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
Voluntary Groups and Community Centres
(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
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for voluntary groups and community centres.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate, because voluntary organisations and community centres are central to our public life. I should declare that I am a trustee of the Sands End Arts and Community Centre in Fulham in my constituency. Community centres are the places people turn to when they need help, connection or simply somewhere to belong. Today, I would like to make the case that they deserve far greater recognition, protection and investment than they currently receive. I know that many colleagues are here today to celebrate the remarkable work that community centres are doing right across the country and how they go above and beyond for so many people, providing vital services that might simply otherwise not exist and that can be transformative for people’s lives.
Community centres can be described as the backbone of our local social infrastructure; by supporting vulnerable residents and preventing crises before they escalate, they relieve pressures on overstretched statutory services. They are the places where people go for affordable advice, for skills, for culture and simply for companionship, yet many are operating under intense and growing financial pressure that threatens their very existence. The gap between what is needed and what is provided is simply far too wide.
It is important to recognise that the Government have taken meaningful steps to improve the situation, for which I am grateful. Through the Pride in Place programme, for example, real investment is now flowing into local regeneration, putting power in the hands of residents and communities to shape the future of their areas.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on the contribution that community centres make to our communities. Will he join me in commending Farnley Community Centre, which is putting on an Easter parade and giving out not only chocolate eggs to local residents, but applications for the neighbourhood board to spend our Pride in Place money? Is that not a great example of how innovative residents can be through community centres?
Ben Coleman
It is indeed, and I am grateful for the opportunity to recognise Farnley Community Centre, which is being innovative in encouraging people not only to get their egg, but to take part in a community discussion about how to spend the money that this Government have made available across the country to boost communities—that is an excellent idea.
Besides the Pride in Place programme, which Farnley Community Centre is so cleverly making use of and involving its community in, the replacement of the old right to bid with the strengthened community right to buy is very welcome. It will give local groups a genuine first right of refusal over assets of community value and help communities to hold on to the spaces that matter most to them. The Government also launched the civil society covenant in October 2025, which signals a renewed commitment to partnership and collaboration with the sector. High street rental auctions are helping to bring vacant properties back into use, turning empty units into attractive spaces for community life.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for those places that have not yet had Pride in Place funding, bodies such as the National Lottery Community Fund, Sport England, the Arts Council and the National Lottery Heritage Fund are also great sources of funding and could be encouraged to do things in a simpler way? In Cornwall, our town councils are growing and taking on more responsibilities, as the unitary has shed them during austerity. Does he agree that town councils have had a really big role to play in helping communities and community centres?
Ben Coleman
Again, that is an excellent point from my hon. Friend. There is everything to be gained from local authorities looking at the plethora of support available to them, and equally from those providing support—whether it is Sport England, Arts Council or Heritage Lottery funding—being as simple as possible in enabling local authorities and organisations to make applications. I do not think anyone would have any objection to the red tape being reduced in any of these areas.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Is it not the case that our community and voluntary organisations provide essential services in areas that Government simply cannot reach effectively? In my own constituency, we have the examples of uHub, Bangor food bank, and local community groups from working-class areas. Does the hon. Member agree that such groups must be recognised for the vital role they play in our community and properly supported?
Ben Coleman
I absolutely do, and I am sure the food bank and community groups in the hon. Member’s community welcome his support. That is absolutely in line with what I am saying—these are essential parts of our community. We have two food banks in my own constituency. It is a crying shame that food banks have now become part of the British way of life; if we look back to more than 14 years ago, there were hardly any in this country. It is an absolute indictment that that should be the case, but the fact that the hon. Member’s food bank is doing so well and supporting people has to be welcomed. The Government have taken hugely welcome steps, but I suppose one could say that they are still first steps, great steps though they are. We need to do so much more to repair the damage caused by years of funding cuts, set against a sharp rise in demand—they go together, sadly.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point of under-investment over many years, he is making a really good case that community centres are places that bring people together and get them active and talking, resulting in improvements in mental and physical wellbeing. My constituency has some great facilities, including Greenhithe and Joydens Wood community centres and Bean village hall. However, the much-loved Swanscombe pavilion has closed and been left dormant, in dire need of investment, leaving a community without an important place to bring people together. Does my hon. Friend agree that local facilities are vital, and that we need long-term, patient investment to make them the community centres and centres of our local life that they can be?
Ben Coleman
I absolutely agree. I am sure that my hon. Friend has fought hard for the Swanscombe pavilion, and it is a great shame that it has closed. I am going to explore the reasons why these things happen in just a minute, but sometimes one thinks that local authorities could be a bit sharper in how they do things and understand the challenges facing us. Some of them are less competent than others—I have no idea whether that is the case in my hon. Friend’s part of the world, but I am sure he is fighting for his local centre.
In a sense, my hon. Friend’s intervention brings me to my next point about the situation not just in his constituency, but right across England. The financial position of community centres across England is stark: net spending on community centres and public halls has fallen by 38% in real terms since 2009, which is a profound erosion of the infrastructure that sustains the life of our communities. I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing me with that figure. The Ethical Property Foundation recently ran a survey, talking to community centres and local areas across the country about what was going on, and it has identified five interconnected challenges facing community centres. I think it is worth sharing them, because in the challenges lies the solution.
The first is the insecurity that exists around leasing—the single greatest threat to the sector that the Ethical Property Foundation has identified. Over half of community organisations expect to face lease-related difficulties in the future, because too many are operating on short leases. They have break clauses, unpredictable rent increases, and full repair obligations passed on to them without adequate support. That combination is not simply difficult for them to deal with; it is highly destabilising. Without security of tenure, organisations cannot plan, fundraise effectively or invest in the buildings their communities depend on. We have to realise that many of these organisations are not trying to grow—they are simply trying to stay in the buildings that they already occupy.
That leads me to the second challenge identified, which is access to capital funding. Community centres report that securing capital investment is incredibly difficult—success rates can be as low as one in 20 applications, and the administrative burden is considerable. The most significant barrier is often the lease itself, because many funders require between 15 and 25 years of tenure security before they will invest, and if that does not exist, the organisation does not get the investment. Without that, organisations are effectively locked out of the funding they need to repair, upgrade, or simply make safe their buildings.
The third challenge is the condition of the buildings themselves. Many community centres operate out of ageing, poorly maintained premises. The research by the Ethical Property Foundation shows that 58% of organisations expect difficulties manging their buildings in the coming year. That is driven by rising maintenance costs and a lack of specialist expertise. I have seen at first hand in my constituency that trustees and volunteers are being asked to act as de facto property managers, but they often do not have the skills or support required. That is not sustainable or fair, and it carries a real risk to the communities that these buildings serve.
The fourth challenge is landlord practices and local authority procedures—too often, local authorities compound these difficulties. They include short-term tenancies, delayed decisions, regeneration schemes that leave organisations in limbo and, in some cases, sudden evictions or unaffordable cost increases. The ability to evict a community organisation with minimal notice is an extraordinary power, and it should be exercised carefully, and not without clear criteria, proper justification and meaningful protections for the communities affected.
In the Chelsea part of my constituency, we have a charity called St Mary Abbots Rehabilitation and Training, or SMART for short. Since 1985, it has operated a warm and welcoming centre, supporting people affected by mental illness on their recovery journey. It offers a range of activities and training opportunities, and a popular café. Last summer, the council locked the SMART centre out of its premises without warning and put a dirty great padlock on the gate. There was no alternative provision, nor did the council offer any proper support. It talked about safety grounds, but serious questions remain about the evidence, the timelines and the mitigation offered. Addressing all that was an uphill struggle for SMART, and it felt as though it was in danger of going under. Although a temporary solution was eventually found and reimbursement was agreed in principle, that came only after a prolonged and damaging process during which services were disrupted and vulnerable people were left without support. That should not have happened—it did not need to happen.
