas of action. The first is leadership. We have heard that, nationally, we all have a responsibility in this place and across our institutions to show leadership. We have a duty to call out these abhorrent instances of hatred; to act; to choose our words carefully and wisely; to seek to work with others in our community and across different divides in this place; to promote cohesion and unity; and to appeal to the common threads that we often see throughout those in public life and those in our community groups.
Locally, we also have a duty and a responsibility to promote cohesion. Local councils, which are key institutions in this country, should have a responsibility to promote community cohesion and to produce plans locally to do that. Unfortunately, in my community, our local authority is falling short of meeting that responsibility. We have seen little action, if any, from it to address some of the issues on our streets. To be frank, in some instances, there is denial about these problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby rightly talked about our flag, which is for all of us—it is my flag, your flag and the flag of everyone in our community. Unfortunately, however, the flag has been increasingly weaponised by certain segments of our community, who do not share the view that it is everyone’s flag. They believe that it is only a particular sort of person’s flag and do not appeal to unity, but to division and hatred.
I have been contacted recently by many local residents who are concerned about the continued presence of flags on our streets. I was particularly struck by a piece of correspondence from a gentleman who contacted me to say, “I am a combat veteran with 20 years’ experience, including in Afghanistan, and I know the value of pride in one’s nation and our flag, having served under it. The flags in West Drayton show none of these values, and that Hillingdon Council has not taken these torn and dirty flags down that line our streets signals to me that the council is either endorsing the racist intent of some of those who put these flags up, or is too afraid to remove them. Either way, it’s a poor show, and I feel for the families and young children who have to look at these flags every day and are reminded that some people think that they are not welcome.”
That perfectly describes the situation we face. We must not hide behind our flag, but address this issue head on. That is difficult. I know that there is abuse and even hatred of council officers who try to remove flags, and we need to stand with them if they make that decision. Inaction is not enough when we see these issues on our streets. We also have to ensure that institutions locally and nationally promote true and accurate information, particularly about sensitive topics and when they are using state-funded sources of information, such as local council publications.
Secondly, we have to tackle online misinformation, as we have heard. On countless occasions, we have seen how online platforms are used to sow division. We know that there are actors, locally and internationally, who actively inflame hate. It is hard to tackle online misinformation issues; I am not going to pretend otherwise. However, we are seeing a positive start to the Government’s consultation on the use of social media by young people. I support that and hope we can do more in this space.
Thirdly, we also need to support the organisations that are the glue of our communities. We have heard about the excellent work of schools, charities, voluntary groups and faith groups. I have had the pleasure of hosting the multi-faith Hillingdon group here in Parliament and of launching Hillingdon Together alongside many of these organisations, in order to try and bring people together. There are 200 individuals and organisations signed up.
It is true that these organisations have often faced cuts in recent years. In particular, it is paradoxical that the communities where cohesion is needed most often have less infrastructure, and are often unable to access the funding pots that become available, because it is difficult to move quickly and to put in bids to national and local funds. I hope that the Minister can address that issue in the future cohesion strategy.
Finally—I appreciate your patience, Dr Murrison— I am very proud to have been born in Hillingdon, to have grown up there and to represent that community today. I represent every single person in Hillingdon, whether they have lived there for 20 years or 20 days. Every single one of them makes Hillingdon the fantastic place that it is. They work in our NHS, run businesses and keep our community working, and I am proud of each and every one of them.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this very important debate. His speech was incredibly powerful, and I congratulate him on the work he is doing to support and empower his constituents to build positive relationships and communities. It has also been good to hear from other Members of the positive stories about their communities coming together and of the clear vision, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere among colleagues, that we can together create more cohesive communities.
We meet at a moment when communities across the UK are experiencing uncertainty and rising tensions. Alongside those challenges, however, we continue to see wonderful examples of solidarity, co-operation and everyday kindness. Our job as politicians is to empower more of the second through thoughtful policy so that it can continue to flourish. Community cohesion is not built by rhetoric or grand gestures; it lives in the ordinary moments of daily life, in shared spaces and shared conversations, and in the quiet confidence that difference does not threaten one’s sense of belonging. It is also built by the everyday choices that people make to treat one another with dignity and respect, not by the divisive narratives that some, sadly even in this place, choose to deploy.
At the same time, many feel that the social contract—the belief that we all contribute to and benefit from a shared civic life—is under strain. Over the past decade, local authorities and community organisations have faced significant funding reductions; youth services have closed, community centres have disappeared and the everyday spaces where people once met across different backgrounds have diminished. Those were not mere local government services; they were the backbone of community life, allowing people to mix, understand one another and build solidarity. When those shared spaces disappear, so too do the opportunities for understanding.
Alongside all that, many now face real pressures, with difficulties accessing services, finding affordable housing and making ends meet. When support feels distant, frustration grows, and the risk is that people turn inward rather than reaching outward. Those tensions reflect pressure and uncertainty, not a lack of good will. Rebuilding community cohesion requires more than responding to those who stoke division; it requires reinvestment in the local institutions and services that allow our communities to meet and thrive.
Across the country, people are experiencing increasing hostility because of their race, faith, sexuality or gender identity. Even incidents that fall below the legal threshold of hate crime, when repeated or unaddressed, erode trust and weaken community cohesion. Police forces record thousands of non-crime hate incidents each year. Those are early warnings of tensions that can grow if they are ignored.
I hear from some in my constituency how, every single day, they face unpleasant, abusive—even aggressive —and unsolicited interactions with others because of their race, gender or sexuality. The figures for Surrey show that hate crime remains significantly under-reported, which underscores the importance of early intervention to build trust so that people feel confident to come forward.
In times of uncertainty, we really must resist narratives that divide people or single out newcomers or minorities. Those might offer simple answers, but they weaken the fabric of civil society. Strong communities are built not by excluding people, but by ensuring that everyone feels that they belong.
Across the country are countless examples of cohesion in action, led by charities and faith groups. One example in my constituency and across Surrey is Big Leaf, which brings together displaced young people alongside other young people to create music, play sport and do so much more, fostering community and optimism. If we went around this Chamber and across the House of Commons, I am sure that we would have so many more examples, but I will stop there.
I will focus on faith communities, not only because of their remarkable contributions, but because many of them face rising levels of abuse. Faith communities are deeply embedded in our society; they run food banks and warm hubs, support the vulnerable and isolated, and provide safe spaces for dialogue, care and belonging. During Ramadan, for example, many mosques open their doors for shared meals and community outreach, which are powerful expressions of the values that underpin cohesion.
I am honoured to chair the all-party parliamentary group on faith and society. One of the things that we have led on has been local faith covenants, and I have seen how those create practical frameworks for partnership between councils and faith groups. They help to build trust, improve consultation and strengthen support for residents. Early feedback from academic evaluation of the faith covenant framework shows that it is improving relationships and co-operation across the country.
As local government reorganisation continues, I hope that people will grasp the opportunity to instigate more faith covenants across the country, so that faith groups are treated not simply as stakeholders, but as trusted partners in the work that we all want to see in our communities to build community cohesion. Will the Minister support faith covenants and other structured engagement at the local level as part of any community cohesion strategy?
On the subject of community cohesion strategies, ahead of the general election, the Prime Minister wrote to faith leaders recognising the vital role that faith communities play and the importance of partnership. That recognition was welcome, yet the progress on the actions that he outlined has been slow. Last month, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking about those promises and, in particular, when we will see the community cohesion strategy. Sadly, I have not yet received a response. I know that there are communities right across the country who want to contribute and are ready to contribute, and they want to see clear national leadership on this.
As Liberal Democrats, we stand ready to work constructively with the Government, local authorities, police, civil society and faith communities to help to shape a strategy that reflects the realities of our communities. A clear strategy would align national ambition with local actions. When can we expect to see the publication of the community cohesion strategy? Which Department is leading the work? How will cross-government co-ordination be ensured?
Community cohesion cannot be built in Westminster alone. It is built in conversations between neighbours, in partnerships between councils and faith communities, in the extraordinary work of charities and in the daily choices that people make to choose understanding over division. But goodwill is not enough; cohesion also requires national leadership, clear policy direction and adequate funding for local government to sustain the spaces and services that bring people together. It requires partnership frameworks, like the faith covenant, that build trust at a local level, and it requires a message of hope that unites people rather than dividing them.
In every single conversation that I have with charities and with faith and community leaders, the same themes emerge: people want fairness, clarity, protection from hatred and the freedom to live their lives without fear. They want to be heard, to be included and to be part of the renewal of our society’s welcoming and inclusive heart. If we listen, work in partnership and invest in the relationships and institutions that bind communities together, we can strengthen the trust on which cohesion depends.
Cohesion is not an abstract ideal. As many in this Chamber have already said today, it is something that we nurture together.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure as always, Dr Murrison.
As well as congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), I would like to say in opening how much value I place on the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). In that part of the United Kingdom, we have had the opportunity over many years to learn a great deal about how cohesion can be done right and what happens when it goes wrong. It is particularly important to hear their voices in a debate on this subject. It is also important to hear from a range of Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who set out some quite particular insights on how the city of Birmingham has had to deal with many challenges.
It is my privilege to represent an extremely diverse but thankfully very cohesive constituency. It is served by two local authorities, both of which are extremely proactive; they have interfaith networks and hold a huge variety of community events. In response to the situation when flags were being raised across high streets, which was clearly intended by many as an act of intimidation, they used those lamp posts and other public street furniture to display flags that celebrated the borough’s heritage and the heritage of the local community, in order to crowd out that space from those who sought to use it to divide the community. That shows a degree of local leadership that we all appreciate.
The fact that we are having this debate in the context of housing, communities and local government demonstrates the breadth of council services. I reflect on my own time as a councillor, when the 9/11 incidents happened. Suddenly, the airspace of the United States was closed. Hillingdon council worked to provide accommodation for thousands of stranded travellers from across the world and to enable them to communicate with their family members to tell them that they were okay and that they had somewhere to stay for the night when all the hotels were full. It also worked very closely with the military, for example, to ensure that the logistics were laid on so that people were supported.
As a number of Members have referred to, that kind of leadership came to the fore again during the covid era, when organisations such as H4All in Hillingdon and Harrow came out and ensured that people had food and medication delivered. We saw the work that was done by synagogues, mosques, churches and non-faith organisations to support each other not just in my community, but across the whole country.
We know that cohesion is something that we can do well, and we know that its leadership often sits with local government. Indeed, when the last Labour Government promoted the roll-out of food banks, it was a recognition—as was the case in my community—that there was a level of need that statutory services were not always able to meet, which that particular community initiative was able to serve. That is why we saw the spread of those across the country to meet that specific need.
We are having this debate at a time when there is a growing level of interest in issues around cohesion. Many will have heard the news coverage of the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, if not the speech itself, in which she set out a number of workstreams seeking to address many of the concerns that Members have described today. It seems to me that this is an area where there is a high degree of cross-party consensus; we know that we need to address these issues in order to strengthen our society.
Let me briefly set out some of the Opposition’s principles around cohesion, some of which are quite focused on local government and some of which are much broader. It is striking that all Members who have contributed to this debate have spoken of the importance of our society and values and the principles of freedom and the rule of law. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr; this must not become a debate about attacking Islam. We are a country that is a plural and liberal democracy. In a community like mine, that means that women and girls have the freedom to wear a headscarf if they choose to, and the protection of the law from those who would seek to force that on them if they choose not to. Both those things are equally important.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On Sunday, I celebrated iftar at the local Epsom Islamic Centre. We enjoyed lots of wonderful food and a real community spirit. Unfortunately, last October the centre was the target of vandalism and abuse, which included words and devils spray-painted on the building. That hatred does not represent the majority of people in Epsom and Ewell, but we cannot ignore the fact that there are those in our country who seek to divide us. Does the hon. Member agree that we must support our communities in standing firm against hatred and violence in all its forms?
David Simmonds
I do not think there is any argument against the points that the hon. Member raises, and they reflect things that I am sure we have all heard as constituency MPs. When I visited one of my local synagogues on Friday, the people there talked about the difficulties that some of the children in that community had faced at school with the rising tide of antisemitism that they had experienced. That is part of the bigger picture.
We need to ensure that, as far as we can, we build a level of common understanding. When we talk about shared values, sometimes people are prone to say, “We have sharia law in some parts of the country,” or, “We have the Beth Din, which sits outside of the law.” Indeed, the canon law of the Catholic Church, which has been part of our Christian community for centuries, permitted marriage at the age of 14 up until that law was changed in 2019. Sometimes these misunderstandings are not simply about a view of Islam; they are about different communities and cultures. We need to ensure that everybody recognises that the rule of law and the freedoms that it brings apply to everybody in our country.
All of our citizens are free to decide that in the event of a dispute about a business, they would like a sharia court to be involved in settling it. If two Jewish business people wish to use the Beth Din to settle the matter, they can do that as well. That does not remove, under any circumstances, the freedoms and the protections that the law of the land gives to everybody in our country. That must always be there as a clear recourse.
I will touch on an issue that we covered a little yesterday in the debate about the Representation of the People Act 1983. The issue of electoral interference is one that sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but is of concern to Members across the House. I reflect on a session of the Home Affairs Committee that was chaired by the now Foreign Secretary, who asked our intelligence services what evidence there was of Russian interference in the Brexit debate, which was the issue at the time. The response was illuminating. The point our security services made was not that Russia, China or Iran is seeking a particular outcome in a political debate happening in the United Kingdom. What those sponsors of terror are seeking to achieve is division in the United Kingdom and a lack of coherence in our society. We must make sure that we are always vigilant and that our laws are updated regularly to take account of how we can resist that.
Moving to more local matters, a lot of the debate has revolved around what makes a community. I know you represent a constituency with a diverse range of local settlements that are different to those in London, Dr Murrison. When we think of community, we think of thriving high streets and places that people can feel proud of. We think of a strong economy and of places where people can get and keep a job that supports their standard of living and their opportunity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections, because those things have been hotly debated in Parliament. We see the impact of rising taxes in the hollowing-out of our high streets. We know that 89,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality and 74,000 in retail since October 2024. The relentless rise in unemployment under this Government is putting enormous strain on the cohesion of our communities.
Leigh Ingham
Does the hon. Member agree that we saw a hollowing-out of state institutions that really matter to our communities during the 14 years of Conservative Government between 2010 and 2024? I refer to the point I made in my speech: under the Conservative-led Staffordshire county council, we saw the third worst cuts to youth services in the country. In fact, I spent last Thursday afternoon talking about youth justice with young people in my constituency who told me that they had never seen things so bad. Although I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s points are valid, would he accept that there is a heritage to where we are now and what this Government are dealing with?
David Simmonds
I would not accept that point, I am afraid. We can recognise, not least by simply looking at the statistics, that resident satisfaction with local government services rose continuously throughout the period that Labour have described as “austerity”. Any incoming Government dealing with a colossal legacy of debt will have to find ways to live within its means. Unfortunately, we seem to be set on the path of another colossal legacy of debt.
It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some points, and perhaps acknowledged the impact that her Government’s policies are having on the ability of businesses and our residents to find good, remunerative work. The first point, which the Labour leader of Sheffield has been particularly exercised about recently, and which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) will know is of local as well as national interest, is the asylum funding situation for local government, which remains a major source of concern and grievance.
The Government are providing some funding to local authorities to help them to meet the very significant costs. Hillingdon is a good example. As a gateway authority to Heathrow airport, it has accommodated many thousands of unaccompanied children over the years, and, currently, very large numbers of Chagossians are fleeing to the United Kingdom from the consequences of the Government’s Chagos deal and huge numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation by the Home Office. Those numbers have been rising very sharply, very fast, and their processing means that the numbers turning up at the town hall have increased dramatically. That means that the pressure on local authority temporary accommodation budgets is rising relentlessly.
The Government refuse to say how much funding they are providing to local authorities to meet that cost, which is understandably fuelling campaigns by some in our society to say that those costs are not fully met. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Councillor Tom Hunt that the Government need to address this consequence of their actions?
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. On that point, I call the Minister, because we are short of time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate and for his powerful and eloquent contribution, and all the hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions and insight. There is clear passion and commitment across the House to tackle this issue, which I agree is cross-party.
Throughout our history, the United Kingdom’s ability to withstand external challenges has been underpinned by a shared sense of pride, tolerance and courage. We are accepting of our neighbours, proud of our varied experiences, traditions, national identities and customs, and confident that those differences enrich our communities and our country. Those core foundations that have kept us united in the face of adversity on so many occasions are now under threat.
One of the privileges of my role is that I have been able to talk to communities across the country. Time and again, I have heard clearly about the rising tide of hate and division seen in communities. I talk to our Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities, and hear that people, who have made this country their own and have been here for generations, feel scared in this country, in their communities and in their homes. We have got to turn the tide on that.
People are under pressure, and in that context—it is a tale as old as time—bad faith actors will try to exploit our communities in order to tear them apart. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) is absolutely right; at the heart of this is a story about economic neglect and of the failure of the Conservatives to properly fund our amazing councils and invest in our communities. We see the impacts of that in terms of closed shops on our high streets, shut up libraries, closed youth clubs and the abandonment of so many of our vital community assets that bring people together. That sense of decline on too many of our doorsteps has bred a real, justified sense of frustration, anger and a lack of control.
I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is not just a question of local growth; it is a question about cohesion. We cannot and we will not pretend that the legacies of any of those issues can be reversed overnight, but as both a Labour Government and as a Parliament, we can be confident that the way in which we restore cohesion and pride in our communities does not lie in this building or the corridors of Whitehall. The answer is in the communities and people that we represent. We all know that the bonds that hold society together are anchored locally, so often it is the voluntary community and charity groups and the grassroot bodies at the heart of our communities—we all have them in our constituencies—that bring people together every day.