Of course, for every bad example, there are many examples across the country of excellent partnership working between community centres and local authorities. That said, the baseline must be raised. Risk should not be transferred to community organisations without the security that they need to manage it.
That brings me to the fifth and final challenge identified by the Ethical Property Foundation—
Ben Coleman
Well, it is important to set these things out clearly. Underpinning all these things is the absence of a national framework. There is currently no consistent guidance for local authorities on how to support community centres that are managing publicly owned buildings. There are no clear standards on tenancy practices. There is nothing to help the charities do the job that the community needs them to do.
Community centres need longer, more secure leases and fair tenancy practices as the baseline, not as an exception. They need accessible capital funding with processes proportionate to the size and capacity of the organisations applying. They need expert legal, technical and professional support to manage buildings effectively, and a national framework that treats community centres as essential public infrastructure, not as commercial tenants to be managed at arm’s length.
I have three requests for the Minister, each of which is, I hope, practical, achievable and capable of making a real difference to community centres across the country—and may I say how much I appreciate the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) to hear them? First, will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue clear guidance to local authorities on the support that should be provided to voluntary organisations managing council buildings, covering both tenancy agreements and day-to-day property management? Too many groups are navigating those responsibilities without any consistent framework to fall back on. That must change.
Secondly, will the Department provide guidance on the circumstances in which a local authority acting as a landlord may issue insecure tenancies or tenancies at will? Thirdly and finally, will the Department publish guidance on the rationale and circumstances under which local authorities may remove community buildings? Communities deserve transparency when spaces that have served them for years are suddenly at risk of closure or disposal. Without clear criteria and a duty to justify such decisions, too many closures happen without scrutiny—as has taken place in my community—and too many communities are left without resource.
These targeted, proportionate requests for guidance and transparency would provide a foundation for a much more consistent, fairer approach to community infrastructure across England. Community centres across our country are a local gem—there is nothing else like them in our areas—and people’s lives are all the richer for them. The Government have the opportunity to give them the boost they need, and I hope they will seize it with both hands.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. We will come to the Front Bench spokespeople just before 10.30 am.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for the opportunity to raise the invaluable work carried out by the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland and my constituency. I have a question not related to the debate: as the MP for Chelsea and Fulham, which team does he support?
I am thrilled to see the Minister in her place, as we all are. We always look forward to her helpful answers, and we thank her in advance. I also welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and say well done to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who led the debate at 4.30 pm yesterday and is back this morning at 9.30 am.
I always maintain that the people of Northern Ireland are the most charitable, not just in financial giving per capita, but in giving their time and love. I say that honestly and sincerely, having lived in the Ards for all but four years of my life, which gives me a fair notion of how the people are. There is a reason we have the highest number of kinship placements in the UK and why we are world-renowned for our big heart.
I think about some of the things that have shaped us. We do not look back with fondness at the troubles of 30-plus years, but they shaped us in the way we look forward. Having been shaped by our past makes us think of the future we would like to see. That has given us the compassionate spirit to pull together as a community in difficult times. When I see people borrowing church halls to provide Christmas dinners on Christmas day, for example, hear of community volunteers handing out hygiene packs to elderly people in the pandemic, or see children enjoying free classes in local community groups, I know that the community is alive and well in the Ards and Strangford.
Mr Gregory Campbell
Does my hon. Friend agree that community centres across the UK step up when Governments do not intervene? There was an example in my constituency just last week. A community group stepped in to host a careers event for local schools because the community was under-represented in a public sector body. Next month, another group in Coleraine is doing likewise. Those are the vital functions that community centres and groups offer across the whole country.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it summed up the point I was trying to make about my constituency of Strangford, which is also true of my hon. Friend’s constituency of East Londonderry and all of Northern Ireland, where the community spirit lives and thrives.
In 2024-25, just under 46% of adults in Northern Ireland volunteered formally or informally. If those figures do not tell us about the people of Northern Ireland, nothing will. Those who formally volunteer in Northern Ireland frequently offer high levels of commitment, with 23% volunteering for eight to 16 hours in a four-week period. The average church volunteer in Northern Ireland contributes approximately 13 hours a month. Church and faith-based organisations are the most common type of volunteering in the region, with some 39% of all volunteers identifying that as their primary sector. For a medium-sized church with roughly 120 adults, for example, the annual value of volunteer time is estimated at just under £250,000.
I know that Northern Ireland is very much a faith-based country. We attend our churches and we worship our God in the way He indicates us to do. Through faith-based voluntary groups, the savings for the community, Government, councils and the Northern Ireland Assembly are significant. I look at the churches that put on the Boys’ Brigade, the Brownies and the Campaigners, and see the sheer volume of volunteer hours in place to provide children with a safe place to learn new skills and share in the love of God.
None of those community groups or churches is looking for a pat on the back. They are offering a service; they are doing something above and beyond what people need them to do—but they do it. They are not seeking any form of recognition for giving up their weekends to provide children and teenagers with somewhere safe to meet their friends and hang out. They do, however, need some support to keep the lights on.
I said I was pleased to see the Minister in her place; I know she has absolutely no responsibility for Northern Ireland, so I do not expect her to say what is going to happen there. I just ask that we try to work together across the United Kingdom to help each other. That is what I look for from most debates. We have things back home—our volunteer spirit is one example, with 46% of adults doing volunteer work—that I believe come off the back of our faith.
I am coming to an end, because I am conscious of others who want to speak. With the cost of energy rising, even those groups that are blessed to have their own facilities need more support to provide, not an all-singing, all-dancing programme—although I know they would like to—but warmth, light and insurance. That is where Government need to step in in a helpful way. The hoops that volunteers and churches have to jump through to receive a small amount of funding are sometimes off-putting. Those processes must be simplified and made easier to access.
In this energy crisis, we look to the Minister to consider provision of additional support for the voluntary sector to keep the lights on, keep the elderly and our kids safe, and keep the community knitted together. All that money—every penny—will be well spent.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this important debate. I have previously served as a trustee of small charities managing buildings, and I know the challenges faced by staff and trustees. In my constituency there are good examples of that situation, with the buildings at Slade Green and St Michael’s in Welling being owned by the council but run by trustees.
Across Bexleyheath and Crayford, we have a number of dedicated voluntary groups and charities that support communities and residents. For many they are a lifeline; they offer safe spaces for young people, allowing them to experience art, music and a variety of other services that schools and mainstream education do not always allow. They host family support services, run food banks and provide warm spaces during the winter, to name just a few things. But many voluntary groups and charities do not have a dedicated space, such as a community centre, that they can use to deliver their services to the community.
Over the last year I have been supporting a number of groups struggling with property issues. The 1st Erith Scouts group, based in Cheviot Close in Barnehurst, currently faces uncertainty, as the housing association that owns its land has submitted a planning application for housing with no planned replacement building for it. The 16th Erith Scouts group, based in Hurlingham Road in Bexleyheath, has been advised by the church that it plans to sell the land on which the hut is located. Those cases highlight the issues faced by voluntary groups, which need to protect and secure their own buildings in such situations.
Sendtivate is a group based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), but it serves residents in both of our constituencies across the London borough of Bexley by supporting disabled children within the boundaries of the local authority. Sendtivate remains concerned as it has been informed that our local authority in Bexley will be disposing of the building it operates from, but there remains no long-term solution as to where it will be relocated.
One issue consistently raised with me relates to the future of the Parkside community centre site in Barnehurst. Our Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley had a lease arrangement where it allowed a charity to lease and manage the building, supporting a day nursery that my own children attended, a Brownies group, music groups and a fitness group, as well as being a hub for party hire and other activities. However, it appears the council’s condition survey of the building was a visual inspection and did not involve any intrusive inspections. It was then discovered, just over 18 months ago, that the roof was unsafe. The council, fearing the building would collapse, demolished the whole building.
I have been gobsmacked by the council’s position regarding the future of the site. Following representations from constituents, I contacted the council about the site’s future. The council’s position is that it will support the building of a new centre and will either lease or sell the site to the community group, but the group must fully fund the building of the new centre itself.
I am grateful to the 116 Barnehurst residents who completed my survey, which highlighted that 70% of respondents were unaware of the council’s plans not to directly build a new centre on the site; 85% of respondents’ households have previously used the centre; and 89% of respondents believe the council itself should build a new centre, rather than rely on a community group to fund the cost. We do not now have a local community centre in Barnehurst; residents have to drive to Slade Green and other centres, or attempt to find space in church halls that are a considerable walk from the site.
I therefore second what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham has said. It would be hugely useful for residents if guidance could be published for local authorities to ensure that community buildings are available across the entirety of the borough. If guidance relating to the relationship between the local authority and the charities existed, it would ensure that residents have access to a local centre or hub and could access the centres. I would welcome the Department publishing guidance on the rationale for the circumstances in which community buildings can be removed by local authorities, which would be beneficial in the case of Parkside.
Like my hon. Friend, I know the Ethical Property Foundation well—I have known it for many years. I have had meetings on many occasions and have taken advice from it. It is a valuable organisation in the sector and gives advice to charities. I know it is concerned about tenancies at will and the position that they put groups in: it has seen in recent years that tenancies at will have become increasingly popular with local authorities, which results in voluntary groups and charities being given unstable tenancies.
Such tenancies offer flexibility on paper, but in reality they often create uncertainty for thousands of small voluntary groups and charities. Under a tenancy at will, groups can be asked to leave with little or no notice, as has been said. In many circumstances, charities are locked out without warning, resulting in activities being cancelled and voluntary groups unable to provide the services the communities rely on.
I therefore support my hon. Friend’s three asks, and I ask that guidance be published regarding tenancies and support. Doing so would mean that voluntary groups have increased agency over their future and are not left in the dark.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this vital debate on voluntary groups and community centres.
Supporting voluntary groups and community centres must include supporting how people actually get to them. In rural areas like mine, that means community transport, which is an essential service in rural Wales. It is what keeps voluntary groups and community centres going. It enables people to attend lunch clubs, reach community hubs, volunteer their time and stay connected to the places they live in. It is also vital for ensuring that people across Powys can reach their healthcare appointments. In towns and villages throughout Powys and the Swansea valley, people rely on those services every single day. Without them, many, particularly older residents, are simply cut off.
In my constituency, we are fortunate to have a network of dedicated, community-led schemes doing incredible work. Services such as Hay and district dial-a-ride, Rhayader and district dial-a-ride, Brecon and Crickhowell dial-a-ride and Llanwrtyd Wells community transport provide vital lifelines. Alongside them, organisations such as Steer community transport in the Swansea valley, Rhayader and district community support and the Ystradgynlais community car scheme help people remain independent and connected.
Those services are under real pressure. They are often volunteer led, operating on tight budgets and now facing rising fuel costs that they struggle to absorb. Unlike commercial operators, they cannot just increase the prices, because the people who rely on them often cannot afford it. Increasingly, they are asked to do more than just provide transport. As pressures on social care grow, community transport providers are stepping in to offer reassurance and informal support, and helping people navigate services, going well beyond their funded remit.
Demand for such services is rising, especially as public transport options reduce and more people face isolation, particularly in rural areas, but funding has not kept pace. In one local scheme alone, nearly 5,000 journeys were provided last year, covering more than 30,000 miles. Yet services are still being asked to do more with less, and the consequences are stark. If community transport begins to struggle, people do not just lose a lift; they lose access to their community, their support networks and, in many cases, their independence and ability to get to healthcare appointments.
We should recognise that many volunteer drivers use their own vehicles, and that current mileage rates do not fully reflect the real cost of fuel and maintenance, making it harder to recruit and retain the people the services depend on. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ mileage rate has not increased since 2011, and is set at 45p a mile. If we are serious about supporting voluntary groups and community centres, we must be serious about supporting the transport networks that make them viable. Clair Swales, the chief executive officer of PAVO—the Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations—told me of her real concerns about the future of such services if the mileage rate is not increased, particularly given the fuel shock we are experiencing at the moment.
We must recognise that community transport is essential infrastructure. It should not be an afterthought. Ensuring that it receives the support it needs to keep going is also important for making sure that our residents can receive healthcare treatment. Without it, our warm words about community support risk meaning very little in practice.
Finally, I pay tribute to the volunteers who keep these schemes running—quietly, selflessly and often without recognition. Without them, none of this would be possible.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
I approach this debate from a position of experience, because I have seen volunteering and community centres from many levels: user, volunteer, trustee, community councillor, local councillor and leader of Stirling council. I am not talking about community spaces in theory; I am speaking from the reality of trying to make them work.
First, if we are still thinking about community centres as we did in the 1960s and 1970s, we have already fallen behind. Too often, the model is a tired hall that is underused, expensive to maintain and slowly declining. I saw that myself as leader of Stirling council. One facility in my area was operating at about 8% capacity and heading towards closure. People chose not to use it, the building deteriorated and the cycle simply fed itself. That is what happens when we fail to maintain or adapt. This is not just about capital investment; it is about activity, purpose and making spaces that people actually want to use.
When we have been willing to think differently, we have seen what is possible. Take Braehead community garden in my constituency: what started as a project to grow fruit and vegetables and tackle food waste has become, in effect, an outdoor community centre covering about 2.5 acres. It brings people together, whether they are keen gardeners or, like me, they simply enjoy being there without doing much gardening at all.
Its success also shows that these spaces need ongoing support to be sustained. We see that same evolution in our libraries. Places such as Bannockburn, Cowie and my local library, the wonderful Mayfield centre, have moved far beyond books. They are now hubs for technology, innovation and community life, offering everything from digital access and flexible workspaces to makers’ spaces and shared resources that reflect how people live today.
We should apply that same thinking to community centres. There are strong examples of that in my constituency. Facilities such as Barrwood, run by the Scouts, combine a traditional indoor space with outdoor activity, woodland and even kayaking. That is what modern community infrastructure can look like. But here is the reality: innovation at local level can go only so far when the system above is holding it back. Speaking as a former council leader, local government in Scotland has been consistently constrained by the Scottish Government. Funding is tight, flexibility is limited and, too often, there is not just a lack of understanding but an element of disdain for what is happening on the ground.
We see the consequences of that in Bannockburn enterprise hub, a council-owned building repurposed to support enterprise and community use—exactly what we should be encouraging. Yet under the current SNP council in Stirling, staffing is being removed and replaced with a keyholder model. Issues are not being picked up, addressed or, frankly, taken seriously. That is not how community assets are sustained; it is how they are allowed to decline.
That brings me to a bigger point. We still treat these services as non-statutory, optional extras that can be cut when budgets are tight. They are not optional; they are preventive. They support wellbeing and hold communities together. Perhaps it is time that we said that clearly and acted on it. The role these spaces play in addressing issues of mental health, community cohesion and resilience could be formally recognised. These spaces are not an added extra; they are fundamental to the coherence of our communities, and that must be recognised across our public services—not just as a problem for local councils to patch and repair, but as a fundamental need that should be incorporated into the thinking of our health service, our planning system and our approach to wider community resilience.