To build stronger communities, we must bring people together to make positive, meaningful change in their own neighbourhoods. That ethos is at the heart of our groundbreaking Pride in Place programme, which, importantly, will mean local people will decide how money is invested. They will work together to unite their communities and bring everyone around the table to find common ground and invest in their priorities. That point has been made time and again by hon. Members, who have provided amazing examples of how that is happening.
As a Government, we see our role as supporting and enabling that, whether it is through places that have received Pride in Place funding or, more broadly, the approach that we want to increasingly see where we create the ability for communities to get a grip on the funding the Government are already spending. That will enable them to shape it, drive it and, fundamentally, invest in their priorities. To achieve all that, we are working closely with pioneering councils and communities. A great example is in Rugby, where the local authority and other partners are stepping forward as one of the first to deliver the work that we want to see on our high streets through, for example, high street renewal auctions. That will unlock vital spaces on our high streets for local businesses and community groups so that everyone can be part of building thriving high streets. That is renewal in action, led by people who know their patch better than we ever will in this place. They are backed by the Government who are choosing unity over division.
Let me pick up the point on flags that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby, for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). I absolutely agree that we must reclaim our flags and national symbols, and push back on those who want to use them to divide and intimidate our communities. We know this is a difficult area for councils to navigate, and that is why we are providing guidance, best practice and training to support them in navigating this terrain and to ensure they can hold our national symbols so that they represent all our communities, and to push back on those who want to use them in a divisive way.
We are absolutely clear that we need to work on social cohesion. We are working across Government to develop a response, led by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we will say more very shortly. To update hon. Members, this includes three key strands. First, building confident communities that bring people together so that we can build common ground. Pride in Place is one example, but this is about creating spaces and places where people can cohere around issues they care about in their area. There is a critical role for voluntary, community and faith organisations in doing this hard work. Many have been doing so during difficult periods under the Conservative Government, but without support from Government.
Ayoub Khan
I gently ask the Minister, in relation to Pride in Place funding: why is Birmingham Perry Barr, which is at the centre of Birmingham and has the highest level of deprivation, not being given any money? Why should those residents feel left out?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have a very clear methodology based on a combination of deprivation, connection and access to assets in local places. That is published for every hon. Member to see. We have provided Pride in Place funding in particular parts of Birmingham. I would love to have Pride in Place in every deprived community, and I will continue to make that case and champion it. We are rolling out a further 40 areas, considering both deprivation and cohesion, and will say more about that shortly.
Critically, we want this to be an approach that applies to all parts of the country. Irrespective of whether an area is part of the programme, we want it to have access to funding and the ability for local community groups to come together to drive priorities and regenerate their place. We will say more through our high streets strategy and the ongoing work we are doing.
On cohesion, the first strand is building confident communities. The second is strengthening integration. That means supporting people who come to this country, both existing and new migrants, so that they are integrated into society, speak the language and contribute to the community, while ensuring there is zero tolerance for those who want to sow hate and division. Whether that is the rise in religious hate or racism, there must be proper enforcement, with a clear line we say people cannot cross, and if they do, action is taken against it.
The final strand is tackling extremism, which we know is on the rise, with robust action to disrupt it in our communities and, critically, online, where we know we are seeing increasing division, hate and radicalisation. We know we must respond. We recognise that this is a first step. The hard work of trying to build cohesion in our communities is ongoing, and we as a Government are absolutely committed to playing our part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made the important point that whatever we do on cohesion must be rooted in a wider strategy to tackle inequality and poverty, because that is the breeding ground for division. It is essential that the work my Department is doing sits alongside wider Government action to increase living standards and tackle poverty, whether through the child poverty action plan, removing the two-child benefit cap, lifting the national living wage, tackling homelessness, building the next generation of social housing or reviving public services so they provide a foundation for everyone to live well and do well.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), raised the important point of asylum accommodation. We inherited a legacy of asylum hotels from the last Government that was an absolute shambles and paid no regard to community cohesion, tension or consent. We will do the hard work of closing those hotels, but we must work hand in glove with local authorities to provide accommodation in a way that brings communities with us and has their consent.
We know this is a critical task, and the Prime Minister has told me it is one of the most important things that we will do as a Government. He is right. The Government will play their part, but we all have a responsibility as Members of this House and as politicians, because the words and language we use have an impact on what happens on the ground. We all have a collective responsibility to step up, working with local government and with grassroots organisations to do the vital work of holding and cohering our communities.
John Slinger
I thank you, Dr Murrison, and the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions; it was an interesting debate. We must be catalysts for community cohesion and create an unstoppable, positive chain reaction that will strengthen our communities. From what I have heard today, I am sure that we will do so.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
North Middlesex Hospital Accident and Emergency Services: Cancer Patients
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I will call Kate Osamor to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may speak only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the experience of cancer patients with accident and emergency services at North Middlesex Hospital.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank you and the House for granting me the opportunity to speak about the urgent care pathway for cancer patients at North Middlesex university hospital, and to discuss the potential for dedicated funding for an oncology assessment unit.
In Edmonton and Winchmore Hill, as in many constituencies across the country, too many people with cancer are being let down. In the UK, cancer mortality rates are significantly higher than in comparable countries, and the survival rate is lower. I am glad that the Government have recognised the issue and are taking steps to address it, most significantly through the national cancer plan. I welcome the plan’s ambition to diagnose more cancers early, to ensure that treatment starts more quickly and to improve survival.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is right to illustrate this important issue at her local hospital, which is replicated wherever we might be the United Kingdom. Indeed, people back home are waiting 12 hours for admission or discharge. Those who attend A&E should be treated within four hours, but that is not happening. Does the hon. Lady agree that strengthening community-based cancer services is essential to protect patients, ease pressure on emergency departments and ensure that people with cancer get the right care in the right place at the right time?
Kate Osamor
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; later in my speech I will discuss the work the community is doing.
Faster diagnosis and quicker treatment are vital to improving outcomes for cancer patients. However, I am concerned that the Government are placing less emphasis on other critical aspects of the care that cancer patients receive. The case of North Middlesex hospital in my Edmonton and Winchmore Hill constituency, which I am very proud to represent, is evidence of that. On the one hand, since 2023, North Middlesex hospital has received two new radiotherapy machines, which should help to ensure that cancer patients receive treatment more quickly and limit the number of hospital visits they need to make. But on the other hand, the hospital is under-resourced in other important areas, which is having a negative impact on patients’ experiences.
I have particular concerns about the experience of cancer patients in the accident and emergency department. From talking to my constituents and their families, I know that oncology patients who are admitted to the hospital are often assessed in the emergency department, but it does not have the physical space or isolation capacity required to safely manage immunocompromised individuals. Despite an acute oncology service that works extremely hard to prioritise those patients, the North Middlesex hospital emergency department often struggles to provide appropriate private triage areas or guarantee a rapid review for vulnerable cancer patients, because of high patient volumes and infection-control pressures. Over recent years, this has caused a number of my constituents to be put in an environment that is unsuitable for their condition, and caused a great deal of upset and discomfort.
I have been in correspondence with one of my constituents, Mrs Mary Thorn, regarding the experience of her late husband, Mr Jack Thorn, at North Middlesex hospital, and Mrs Thorn has given me permission to discuss the experience of her late husband at the hospital. Mr Thorn was diagnosed with cancer in July 2022, and in January 2023 he began chemotherapy treatment. Following the conclusion of the first type of chemotherapy treatment, Mr Thorn was told multiple times that he needed to be admitted back into hospital. However, upon arriving at hospital, rather than being admitted straight into the cancer ward, he was made to sit in the A&E waiting room to be triaged. On one occasion, he was made to wait for 15 hours. Because of the immunosuppressive treatment that many cancer patients undergo, they are at a heightened risk of infection, meaning that staying in A&E wards for extended periods risks worsening their condition.
Since my correspondence with Mrs Thorn, I have heard from several other constituents who have suffered similar ordeals. One of my constituents, who has now sadly passed away, went to the North Middlesex emergency department following a concerning reaction to the immunotherapy treatment she was receiving for her cancer. She arrived at the hospital on a Saturday and was not moved into a side room until the Monday, meaning that she was forced to sleep in a chair for two days while very unwell. During this time she could not shower, had no privacy and was unable to return home to collect any belongings or change clothing.
Since hearing of Mr Thorn’s experience, I have engaged closely with the North Middlesex hospital and the Royal Free London NHS foundation trust, which now manages the hospital. The trust has been taking steps to improve the experience of oncology patients at North Middlesex hospital through efforts to reduce waiting times and speed up the pathway for them. Those steps include the creation of the same-day emergency care hub and the emergency ambulatory care unit, which provide a safer and more appropriate environment for patients, away from the emergency department.
Despite those measures, North Middlesex hospital has not been provided with the necessary resources for the triage of patients who require isolation. The trust proposes an initiative to establish an oncology assessment unit for patients who require minimal intervention, to bypass the emergency department, but this has been prevented from progressing further, after some promising initial steps. This was due to there being no available funds in existing budgets and the lack of external funding to hire the additional specialist staff required to establish the oncology assessment unit.
The situation highlights the urgent need for targeted investment. Without dedicated support, the trust will not be able to guarantee the safer, specialist-led pathway for cancer patients that clinicians have repeatedly recommended. The experiences of Mr Thorn and my other constituents demonstrate the human impact of the gap in provision, and the response of the trust makes it clear that local efforts alone cannot solve the issue. If the Government are serious about putting cancer patients “front and centre”, as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has previously stated, they must do more to support stretched and under-resourced hospitals such as the North Middlesex, as well as its dedicated and hard-working staff—not only to protect the dignity and wellbeing of cancer patients, but to improve outcomes and survival rates.
I have three requests that I would like the Minister to consider. First, will the Department consider taking steps to ensure that North Middlesex hospital is granted the funding it needs to establish an oncology assessment unit, so that patients who experience treatment-related complications can be assessed properly in an appropriate environment, avoiding the risks associated with overcrowded emergency departments? Secondly, will the Minister consider carrying out a wider assessment of the safety and suitability of the settings in which immunocompromised oncology patients are placed when they are admitted to hospitals across the country, and how that may affect outcomes for cancer patients? Lastly, how will the proposals in the 10-year health plan for England on shifting from hospital to community care affect the experience of those suffering from cancer, to prevent them from having to attend A&E in the first place?
I pay tribute to Mrs Thorn for her tireless advocacy on this matter, with me and my office, with the North Middlesex hospital and with the wider Royal Free London foundation trust, to push for improvements in oncology care following the death of her husband Mr Jack Thorn. Her constant advocacy in the face of such devastating loss is truly commendable.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor) for securing the debate. I echo her comments about Mrs Thorn in the light of her husband Jack’s experience. My hon. Friend has worked diligently on behalf of her constituent. We know that constituents should not have to take on such advocacy when they are suffering such trauma, but their experience is always valuable. Constituency MPs are always grateful to people who share their experiences, and my hon. Friend has done an excellent job on behalf of her constituent this morning.
We are clear that every patient should be treated with dignity and respect. For far too long, NHS performance and practices have not met the high standards that patients should expect, which is why we are taking action to improve cancer pathways and urgent emergency care, to build an NHS that is fit for the future. On the treatment of cancer patients in A&E in particular, far too many cancer patients and their families have been failed by the NHS, with care lacking empathy and dignity. It is not right that patients, and particularly those with a cancer diagnosis, face distressing situations waiting for care in A&E.
Through our recently published national cancer plan, which my hon. Friend alluded to, we commit to addressing poor experiences, driving earlier diagnosis and supporting general practitioners to spot cancer earlier through, for example, Jess’s rule and reducing inappropriate diagnosis in A&E. Jess’s rule is a patient-safety principle that requires GPs to reflect, review and rethink a patient’s diagnosis after three unresolved presentations, to reduce missed and delayed cancer diagnosis.
My hon. Friend and I entered Parliament at the same time; she had experience in primary care and I had experience as a commissioner. She will be as shocked as I am, because in 2026 cancer patients should not be going through A&E when they are known to have a condition. We have been working on that for a very long time. Our plan will reduce the need for people who are undergoing cancer treatment to attend A&E—for example, through rapid access to a booked appointment in same-day emergency care. As my hon. Friend alluded to, we already see that in other trusts, such as the Whittington in her area. That should be standard, and is in many places.
We recognise that some cancer patients will have more extensive needs. For those patients, we need to deliver an enhanced level of care during and after treatment, known as supportive oncology. This will include support for severe and sometimes sudden symptoms, when people need rapid access to the right care in their home or community. That will be key to getting those patients the support they need, and thereby reducing the need for them ever to attend A&E.
It is vital to deliver compassionate care in the best setting for each patient. Our national cancer plan will redesign cancer services around people’s lives, not just around hospitals, recognising that more people are living longer with and beyond cancer and need ongoing co-ordinated support. That support will increasingly be delivered through neighbourhood services and be accessible digitally through the NHS app. We will ensure that patients have a named neighbourhood lead to help to co-ordinate their care locally, working alongside hospital specialists to provide continuity, reduce fragmentation and make it easier for people to navigate services, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.
We will deliver greater use of virtual monitoring and growing opportunities for treatment and follow-up in community settings, where that is safe and appropriate. This will help to ensure that patients get high-quality support early, thereby reducing the crisis situations that my hon. Friend alluded to that currently drive unacceptable and unnecessary A&E visits.
Where patients do need to attend A&E, we are committed to improving standards and returning to the waiting times set out in the NHS constitution. We have expert improvement teams providing tailored support to challenge trusts like the North Middlesex, and they have shown progress, as my hon. Friend has highlighted. I pay tribute to the work of leaders locally in improving the situation—they have made progress since last year.
In addition, the NHS team in London recently agreed to a pilot for the oncology assessment unit, to proactively support cancer patients away from the emergency department, as my hon. Friend discussed. If she needs more detail on the final confirmation of that pilot, I will make sure she gets it in writing after the debate, because we do think that is an appropriate way to proceed.
Nationally, we recently published guidance on the model emergency department, setting out the core principles and pathways for high-performing emergency departments. Our urgent and emergency care plan for 2025-26 sets out a clear path to strengthen urgent care outside hospital. We are using data from shared patient care records and digital tools to support better triage, join up services and anticipate pressures before they arise. That is backed by £2 billion of investment in NHS digital infrastructure.
We are also investing £250 million to strengthen same-day emergency care and urgent treatment centre provision, helping systems to avoid unnecessary admissions for patients and supporting the same-day diagnosis, treatment and discharge of patients. The plan is working: A&E performance is improving and people are receiving their cancer diagnosis within a month. We do not underestimate how much more there is to do and how difficult it is for many patients at the North Middlesex hospital, as my hon. Friend has spoken about, and other places. We want to take the best to the rest. We know there is more to do, but the investment and modernisation along clear pathways are starting to make a difference, and the NHS is showing clear signs of recovery.
The NHS is under pressure. The Government are taking decisive action through our urgent care emergency plan, the national cancer plan and our longer-term reforms. We are putting the service back on its feet and ensuring that patients receive the high-quality, timely care they deserve. I welcome my hon. Friend raising this issue on behalf of her constituents, and many other Members discussing the issues with me. I am happy to continue working with my hon. Friend and local NHS leaders on how we can further strengthen urgent emergency care services and the delivery of the cancer plan, to reduce the disparities and support patients to receive the right care in the right place.
Question put and agreed to.
Small Charity Sector
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the small charity sector.
It is a great privilege to serve under your stewardship, Sir Roger. I am astonished and happy to see that so many Members take the small charity sector seriously, because it is a serious issue. As you will specifically know, Sir Roger, the sector is critical to everything that we do. The Government can do only a certain amount; the two other groups that aid the people and support the natural fabric of society are families and small community groups and charities. Small charities do much more than even the large charities that we hear all the headlines about. The charities that do the most are the ones about which we probably know the least. The purpose of this debate is to find out about them and discuss what we can do to help them.
I want to start with a few facts and figures that may astound colleagues from all parties. First, the “UK Charity Insights Report” found that 30%—fewer than a third—of charity leaders think that the sector is in a healthy position. Some 44% of charity leaders cite cost rises as one of their main challenges, up from 14% four years ago. We know that that is the case for many charities. Demand for charities’ services is growing, with 83% of charities recording an increase in demand over the last 12 months. Only one in 10 charity leaders said that they have been able to smoothly meet the rise in demand.
The “UK Giving Report 2025” said that although donations from the public to charity increased to £15.4 billion in 2024, which is quite remarkable, really, only half of people say that they donated to charity in the previous 12 months. That, obviously, is to do with levels of income. I am not making a party political point; this is just a statement about the situation for these small community groups.
The downward trend is evident across all age groups, but it is especially pronounced among young people. A little more than a third of 16 to 24-year-olds say they donated or sponsored in the past 12 months, compared with 52% in 2019. The small charity sector has been doing fantastic work, but it has been healthier. I hope that it can become a focus for us and the Government. It is a delicate flower and we need to nurture it in everything that we do.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. It is obvious that a large number of Members wish to participate in the debate; time is going to be very short. Before we embark on the inevitable round of interventions, which are perfectly permitted, I remind hon. Members who intervene that they are expected to remain for the whole debate.