We should be moving towards recognising community spaces, outdoor provision and voluntary sector partnerships as social statutory services, not ones we fund when we can but ones we prioritise because we understand their value. I say to the Minister: support local authorities to think differently, but also give them the flexibility, the backing and the respect to deliver. The traditional model for community centres often looks to a decaying past, not a thriving future. Sometimes, we have to find out where the centre of the community is and go there, rather than hope that the community feel grateful for the centre we tell them they can have. We should also ensure that public toilets are included in our thinking about essential community spaces.
Finally, I thank all the volunteers who keep not just our community centres but our communities running, including those I recently spoke to in Killearn at the wonderful Parkinson’s dance class. Perhaps unusually, I also thank our local authority workers for all they do for our communities. They are working under horrendously tight budgets, and they are doing a great job in very difficult circumstances. This Government are delivering positive change in so many areas; let us ensure that our community centres are not just surviving, but thriving.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this debate on a subject he is very passionate and knowledgeable about. He is a fellow bassoon player—I hope I am right in saying that—and music ensembles are another brilliant example of community groups. I also know that, like me, he supports the wider cause of music education, which could not take place easily without community spaces.
At the heart of every thriving community are its voluntary organisations. They are essential for fostering social cohesion and community spirit, and for enabling support and solidarity when people need it most. Across Great Britain, there are around 21,000 community centres and halls, and in 2022 we were home to 166,000 voluntary organisations. That is no accident. It reflects their importance and the undeniable need for the role they play in strengthening our communities. Voluntary organisations act as vital bridges between individuals, particularly those who may feel isolated or without strong family connections. The groups that people find at these local hubs can effectively become their family. The organisations also serve as a safety net, catching people who fall outside Government or other public support.
With over 1.8 million people currently on NHS mental health waiting lists, some community centres have stepped up to run suicide prevention projects and mental health peer support groups, filling gaps that statutory services cannot reach. However, because of decades of real-terms funding cuts, a cost of living squeeze on donations, rising operational costs and the Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions without exempting voluntary organisations, pressure on these organisations has piled up. Community centres are vital for tackling the loneliness epidemic in our country, which is why the Liberal Democrats launched our plan to introduce a new wave of third spaces, called hobby hubs, to help to rebuild in-person connection. The initiative would support existing community spaces to expand the services they offer and reach even more people who need them.
In my constituency, I am fortunate to have many outstanding community services, but I want to highlight two in particular. The Hive in Peasedown St John is a powerful example of the vital support that community centres offer, including a community fridge, a citizens advice bureau, family support, financial guidance, a youth worker for local people and access to the Peasedown community library.
Another organisation, Southside, runs community hub groups across north-east Somerset, including a regular group that I visited in Writhlington last year. Its after-school sessions are run entirely by volunteers who entertain children with painting, dancing and outdoor activities, while parents are able to sit down with a cup of tea, something many have not had a chance to do all day. The groups create space for parents to discuss the challenges they are facing, and volunteers are trained to support those experiencing domestic abuse and refer parents to other services, if needed.
Centres such as The Hive and Southside face several key challenges. Securing funding is time-consuming and difficult. Leases are very tricky to negotiate, and I was happy to help The Hive with that issue. Buildings are costly to run and hard to maintain, and many centres operate in isolation without the networks or resources they need.
I will quickly depart from my speech to mention Volunteer It Yourself, which is so good that I am mentioning it even though it is not in my constituency. I was pleased to meet that organisation yesterday, and I was going to write to introduce it to the Minister, but I am glad to do it in person now. It is an excellent organisation that works around the country to identify community centres and places that are important to local communities, and it invites local young people who are not in employment, education or training to come along to refurbish them. Those spaces could be community centres or sports grounds, and Volunteer It Yourself is about to announce a project with the Music Venue Trust to refurbish music venues. That is a fantastic way of solving two problems: refurbishing places that may not otherwise be refurbished and getting young people into education and training. It has a live project in Deptford, which it invited me down to visit, and I would happily take a cross-party group of interested MPs for a couple of hours to see what those young people are up to.
The crisis facing voluntary and community organisations is severe, and we stand to lose the organisations that feed the hungry, support the isolated, counsel the bereaved and reach those in crisis when statutory services cannot. That is unacceptable. Community centres and voluntary groups are indispensable to the strength and resilience of our communities. I hope the Minister will encourage the Government to consider Lib Dem proposals to expand community events, reduce loneliness and protect these centres from closure so that they can continue their crucial work in fostering community cohesion.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. For transparency reasons, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and note that I am the honorary president of a local Royal British Legion branch and patron of the Bexley Neighbourhood Watch Association.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions from all Members this morning. They have been varied, but as a former councillor myself, I recognise many of them. Across the United Kingdom, our communities are supported by an estimated 166,000 voluntary organisations. The majority are small organisations that are close to the ground, but which often have the biggest impact on people’s lives. Throughout my time as the shadow Minister, I have had the immense pleasure of meeting a variety of these groups; I am sure I will meet many more after this debate.
As a Member proudly representing my home community of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I have the immense privilege of working with many fantastic groups which include the Brownies, Guides, Scouts, faith-based groups, amateur sports clubs, u3a Sidcup, the Friends of Danson Park, Friends of Foots Cray Meadows, Discover Welling, and many more that I will get into trouble for not mentioning. Bexley is also home to a number of fantastic community centres that continue to serve our communities throughout the year, from the various clubs and youth zone at Blackfen community library to the wide variety of clubs that use our church halls, or even the amateur wrestling group at Falconwood community centre. Bexley’s community hubs have everything on offer and are supported by over £1 million of investment by Bexley’s Conservative council.
Returning to the national picture, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations represents more than 17,000 charities, social enterprises, community groups and organisations. I understand that 92% of its members are charities with an income of less than £1 million; most have an income of less than £30,000. In response to the Chancellor’s first Budget in 2024, it said that the changes the Government had brought in would:
“intensify the ‘triple squeeze’ charities face from increasing costs, reduced funding, and higher demand.”
In fact, the NCVO wrote to the Chancellor to urge her to reimburse charities for those costs, as she committed to do for public sector organisations. That has not happened, and the 2025 spending review provided no respite from the increased pressures caused by this Chancellor. When Labour Members and Ministers say that they support civil society—and I have no doubt that many of them do have that passion in their community—the voluntary sector is right to ask why, as we have heard from Labour Members, it is being hit with higher employment costs at the very moment when it is trying to recruit staff, keep buildings open and meet rising demand, when it already provides more than £14 billion of public services on behalf of both central and local government. In a very stark contrast to this Government, the previous Conservative Government knew very well that communities need practical support—not just warm words read out by Ministers in this place.
That is why, in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, we Conservatives pledged £750 million to make sure that voluntary, community and social enterprises could continue their vital work of supporting the country. In my community of Bexley, I saw this work in action first hand, with an army of community champion volunteers coming forward to support the elderly and those most in need across the community. Bexley was also one of the first areas in the country to launch a dedicated pot of funding, which supported pubs, amateur sports clubs and other groups that contribute so much to our way of life.
The last Conservative Government went further, beyond the coronavirus outbreak, and in 2021 we established a £150 million community ownership fund to help communities to take ownership of assets at risk of closure and, with voluntary and community organisations, bid for match funding for the purchase and renovation of local community assets. That is exactly the kind of support that helps save a pub, village hall or clubhouse, or a variety of other community buildings, before they are lost forever. This Government closed that fund.
The youth investment fund was established in 2022 and received more than £300 million of capital and revenue grants from the previous Conservative Government. However, for all the warm words from this Government, The Guardian reported last year that they have spent less on youth work than the Conservatives did. In 2023, the previous Conservative Government announced a community organisations cost of living fund, with a further £76 million for charities and community organisations carrying out vital work to help vulnerable groups. You guessed it, Ms McVey: this Government closed that fund as well.
While we were in office, the Conservative party backed our voluntary groups, whereas this Government keep piling on the pressure and leaving many across the country at breaking point. That is by no means an exhaustive list of the support we provided, but almost £1.3 billion in funding and support over just the last four years from the previous Conservative Government is now at risk, thanks to the decisions taken by this Government. We have all heard from our local groups that since the election life is tougher than it used to be, and that they are facing a triple squeeze thanks to this Government’s actions. Costs increased—thanks to the Chancellor. Funding reduced—thanks to the Chancellor. Facing even higher demand—thanks to the Chancellor.
Our voluntary sector across the nation, and the local organisations that all Members meet, deserve better than this Government and Chancellor. If this Government and the Minister are serious about supporting voluntary organisations, why is her Chancellor increasing their taxes? Why is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero stopping cheap energy that could help to alleviate the cost pressures they are facing to keep the lights on? Who in this Government is actually on the side of voluntary organisations?
In closing, I look forward to hearing the Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, explaining what her Department is doing to champion these vital groups within Government. What conversations have Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had with the Treasury regarding the additional costs that charities and voluntary groups are facing across the country? Surely, even the most tribal Labour MPs must see that their Government have made life harder for voluntary organisations and community groups across the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank everyone who contributed to this important debate. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing the debate. He is a great representative for the voluntary sector, having held many voluntary roles in the past and maintaining his role as a trustee for a local community centre in addition to his duties as the local MP.
We have had some brilliant contributions today, highlighting just how important voluntary groups and centres are in the role they play up and down the country. I am not sure that the speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), reflected the tone of the debate. He gave what he said was not an extensive list—I would argue that it was a selective one—but I will touch on some of his points as I progress with my contribution.
First, I will address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham. Some of his questions and asks fall to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I will ensure that he gets answers. I will respond to some of his questions now, but for the more technical ones I will ensure that he speaks to the relevant Minister.
My hon. Friend spoke about security of tenure. As a Government, we are introducing a new community right to buy, giving communities the first opportunity to purchase an asset of community value when put up for sale. We also have the common ground award, which will invest up to £10,000 of capital funding into voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. He asked about tenancy issues, and particularly about local government guidance, all of which fall to MCHLG. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and others also asked about that, so I will write to Members and suggest to my counterpart that she meet with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) gave a very entertaining speech, which touched on a number of issues. He made some important points about community radio. When I was media Minister, I went to visit a number of community radio stations. He spoke about the local covenant partnership. That is about championing collaborative commissioning models, which answers some of his points.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) spoke about loneliness. Yesterday, DCMS was pleased to relaunch the tackling loneliness hub. I will send him some details on that. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who shared some interesting examples; I would be pleased to discuss them further with her.
I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that the work that voluntary organisations and community centres do every single day is incredibly valuable to those who access them. We do not take their work for granted. Indeed, in my Barnsley South constituency, we are lucky to have so many brilliant examples of community centres and voluntary organisations. The shadow Minister gave a very extensive list; I am not sure I will do as well as he did, but I will mention a few: Barnsley Samaritans, Age UK, the YMCA, and local groups such as the Barnsley Foodbank Partnership, the Future Arts Centre at the Barnsley Civic, and BIADS, of which I am proud to be a patron. There are many others across the borough of Barnsley. We also have access to community centres such as the Darfield community centre and the Birdwell community centre. Yesterday, I was delighted to visit the new Parkside one, which is coupled with a sports centre and a more than £4 million investment into Barnsley South.
I know just how important these spaces and organisations are to local people. Community centres are often the site for important milestone events. Whether it be birthday parties, weddings or something else entirely, some of the most treasured memories in people’s lives have taken place in these spaces. That is why the Government are pleased to recognise and celebrate the contribution that they make. I take the opportunity to offer thanks to all those brilliant volunteers who contribute to the running of community centres and get involved with voluntary work each day.
The volunteers who keep these important services running are some of the most talented and driven in our society, and we know they need support. Over the past year, a huge 54% of adults—around 24.8 million people—volunteered at least once, with 33% of adults volunteering at least once a month. Whether that is formal volunteering through established organisations or informally within local communities, it is clear that people across the country are willing to help each other out, giving up their time for the good of others, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke so passionately about. He is absolutely right about the importance of working together. I was pleased to visit a voluntary group when I was in Northern Ireland—I think it was called the Ravine project—and I would be delighted to visit more such groups when I next visit Northern Ireland.
Indeed, I am pleased to visit voluntary groups up and down the country, because this Government want to encourage volunteering. We want to get as many people as possible involved, so that positive change can continue to be delivered across communities by communities. As the Minister for Civil Society, as I have just mentioned, I have had the privilege of visiting some brilliant organisations across the country. They include the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, which shared with me the work it does to encourage people of all ages to get involved in volunteering in a variety of ways. I was particularly pleased to speak to the young volunteers and hear how their experience has helped them to form new social connections.
I was also pleased to meet Ruff and Ruby—a King’s Award-winning youth charity carrying out important work in Stoke-on-Trent, with a new app that connects young people to resources, education, employment, volunteering and suicide prevention—and the brand new Bedworth physical activity hub, which I visited just last week with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). That hub serves as an easy-to-access, supportive environment in which people from the community can achieve their health and fitness goals, as well as providing a space for them to connect with their neighbours. During my time there, it became obvious that that hub is a perfect example of how such a centre can become vital for meeting the needs of the community.
It was also a delight to meet a range of charitable organisations at events hosted by the York Centre for Voluntary Services a few weeks ago. I heard about its city-wide volunteering strategy, a five-year plan co-created by charities and the council, making time for volunteering accessible to everyone. At DCMS, we are pleased to pledge support for the Big Help Out this year, which is a national celebration to raise awareness of the impact that volunteering can have. This year, the Big Help Out will be delivered by the Eden Project in Cornwall, which I will be visiting tomorrow to celebrate its 25-year anniversary. I remember when it opened, which makes me feel a little bit old.
The Government have already established our ambition to recognise the value of civil society through the civil society covenant, as a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham, mentioned. The Prime Minister made it clear at the civil society summit in July 2025 that civil society has a home at the heart of Government, and we have established the Civil Society Council, chaired by Kate Lee. That council gives voluntary organisations, such as the brilliant ones that have been mentioned throughout this debate, a voice at the heart of Government, bringing together leaders from charities, social enterprises, philanthropy, faith organisations, community organisations and the youth sector.
The Government also recognise the need to reduce the administrative burden on voluntary organisations. It was great to hear the Chancellor introduce a new VAT relief for charities in the Budget, which establishes that business donations of goods to charities for onward distribution or use in their services will not be subject to VAT. This is in addition to the VAT relief that charities already benefit from, which is estimated to be worth £1 billion for the sector each year. I was delighted to attend a roundtable on this topic, hosted by Amazon and chaired by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Gordon Brown. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for all the work he has done on this issue. This important measure is set to significantly boost the supply of essential items to charities and will come into effect from 1 April this year.