Alex Easton
Does the right hon. Member agree that the small charity sector, including community and faith-based groups, plays a vital role in reaching the hardest-to-reach communities—not only in my constituency of North Down, but across our United Kingdom? Does he agree that the sector should be commended on its local leadership, which so often fills the gaps in statutory provision?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do indeed. I am going to be careful about taking an intervention unless the Member nods their head to suggest that they are prepared to stay for the rest of the debate. I am like a spider at the centre of the web, but I promise I will not trap anyone if I do not have to; I have great confidence in Sir Roger’s stewardship.
Some 20 years ago, I visited the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow, which was one of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom. At that time, the people there no longer looked to Government as their safety net from poverty; instead, it was local charities that stepped forward. People at the grassroots were present every day, patiently helping people into work and out of debt and addiction. The lifespan of individuals there was incredibly low, much lower than the UK average. That visit stayed with me throughout the latter part of my time as party leader. I saw deprivation and problems, but I also saw innovation at a local level to solve key problems. Innovation is critical, and that is what the small charity sector is about.
For that reason, I founded the Centre for Social Justice in 2004 to create a bridge between local poverty fighters and policymakers here in Westminster; we described it as connecting the back streets of Britain to the corridors of power. The work that the organisation does now is informed by an alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots charities. Today it is led by former charity leader and CSJ award-winner Andy Cook. This is all about real people doing things away from Westminster and achieving things that are never exalted enough; nor is experience of them ever transferred to central Government.
The CSJ harnessed the experiences of those charities to identify five distinct pathways to poverty, which it could then change; that idea still holds as true today as it did when I set the organisation up. Those pathways are worklessness and welfare dependency; addiction; educational failure; debt; and of course family dysfunction and breakdown. What I learned about the impact of worklessness and the other pathways helped to shape some of my thinking later on.
Every year since 2004, we have had an awards programme that recognises outstanding small community groups and charities that work quietly but effectively across the country. To see what they have achieved is one of the most moving things. They will not be known to many people, but what they do is remarkable and the lessons from their work ring out to policymakers. Instead of inventing new ways of doing things, we should look at what these groups do, see whether we can bring it to Westminster and, if necessary, make legislation that shapes lives along the same lines.
I want to refer to some community groups and charities that I know about—I hope other Members will do the same, to give a cross-party sense of what is going on in our communities. The first I want to talk about is Ripple, a suicide prevention charity based in Portsmouth. After the tragic suicide of her brother Josh, Alice Hendy dedicated herself to preventing harmful online internet searches from leading others to the same fate. We face a growing nightmare out there, with many people committing suicide as a result of what they see online. It is a real problem.
From her bedroom in Portsmouth, Alice created a browser extension that intercepts crisis searches, offering a calming breathing exercise before signposting people to accessible local services. I have seen it myself, and it is quite brilliant—the members of the Government who saw it were also taken aback by how remarkable it is. What began as a response to personal tragedy has become a lifesaving tool that has now been downloaded—believe it or not—more than 2 million times. This is a small idea, from a small set-up in a bedroom, that is now being used more and more widely.
That is why we need to learn from what these groups are doing, pick it up and see what we can do centrally. Many individuals will not have committed suicide as a direct result of that particular initiative, but there are many other examples. With the right Government engagement, tools like Ripple’s could be made available in schools, hospitals and jobcentres across the country, for example, yet Alice and her team still have to approach institutions one by one.
I say again to the Minister: these are the kind of huge, life-changing things we can take from this debate—I am sure colleagues will give similar examples—and we do not have to invent them from scratch, because they already exist.
Another shining beacon in our charity network is the BAC—the BAC O’Connor centre in Staffordshire; I first encountered it some years ago during my visits to grassroots charities. For 30 years, BAC O’Connor has been helping people to recover from addiction. We have long argued that, for obvious reasons, addiction is a reinforcer of poverty. BAC’s founder, Noreen Oliver, who sadly is no longer with us, was a much-loved member of this family. I was lucky enough to visit the centre again last year with the hon. Members for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier).
Some still new to political leadership in various other parties think that simply legalising drugs is a single-stroke way of ending the drugs problem and saving lives. BAC O’Connor believes in changing and transforming lives; its rehabilitation programmes remind us that recovery, not normalisation, remains the desired outcome. BAC O’Connor does groundbreaking work, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) will want to explain further. It created its own restaurant for those coming out of addiction and is a very good example of what I am talking about.
In my constituency of Chingford and Woodford Green there are some remarkable small charities, from which the Government could learn important lessons. They include the Dream Factory, founded in 2008 by Avril Mills BEM. It supports children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions or with severe disabilities by making their dreams—the things that they hoped or wished to do but have not been able to—a reality. It is a simple device: no matter what their situation is, Avril wants to hold them and say that they are worthy of achieving some of their dreams, although they may not be around long enough to see all of them.
Wanstead and Woodford Migrant Support, a Christian charity based in Woodford Green, offers free immigration advice, housing support, advocacy and social spaces for refugees, asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants. By providing community-based advice early, it helps prevent homelessness. Immigration and housing policy should recognise and learn from its preventive work and the savings created by local and interactive support.
There are others. Read Easy Waltham Forest offers free, confidential one-to-one coaching for adults who want to learn to read. One of the main reasons why people—mostly young men—end up in prison is that they simply cannot read and write. We discovered that they are too embarrassed to go into jobcentres, where they will be confronted by things that they need to read and write. They will probably be sitting in front of an efficient woman who is trying to help them, and they are embarrassed about admitting that they simply cannot read what she is putting in front of them. They will leave the jobcentre and fall into a life of crime because, without reading and writing, there is nothing out there that people can do for regular work. Many people who cannot read and write struggle; that is an often overlooked barrier to employment and to a straightforward, well-lived life.
The central issue that I hope this debate will address is this: the Government take grassroots charity too much for granted—they did before and still do now, to a greater or lesser degree; this is not party political, as I said. The Government fail to listen when charities are delivering what works, and I urge the Minister to raise that point with her colleagues. They ought to be looking with MPs at what is going on in their constituencies and seeing what we can bring forward. The Government should rise up to serious, lifesaving policy work that does not need degrees or involve people writing new policies on the backs of envelopes and everybody getting excited about them. The programmes of these charities have been tried and tested, and they work—in life, it is always a good start to look at what works and copy it. That is what most of us would want to do.
We need to foster a stronger culture of philanthropy in the UK that is closer to the American model. In its “Supercharging Philanthropy” report, the CSJ proposed practical steps to get us there. It suggested unlocking matched funding schemes to drive philanthropy and creating an evidence fund, so that smaller organisations can prove their impact and compete on a higher-level playing field. I want this debate to focus on how the Government can better learn from charities. There is a clear policy pipeline through which Ministers and Departments can systematically learn from grassroots charities working on the ground.
The problem is that larger charities have public affairs teams and a lot of money, so they can fill up the inboxes of the Government on a daily basis, which they do—I have experience of that. I am not attacking them; I am simply saying that the real innovation is in smaller charities. It is the same in the economy—job creation in the business sector is all about small businesses. They are the ones that take the risks, are dynamic and produce the most employment in the United Kingdom.
Small charities and community groups are exactly the same: they are innovators that see a problem, want to solve it and innovate to do that. When it works they really grow, but it is difficult because there is a glass ceiling that they must get through to reach the Government. That is what the Centre for Social Justice is trying to enable, but the issue needs to be recognised on a wider scale. That innovation must be harnessed to produce solutions.
I remain proud of what the CSJ has done to bring these voices to the national debate. The CSJ Foundation has now given more than £25 million to grassroots charities and hopefully will raise more. I hope that, as this debate continues, the Government will listen and recognise that, through discussions with groups such as the Centre for Social Justice and others, we can harness and recognise the issues. There are a significant number of colleagues here for a debate such as this on a normal day, and they all work with local community groups and charities. Let us find a way to show what is really good about what those do and get the Government to act, once and for all, on things that we know work, rather than doing experiments in public policy.
I rest on the basis that those charities are the lifeblood of what keeps society going, and we do not recognise them fully enough. I know that colleagues do, but the Government never do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Could colleagues who wish to speak please remain standing while the Clerk ticks off the names? I do not normally do this from the Chair, but 10 Members have put forward their names in advance; I propose to call them first. In order, on the Opposition Benches they are Peter Bedford, Danny Kruger, John Cooper, Wera Hobhouse, John Glen and Jim Shannon. On the Government Benches they are Brian Leishman, Patrick Hurley and Terry Jermy.
I am going to put a time limit of three minutes on each speech; that should take us—allowing for interventions—to just past quarter past 3. We have to call the Front Benchers at 3.30 pm, so there should be a little wriggle room at the end for anybody who was not on that list and wishes to speak. Otherwise, your card is marked, so intervene. I will also not allow interventions from anybody who arrived after the start of the debate.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate.
When times are hard, the charity sector is always asked to do more. The unholy trinity of austerity, which made millions poorer, a global pandemic, which widened the inequalities created by that austerity, and the ongoing cost of living crisis has placed incredible demands on the charity sector across various communities in my constituency—I will speak about some of the fantastic charities that do so much.
It was an honour to be invited by Andy Roxburgh and Johanna Wilkinson to celebrate the Wee County Veterans 10th birthday just a few weeks ago. That group provides camaraderie and companionship for veterans who find themselves back on civvy street. There is no doubt that the support that the group has given has saved the lives of brave ex-servicemen and women.
The Sauchie Community Group has done so much for nearly 35 years. Laura’s Tiny Tots group gives children the best start in life; Anne always guarantees a warm welcome at Chatty Latte; and Keith’s recently formed history group preserve and promote Sauchie legends. There are also lots of other positive mental health activities in various musical groups, all of which are fantastic. The Sauchie resource centre is always busy.
Love in a Box was founded by two ladies from Alloa: Sharon McCafferty and Margaret Douglas. They want every kid in Clackmannanshire to experience the festive season. They make sure that every child wakes up on Christmas morning with presents to open.
Heading across the Forth to Grangemouth, it was a pleasure to meet Kirsty from Talbot House, who runs a lunch club for pensioners. Coming together to spend an afternoon in company over a meal and playing bingo is a social highlight for so many.
In Larbert and Stenhousemuir, Keeping Larbert and Stenhousemuir Beautiful was originally set up to tidy green spaces and plant and maintain flowers in the community. Now, it also runs a food pantry for vulnerable people in low-income households. It is a vital community drop-in centre for local people to come and spend some time.
Then there is the Carronshore heritage forum, a volunteer-led organisation dedicated to strengthening local community spirit in the village through projects, initiatives and events. For example, it is always great to see so many people come to the Christmas lights switch-on and for kids to meet Santa Claus. I thank the trustees, Craig, Colin, Stewart, Gordon, Robert and Davy, for inviting me along to serve up tasty dinners at the senior citizens Christmas lunch. It was commented that seeing an MP do an honest day’s work was somewhat refreshing.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for introducing this immensely important debate. The UK’s charity sector is facing mounting challenges. Just like many small businesses, charities across the country have seen a sharp increase in their running costs, driven by persistent inflation and, unfortunately, unhelpful economic policies from the Treasury.
The increase in the national living wage, the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions and changes to business rates have placed considerable pressures on organisations that do so much for our constituents in need. For a sector that contributes £20 billion in economic value to the country each year, that should concern us all. As we have heard, these organisations are more innovative and grassroots-led, and ultimately they are generally supported by the public. If small and medium-sized charities continue to close at the current rate, it will impact our communities and place further strain on already stretched public services.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Small charities with excepted charity status, including many individual scout and guide groups, do not have a registered charity number. 1st Ram Hill Scouts in my constituency tell me that they reckon they are excluded from about 80% of grants because they lack a charity number. Does the hon. Member agree that that is a serious sustainability priority for small groups?
Mr Bedford
The hon. Member has made her point clearly, and I am very sympathetic to the argument she puts across. In my constituency, I have seen the impact of these economic policies and the tough environment for small and medium-sized charities such as Wyggestons and Trinity Almshouses, which provides sheltered accommodation and residential care. It believes that the Charity Commission could also be doing more to support these groups.
Meanwhile, other charity-funded local care providers, such as Rainbows hospice for children and young people and LOROS, have made it clear that the economic climate is making their future more uncertain. These organisations are incredibly important to my constituents, and it would be an absolute travesty to see them reduce their services or close altogether. The Government need to think about creating a carve-out for the charity sector, so that it does not have to pay astronomical employment costs—something that Conservative Members argued for during the national insurance debate. That would be a sensible move to protect jobs and sustain local services, and it would command broad public support.
To conclude, charities are at the heart of our communities. They reduce pressure on public services and command widespread public support, yet we in this place are not doing enough to support and protect them. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the arguments that the CSJ and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green have eloquently presented. My plea to the Government is to create a carve-out for the wider sector to ensure that running costs do not drive many charities, including those in my constituency, to close.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. In the interests of time, and given your advice, I have cut a huge chunk from my speech, in the hope that we can get more colleagues in. I wish to commend two charities in my constituency, and then make two requests of the Minister.
First, I commend Greta and the team at the Light for Life charity. I want to place on record my thanks to them—they are in Parliament today, and when the debate is over, I will go to see them. Light for Life provides support to people experiencing homelessness, at the most vulnerable point in their lives. It provides food and essential supplies and, perhaps more importantly, respect and connection to those in real difficulty.
I also want to recognise Richard and the team at Compassion Acts, with its food bank provision and financial and monetary advice to families; in the past, it has provided school uniform support to children who need it the most. These are the sorts of small charities that are, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, the backbone of our communities. We would be much worse off without them.
There are some practical ideas that would, I hope, make a positive difference to the charities sector. One is to unlock unclaimed gift aid and match-funding mechanisms, which could incentivise and increase philanthropic giving, especially if targeted and supported directly for the smaller charities sector. Another proposal is to establish an evidence fund, maybe also financed from unclaimed gift aid, which would help small charities to demonstrate impact and compete more fairly for grants and contracts against the big boys—the larger charities that we all know and that overwhelm our inboxes.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address two questions. Does the Department view match funding as a practical tool to increase giving to small and medium-sized charities? Secondly, what steps can be taken to ensure that small charities can engage meaningfully in tendering grant applications and consultations?
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I have two quick declarations of interest. I am the founder and still chairman of a charity working in prisons. It is 21 years old this year. My second declaration of interest is the fealty I owe to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—my original, and still my feudal lord. He is the leader that I first worked for. I pay tribute to all the work he has done over many years. I remember very well the Easterhouse visit and setting up the Centre for Social Justice, and all the work that he has done over the last two decades to advance the cause of social justice, particularly through the work of small charities.
We all love our small charities, and I, too, could run through a list of brilliant ones that work in East Wiltshire—I do want to quickly mention the LINK service, which drives people around the county, particularly to medical appointments. That is such an important service, provided totally free and voluntarily to the community.
However, I want to use the time I have to make a more strategic point. The role of small charities is not just for us as MPs to champion in a sort of neutral sense—“Oh, aren’t they good?” There is something profoundly important about this network for public policy. I was involved, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was, in those early years of thinking about social responsibility in the era of David Cameron. I think the big society was the best thing that David Cameron did—except perhaps for calling a referendum on the European Union—yet it did not quite work.
It did not quite work for two main reasons. One is that the Treasury did not really believe in it— George Osborne never got the point of the charity sector and its role in public life and in policy. Secondly, the difficulty is that if the state starts to support charities, it ends up basically enabling big charities to occupy the space that state agencies did previously. They effectively game the provisions that are made with the purpose of supporting the small charity sector, to exclude the small charities and create barriers to entry for those small organisations that it is so difficult for national Government to see and to work with.
Fundamentally, we need a big, new settlement with the charity sector; in fact, with society itself. This is not just about registered charities. It is about social organisations in all their forms. We need to trust communities much more fully, with all the mess, the disparity and what is called the postcode lottery that that can sometimes induce. We need to support philanthropy and direct public support—I think the United Kingdom could become the absolute global centre of philanthropy. The City of London should regard that as one of its key investment markets.
But this is not actually just about money, private or public. It is about the state enabling and authorising its agency throughout the public sector to rely meaningfully on the charity sector, so that it can do that in all the areas we have been discussing, including addiction, re-offending, homelessness, children in care—these knotty, wicked problems that cause so much distress and pain in our society and which the state is so inadequate at dealing with.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate.
During my life, I have been involved with a number of different charities across my constituency, either in an employed capacity or voluntarily. That has included the Keystone Development Trust, the Benjamin Foundation, the Charles Burrell Centre and the G.W. Staniforth Charity. It is through that involvement that I have come to appreciate how small charities are so often crucial to local communities. They provide essential services and respond quickly to new risks or increases in demand. Sometimes they are formed out of personal tragedy, as was the case with the Benjamin Foundation set up by Richard and Vanessa Draper to remember their son Benjamin, who tragically passed away.
The services that small charities provide are crucial. It is important that organisations are supported by the Government. That support could materialise in many ways, but I want to highlight one in particular: access to cash and banking. Many groups and charities tell me that they increasingly struggle to process funds that they receive in cash. Although many things can be purchased digitally, if you are anything like me, Sir Roger, the odds are that you still buy raffle and tombola tickets with cash. The lack of availability of banks, particularly in rural areas such as mine, is now a real barrier to fundraising for smaller charities. The added costs of processing cash and the associated risks of staff and volunteers handling cash are important to consider. I ask the Government to give some thought to what can be done to assist local charities with this practical challenge.