We recognise how important community spaces are for developing social networks, encouraging community participation and promoting civic pride. This Government are committed to giving community groups the ability to own and manage assets for the benefit of the wider community. As I referenced earlier, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will introduce a new community right to buy, giving communities the first opportunity to purchase an asset of community value when it is put up for sale by the owner.
Of course, this is not an issue that we are going to fix overnight, but it is something that the Government are passionate about, as proven by the many colleagues across the House who have enjoyed—enjoyed? I am sure they have—and contributed to this important debate, and I look forward to continuing to work with them.
Ben Coleman
I have very much enjoyed this debate. Hon. Members have given wonderful examples of what is going on in their constituencies and their engagement with voluntary activities. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that 46% of people in Northern Ireland volunteer. That is a hell of a number—it is very impressive, and I appreciate hearing that.
It was very interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) illustrate the problems that we are talking about. He spoke of the importance of engaging properly with the local community. The local council failed to maintain the Parkside community centre in Barnehurst for so many years, and then their immediate solution was to shut it down, despite the fact that so many residents wanted it to stay open. That appears to be a dereliction of duty, and I appreciated hearing the details of that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) about the value of listening to residents in deciding what the community needs. That is absolutely crucial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said that community groups were an essential partner in prevention. He reminds me that I must listen to his radio show—and maybe eat a bacon butty—[Interruption.] It was a shameless plug.
Ben Coleman
And meet his mother. I would like to bring the listenership up to two; a 100% increase after this debate would not be a bad outcome.
It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) talk about how local government in Scotland has been constrained by the actions of the Scottish Government. That is having a serious impact on the voluntary sector.
The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) reminded me—this is a little secret, which has now been shared—that we are fellow bassoon players, although I have not played since school. That reminds me of the damage that Margaret Thatcher did when she abolished the Inner London Education Authority and decimated musical education across the city. It has still not fully recovered, despite our efforts to improve things.
The speech of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) was very interesting, particularly given that he completely avoided the issue that I raised of the damage that austerity under the Conservative Government did. We had years of funding cuts, and of course a very sharp rise in demand for voluntary services. We are grappling with that as we try to repair the immense damage to this country after so many years.
It was good to hear the Minister set out in such detail the many things that the Government are trying to do to repair the damage. We cannot pretend that it does not exist. The examples that everybody has given show the huge challenge to the community and voluntary sector and community centres. I very much appreciate the Minister’s determination to ensure that the Government do more. I will very happily take her up on the offer—if it turns into one—of a meeting with Ministers at MHCLG. That would be excellent and I thank her for that.
After hearing everyone’s examples and experiences in their communities, I want to close by thanking our community centres and the volunteers in them for their immense work. Our communities are richer in many ways—even if not financially—and definitely happier and better supported thanks to them. I hope the changes that I have called for can be made to give them a boost and the stability that they need.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
If Members will allow me, I would like to congratulate my local rugby club, Lymm rugby club, which last week got the King’s award for voluntary service.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for voluntary groups and community centres.
NHS Continuing Healthcare
(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
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered NHS continuing healthcare.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The continuing healthcare—CHC—system should represent the very best of our national health service, offering 24-hour, round-the-clock care for approximately 50,000 of the country’s most vulnerable adults, but at the moment the reality is quite the opposite, exposing some of the system’s innermost failures.
For those who may be unaware, continuing healthcare is a package of care arranged and fully funded by the NHS for adults with significant ongoing health needs. Crucially, eligibility is based not on diagnosis, but on whether a person has a “primary health need”. If they qualify, the NHS covers all their care costs; if they do not, they are left to navigate a complex and means-tested social care system, often at catastrophic personal cost to their carers and family.
CHC was created to protect those with the most severe and complex needs, but today it often does the opposite: it confuses, delays and denies. CHC is a lifeline for people with the most complex, severe and often life-limiting conditions, making it all the more crippling when funding is stripped at short notice without a clear reason, and yet there is a body of evidence, which is growing year on year, to suggest that the system is unfair, inconsistent and often inaccessible to those who need it most.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand, as I always try to be helpful in my contributions. He may only now be aware that in 2023, the High Court in Northern Ireland determined that the previous Northern Ireland continuing healthcare policy breached obligations regarding equality for older people—some of the very things that he is referring to. As a result, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is in the process of reviewing and developing new, fairer guidance. Does he agree that, UK-wide, this must be tailored care, with an understanding that one size simply cannot fit all?
Ayoub Khan
I totally agree about the need for parity of service across the United Kingdom. That must be not only the right thing, but the only thing to do.
A recent report from the Nuffield Trust describes CHC as an “all or nothing” affair for applicants that creates a cliff edge between carers getting full NHS funding and paying out of pocket to care for loved ones. But although chance certainly plays a role in determining who gets funding and who does not, there is also a sinister practice at play—one that violates the very principles of our health service and inflicts unnecessary hardship on families across the country. That is the ever more common practice of revoking funding, and making vulnerable people appeal and fight for the right to retain the funding they should have had all along. We see the same pattern emerging with benefit claimants and home-to-school transport for 16 to 18-year-olds with special educational needs and disabilities. In the vast majority of cases, after all the time and energy wasted by applicants and assessors, the decision is overturned.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that, during these very difficult times, families want to give their loved ones who are not well all their attention, but these situations are usually so adversarial, involving lengthy legal processes that cost local authorities hundreds of thousands of pounds, only for the decision to be overturned and the family to win in the end?
Ayoub Khan
I absolutely agree. There is an unnecessary burden on families to start off with, and when the appeal process can take months and it is difficult for families to secure representation—they may end up representing themselves—that causes them further anxiety. I agree that there needs to be a review of the whole system, because it is a further bottleneck in an already very stressful situation for families. I will come to an example of a family I am trying to assist in that regard.
In many cases, decisions are overturned and the status quo is restored. We must be honest about what is driving this. It is the same culture of cuts and austerity, sweeping across this Government and the previous one, that is to blame for the crisis. Independent analysis shows that CHC spending decreased by 42% in 2024 compared with previous years, even as need continued to grow. That is not because people are suddenly less ill, but because access is being constrained.
Investigations have also revealed that private companies are being contracted to review CHC eligibility and, in some cases, to reduce care packages, raising serious ethical concerns about profit being tied to cuts in vital care provision. A system where decisions are not always driven by clinical need but by cost containment will inevitably fail to protect and care for some of our most vulnerable individuals.
My constituent Daniel has experienced the injustice of the CHC process at first hand. He suffers from severe learning difficulties, autism, anxiety and behaviour of distress, and is cared for by his elderly parents, Linda and Dave. In order to receive the proper care, Daniel is supported every day by six personal assistants, all of whom are being paid thanks to CHC funding. After an annual review in January last year, it was confirmed that his condition had not changed and therefore his funding ought to continue, and yet, since a spontaneous and unwarranted review of the decision, Daniel’s eligibility has been under excessive and unreasonable scrutiny. The reassessment directly contravened the national framework for CHC, which states that a full reassessment must be arranged only if there is
“clear evidence of a change in needs to such an extent that it may impact on the individual’s eligibility”.
The saga was concluded two weeks ago when, despite providing no clinical rationale for the “significant change” in Daniel’s medical needs, the care board revoked his funding, leaving his parents to foot the bill for his care. For more than a year, Linda and Dave have carried on their fight against the care board’s impropriety, which has understandably come at a great financial, emotional and personal toll, all while continuing to care for Daniel. Unfortunately, Daniel’s story is neither exceptional nor surprising. It shows how many of those reliant on Government support are being stripped of it in the blink of an eye.
The stories of Daniel and so many others show exactly what is wrong with the system. Since 2017, despite an ageing population and increasing complexity of need, the number of people eligible for CHC has fallen by more than 9%. Over the same period, the proportion of people found eligible after a full assessment has dropped dramatically, from around 31% to just 18.6%. That means that more people are being assessed, but fewer are receiving support.
For families, that often means a gruelling process, characterised by a mire of lengthy assessments, appeals, delays and uncertainty, at the most difficult time of their lives. Confusion, exhaustion and distress are mainstays of that process. Even for those who are fortunate enough to be granted CHC funding, it can be withdrawn upon review, leaving families in a state of permanent anxiety that they could be plunged back into crisis at any moment.
Behind every statistic is a family caring for a loved one with dementia, a neurological condition or even a severe disability—a family forced to give up work, drain their savings or even sell their home, all while navigating a system that is rigged against them from the start.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I wholeheartedly agree with him, in particular about his constituents who had the support that their child needed for many years, had an annual review that reconfirmed that that support was necessary, and then suddenly, out of the blue, faced a challenge by some new body or process. Does he agree that there should be a clear, transparent process that is easy to understand by families who go through it, that there should be clear checks and balances to ensure that families receive a fair hearing, and that, when support is agreed and secured, it should be maintained until the next formal review is required and the criteria and conditions have changed?
Ayoub Khan
I wholeheartedly agree. One of the difficulties in Daniel’s case was that an assessment found that there was no material change in the level of support that he required, but a reassessment was conducted subsequently, and the funding was then withdrawn. I met Daniel, and I felt so sorry for his parents, who are now struggling because of the withdrawal of the funding. It is shocking that someone can sit somewhere and make a desk-based reassessment of someone’s condition and then strip them of funding. I am confident that the family will ultimately secure funding, but the stress that they are going through is simply unacceptable.
I urge the Minister to review Daniel’s case. I recall writing to him on this very matter in July last year. He replied that the operational delivery of CHC is the responsibility of integrated care boards. Care boards do indeed have delegated autonomy to make funding decisions, but they must follow national guidance, and the Government have the power to act when those duties are breached. I would welcome the Minister’s reflecting on his stance on this matter. At the very least, will he meet me, Linda and Dave so that he can gain insight into how the system is failing people like Daniel? Caring for our loved ones should not be subject to a cliff edge or an all-or-nothing gamble. If we want to build an NHS fit for the future—one that delivers care closer to home and puts patients first—then fixing CHC must be a core part of that mission.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is truly a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris—for now, anyway.
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate, and I express my gratitude to other Members who have contributed to it. By working together, we can improve the lives of people living with some of the highest needs. I also want to acknowledge and thank families, loved ones and other unpaid carers, and of course the health and social care staff who provide committed and compassionate care every day.
Every one of us has constituents living with highly complex needs that arise from a wide variety of illnesses, disabilities or accidents. It is of course great news that significant medical advances have led to increases in the average life expectancy in the UK both for the general population and for those with significant health challenges, but we need to recognise that that has placed additional pressure on our health and care system, and there is no doubt that it can create challenges in accessing the right care and support in the right place at the right time. We value the opportunity to hear about personal experiences from everyone who is here today, so that we can continue to improve services for the people who need them most.
A key ambition of the Government’s 10-year health plan is to support people to live independent and dignified lives in their communities. NHS continuing healthcare provides critical support to some individuals with the highest needs, offering a fully funded package of health and social care to meet their needs. This supports our 10-year health plan ambition by helping individuals to live more independently outside hospital and to be closer to home and to loved ones.
The last Labour Government introduced NHS continuing healthcare, which, despite the challenges set out today, is supporting thousands of people across the country with their care needs. We also set out our statutory guidance, the first national framework to ensure a consistent approach. In the year ending March 2025, over 164,000 people across England were found to be eligible for NHS continuing healthcare—an increase from the 160,000 eligible individuals in 2017. Every one of those individuals should receive an appropriate package of care that meets their assessed health and care needs. Our statutory guidance is designed to support integrated care boards to provide the most appropriate care for every eligible individual, ensuring that they are placed at the centre of the assessment and care planning process.
NHS England oversees integrated care boards in delivering their functions and undertakes regular and ongoing assurance work, including commissioning work, to promote effective implementation of NHS continuing healthcare. I know that integrated care boards across the country are working hard to streamline administrative processes and find efficiencies so that more people can access the care they need sooner.
Iqbal Mohamed
It is the responsibility of ICBs to administer and provide this support, but does the Minister share my concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) that the involvement of private contractors in eligibility reviews may not be appropriate? The ICB may feel that responsibility lies with the private contractor to guide it, rather than owning its decisions.
Stephen Kinnock
Of course, we want to see consistency and quality right across the board, regardless of who is actually delivering the work. If there are specific issues around private contractors that the hon. Gentleman can flag to me, perhaps he could write to me; we would be very happy to look into them.
We have committed to reduce the running costs of integrated care boards and to redirect that funding to frontline services. To deliver that, our 10-year health plan sets out that integrated care boards must focus on their role as strategic commissioners, ensuring the best possible value in securing local services that improve population health and reduce inequalities. However, NHS England has been clear that, although transformation is required, it must be carried out with clear safeguards in place to protect frontline responsibilities. Legal duties in relation to NHS continuing healthcare must continue to be met. This means that running-cost reductions should aim to make administrative and corporate functions more efficient. They are not there to change funding for direct care or statutory duties.
I acknowledge that integrated care boards have worked intensively to strengthen their plans for 2025-26, focusing on areas where efficiencies and savings can be made. I thank NHS England for working with integrated care boards to monitor spend against these plans. The Department is working closely with NHS England on how responsibilities will be delivered from April 2027 onwards, when—subject to the will of Parliament—NHS England will be abolished. Until those changes are made, the Department and NHS England will continue to carry out their respective statutory functions. In the interim, teams are increasingly working together closely under an interim joint leadership team, including on NHS continuing healthcare.
Fundamentally, addressing some of the issues that hon. Members have discussed today will require wider reform of the social care system. That is why Baroness Casey is chairing an independent commission into adult social care. The commission has a clear mandate to undertake the most comprehensive review of adult social care in a generation. With Baroness Casey as its chair, it will cut through the political stalemate, identify what the country needs and wants from adult social care, and support the Government in establishing a system that works.
Baroness Casey has made it clear that she will not wait until the end of the commission to recommend action where she sees fit to do so. Hon. Members may have seen her speech at the Nuffield Trust summit on 5 March. I thank her for setting out recommendations for immediate action on adult social care, which focused on three key areas: safeguarding, dementia and motor neurone disease. We will not waste time in taking those recommendations forward. We look forward to reviewing Baroness Casey’s phase 1 report, which is due later this year and will set out further recommendations to address immediate priorities for adult social care in this Parliament, laying the groundwork for long-term reform and setting us on the path to delivering a national care service.
In her recent speech, Baroness Casey rightly raised challenges with NHS continuing healthcare. We are carefully considering her reflections. I acknowledge existing tensions between integrated care boards and local authorities regarding NHS continuing healthcare eligibility decisions. Those decisions hinge on whether the support required by an individual is above the limits of what the local authority can provide. Integrated care boards must consult with the relevant local authority before making any decision about an individual’s eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare, putting individuals at the heart of the decision-making process.