I want to take a moment to thank the dozens and dozens of small local charities across my constituency and the volunteers that sustain them, including two groups that I have been able to meet with recently, the Downham Art Circle and Swaffham environment group. In the interests of time, I shall finish there.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We Scots are often portrayed as parsimonious—or, to put it another way, as tight as two coats of paint. It is a myth largely down to comedian and singer Sir Harry Lauder, who, to raise money for wounded great war veterans after the death of his son in 1917, portrayed on stage a canny Scot who regarded every penny as a prisoner. Lauder raised £1 million for charity—an astronomical sum. How ironic that such generosity birthed the legend of the tightwad Scot. Today, in straitened times, our generosity continues, with an estimated £1.2 billion donated in 2023 and 76% of Scots reporting some sort of charity donation.
Another myth that persists is that deprivation and poverty are issues only in urban areas—not so. My constituency is rural and gorgeous, but people cannot eat the scenery. Rural isolation, loneliness and poverty are sadly all too real amidst the splendour of the Galloway hills. Loneliness and social isolation are profound challenges across Dumfries and Galloway. Our scattered communities, limited public transport and persistent digital exclusion—we have many notspots—leave many individuals cut off from social contact.
However, the people of Dumfries and Galloway are resilient self-starters and we have a plethora of charities fighting to make lives better. Take our telephone and in-person befriending service, A Listening Ear, which is having a real impact, delivering community-led preventive solutions to mental ill health. Its modest budget provides a big bang for a small buck. Prostate Buddies is reaching out to men, urging them to get checked for what is too often a silent killer, and offering advice and support so that more men can get treatment sooner.
There are dozens of similar such initiatives, often volunteer-led, that could benefit from greater support from Government. Take The Usual Place café, which is right next to my constituency office—I am a frequent flyer there. That charity takes young people with a range of mental and physical issues and teaches them catering skills, which massively boosts their chances of finding paid employment. Even with a thriving café and external catering business, The Usual Place has struggled financially, not least since the Government increased employer national insurance contributions.
Small charities do mighty work, especially in rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. May I make a plea for them to have a seat as the Government draw up the policy table? Sir Harry Lauder sang “Stop Yer Tickling, Jock.” Perhaps we should update that to “Start Yer Listening, Minister.”
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate and on his kind words about Noreen Oliver. I had the pleasure of meeting Noreen when I was first elected. The legacy she leaves in north Staffordshire is phenomenal. Noreen’s Recovery Lounge, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is in Fenton Manor in my constituency. It is a wonderful place, which provides the opportunity for people in alcohol and drug addiction recovery to spend meaningful time with other people and acquire work experience and skills. That is something that we should all aspire to.
I commend to the debate the recent report from Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, the infrastructure organisation expertly led by Lisa Healings and her team, that brings together multiple parts of the charitable sector, offering the support and guidance they need. The report points out that there are 396 registered charities operating in Stoke-on-Trent, spending a collective amount of £144.7 million. That is a phenomenal amount of investment into my city, and its value is huge. That money is being spent to prevent much greater demands on other services. It closes the gaps in some communities, to give people the life chances and opportunities they would not otherwise have.
That money cannot come from the public sector alone. Nicky Twemlow, the newly appointed chief executive of the YMCA, founded the Made in Stoke network, which brings together people who have a physical or social connection to Stoke-on-Trent, trying to ensure that they can use their philanthropic aims to fund small charities in Stoke. It is a matchmaking service that is having a real benefit.
Although there are many wonderful things in Stoke that I could talk about, I just want to touch briefly on three changes that would help. One issue is the short-term cycle of funding; charities often tell me that they get funding for one or two years. By the time they have stood up a project, it is time to start shutting it down again. By the time they have recruited staff, they are worried about redundancy costs. Another concerns large contracts for commissioned services by the third sector from public sector bodies, but the value of the contract is so large that small charities are shut out. Unless they can offer huge swathes of different services, they are unable to get a look in. The big charities mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green get all the spoils, when a coalition of smaller charities could deliver a service more effectively and with more focus on a community but they cannot compete on the price point.
My final point, which I want to raise briefly, is around the complex nature of the needs that too many of these charities are meeting. In Stoke we have lots of good charities, such as Chit Chat 4U, Birches Head Get Growing or Step-Up Stoke CIC. They are often trying to meet one need, but that is spread across multiple phases. If there were a way the Government could help with multiple needs assessments that allow charities to work collectively, it would be a massive boon for my city.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate.
I hear time and again from local Bath charities that they are disadvantaged due to their size. They are incredible, committed and dedicated niche charities, doing excellent work in our communities. Because they are small and locally focused they can deliver swift, sensitive and tailored personal services to the people who need them, but they are disadvantaged because they are small. They are disadvantaged because they cannot afford a team of experienced bid writers who know the tips and hacks to unlock the larger funding schemes, and because they are all going for the same pots of funding at the same time, for largely the same aims. They are also disadvantaged because they lack the economies of scale that benefit the nationals, and the central infrastructure to navigate onerous administration, monitoring and governance rules.
I recently convened a roundtable of smaller charities all working in the domestic abuse space in Bath, to hear about their challenges. Outstanding local charities such as Southside, the Nelson Trust, Developing Health & Independence, Voices, Society Without Abuse and Julian House attended, along with our local authority partners, officers and councillors, who are vital elements for policy setting, commissioning and delivery. Bringing them together created a space to work towards a more joined-up response for domestic abuse victims and survivors in Bath, working together rather than competing with each other.
Overwhelmingly, I heard from them how the fragmentation of local delivery impeded their effectiveness, and how partnerships and collaborations were key to reducing that. As a result, regular roundtables are now taking place, at which they share best practice, limit duplication of support to some clients, and locate the gaps in provision to others. It is an opportunity to map out a clearer, more collaborative and less fragmented domestic abuse pathway for local organisations. We are creating a space where charities can build rapport with one another while discussing some of the issues that the sector faces.
I hope that will begin to eliminate the barriers that smaller charities face due to the administration, monitoring and governance issues that the large national charities navigate with relative ease. I hope that in this way we can ensure that the size of a charity never determines the difference that it can make. While I echo the concerns that have been raised today, I very much hope that my example from Bath can help other hon. Members and the charities in their local areas.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate.
The stories, as has been said many times, of small and medium-sized charities and the impact that they have can be seen across our cities, towns and communities. They are the ones directly impacting lives and making a day-to-day difference on the ground in our communities. We have much to thank them for, but also much to learn from them. One such charity from my constituency that I often mention in Parliament is WeMindTheGap. Every year it works with hundreds of young people for whom traditional education may not have worked, and who may have fallen through the gaps. Through its holistic programmes, including long-term mentoring, paid work placements, skills development and pastoral support, it often gives the young people that it works with a new lease of life, and 70% of “Gappies”—as they are known—move on to work, training or future education.
WeMindTheGap works in and supports schools and similar organisations, providing specialist and targeted measures that they do not always have the capacity to provide themselves. Those partnerships make a tangible difference to both pupils and schools, with bespoke solutions in partnership with schools, colleges, businesses and others. This is the power of smaller charities.
Programmes such as these are particularly timely given the recent release of CSJ’s “Lost Boys” report, which painted an increasingly bleak picture for young men from disadvantaged and working-class backgrounds, highlighting rising educational disengagement and economic inactivity. I ask the Minister to describe how the Government can help support charities such as these and the vital work that they are doing in that sphere.
In the interests of time, I will conclude my remarks by thanking all the smaller charities in Wrexham and beyond for the vital work they do, year in and year out, in so many different but equally impactful ways.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who for 34 years has made such an enormous contribution in this place. When he set up the Centre for Social Justice, he was determined to look at the deeper causes of social problems in our country. It has been instrumental in doing so. I agree with him that the annual attempt to champion and reward all those charities doing so much throughout the country is really important.
I also draw attention to the previously mentioned “Supercharging Philanthropy” report. It looked across six hubs around the country, undertook serious engagement and came forward with 39 recommendations across 90-odd pages. It is a serious attempt to look at how we can underpin more support for small local charities that exist across our constituencies, and how we can bring back some of the things that have happened before around community-matched funding challenges. There is an enormous pool of surplus wealth that many are seeking to invest in activities and actions in communities that make a real difference. The Government could do well to look at the options that exist and those 39 recommendations and see what can be brought forward.
I want to make a specific point about several charities in my constituency, many of whom I have engaged with—and one or two of which I am a patron of. In particular Rise:61—of which I am not a patron—is embedded in a distinct community of Bemerton: Bemerton Heath. It is run by Robin Imeson, who has basically devoted his life so far to youth work in that community. He lives there and runs bike clubs, drop-ins and creative clubs with his team. He also runs football and drama workshops. They have been absolutely foundational to the lives of hundreds of young people on that estate.
I ask the Minister to reflect that, in the context of the Pride in Place work that is going to happen in Bemerton, she could ensure that the role of small charities is put front and centre of the options that neighbourhood plans and boards have. It is important that those people who really understand what is going on in a community are allowed to be meaningful beneficiaries, over 10 years, of the investment the Government are making, and that everything is done to hear their voices. Often they are taken out of the main conversation, so I welcome the opportunity today to talk of Rise:61 and of the enormous contribution they make to my constituency in many ways and forms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for leading the debate. We should do more to ensure the long-term sustainability of the charity sector.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. Our secretariat is run by a small charity called the FoRB Foundation, the task of which is to raise awareness, recover rights and rebuild the lives of those affected by FORB violations. The foundation has many volunteers who make the time to do many things.
The charity sector in Northern Ireland is a major employer, with some 53,620 employees, representing some 7% of the total workforce. Some 4.3 million people across the UK have sought the support of charities in recent years, highlighting the need for charity support nationwide.
Let me name a few of the charities in my constituency. The Ards suicide awareness group started a few years ago, and it reaches out to try to help those of a male disposition, and in respect of those who have unfortunately lost their lives. There are also food banks, the Home-Start team, the Beyond the Battlefield veterans team, and the Link, where a number of churches come together to give help.
Beyond the Battlefield provides pivotal and comprehensive support for veterans, service members and their families. It offers free, specialised services, including counselling for post-traumatic stress disorder; housing assistance for the homeless; help with war pensions, benefit entitlements and medical claims; and support through tailored long-term care.
The Newtownards food bank, which is run by the House church—Richard, Natalie, Lisa and their team—reminds us all of the scale of how food poverty is affecting Northern Ireland, and how critical the small charity sector is in terms of food poverty. Those are just a few of the charities in my constituency.
Between 2014 and 2023—excluding the pandemic years 2020 to 2022—the average number of registered charities that was removed annually was about 63. That tells us that there is a decrease in the number of charities being sustained annually. Many small charities, especially those with limited reserves, are under significant pressure, and that has been exacerbated by cuts to core Government grants.
Sustained Government support is critical for the survival and effectiveness of Northern Ireland’s small charity sector. Without adequate funding, many organisations will face closure or the scaling back of essential services, putting vulnerable communities at risk. We must never underestimate the impact of charities on the community and how they have saved so many from personal and financial devastation. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response; not to throw any pressure on her, but the charities need help.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate.
I want to speak briefly about mental health charities. Fundamentally, we have an enormous problem in the UK: the public sector no longer funds the mental health sector properly, and the charities cannot fill the gap. Almost 800,000 kids in the 16 to 24-year-old group are not in education or employment, and covid has meant that the situation is effectively becoming a national emergency for the young. We all see in our casework an enormous number of parents getting in touch about their children. We have a big issue.
There is one thing that the Minister could do to help. My wife’s father committed suicide. He was a farmer in Northern Ireland. Without the charities that I know of, I think a lot more people who are contemplating suicide would take their own lives. I would like to mention the charities Ewen’s Room, Lochaber Hope, and Mikeysline in Inverness. They have one particular request. Unlike VAT-registered businesses, charities cannot reclaim the VAT they pay on essential costs, from maintaining their premises to repairing vehicles. Does the Minister agree that reviewing the VAT rules for small charities could be a practical and immediate step to relieve some of the intense financial pressures facing the sector?
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate.
From my short time as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr, and having spent over a decade as a local councillor, I know how small charities form the very lifeblood of our area. Although larger organisations no doubt do incredible amounts of good, I have found that it is the smaller groups that can only be found at the grassroots level that can reach out to the people who are most in need.
I have had the privilege of meeting and working with many small-scale local charities in my time, and I am always encouraged by the hard work and decency of those looking to make our community a better place. Let me give three quick examples. The George Coller Memorial Fund is a local charity that has punched well above its weight over the years, campaigning successfully to enable schools to store and administer emergency inhalers—vital treatments—and recently campaigning to make a dose counter mandatory in emergency inhalers, which we are working on.
I want to recognise and pay tribute to the work of Faizan Global Relief Foundation UK, which mobilised at the peak of the bin strikes, when there were piles and piles of rubbish across the city of Birmingham, to help the local community. The foundation also does enormous work with our youth, trying to address knife crime, substance abuse and so much more.
I also want to raise the plight of Kevin, a retiree who volunteers day and night to run the Bethany food bank in my constituency. The charity feeds over 1,000 people a month, but receives its donations largely in the form of food rather than cash. With Birmingham city council applying only limited relief on business rates, Bethany food bank is at risk of shutting down permanently amid a cost of living crisis.
Those sorts of small organisations do enormous work in constituencies up and down the country. When they are being squeezed at the same time as the cost of living is spiralling out of control and families are so desperate, we must support organisations that do not require an enormous amount of financial support but actually deliver so much. Will the Minister indicate what additional grants the Government can make available to smaller charities, because they are the charities that have the greatest impact?
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for leading this important debate.
The small charity sector plays a crucial role in supporting communities in my constituency and across the whole country. Some 86% of the small charities working in the south-west have an income of under £100,000. One of the greatest privileges of my role as an MP is meeting the amazing people behind these organisations: the volunteers, organisers and community leaders who give so generously of their time and energy to help others.
That commitment to local action speaks directly to Liberal Democrat values: localism, community power, and the belief that solutions are strongest when they are shaped by the people closest to the challenge. Our small charities live out that principle every single day. Their impact might not be fully measurable, but I know it is massive. They demonstrate that when people look out for one another and create opportunities for others to flourish, society becomes more resilient, more compassionate and more connected.
I would like to recognise just a few of the exceptional organisations in my constituency, many of which are now included in my Stronger South Cotswolds initiative. I am proud to be patron of the Churn community hub in Cirencester, which works to reduce isolation and improve wellbeing; HEALS of Malmesbury supports individuals and families who are vulnerable or experiencing hardship, offering help ranging from debt advice to emergency food provision; and the Tetbury Goods Shed brings people together for creative opportunities that span the generations.
I would love to namecheck a few other incredible organisations—I hope they will forgive me for not being able to do full justice to their value: Fruitful Malmesbury, Greening Tetbury, Cirencester Pantry, Sustainable Sherston, Food for Thought Cotswolds, Working 4 Wellbeing, the Cotswold friends, People For You, Pips Community café, Tetbury Area Youth and Community Trust, and the many groups that support people suffering from cancer, dementia, Parkinson’s and other ailments.
Those charities, as valuable as they are, are in crisis. Rising employer national insurance contributions place a direct financial strain on them, and the ongoing cost of living crisis compounds the challenge. As households struggle, donations fall and fundraising becomes harder, while at the same time more and more people turn to charities for support. We have rising demand, falling income and increasing costs. If we truly value the small charity sector—and we should—let us look at how we can make more funding available to it.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. It has been a pleasure to hear about so many wonderful charities and volunteers.
Small local charities have played an increasing role in the community life of this country and have stepped in to fill critical gaps in public services. They support young people, the elderly and the isolated. They counsel the bereaved, look after abandoned animals and reach people in crisis when statutory services cannot. A thriving voluntary sector is essential.
Small charities in my constituency—including Pavilion on the Park, the Eastleigh Basics Bank, Fledge, the Asian Welfare and Cultural Association, St Francis Animal Welfare and 1Community—all do fantastic work, and I am incredibly proud of the contribution they make every day, the commitment of all their volunteers and staff, and the work they do to strengthen the bonds in our community. However, as we have heard, small charities are facing huge challenges.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I am terribly sorry; I appreciate that there are conflicting demands on Members, but the hon. Lady must be aware that if a Member comes in late, it is quite straightforward: no intervention.
Liz Jarvis
Decades of real-terms funding cuts, a cost of living squeeze on donations, rising operating costs, and the Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions without exempting the charitable sector have piled pressure on organisations that are already struggling.
Small charities account for the overwhelming majority of the sector by number. Micro and small charities are defined as those with incomes under £10,000 and between £10,000 and £100,000 respectively, and they make up over 80% of all registered charities. Charities with incomes under £1 million represent 96% of the entire sector. By contrast, the UK’s largest charities—those with incomes over £10 million—make up less than 1% of the sector by number, yet account for the majority of total income.
Given the vital community work that small charities carry out, it is concerning that the majority of donations are given to bigger rather than smaller charities, which do not have the resources and superior brand recognition of bigger organisations. Small local charities do not have the financial runway and resilience built into their operations to weather storms.
The demand for charitable services is rising sharply, with the proportion of people receiving food, medical or financial support from charities having tripled in five years. However, around 42% of charities spent more than they received, and well over half are now running deficits. More charities are closing, and most of those closures are among organisations with incomes below £1 million. Nearly a third of voluntary organisations now describe themselves as vulnerable or struggling. Many expect to freeze recruitment and make redundancies as a direct consequence of financial pressure.
I urge the Minister to reduce the financial burden faced by small charities. What more can be done to supercharge philanthropy across the UK? How can we unlock billions in unclaimed gift aid and dormant funds and explore match-funding mechanisms, which can significantly increase donations? We should ensure that small and medium-sized charities can engage meaningfully in tenders, grant applications and policy consultations, rather than being crowded out by larger organisations.
Small veterans charities, including Veterans Dementia Support UK in my constituency, are not immune to the challenges facing the sector. The CEO of Veterans Aid has warned that if these specialist organisations disappear, the Government will lose the very partners they depend on to keep veterans from falling into crisis. I hope the Minister will reflect carefully on that.
The fact is that more charities are closing at a time when increasing numbers of people depend on their services. If we continue on this course, we risk losing an essential pillar of the social fabric that holds our communities together. It is absolutely crucial to ensure that small charities are supported in the UK. They are embedded in their local communities and are often their beneficiaries’ only lifeline. The Government must take all necessary steps to ensure they can maximise their impact for the people and communities who depend on them.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. Few others—indeed, perhaps no one else in this place—have done more over the last 20 years to champion the causes of social justice, a field in which many of our small charities operate.
Over the last five years, the charity sector has faced unprecedented pressure, with donations falling and volunteer numbers still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Rising costs driven by the autumn Budget, increased national insurance contributions and post-pandemic expenditure outstripping income have placed a strain on small charities, limiting their ability to support local communities. These organisations remain consistently underfunded and frequently overlooked, and the current funding model is proving unsustainable for too many. Small and medium-sized charities with incomes under £1 million account for 97% of all charity closures in the past decade.
Financially, the current system works against small charities, favouring large, well-established organisations with the capacity to navigate complex processes and absorb financial shocks. Too many smaller charities are excluded from the core unrestricted and multi-year funding that would give them the stability and ability to plan ahead. Instead, they are often trapped in cycles of short-term grants, burdensome applications and reporting requirements that, for them, are often disproportionate to some of the modest sums available. Meanwhile, 88% of charitable income in England and Wales goes to just 5% of registered charities, leaving the remaining 95%—the small charities that form the backbone of the sector—far more vulnerable to declines in public giving. Without a shift in Government focus towards these organisations and the vital role they play in their communities, that gap will only continue to widen.
Small and medium-sized charities are often better placed than large national charities to know their communities and to deliver lasting change in people’s lives. A number of charities on the Isle of Wight do just that. For example, Aspire is a community hub that runs food pantries, suicide prevention programmes and the award-winning “Living Well and Early Help” service. More recently, it has opened accommodation in Ryde for women who would otherwise face being homeless. We also have the award-winning Tidal Family Support centre and PATCH—the People’s Approach to Cancer Help—which helps people with the costs of accessing health appointments across the Solent on the mainland. Community Action Isle of Wight and the Bay Youth Project do important youth intervention work in Sandown, Lake and Shanklin.
Such smaller charities are often more agile in responding to the needs of their communities, typically spending a lower proportion of their income on fundraising and lobbying so it can go directly to delivering on their charitable objectives. Many funders value that closeness, preferring to support organisations that have deep, long-standing relationships with the people they serve. Charities often focus on meeting immediate needs, allowing them to respond quickly to people in their local communities, yet many corporate donors feel it is harder to justify supporting smaller charities, partly because they have fewer resources to showcase their work. Some national charity brands are, of course, used by local charities, such as Age UK Isle of Wight—and Age UK is in many constituencies and areas across the country. There is often a misunderstanding that they benefit from central donations, but very often they are in fact small, local charities, entirely reliant on local fundraising—notwithstanding the benefit of that brand association with an excellent national charity such as Age UK.
Smaller charities are often so absorbed in day-to-day delivery that they lack the capacity to analyse evidence and present impact in the way that funders increasingly expect, which leaves them at a disadvantage when bidding for support. Smaller charities can also lack meaningful avenues to feed their experience into national policy, with few mechanisms in place for Government to learn from their frontline insight. Their limited national influence, stemming from the absence of large public affairs teams, stands in stark contrast to the growing professionalisation of major charities—which in itself is of course a good thing.
I am pleased to have been appointed as a commissioner to the Centre for Social Justice’s midlife mission, looking at how to support people approaching midlife and beyond to thrive in the labour market. The CSJ aims to bring together more than 1,000 small charities to give voice to and inform the work that they are doing.
I now address the Minister directly. Last year, the Government announced the creation of the Office for the Impact Economy, intended to help Whitehall to identify, source and build partnerships to scale the social impact of public investment and expand opportunities across the country. Since that announcement, however, there has been no public update on how that initiative is being implemented, or how the associated funding is being used.
I ask the Minister this: first, to what extent does she recognise match funding as a core tool for leveraging public funds, and what steps are being taken to expand its use across Government? Secondly, what mechanisms does the Department have in place to ensure that small and medium-sized charities can engage meaningfully in tenders, grant applications and policy consultations, and that the administrative burden of doing so does not exclude them? Finally, will the Minister establish a £585 million evidence fund, as recommended by the CSJ, paid for through one year of unclaimed gift aid, enabling small charities to demonstrate impact and to compete more effectively for contracts and grants?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. His commitment to small charitable organisations is evident not only in his speech, but through his work in that area, and indeed in this place, over many years.
I begin by paying tribute to small charities and the critical support that they provide to people across the country, which has been highlighted today. Small charities make up the vast majority of the voluntary community and social enterprise sector. Those responsive, locally engaged groups are often best placed to understand the strengths, capabilities and cultures that make up their local communities. In this debate, we heard a number of examples, and I want to mention a few of them.
The right hon. Member spoke about Ripple, based in Portsmouth, and about how, in response to personal tragedy, it set up a lifesaving tool. It is incredibly important that he shared that example with the House today, and I will reflect it to the relevant Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke powerfully about a number of charities, as did Members from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said that Greta, a representative of one of his local charities, is here in Parliament. I join him in welcoming them.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) raised important issues, such as digital poverty, that affect rural communities. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who shared an example of her work bringing local domestic violence charities together; I am pleased to hear that that work is ongoing. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) raised a specific question about Pride in Place. It is a policy led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I have met with the relevant Minister. The policy is grounded in local leadership, but I will ensure that the right hon. Member’s points are put to that Minister and will write to him accordingly.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the importance of small charities in tackling food poverty, something that I have seen in my constituency. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan); I will write to him about his specific question, but I will touch on some of the points he made later in my speech. I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), on his new role at the CSJ, and will address some of the points he put to me later.
Yesterday I met a range of charitable organisations at events hosted by the York Centre for Voluntary Services and the Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership. Those charities play a vital role in their local communities, giving a voice to those living in poverty, supporting unpaid carers and empowering women, often victims of domestic violence, to improve their lives. In my area of Barnsley, whether it be BIADS—Barnsley Independent Alzheimer’s and Dementia Support—of which I am a patron, or the world-class Barnsley Youth Choir, small charities are at the forefront of innovation and social change.
In last month alone I have met two great small charities from across the country: the Family Volunteering Club, a small charity led by Maddy Mills, creating opportunities for young children and their families to volunteer, and Ruff & Ruby, a King’s award-winning youth charity carrying out important work in Stoke-on-Trent. Ruff & Ruby has the UTH CITY app, which connects young people with resources, education, employment, volunteering and suicide prevention. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) gave some excellent examples of its work, and I was pleased to visit his area last year to meet a number of charities and hear at first hand about the work they are doing.
I acknowledge the financial pressures faced by the sector. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and a number of others put to me points around national insurance, which we have debated a number of times, and a specific point about VAT. That is an issue for the Treasury, but I will reflect his request to the relevant Minister and write to him. We want to reduce administrative burdens on businesses, including charities, by a quarter by the end of this Parliament. Last October, I set out a series of changes to the financial thresholds for charities that will come into force this year. These will save charities an average of £47 million each year, while ensuring that the regulation of the sector remains proportionate.
The civil society covenant, which represents a fundamental shift in how Government works with the sector, is a recognition of the value that civil society brings, and a commitment to work in partnership to deliver better for citizens and communities. I was pleased to meet a number of civil society organisations at London City Hall towards the end of last year to discuss how the civil society covenant can help the Government to connect with the whole sector. In that context, I do not recognise the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green’s characterisation that the Government do not listen and engage, or that they simply take small charities for granted. I acknowledge that we can always do better, but the covenant is about having the ambition to do exactly that.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has launched an £11.6 million local covenant partnership fund. The fund will support local government, public service providers and civil society organisations to work collaboratively to tackle local policy priorities and better meet the needs of local communities. Outside this place, I know that there have been questions from charities regarding the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024; while that question has not been raised in this debate, I make it clear to Members and the sector that charities can continue to claim gift aid where eligible and compliant with consumer law, where it applies.
I met with the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), to discuss the topic last week, alongside colleagues from the Department for Business and Trade. I am aware of the sector’s concerns and I am committed to working with colleagues in DBT and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the issue. I wrote to the Chair of the Committee today in response to her letter to me on Friday to provide an update and confirm that, in relation to gift aid, secondary legislation is not necessary at this time.
I will touch on some of the broader DCMS and Government support for charities, answering a question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger). Last summer, DCMS published the Government’s first ever dormant asset strategy, mapping out how the £440 million of funding will be distributed. That will include £132.5 million to benefit young people and £87.5 million for social investment. Funding will go towards providing small, affordable loans to grassroots organisations alongside tailored support to help small enterprises to grow and become more financially resilient. I recognise that there is a need to support more civil society organisations to grow their income from public sector contracts. At present, civil society organisations secure just 4% of the total value of those contracts, a figure that has remained unchanged for the past 10 years.
The national procurement policy statement published in February 2025 underlines the Government’s commitment to strengthening the UK economy by maximising opportunities for civil society organisations to access public contracts. That is a clear signal that the sector’s expertise and value will be recognised and supported throughout the public sector, highlighting our ambition to make it easier for civil society organisations of all sizes, and small and medium-sized enterprises, to deliver public contracts. I think that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the Minister agree that small local charities cannot compete with national charities? We have made that point time and again, but she has not made any comment on how competition can be achieved or how local charities can get priority. I have many examples in Bath where a national charity gets a bid through the bidding process but does not deliver as well as a local charity. We find that out afterwards, but then it is too late.
Stephanie Peacock
That is a very fair point, and one that I have seen in my own constituency of Barnsley. In the interest of time, I will not share the details of my example, but I will take that point away and write to the hon. Lady directly on it. We want to address that specific point through the covenant.
Moving on to the second point of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport about tax reliefs for charities, charities and their donors received around £6.7 billion in tax relief in the 2024-25 tax year. The long-running gift aid scheme has raised over £1.7 billion alone during that period. I attended a roundtable hosted by Amazon and co-chaired by Gordon Brown on the new VAT relief for business donations on goods to charities. As the Chancellor announced at the Budget, that new relief will increase the supply of essential items available to charities and make it easier for businesses to support charitable work. The former Prime Minister deserves huge credit for his leadership on that issue throughout his establishment of Multibank.
As he outlined in his speech, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and the Centre for Social Justice have a keen interest in growing philanthropy in the UK, especially for small charities. A number of other Members raised that issue too. We recognise that many small charities rely on donations from the public to support their work, and while I am aware that there is more work to do, I acknowledge the £15 billion that was donated last year. We want to better connect, unlock and partner with philanthropists to mobilise private funds for public good, a point put to me by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis). I recently chaired a roundtable on that subject, bringing together philanthropists, business leaders and other Government Departments to discuss how we can build philanthropic giving into Government missions.
We are committed to a place-based philanthropy strategy. That will set out how the Government can create an environment that encourages philanthropists to support local communities and ensures that the benefits of philanthropy are felt nationwide. Indeed, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) raised the issue of philanthropy being a priority for the City of London. I was pleased to attend and speak at the Giving and Impact summit last year at the London Stock Exchange.
The shadow Minister mentioned the Office for the Impact Economy. Launched by the Prime Minister, it is the Government’s new central hub for investors, philanthropists and businesses looking to make social impact. The office will make sure that charities can access funding beyond traditional grants and give direction to individuals and organisations looking to make a difference. I am happy to set up a meeting for Members who are interested in that area with the new office, so please do contact me.
We cannot debate charities without mentioning volunteers. Volunteers keep charities running, with around 12 million volunteers giving their time and commitment each year. Yesterday in York, I met the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, which shared with me the work it does to encourage people to get involved in a variety of ways. It was a particular pleasure to speak to the young volunteers, and I wish the York Centre for Voluntary Services the very best with its volunteering fair tomorrow, which will bring together many charities from across their city.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is right to recognise the importance of volunteers, and we all recognise that—we meet them every day of our lives—but charities also employ people and pay their wages, so there is an economic advantage to having them as well. Does she recognise that?
Stephanie Peacock
I absolutely recognise those volunteers and staff members, who often do huge amounts of work to deliver amazing outcomes. The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point, as always. I know that volunteers across the country dedicate their time—week in, week out.
If the House will indulge me, I want to share an example from my own area of Barnsley. Last Saturday, I took part in the Barnsley parkrun along with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis). It is a brilliant initiative, organised by volunteers every week. We ran the parkrun alongside Oliver Smith, who is just nine years old. He is running nine marathons in four months to raise money for the Brain Tumour Charity following his dad’s diagnosis. Oliver’s commitment to fundraising and raising awareness is incredibly inspiring, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all his amazing efforts. I was also pleased last week to visit a small charity in Barnsley, the Barnsley Hospital Charity, which has run a number of campaigns over the years and is currently raising funds particularly for breast cancer care.
My Department wants to do what it can to support volunteering. We have commissioned an open data initiative that will help break down barriers for more people to get involved in the causes that mean the most to them. It will make it easier for small charities to advertise volunteering opportunities and expand their reach, generating further support and interest for their work in their local areas.
Gareth Snell
One thing that might help is if there was a settled model for how small charities could quantify volunteer hours to use as a bank against matched funding. Some charities in my patch tell me that they have lots of social value but no cash, and when they go for matched funding, the funders want to see an income stream, not necessarily the other things they have. If there was a way that everyone recognised and supported of quantifying those other things, it could free up income from philanthropic organisations to be match funded against time, assets or skills.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point; the young volunteers were also talking to me about that data point yesterday.
One example is that the DCMS launched the voluntary, community, and social enterprise business hub last year, alongside the VCSE Crown representative. The hub contains a host of resources intended to support civil society organisations in finding and bidding for public funding. That is especially important for smaller charities with fewer resources to dedicate to seeking out such funding, and it is a vital source of information in our mission to encourage more civil society organisations into public sector contracts. Obviously, however, data is helpful across the board.
Danny Kruger
This is such an important debate. I want to pick up on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Although it is obviously very helpful if small charities, which do not have financial resources or indeed necessarily the right data, can demonstrate their value to the public sector, let us not build systems that force charities into a model that really works only for public sector agencies or large charities. The whole value of these small projects is that they do not have those clear processes, outputs and data, with everything being reduced to unit costs. We have to have a system that actually honours the way that charities work, rather than trying to force them into some kind of proxy of that quantitative model for demonstrating value. Why do we not just localise public sector funding so that small charities can be properly trusted?
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Colleagues will have noticed that I have deliberately allowed the Minister to overrun her time because, given the time, it seemed important that she was able to respond fully to the debate. I now have to remind the Minister that I want the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate to have time to wind up properly.
Stephanie Peacock
I take that point, Sir Roger, and I heard what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said.
I will end where the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green began. He spoke about how the Government, families and community groups can work together, and are best placed, alongside small charities, to support local areas and to tackle challenges. He said that the ones that do the most, we often hear the least about. I think this debate has gone some way to changing that by shining a light on so many brilliant examples of hard working charities across our country. I conclude by acknowledging the huge contribution that small charities make, and I thank them for all their work.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
This has been an excellent debate, not least because all parties have been represented in it, and all parties have spoken with one voice. We value the incredible efforts made by local community groups and charities, but all of us also recognise that much more can be done to release them and to recognise some of the incredible schemes that they have come up with—I named a number of them. There have been many suggestions about the best way to do that.
There have been comments about the need to modernise gift aid, and to uprate the thresholds of the gift aid small donations scheme, so that charities that receive small cash donations can get gift aid-style repayments of tax. That is a useful idea that has been put forward. There is also the whole idea of placed-based giving. Small charities are embedded in communities throughout the UK, and it is important that local and placed-based giving is encouraged so that smaller charities are supported and can continue delivering their vital services.
I also picked up a general concern, which is quite right, about the fall-off of corporate giving in the UK towards the small charities sector. The big problem is that—forgive me, I cannot remember who made this point—something in the order of 80% of charitable giving goes to about 20% of all charities. They are the big charities that are staffed up with lots of people to lobby us and to always come in and see us. The small community groups and charities, however, that do 80% or more of the work often do not get access to that. Rewarding companies for supporting charities and community groups in their local areas would be a very good way of increasing corporate giving.
Only 25% of British businesses donate to charities in the form of time, cash or goods. An estimated £4.26 billion was donated by British businesses in 2024, and that was flatlining. I say to the Minister that we need to do more to encourage a greater level of local support and giving, because philanthropic giving is vital. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we need to look at what the USA does in its tax structure for charitable giving. Particularly, we want to look at small community groups and charities benefiting from that, and raising more money given directly by those individuals, who are rewarded for that because it is a common good.
This debate has been an excellent opportunity. I recommend that anybody who wants to inform themselves more about the policy work speaks to the Centre for Social Justice. All parties are welcome to look at this. I hope to have a chance at some point to meet the Minister to discuss with her any possibilities that we can raise.
I have one abiding thought. Recently, we held another of our annual awards where we give out money to winning charities in six categories—money matters to small community groups and charities. I have to say that it was one of the most moving experiences that I have had. I listened to people who have grown their support groups out of tragedy in their own families and communities, and have risen to that and overcome it. Alone among all other reasons, it is not the structure or organisation, but the beating heart of small community groups and charities that helps us survive out there. It is time that we motored on in recognising them and making sure that they get a proper fair crack at what is out there to help them deliver their great services.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the small charity sector.
Funeral Premises: Environmental Health Inspections
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I will call Mark Sewards to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. That does not apply to interventions, which are in order. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for environmental health inspections of funeral premises.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. At the outset, I will say that we must keep firmly in mind the needs of grieving families: people who, in their most vulnerable moments, deserve dignity, clarity and the reassurance that they can trust that their loved ones’ remains are being cared for.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
A grieving family in my constituency contacted me last year. They said that their deceased father, who had been left in the care of a local funeral home, had been stored in such a way that his body had decomposed to the extent that it was “covered in maggots” by the time it was sent to the coroner. That was reported to the family by the coroner. I understand that the funeral home was not regulated. Does my hon. Friend agree that the case in my constituency highlights the case for further regulation and a more rigorous inspection regime for those who work in this industry?
Mark Sewards
I absolutely agree. There have been too many cases in recent memory of people not being cared for with the dignity that they deserved.
This topic first came to my attention when my constituents Cody and Liam Townend contacted me, along with another mum, Zoe Ward. They lost babies in different circumstances and went to the same funeral director, an organisation called Florrie’s Army. To their horror, their babies’ bodies were taken to the private home of the person in charge of Florrie’s Army, and they were not treated with the care and respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here, but the BBC report can be found online. Cody and Zoe asked what I could do to help, because although it was reported to the police, they found nothing actionable.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. I know that he is deeply passionate about our shared work in the all-party parliamentary group for funerals, coroners and bereavement, where we have learnt about the cases he described. Does he agree that the Minister would benefit from meeting our APPG to discuss the funeral sector and how it can develop the clear standards, robust oversight and proper enforcement it so desperately requires?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I always try to be helpful by talking about what we do in Northern Ireland. Issues around funeral service premises are sensitive and people must be treated with care when they are dealing with the death of loved ones. In Northern Ireland, funeral premises operate within general health and safety frameworks rather than a dedicated inspection programme. There is also no published fixed frequency for routine environmental health inspections. Does he agree that more must be done to create clearer regulation? I believe that the code of conduct in Scotland would be helpful to ensure industry standards and oversee premises and services more consistently.
Mark Sewards
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the example of Scotland, which I encourage the Minister to consider. I think the Government should consider everything the hon. Gentleman set out, which I will come on to.
This debate is about a fundamental issue that many of us find difficult to talk about—death. The treatment and dignity of our dead is not typically a subject for dinnertime conversation; those who have experienced bereavement, which is most of us, know how complicated and emotionally overwhelming it can be. At such a vulnerable time, one of the few sources of comfort should be the reassurance that a trusted funeral director is caring for a loved one with dignity, professionalism and respect. The vast majority of funeral directors live up to and often exceed such expectations. People’s trust has been betrayed by a very small number of rogue operators. Each stunning revelation about a rogue operator —in some cases, they have even desecrated remains—has a compounding effect on the public’s consciousness. People used to believe that the funeral sector was regulated, but they now know that it is not regulated, and they worry about the consequences of that for their families.
There are a variety of options open to the Government to solve this problem. Empowering local authorities to carry out environmental health inspections, which I will get to, is one of them; introducing a national standard is another; and empowering trade bodies should also be considered. Ultimately, however, we have to establish an independent statutory regulatory regime. I want to be clear that inaction is not an option that we should consider. I firmly believe that statutory regulation should be introduced for this sector. However, that will take time and primary legislation to achieve, so we need to consider our options for such regulation and what can happen in the interim.
Environmental health inspections could act as a stopgap before full regulation, or become the statutory regime itself, or both. However, there are differing opinions. I have spoken to representatives of the funeral service industry, including from the two largest trade bodies: the National Association of Funeral Directors, or the NAFD; and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, or SAIF. I have also had discussions with Co-op Funeralcare, having visited its premises in Leeds. I am also very pleased to serve as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals, coroners and bereavement, which brings together many organisations from across the sector, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said in his intervention.
Every person and every operator who I have spoken to about this situation is appalled by the cases they have seen. They know how vital public confidence is to the funeral profession. They want the reassurance that a statutory regime will come into place, although views on what it should look like definitely differ.
Environmental health inspections could help to build back trust, but only if there is a unified national standard that funeral premises must adhere to. But that is precisely what we do not have right now: there is no statutory inspection regime in relation to the services provided by funeral directors. My constituent Cody put it best when she said that it is harder to set up a burger van than it is to set up a funeral home. Shockingly, she is right about that.
There are no routine checks or minimum standards of funeral homes outside those established by the trade bodies. The Government are still considering the Fuller inquiry’s recommendations on funeral sector regulation and inspections. I am very grateful for the engagement that I have had on this issue, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, including with the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She met me and some of my constituents towards the end of last year, and she was phenomenal in that meeting.
However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister who is here today: what assessment has her Department made of the Fuller inquiry’s recommendation to establish a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors in England? I appreciate that that is really a question for the Department of Health and Social Care, but given that it also affects her Department, I hope she has a view on it.
That question matters because of the steps that the Government have taken in the past. In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities wrote to all councils in England to strongly encourage them to inspect funeral premises. The letter said that this was to reassure the public that the sector as a whole is safe. That was a welcome step at the time, both for the public and the sector, but those visits were never intended as technical deep-dive inspections. Instead, they were conducted to check whether everything was generally in order.
The NAFD supported those visits, and it encouraged its members to co-operate and demonstrate the high standards required of them. It advised the environmental health officers on good practice and hosted webinars to help members to prepare for their visits. However, most of those EHOs had limited experience of visiting funeral premises. It is also unclear the extent to which local authorities communicated their findings back to the Ministry of Justice and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Has the Minister’s Department collated the information that was collected through those 2024 inspections? If it has, will it use that information to inform any position that it might take in relation to funeral sector regulation?
In my view, it is concerning that those inspections failed to identify the problems that came to light when my constituents needed help. Leeds city council participated in those inspections, but to my knowledge it did not inspect Florrie’s Army or identify it as a provider of concern at the time.
That also highlights a wider issue. There is scope for environmental health inspections to be carried out by local authorities and EHOs, but that approach would probably be best employed as a short-term or interim option. It must not act as a shield against wider regulation of the funeral industry. Environmental health officers may not have the relevant sector-specific experience, but they have the skills in overlapping elements, such as infection prevention, premises hygiene and safety. The benefit of utilising EHOs is that a move to expand their remit would not necessarily require primary legislation in the short term. It would be the quickest route to ensuring some sort of Government-backed regular inspections regime, but the issue of national standards would still be outstanding.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We need regulation. One story of the mismanagement of a loved one is one too many. Does the hon. Member agree that in certain faith communities—and especially in the Jewish and Muslim communities—the expediency with which people wish to bury their loved ones must be taken into consideration within that regulation?
Mark Sewards
I could not agree more. Any regulatory regime introduced nationally needs to take into account how different faiths and cultures bury their dead.
In order for environmental health officers to conduct their work properly, they would need the backing of the Local Government Association, but it recently indicated in comments to the BBC that it would prefer the Ministry of Justice to take on the responsibility for a national scheme rather than leaving it at a local level. It would appear that the LGA has no desire to take on the responsibility for inspections on a permanent basis. Does the Minister agree with the LGA’s position?
There are other options available. Both the NAFD and SAIF require their members to undergo inspections, but they have no enforcement powers and there is no requirement for members to register with them as trade bodies—although about 80% of the sector’s players do. These bodies can expel a member, but they cannot stop them operating, and that is the gap that, in time, statutory regulation must fill. There is a strong argument for backing those trade bodies in relation to inspections. They have the respect of the industry, and with Government support and the possibility of placing their inspection regime on a statutory footing, they could play a central role within any future regulatory system. The Government may consider advising consumers to use only funeral directors who are members of the NAFD and SAIF to add an extra layer of protection.
Although this falls under a different Department—the Department of Health and Social Care—it would be remiss of me not to mention the Human Tissue Authority. Expanding its role so that it becomes the sector’s regulator is another option. The HTA has considerable experience and expertise, and expanding its remit may be more time efficient than establishing an entirely new independent regulator from scratch.
Where does this leave us today? In the medium to long term, the inspection of funeral premises undoubtedly needs to come through a statutory regulatory regime and a national standard. That is what the Fuller inquiry recommended, what the majority of the public would back and—importantly for me—what my constituents want. In the short term, the Government must move at pace and come to a decision that can reassure the public and maintain confidence in the funeral sector. That may mean utilising local authorities or the existing capacity of trade bodies to bridge the gap before regulation in the ways that I have described. I do not have all the answers, but any conversation must include the families and victims of these horrific crimes. I use the word “crimes” even though my constituents found nothing actionable when they contacted the police, because what happened to them was abhorrent. They have borne the greatest burdens, and any proposal must work for them.
I want to acknowledge the tireless work of Members from across the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has worked relentlessly on behalf of her constituents to ensure that the voices of the bereaved remain at the centre of every discussion of this topic. Action must be taken as soon as is reasonably possible, both to reassure the public and to recognise the good work of those who operate in the profession and the funeral industry. As everyone in the House knows, introducing primary legislation can take a long time. If we cannot act quickly, we need to consider every non-legislative solution outside of full statutory regulation.
What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the need for environmental health inspections at funeral premises? What conversations, if any, have taken place between her Department and the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Business and Trade on statutory regulation of the funeral sector? Will MHCLG, through local authorities, be supporting environmental health inspections at any point, now or in the future, and will the Minister commit to wider engagement with the funeral sector ahead of proposed implementation of any kind of inspection?
Families deserve dignity, transparency and peace of mind; the sector deserves Government support in reassuring those families; and Cody, Zoe and Liam, and all the affected families, deserve the peace of mind that what happened to them will never happen to anyone ever again.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
As ever, Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on introducing the debate and thank all Members who have participated in it.
First and foremost, I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents. We cannot imagine what they have been through, and I find their bravery to seek support from their Member of Parliament, meet with Ministers and try to make a difference for other families inspiring. Through my hon. Friend, I thank them wholeheartedly, as I do all those around the country who have experienced some of the horrendous things that Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and others—have discussed this afternoon for doing likewise.
The loss of a loved one is one of the most difficult things to go through in life. We will all experience it at some point, and I know that, in our hearts, we would all want to make sure that our loved ones are kept safe and treated with dignity after death, wherever and however they are cared for.
Hon. Members will be aware that the independent Fuller inquiry published its phase 2 report in July. That report was unequivocal. It found serious weaknesses and inconsistencies across settings—not isolated failure, but systematic gaps in how we protect the dignity of our loved ones. The inquiry chair, Sir Jonathan Michael, said:
“My overall conclusion is that the current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking.”
That is a challenging statement for us all to hear and read.
The report makes 75 recommendations, including the introduction of statutory regulation for all settings that care for the deceased. I want to be really clear on this point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is leading the Government’s response. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned several Departments that are involved. I reassure him and other Members that the Ministers who, collectively, are involved have discussed this issue, and we will continue to do so because it is extremely important. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who has taken an interest in this matter. It sounds as though she has supported the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley, and I am glad about that.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care published an interim update on 16 December 2025. He has already accepted 11 recommendations in full and a further 43 in principle, subject to further work. That leaves 21 that the Government are still considering, including those on regulation of the sector. The Department of Health and Social Care will respond to the report in full by the summer.
On regulation, we need to strike the right balance between boosting public assurance, for all the reasons that Members have mentioned, and getting it right for the more than 6,500 funeral providers, many of which are small family firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley explained very clearly that many of them take great pride in their work and do it extremely carefully. The vast majority of funeral directors provide compassionate, professional care for our loved ones, and 85% of providers are already members of a trade body offering guidance, codes of practice and voluntary inspection.
The Government will think through the options very carefully. This is a sensitive and meaningful area of public life; when things go wrong, the harm is profound and long-lasting. At this point, I want to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He pointed out the importance of including all of our faith communities in this work, which is extremely important to all of us.
In December, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), informed the House that he is
“working closely with the NHS, local authorities, the Human Tissue Authority, the Care Quality Commission, and other partners”—[Official Report, 16 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 59WS.]
to examine how “robust and consistent standards” can be applied across all settings. I am sure that part of that work will consider the possible role that local authorities will play in the future.
As the Minister for Local Government, I am a huge supporter of local authorities. They deliver essential services up and down the country every day. Their hard-working staff do a brilliant job serving their communities, often in very difficult circumstances. They are independent of Government, directly elected by their communities, and they often take difficult decisions every single day. In relation to this issue, councils are only too aware that they do not have powers of inspection or the power to enter funeral premises. If the Government decide that that is the right approach, we will need to consider how to make that work. We are not automatically assuming that role for councils or environmental health officers, but we need to do the work to understand, if that is the route, how we would make it work. I do not want to pre-empt consideration of that; the work is ongoing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked me about the feedback from the work that was undertaken previously. The MHCLG had a roundtable with the LGA in January to discuss the issue that he mentioned, and the information from the work that he described was fed back into the MOJ. That just shows the importance of working across the ministerial team, which I can assure everybody we will do.
As I mentioned, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has promised a response to all to the inquiry’s recommendations by the summer. I will ask the Health Minister to meet the APPG, because he will know better the right moment to do that, given the forthcoming response. Between now and then, the Government will carefully consider the potential regulation. That work is under way and we will see the results this summer.
The issues raised by the Fuller inquiry demand a response that is serious and, most importantly, grounded in dignity. The Department of Health and Social Care is leading that response on behalf of the Government. I will work very closely with my colleagues in that Department, the Ministry of Justice, the DBT and any others with responsibility to make sure that we take those recommendations in the serious way that they deserve, given the subject matter. We want to make sure that the care of the deceased is treated with the seriousness, respect and humanity it deserves. I pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley for the work that he has done to ensure that this issue is progressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered environmental protections and biodiversity trends.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. Unfortunately for everyone involved, this will be one of my longer speeches, so I had better not take too many interventions. Let me also say at the outset that this speech is intended first and foremost to support and encourage the Minister in the task ahead of her. She has one of the most important jobs for the whole Government and for the future of the country.
On that upbeat note, I turn to the litany of despair that constitutes a brief review of biodiversity trends in this country. Not a single one of England’s rivers is in good overall health. The same is true of our sea floor. Just 7% of our woodland is in good condition. Half of England’s hedgerows, which now should be bursting into bud and sprays of blossom, have been ripped up and grubbed out. Eighty-five per cent of our heathland is gone, as are 95% of our chalk downland meadows—the European equivalent of tropical rainforests. Our traditional orchards have declined by 81%, and 85% of England’s salt marshes have also been lost.
It is little wonder that one in six species in these islands is at risk of extinction. The scale of the wealth that we have squandered in pursuit of vapid notions of progress is staggering. It is more than just depressing; it is an existential threat to our way of life. The Government’s recent national security report on biodiversity loss confirmed that the collapse of nature is putting at risk the ecosystem services on which our society depends.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making it clear that biodiversity and our natural environment are in complete crisis. Given that, would he agree that the slogan “Back the builders, not the blockers” is one of the worst slogans that the Labour party has ever come up with? People do care about local democracy, biodiversity and nature, so that slogan should be put in the bin, where it belongs—the recycling bin, of course.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. In the time available for this debate, that almost constitutes a speech. I had intended to say this after the hon. Gentleman moved the motion, but I had better say it now: please understand that any person who intervenes in this debate will be expected to stay until the end. It is not a case of speak and go.
Chris Hinchliff
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I was saying, the ecosystem services—including water, food, clean air and critical resources—are all at risk. Even our soils, the very substance of growth, have lost around half their organic carbon, threatening the sustainability of our agriculture and our ability to keep our citizens fed.
More than that, however, the collapse of England’s biodiversity is a threat to our culture, national identity and one of the essential components of happiness. As iconic species continue to disappear from these islands, I wonder how many of us in this room will see a swallow or mayfly to herald summer this year?
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that the Minister will work with expert organisations such as Northumberland national park to determine how we can best protect ground-nesting birds such as the curlew, which is mainly resident in my constituency of Hexham?
Chris Hinchliff
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of protecting our curlews, and the curlew action plan is a hugely important step, which the Government should be looking at. I also wonder how long it will be before the screaming sky falls silent, as each year, fewer swifts return to grace the air above our towns and villages.
Even our English language is losing its power, as the colours of the countryside are allowed to run dry. How could Brontë have conjured Heathcliff to love Cathy without the wild of the Yorkshire moors? How could Tolkien have fathered an entire fantasy genre without a shire worth fighting for? What hope is there for a future Vaughan Williams with so few larks left to ascend? Worse still, what stories will we have left to enchant the next generation of children with when the Hundred Acre Wood has been declared a blocker, Ratty and Mole have been evicted from their river home by decades of effluent, and—this is probably only a matter of time—someone tries to redefine Watership Down as grey belt?
All in all, the scale of the nature crisis is difficult to overstate, and any move to lower standards risks turning that crisis into a catastrophe. Yet, despite all this, we still get senior politicians declaring war on what little remains of our wildlife, with repeated suggestions that even this dire baseline is somehow too high. We continue to hear the unevidenced claim that Britain is held back not by a broken economic model but by bats and newts, and that profiteering developers would build genuinely affordable homes for all if only the last remnants of the natural world were less burdensome.
Liz Truss may be gone, but the spirit and lazy rhetoric of deregulatory Trussonomics bulldozers inexorably onwards with a planning and infrastructure Bill that sought to allow developers to pay cash to trash nature, despite having no meaningful evidence to substantiate the claim that environmental protections slow down infrastructure. Then, after we managed to head off the worst of that, we have had the wholesale rejection of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s recommendations on species protections, as well as a nuclear regulatory review based on fundamentally flawed evidence that inflates the costs of environmental protections and downplays ecological risks. I would welcome the Minister taking this opportunity to distance the Government from that particular exercise in scapegoating nature for developer incompetence.
Each additional deregulation and attack on environmental protections is a blow to the very root of what it means to be English. It is a truly bleak vision for our country to suggest that the only way to secure investment, build infrastructure or deliver homes is to rip up our environmental protections. Such measures are not only bad policy but directly contradictory to the manifesto we were elected on and deeply unpopular. Only 14% of British people think politicians are aligned with their values on nature, and three quarters of young people actually want more of the UK countryside protected.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He may know that Sheffield is well known for being the outdoor city and is one of the few major cities in the UK that has a national park within its boundaries. I support him in his red lines for nature campaign. Does he agree that protecting nature is vital, not just to protect our green spaces, but to make sure that communities have access to the right types of space, so that they are happier and more fulfilled?
Chris Hinchliff
I thank my hon. Friend for her support for the red lines campaign. She is absolutely right about what makes life worth living. Investing in our country, strengthening standards and restoring our natural world will do far more to improve the lives of ordinary people than a short-sighted race to the bottom. That is the Labour tradition: action to correct market failure, not dogmatic deregulation.
There is a nature-loving majority in this country, including the millions of members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wildlife trusts, national trusts and so many more. Our Labour Government should be working alongside those groups, not squaring up to them. At the end of the day, there is a lot more of them than there are developer lobbyists. Let us stop this endless cycle of skirmishes. It does not have to be like this. Enough is enough.
Chris Hinchliff
I am very sorry, but I had better make progress at this point.
Today, I am calling for clear red lines for nature: no further weakening of environmental protections, no funding cuts to environmental bodies and no more collapsing biodiversity but instead a fully funded nature recovery plan to meet our legally binding targets. There are no more branches left to prune without killing the tree. There can be no more backward steps. Hand wringing will not protect habitats. Lip service will not stop extinction. Let us have a little optimism and idealism instead.
We know from projects such as Knepp and trailblazers such as my constituents at Finches Farm in Benington that with decisive action our biodiversity can come booming back again. Across the country, we have a vast, untapped pool of potential crying out for employment and meaningful, healthy work. It is ready to contribute to leaving the world in a better state than we found it, and there is so much work to be done: restoring our meadows, orchards, coppices and temperate rainforests; relaying hedgerows; re-wetting the lost marshes; re-wriggling our rivers; bringing back the species that haunt our islands; saving the curlew and red squirrel; and monitoring, measuring and enforcing our essential environmental protections. There is enough skilled work to deliver a huge boost towards full employment across every region of the country. Like new Labour’s “New Deal for a Lost Generation”, we need a green job guarantee to deliver essential environmental restoration work now and brilliant careers for years to come.
Now is the time for the honesty to admit that, for generation after generation, we have spent down and frittered away the vast wealth that was the natural inheritance of these islands. The truth is that the reality of GDP growth has been little more than a heaping up of virtual wealth—a hoarding of digital zeros in the bank accounts of the wealthy, while the real world around all of us suffered. Any further weakening of environmental protections will only push us over the edge into total bankruptcy. We cannot retreat a single step further. We must defend these last red lines for nature for the sake of every generation to come. My plea to the Minister is simply this: defy the lobbyists, side with the public and the planet over profit, and give us our nature back.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. We are faced with a very difficult situation. I have to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm, which means, given the number of people on the speakers’ list, I am going to start with a time limit of two minutes. That may not get everybody in. I am not going to call anybody who has already intervened, for a start, and if anybody else feel like dropping out and intervening, I would welcome that. I do not normally do this, but it may help if I give Members the batting order as it stands at the moment: on the Opposition Benches, we have Danny Chambers, Olly Glover, Edward Morello, Tim Farron, John Milne, Roz Savage and Jim Shannon, and on the Government Benches, we have Barry Gardiner, Terry Jermy, Martin Rhodes, Michelle Welsh, Rachael Maskell, Tristan Osborne and Anna Gelderd. It is up to you how you play this, but I am going to stop calling Back-Bench Members at 5.10 pm.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I promise I will be as quick as possible. There is so much I would like to say about biodiversity net gain and the importance of the natural environment to people in Winchester, but I will speak only about a specific issue with one of our chalk streams that I believe the Minister could help us with. The beautiful River Meon runs through a little village called Droxford. For various historical reasons, it is classified as a public highway, and that means that people drive 4x4s along the river for a few hundred metres. It is not a shortcut to anywhere—it is not simply a river crossing—but it is damaging the riverbed. It also disrupts the spawning of the very rare Atlantic salmon that come from southern chalk streams.
For over two years now, I have been working to try to stop the traffic from damaging this very precious habitat. The South Downs national park wants it to stop. The local people want it to stop. Lib Dem-run Winchester city council wants it to stop. For various reasons, we cannot get the Conservative-run Hampshire county council either to change the designation of the river so that it is no longer a highway or even just to put in a traffic regulation order to prevent people from driving 4x4s along the stretch of river. I would really appreciate a meeting with the Minister, maybe with some of the various stakeholders, to work out how we can cut through this red tape, because it is ecological vandalism, it provides absolutely no benefit to the environment and there is overwhelming support to stop the damage.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) was one of the finest on the environment that I have heard in this House for a long time. One day, the Government will see sense and he will become Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I will cut most of what I wanted to say. The national security assessment, mentioned by my hon. Friend, says:
“Cascading risks of ecosystem degradation are likely to include geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict migration and increased inter-state competition for resources.”
Why is that not the subject of a great debate in Parliament? Yesterday, we had the Prime Minister’s vital statement on Iran. The whole House sat in a packed Chamber to discuss the US bombing of that evil regime and the security implications for the world. Yet we have our own national security assessment telling us that global ecosystem degradation and collapse is one of the most serious threats to UK national security, and we still have had no debate on it.
The collapse of biodiversity over my lifetime is not a matter of spreadsheets. It is felt in silent fields that were once singing meadows, in poisoned waters that were once shimmering streams, in children who have grown up in a depleted world without knowing how much has been lost, or how abnormal is the world they inhabit. The monitoring and enforcement system currently in place under environmental regulators lacks capacity and is chronically poor.
Take our water sector: of the 2,778 serious pollution incidents reported in 2024, officials downgraded 98% as “minor incidents”, yet only 496 were actually attended or inspected before being downgraded. There can be no doubt that the regulatory system is as rotten as the pipes the water companies have abandoned since 1989. I welcome the Red Lines for Nature campaign as far as it goes, but that is scarcely far enough when it talks of no further weakening of environmental protections and no funding cuts to environmental bodies.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I also praise the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his passion for nature and the topics we are discussing.
My constituency has seen some of the fastest housing growth in the country: 8,000 new houses added between 2011 and 2021. I understand the need for housing, but a major concern for local residents is how to balance the objective of more housing with the objectives of protecting our green environment and ensuring that amenities are there to protect the housing. The constituency has many wonderful and rare habitats that require protection. If we fail to do that, there will be wide-reaching, catastrophic impacts to our environment.
The Letcombe Brook chalk stream is a precious habitat running from Letcombe Regis to East Hanney, providing water for local use. The Letcombe Brook project does great work protecting it. The River Thames, which also runs through my constituency, has often been subject to sewage dumping, due to the well documented issues with Thames Water.
I pay tribute to local organisations that do so much to protect nature and make it accessible. I recently met members of the Earth Trust in Little Wittenham, who took me on a walk around the Wittenham Clumps. Their work is transformative, including the recent restoration of a neglected coppice in Little Wittenham wood into a thriving, biodiverse habitat, encouraging bees with new apiaries on their farm and levelling up opportunities for environmental education by removing barriers of cost and transport to resource-stretched schools.
In the towns in my constituency, Sustainable Didcot, Sustainable Wantage and Sustainable Wallingford are doing fantastic work to lead community climate change action through projects on waste, transport, food, biodiversity and social justice. Finally, the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust manages nature reserves, monitors species and runs projects to support declining species such as water voles. All those organisations need Government support to ensure that they can continue to play their part in protecting nature and our environment.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Norfolk is home to some of the finest natural environments anywhere in our country. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Brecks, a unique biodiversity hotspot in the UK, vital for rare and threatened species. It supports more than 12,500 species of plants and animals, 2,000 of which are endangered. Like many hon. Members, I am passionate about chalk streams—in my case the River Nar and the River Little Ouse. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England, many of them in my constituency. Sadly, after 14 years of neglect under the previous Government, our rivers are in a sorry state.
Currently, extensive areas of the Brecks enjoy habitats regulations protections, allowing rare birds, plants and butterflies to be protected from further harm. The same can be said for some of our chalk streams. If the recommendations in the Fingleton review are accepted in full and transferred more broadly as a planning framework, as has been suggested by some, that is under threat. The hard work that I have seen being undertaken by Natural England, Norfolk Wildlife Trust and Norfolk Rivers Trust, alongside farmers and landowners, risks being undermined.
No one is saying that we should not build more houses, and no one is saying that we should not be investing in clean energy and infrastructure, but economic growth and environmental protection should not be mutually exclusive; in my opinion, they depend on one another. The potential cost to our economy if we do not protect these areas is staggering and terrifying, particularly for areas such as my South West Norfolk constituency. Wildlife trusts in Norfolk have highlighted to me the devastating financial costs of environmental damage, warning of a 12% reduction in GDP. In my constituency, that would be due to flooding, water treatment wastage, loss of tourism and the permanent destruction of agricultural land. Nature has never been at odds with development and planning.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on this important debate. I, like many others, would love to speak about a whole host of things, but given the time constraints, I will just talk about chalk streams.
Chalk streams are globally rare ecosystems; there are approximately 200 in the world, and 85% of them are in England. They are internationally significant freshwater habitats and should be a conservation priority. In West Dorset, our chalk streams—the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream—are in decline, alongside the salmon populations in them, because we have not had proper environmental protections or biodiversity being properly prioritised. The Rivers Trust sewage discharge map shows that the South Winterbourne was affected by storm overflows 223 times in 2020, for a total of more than 2,641 hours.
My proposal is that we introduce a blue flag style standard for chalk streams, mirroring coastal bathing water classifications—clear, public facing measures that are visible and easy to understand. Mandatory, regular testing and enforceable consequences for failure would help rebuild public trust and provide the transparency that people rightly demand.
Given that I have spoken far faster than I thought I would, I will also make a plea for the upcoming water White Paper to make water companies statutory consultees on all new planning projects, and to make rainwater harvesting mandatory on all new builds. Pre pipe solutions are the key to taking the strain off our sewerage system. The water White Paper is a fantastic opportunity for the Government to do those three things. If they do them, it will be brilliant for the public.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Three for the price of one! I call Martin Rhodes.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this debate. Much of his speech focused on England and on rural areas. As the Member for Glasgow North, I hope to open up the debate slightly, in terms of crossing the border into Scotland, the rest of the UK and the world, and also into urban as well as rural.
Often, there is a focus on climate rather than nature based solutions to help mitigate and adapt to the environmental crisis that we face. Many argue that the protection of nature is hampering economic development. Not only are they compatible but, more fundamentally, the decline of nature will undermine economic development. Wetlands protect us from flooding; mangroves protect us from storm surges; and peatlands store carbon and regulate water flow. This is our natural infrastructure. They are essential not only in tackling climate change but in limiting damage to built infrastructure, reducing insurance costs and strengthening economic resilience.
In 2022, parties to the United Nations convention on biological diversity signed the global biodiversity framework. This landmark agreement, among other ambitions, seeks to conserve 30% of land and waters by 2030—“30 by 30”, as it is commonly known. However, much more needs to be done if we are to achieve those ambitions. Analysis from the Natural History Museum reveals that we are not sufficiently protecting the most critical ecosystems upon which global biodiversity—and indeed humanity—relies. In areas delivering the most vital ecosystem services, biodiversity is decreasing faster.
I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate. Nature has an essential role to play, helping us to mitigate and adapt. Our national and international commitments can enable us to progress towards other biodiversity targets, including those focused on restoration, resilience building and nature’s contribution to people and the economy more broadly. We must continue to champion this cause.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Sir Roger. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who made a fantastic speech.
Some 70% of our land mass in this country is agricultural land. We are achieving nothing for biodiversity if we do not work with the people who work that land. The most damaging thing the Government have done on this issue over the last 12 months—it was indeed 12 months ago—was to close the sustainable farming incentive with no notice whatsoever.
We are pleased that the Secretary of State has announced the reopening of SFI in June, but it is worth bearing in mind that that will only be for up to two months and there is no guarantee, even in the Department’s statement on the issue, that it will last two months. If the money runs out before then, people will be excluded from applying. That means that we are back to first come, first served. Those farmers who are wealthier, who have more time on their hands and who have staff will be able to get in, and smaller farmers, particularly in the uplands areas, will not be able to do so. That will be damaging for biodiversity.
The limitations on the scheme are deeply concerning. They are meant to incentivise farmers to have part of their farm for environmental protection and part of their farm for food production. This is the error that we have been making for the last 40 years—the idea that we either produce food or care for the environment. We absolutely must do both; that is what farmers want to do. I fear that this scheme is wrong-headed.
Some 55% of the food we eat in this country is produced in this country. That is dangerously low given the international situation; this is something we already knew. We need to support farmers not just to care for the environment, but to feed us.
The Government limit the June window to farms up to 50 hectares, which excludes upland farmers on less than minimum wage who farm the commons at the top of mountains. That is foolish. I ask the Minister to rethink. My final word is this: the greenest thing we can do is to keep Britain’s farmers farming to care for our environment.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Protecting our natural environment and biodiversity is essential for our fight against climate change and our drive towards sustainability, and for future generations to enjoy the spaces so dear to people. I often hear from constituents about their concerns regarding the protection of species and habitats, sewage dumping and the threats of global warming, deforestation, droughts and flooding. I know from representing such communities that there are often competing demands when it comes to our green spaces, especially as, across the country, there is a need for stronger local infrastructure and affordable housing; but that should never be to the detriment of our environment and biodiversity.
Whyburn Farm and Misk Hills in my constituency is an unfortunate example of this. Located in Hucknell, this is a green space treasured by the community and a vital space for nature, health, wellbeing and local history. Many of my constituents regularly use this space to exercise and enjoy activities. Ashes have been scattered there; there have been first dates, first steps and memories of sledging. Its beautiful views even inspired Lord Byron’s work.
Ashfield district council has put in a local plan that will use greenfield sites, when brownfield and greyfield sites were available. That will cause damage to our local environment. The Planning Inspectorate rightly rejected this plan, but it has left the area of Whyburn Farm and Misk Hills vulnerable, which is why we have a speculative planning application. The developers have shown an utter disregard for the community, refusing to meet with them and ignoring local knowledge.
Recognising Whyburn Farm and Misk Hills as a country park would transform the community in Hucknell by ensuring that there is green space for absolutely everyone. In my constituency of Sherwood Forest, more than 4,000 children live in poverty. I ask the Minister to meet with me to discuss how a solution can be found before we lose this space altogether, and I urge the Government to consider introducing new ways for communities to have a voice in the protection of their environment.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for leading this debate.
I would like to focus on the biodiversity net gain industry, or BNG, which has been threatened by changes in Government policy. BNG is one of the most effective tools we have for restoring nature at scale, and it is working. Projects like rewilding on the Knepp estate in my Horsham constituency show what can be achieved when landowners are empowered to invest in habitat restoration. They have built a thriving habitat bank and are supporting neighbouring farmers through major restoration projects. Crucially, all of that depends on a functioning BNG market. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to the Knepp estate.
Across England, more than 5,160 hectares have already been restored thanks to mandatory BNG, generating jobs, investment and genuine ecological recovery. That is why proposals to exempt sites under 0.2 hectares are so deeply concerning; they could severely undermine the emerging nature markets just as they are beginning to deliver results. The industry wants to work with Government, and has recommended an exemption for sites under 0.1 hectares. Doubling that is a mistake that the Government should address.
I say gently to Ministers that environmental protections are not barriers to growth; they are the foundations of long-term sustainable growth. Weakening BNG now would undermine nature recovery, destabilise green investment and damage the rural economies that depend on it. Nature-based solutions are not optional extras, but an essential part of our climate infrastructure. That is why we must defend BNG and empower rewilding and restoration projects across the country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The power of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) must resonate around Whitehall and warn the City, developers and all who seek to profit from our natural habitats.
Today, I want to talk about York. York is described as a humane city and the Strays of York are green fingers that reach into its heart. Walking along the river, we barely see bricks and mortar. We have our own biometric marker, the tansy beetle—an iridescent, beautiful beetle, about a centimetre in length. It is known as the jewel of York, and yet it is the barometer of all that is going wrong. Flooding caused by the grouse shooting up on the moors is destroying its habitat. We are left with so few beetles in the country, because we will not find them anywhere else. Yorkshire Water has failed to manage our water system, and drought is causing the tansy beetle’s habitat to dry and the tansy plant, the only one on which it lives, to wither. The pollution coming down the River Ouse is also causing real strain.
The tansy beetle has its own action group to conserve this precious jewel. In 2016, 46,000 of the beetle were found. The group’s work raised that to 91,000 by 2023, and yet today the beetle is at risk. We cannot let those who profit from our system and destroy our natural habitats rob us of these precious parts of our nature. It is so important that the Government take action. We need not a national security assessment, but a nature security assessment.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
We are told that access to green and blue space improves mental health and could save the NHS more than £2 billion annually. We are told that urban nature provides around £823 million a year in air pollution removal benefits. We are told that England’s natural capital is valued at around £1.3 trillion, and we are told that ecosystem services deliver more than £37 billion in annual benefits. I want to discard my prepared remarks and speak more idealistically. That same idealism led me to abandon a normal life and row alone across our three oceans to raise awareness of the environmental crisis. It is this mindset of putting a price tag on our natural assets that has led us to the predicament—this heartbreaking situation—that we find ourselves in.
To reduce our natural environment to mere pound signs is an insult—a very anthropocentric perspective, where we value nature according to what it delivers to us. I suggest that we have a moral duty to future generations to halt the extinctions. It is not our job to play God—to decide which species are worth saving and which are not based on whether we find them useful, charismatic or cuddly. Every single species plays a crucial role in the web of life that we are far from fully understanding.
I thank the Minister in advance for her remarks today—in many ways, I feel that I am preaching to the converted, because I know that she already gets this. I wish that we could get any other Minister or Secretary of State into this Chamber to hear these arguments; we need to put respect for nature at the heart of all decision making across Government if we are truly going to get on track for the future that the next generations deserve.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his passionate speech. Chatham has a proud maritime history and connection with the oceans, as well as the beautiful chalk streams of the escarpment that flow into the River Medway.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Chalk streams are rare and irreplaceable. In Hampshire, we have some of the most iconic ones in the Test, the Itchen and the Loddon. Does my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the inclusion of chalk streams for the first time in the national planning policy framework, and will he join me in urging the Government to find other ways to protect and restore such vital habitats?
Tristan Osborne
I could not agree more. I am proud that chalk streams are part of the portfolio that we are looking at to safeguard our natural world.
However, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, my focus is on a different ecosystem—one that is no less important than our terrestrial ecosystems. I want to ask the Minister several questions on oceans. Last summer, we celebrated with David Attenborough the ban on bottom trawling in this country. Will the Minister provide an update on when we can expect to implement that ban in UK waters?
Enhanced marine protected areas are also key. We should celebrate the fact that the UK recently signed the UN global ocean treaty, but are we looking to enhance our marine protected areas to protect our species within those? Lastly, we know that microplastics and plastic pollution are a significant problem in oceans around the world; as part of the circular economy review that we are shortly to publish, can we reduce the amount of plastics being fed into our oceans and environment? Ultimately, the Earth and the oceans do not belong to us; we belong to them. We are custodians of the future for generations to come. I hope that our oceans will be part of that tapestry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate. Some 12% of species are threatened with extinction in the countryside we live in, as he underlined very clearly. The 50% loss of biodiversity since the ’70s is a serious problem. I want to give an example of what my council, Ards and North Down borough council, does. The council has a strategy of planting and rewilding council land; indeed, it is actively trying to purchase other land for the same purpose. I am always very pleased to see the Minister in her place—I wish her well, including for her recovery. I ask her what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will do to help councils to make more of a difference, if councils are willing to step up and do something.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Wood Lane playing fields in my constituency are in difficulty because the council faces bankruptcy and is looking to sell property. Does the hon. Member agree that something needs to be done about that?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do, and I will hand over to the Minister to respond at the end of the debate.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Nature underpins our wellbeing and our economy, and in South East Cornwall we truly understand that. Take the Cornish black bee: hardy, resilient and well suited to our Atlantic winds, it heads out to gather pollen even in unfavourable conditions, and that determination feels very familiar to Cornish people. The Cornish chough tells a similar story. Once lost from Cornwall, it returned in 2001, and its comeback shows that, with the right protection, species can recover.
I am proud to serve as a seagrass champion, because seagrasses are one of the most powerful natural climate solutions: they absorb and store carbon at a remarkable rate, soften wave energy and reduce coastal erosion—something extremely needed since the start of this year, as Cornwall has been battered by back-to-back storms that have severely impacted my region. Protecting seagrass meadows is a practical climate action and a sound economic policy.
In my local area, fishing and farming have shaped the economics of our villages and towns for generations. They rely on healthy soils, clean water and abundant seas, so clean water remains a priority. The proposal for designated bathing water in Lostwithiel is therefore very welcome, and I encourage residents to engage with the consultation on that before it closes at the end of the month. However, my constituents are rightly frustrated by the impact of sewage discharges, and confidence in South West Water has been undermined by a history of poor transparency. I call for decisive action to improve its operations, alongside meaningful engagement with local residents, businesses and me.
On Dartmoor, biodiversity and traditional land management are closely linked. Will the Minister provide further information on how the sustainable farming incentive could play a part in protecting the Dartmoor ponies, which were at risk under the previous Government? Finally, I ask her to continue to focus on rural and coastal areas that have long been forgotten and to use Cornwall and our unique natural heritage as a pilot area in future Government schemes. I look forward to working with her in Cornwall in the future.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. You have five minutes.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I commend, as we all do, the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this important debate—it could not be more timely.
I start by asking the Minister why this Government refused to publish the full national security report on global biodiversity loss. The reason for that refusal is pertinent to today’s debate; it seems to be a refusal to be honest with the public about the inextricable links between nature, climate change and our national security, and how vulnerable it makes our country and society when we do not act on the evidence. That evidence states that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse have severe consequences for food and water insecurity, crop failures, fisheries collapse and intensified natural disasters. That is cause for alarm and action.
Instead of responding with urgency, however, the Office for Environmental Protection has confirmed that not only do the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental commitments, but, worryingly, they have committed to
“doing little that is new or different”
to change that. The latest State of Nature data shows decline, with one in six species at risk of extinction. We have heard that just 14% of England’s rivers are in good ecological health. Action on nature loss and climate breakdown cannot be dealt with in silos. That is why the Liberal Democrats, led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), have pushed for an annual climate and nature statement from Government.
The Conservatives and Reform, meanwhile, refuse to accept that climate change is one of the greatest drivers of nature loss and propose the rolling back of climate legislation. There seems to be a similar siloed approach from this Labour Government—this time a nature-blind approach. While we commend the Government’s drive towards decarbonisation, the loss of nature is also accelerating climate change by disrupting habitats that capture and store carbon, such as peatlands and woodlands.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that habitat loss will not be helped if the Government accept recommendation 19 of the Fingleton review, which will weaken the duty to support our national parks? Our national parks did not stop the building of Sellafield, or of Trawsfynydd in Snowdonia national park; the Quantocks national landscape did not stop the building of Hinkley. We need to protect our national parks and landscapes.
Pippa Heylings
More than 20 leading nature organisations, including the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and the RSPB, have warned that the changes my hon. Friend mentions would weaken environmental law by effectively allowing developers to pay to destroy protected wildlife.
I would like the Minister to respond on proposed recommendations 11, 12 and 19 of the Fingleton nuclear regulatory review. We do not want any more of the damaging framing of nature as a blocker to growth, or any more actions such as the weakening of key biodiversity safeguards in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. As my hon. Friend said, the proposed exemptions to biodiversity net gain risk hollowing out one of the most important tools for nature recovery. That is not just the case with nuclear energy; the Prime Minister has said that he also wants environmental deregulation across the entire industrial strategy, which would risk breaching level playing field provisions in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement.
Liberal Democrats take a different view. We would accelerate environmental land management schemes with an extra £1 billion a year to support nature-friendly farming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said. We would halt and reverse nature’s decline by 2030 and double nature by 2050. We would strengthen the Office for Environmental Protection, and properly fund Natural England and the Environment Agency.
We have heard much about chalk streams, the jewel of our natural heritage, which is why I brought forward legislation with cross-party support to nominate the UK’s chalk streams as UNESCO natural world heritage sites. I hope the Minister will support that legislation. Nature is our joy and our pride, and it underpins our economy, our health, our food security and our safety.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate. We have heard many powerful contributions from across the Chamber.
As the Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, I recognise the importance of biodiversity and protecting our environment. Epping Forest, the heart and lungs of north-east London and our part of Essex, hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran trees, and has a wonderful mix of ancient woodland, open grassland plains, heathland and wetland habitats. It hosts 10 bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 1,500 fungal species and 28 butterfly species. However, it is sadly affected by actions, including fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour, that can significantly impact wildlife and nature. I urge the Minister to work closely with the Home Office to help to tackle, deter and prevent such rural and semi-rural crimes.
Epping Forest is not immune to the Government’s intrusion into the green belt with centralised housing planning and excessive solar development, which harm our biodiversity, food security, and the communities that depend on it for leisure, sports and access to local environments. This is not the answer. The Government must work to build on brownfield first and protect nature and biodiversity.
The previous Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 established legally binding targets, including on increasing species abundance so that by 2042 it is far greater than in 2022, and at least 10% greater than in 2032, and on restoring or creating more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. It also set the framework for local nature recovery strategies, seeking to agree priorities for nature’s recovery, map the most valuable existing natural areas, and create or improve habitats and meet wider environmental goals. All local authorities should have published their strategy before the end of last year, but some have not. Will the Minister update us on when all the strategies will be published?
Our Conservative environmental improvement plan built on that Act. It committed to protect 30% of our land and sea by 2030, supporting the COP15 global target to protect 30% of global land and ocean that we agreed. We also announced the species survival fund—£25 million of funding specifically to protect our rarest species, from red squirrels to water voles. In farming, we provided the innovative farming in protected landscapes funding, which helps biodiversity and nature restoration. The previous Conservative Government laid the foundations. The current Government must continue that work in earnest.
The recent Government report “Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security” highlights the danger of inaction and raises serious questions about the UK’s preparedness if action is not taken or is not successful. I hope that Ministers will take the report very seriously and consider how some of the Government’s actions, such as the family farm tax, have pressured food production and supply.
Habitat loss and ecosystem collapse are also threatening countries and their resilience across the world. It is extreme folly for the UK Labour Government to surrender the Chagos islands to Mauritius and charge UK taxpayers £35 billion in the process, for the British Indian Ocean Territory is home to one of the most pristine marine ecosystems on Earth. Mauritius does not have the record to maintain these high conservation standards. In the 2024 environmental performance index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, 83rd for marine habitat protection and 131st for marine protection stringency. Quite apart from the adverse defence implications, I am deeply concerned by the Labour Government’s wilful blindness to the fact that Mauritius does not have the record to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems.
The Government report highlights how ecosystem degradation can threaten UK national security, and we know that biodiversity and food security depend crucially on strong biosecurity. Just last week, foot and mouth disease was confirmed in Cyprus. The Government must be vigilant and not hesitate to take action. We need to act at many levels, in the UK and internationally, to protect our ecosystems for the sake of national and international security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Roger. For anyone who is unaware, I broke my wrist playing beach volleyball; the score was Germany 1, England nil—let us hope that is not repeated at the world cup this year. I thank all colleagues who have sent their good wishes.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on his excellent opening speech, and I thank other Members for their thoughtful contributions. I am not the water Minister or the oceans Minister, so I will do my best, but if I am unable to reply, we will organise the meetings that Members seek so that they get the answers they deserve.
Nature is the monopoly provider of everything we need to exist, and it is our duty to protect and restore it. In my own Coventry constituency, where there is one the poorest and most highly developed wards in the country, there are signs of water voles—Ratty is alive and well. I saw my first ever kingfisher about a mile from Coventry city centre, and there are also otters living in the canal and at Coventry golf club. Nature is all around us if we sit, look and know where to find it.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
Does the Minister also agree that, where there is political will—such as the Mayor of London with his white storks and baby beavers, or even in progressive boroughs like Haringey that plant thousands of trees—we really have hope of making some progress?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate the mayor; he is a trailblazer both nationally and internationally through his climate and nature work. I know that Justin Beaver and his wife—I cannot remember her name, but it is a similarly cringeworthy pun—are living happily ever after. Actually, I do not know whether beavers live happily ever after; I think they are quite mean to each other. But they are definitely living happily in Ealing and providing those natural ecosystem services that we need—they are nature’s original ecosystem engineers.
In December, we published our 2025 environmental improvement plan, and over the next five years, it will accelerate progress towards those Environment Act targets. I gently say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), that some of those targets do not have a baseline. When I was talking to our chief scientific adviser yesterday, I asked how we will meet some of those species targets, and we will have a baseline developed by 2028-29. It is all very well legislating, but it is also about how things are measured. As a former Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am all about how we measure it, because that is how the Government are held to account. I want to hold to account myself or any future Minister, whoever it may be.
Mary Creagh
I will just finish my point. Over the next five years, we will improve species abundance, reduce species extinction risk, and restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich land. We are also delivering our international commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030, which will help us to tackle the climate and nature crises while supporting growth.
We have heard a little about housebuilding versus infrastructure, and the system we inherited was too slow and too fragmented. Across the country, we have more than 164,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation. In my city of Coventry alone, 2,000 children wake up to that reality every day—we have one of the highest rates of child homelessness outside London. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) also has about 800 homeless children in his constituency.
Those realities of nature loss and homeless children have a similar root cause: political short-termism and the ducking of big decisions on land use, investment and environmental recovery, leaving the nature and housing crises to deepen. Politics has failed both, and the nature restoration fund can unlock stored housing and infrastructure while still achieving enormous, tangible environment outcomes. We want more for infrastructure and more for nature, not less.
Mary Creagh
I will not give way, as I want to respond to some of the points that hon. Members made.
The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned biodiversity net gain, which became mandatory in February 2024. There is emerging evidence that it is working as intended, and we will publish our response to our consultation on that shortly. Developers are seeking ecological advice earlier in the planning process so that they do not waste money trying to build on precious sites, and they are seeking to avoid biodiversity impacts when choosing between sites.
The shadow Minister talked about local nature recovery strategies, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hard work of local authorities to finalise and publish those strategies is bearing fruit. When we came into office, those authorities were not really sure what the strategies were for, so we had to provide a lot of guidance and work with local councils and regional combined authorities to publish 28 of the 48 strategies, with the remainder fast approaching completion. Those strategies will be a new tool in driving action on the ground, and helping partnerships in the public, private and voluntary sectors to work together to focus collective efforts on where they will achieve the most.
We will also go further and faster on protected landscapes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and I saw kids from Newcastle who were out for their first ever walk in his gorgeous Northumberland national park. Making sure that our green spaces are greener, wilder and more accessible is crucial to what we want to do. On species recovery, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the red-billed chough and the tough little Cornish black bee. Bees’ Needs Week is coming up soon, and I urge everyone to go to the website and get their local organisations involved. Kew at Wakehurst will host the prizegiving this year, and I encourage local groups to get involved.
Since the early 90s, we have prevented 35 national extinctions through the species recovery programme and supported 1,000 species, such as the fen orchid, the large blue butterfly and the red-billed chough. We are committed to funding that programme—there is a new round of funding until 2029. More than 200 projects have applied, and we will announce the successful ones in May. We talked about beavers, and I was thrilled to visit the National Trust’s Holnicote estate in Somerset for the release of a mother beaver and her two kits last month, which was one of two wild releases in south-west England this year. Beavers bring many benefits: creating havens for other wildlife, improving water quality and reducing the impact of flood and droughts. That is part of our mission to protect and restore nature.
On landscape recovery, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about the vital role of farmers and land managers in creating wildlife-rich environments. The plans for landscape recovery are backed by a down payment of £500 million over the course of this Parliament, which is the lifetime cost for the first tranche of projects coming through in round one. We expect future tranches to be delivered with further funding allocations. That part of the largest nature-friendly farming budget in history goes alongside significant funding for further nature-friendly farming schemes.
We heard from the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) that, last year, tree planting in England reached its highest level in over 20 years, but our woodland cover is still too low. We are committed to meet the Environment Act target to increase woodland cover to 16.5% by 2050, and the new national forest in the Ox-Cam arc is going to make his constituents closer to nature. That shows that we can build beautiful housing, a new railway line and new nature alongside each other.
This year, we will publish a new trees action plan for England, outlining how we will meet our Environment Act target and improve the resilience and conditions of trees and woodlands nationwide. We have £1 billion for tree planting and forestry sector support over this Parliament, which is the largest investment in nature in our history.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) raised the issue of our overseas impacts and the 30 by 30 work. Our overseas territories hold over 90% of the UK’s unique species. We reaffirmed our joint ambition with the territories to protect their ecosystems and launched the first ever co-created overseas territories biodiversity strategy with every territory Government. We have funded 43 new Darwin Plus projects worth over £7.9 million. Nature-based solutions include Saint Helena’s cloud forest, which is providing clean drinking water, the British Virgin Islands mangroves and the Falklands Islands peatlands.
We have heard about salt marshes and seagrass, and they are incredible buffers against the increasingly intense storms that are buffeting our ocean. Our ocean is also under threat from acidification and heating, and that is why we are driving to protect marine ecosystems and working for a global plastic pollution treaty. A new chair has been elected for that process, and we look forward to making further progress.
We have committed £14 million to eight projects in our ocean grant scheme to support locally led solutions to protect the ocean and the communities who depend on it. In Mozambique, for example, that is supporting local partners to establish a corridor of 20 locally managed marine areas.
I am not the Minister for chalk streams, but I want to address them very quickly and say to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) that we will be delivering more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration. I will take his message back to the water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy). On the national policy planning framework, the consultation is still live, and I think we are looking in that consultation to put chalk streams as features of high environmental value into planning policy.
We welcome and support the ambition of the curlew action plan. There are many such plans across many of our protected landscapes. I am happy to get the water Minister to meet the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). On soils, we have committed to bringing 40% of our agricultural soil into sustainable management by 2028 and increasing that to 60% by 2030. Soil is the foundation of our food system, but also an important part of our climate system. That will be achieved via our environmental management schemes—