However, I acknowledge that, in practice, it is not always straightforward to determine clearly who is responsible for meeting an individual’s needs, so we are working with NHS England to better join up support between the NHS and local authorities, exploring areas where good joint working is helping to improve outcomes for people accessing NHS continuing healthcare. Through the development of our neighbourhood health services, local authorities and integrated care boards are encouraged to consider how services can be reconfigured to focus more on prevention and early intervention, embedding new ways of working to set the direction of travel for future years.
I want all individuals who are eligible for NHS continuing healthcare to receive support in a timely manner, and I want the assessment process to be as smooth, clear and transparent as it possibly can be. We know that eligibility rates can vary from year to year, and across regions and integrated care boards. That variation often exists for good reasons, including differences or changes in the health needs of local populations or individuals over time. To check that the variation is warranted and justified, NHS England continues to monitor eligibility rates by undertaking detailed work to compare eligibility and referral rates between integrated care boards. When it identifies unwarranted variation between integrated care boards with similar demographics, it follows up and seeks to ensure coherence and consistency.
My Department is also engaging with local areas to explore current work on eligibility disputes, and how they address those challenges. There are no quick fixes, but we remain committed to supporting the sector to improve outcomes for individuals. I want to stress that while disputes between organisations are being resolved, individuals must never be left without the appropriate care and support.
There is a robust dispute resolution process in place for when a full assessment for NHS continuing healthcare has been undertaken and the person or people concerned disagree with the outcome. First, an individual or their representative can ask for a local review from the relevant integrated care board. All integrated care boards should have developed a local resolution process that is fair, transparent and includes timescales. Where it has not been possible to resolve the matter locally, an individual may apply to NHS England for an independent review panel to review the decision. Finally, if the original decision is upheld and there is still a challenge, the individual can make a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
I was very sorry to hear from the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr of the difficulties that his constituents are experiencing, and I thank him for sharing the details of Daniel’s case. I would of course be happy to receive further representations from the hon. Member. Perhaps he could start by setting out in a letter what the issues are, and then we can make sure that appropriate action is taken.
I also know that concerns have been raised about the relatively low number of individuals who are ultimately found eligible for NHS continuing healthcare after they have been referred for full assessment. The threshold for initial referral by GPs, social workers and others is deliberately set low to ensure that anyone who may be eligible is fully assessed. For that reason, many individuals will not go on to receive NHS continuing healthcare. However, an assessment is also a gateway to other forms of NHS-funded support, such as NHS-funded nursing care and joint packages of care between local authorities and integrated care boards. My Department and NHS England continue to work with partners, including the CHC Alliance, Dementia UK, the Nuffield Trust and other sector bodies. We want to support integrated care boards in delivering national policy and guidance, including on how we can achieve better join-up between the NHS and local authorities.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr again on securing this important debate—and I thank all those who intervened in it—so that we can continue to focus on improving services for the people who need them most. I know that this is a very challenging and emotive topic for many families who are going through extremely difficult times, and I absolutely accept that sometimes controversial decisions are made. We need to ensure that in every one of those controversial cases there is transparency, clarity and coherence. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and with Members across the House to ensure that, collectively, we achieve that goal.
Question put and agreed to.
Proposed Visitor Levy
(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
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposed visitor levy in England.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. It is also great to see the Minister in her place; we have a very highly regarded Minister to respond to the debate. She is a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, but she will be responding on behalf of the entire Government, as Ministers always are when responding to debates in Parliament.
This subject touches on a number of Departments: the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the sponsoring Department for tourism, but the debate is also relevant to the Department for Business and Trade, because of the trade considerations and export earnings; the Department for Transport, for obvious reasons; the Department for Work and Pensions, as tourism is one of the biggest employers in the country; the Home Office, which issues the visas; the Foreign Office, which is responsible for our international relations and soft power; the Cabinet Office, which owns the GREAT campaign; and, of course, the Treasury, which takes an overall view of taxation and is responsible for ensuring economic growth.
The proposed visitor levy is another measure that was not in the Labour manifesto—indeed, up until very recently, Ministers were actively saying that they would not introduce it. There has been limited debate on it and, although there has been a consultation, it was on how, not whether, the levy should be implemented. There are many different aspects to think about. There are the effects on the cost of living—it would push more people to take holidays abroad rather than staying at home—and the effects on youth unemployment and local economies. I am sure colleagues across the Chamber will make a number of those points; they are relatively straightforward points to land. I will focus on one that is not quite as easy to land, but that I think is just as important: the role of inbound international tourism into our country, the contribution that makes to the economy and the necessity not to hamper that.
There is a natural inclination among humankind to want to see more of the world. As societies, and the world as a whole, get richer, one thing we can guarantee is that travel and tourism will grow—in fact, they grow faster. For every 1% of world GDP growth, we see between 1.5% and 2% of growth in world tourism. Travel and tourism become an ever-enlarging part of the world economy, and—this is relevant at a time when we often worry about structural changes coming to labour markets—they are largely, although not entirely, AI-proof. Travel is also just a good thing. It brings people together for everything from family reunions to forging new business relationships and partnerships. Travel is good for the soul: people can discover new places, people and experiences, and there is opportunity to unwind and to see the world differently—literally—and as a result are able to think differently.
Domestic tourism is good for all those reasons. Of course, it is also very important for individual colleagues’ constituencies and their local economies.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Is the issue not also about the way the economy is balanced? The truth is that some areas of the country, including Hartlepool, will struggle to bring people in with their tourism offer compared with others. A tax such as this actually drives money and investment away from areas that need it most. Is that not why such a holiday tax is bad for constituencies such as Hartlepool?
Damian Hinds
That is one of a number of worries I have about this proposal; I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting it in such a rational and straightforward way.
I was coming on to say that international inbound tourism scores even more highly because, counterintuitively, tourism into this country is an export. In classical Keynesian economics—if I may appeal to the Government side of the House in that way—it is an injection into the circular flow of the economy. It is not spend that is displaced from some other activity; it is a net increase in economic activity in our country, which means that it is a net creator of jobs.
For the Exchequer, tourism is particularly attractive because tourists are on average very low users of public services. However, while they are here, they spend money not just on their travel and accommodation, but on their food and beverages, their purchases and activities, and on all those things they are paying tax and contributing to the Exchequer.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is important to reflect that in the United Kingdom tourists face a VAT rate of 20% on their spend, whereas in Germany it is only 7% and in Spain, France and Italy it is 10%. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour Government need to reverse their job-killing national insurance contribution hikes, which have had a massive impact on our hospitality industry up and down the country, including in my constituency?
Damian Hinds
I do agree; the hon. Member makes some very good points about national insurance contributions, which I will go on to talk about further. He also makes some very good points about looking at the set of taxes as a whole—we cannot just look at a bed tax or a tourism tax without thinking about all the other taxes. However, if I may, I promise him that I will come on to those matters later.
Inbound tourism is something that we are rather good at as a country. How could we not be, when we have great cities such as London, Manchester, Edinburgh, York, Bath and Brighton, as well as the lakes, the Peaks, the moors, the dales and the beautiful South Downs, part of which I have the privilege of representing? There is also our literary heritage, not least Alton and the village of Chawton in East Hampshire, the home of Jane Austen. Britain is also the birthplace of more sports than most of us could name if we were prompted to do so in 60 seconds. There is also the draw of screen “on location” sites, as we have recently seen in the “Starring Great Britain” campaign, west end theatre, live music and much more.
There is also the small matter of the English language—and believe it or not, even the weather actually acts in our favour. The fact that so much more of our inbound tourist infrastructure is indoor means that our tourist season is much longer, and we have considerably less seasonality in our tourist numbers, than many of our competitor nations.
All those things help to explain our success. We are the seventh or eighth biggest country in the world by tourist arrivals, but we are even higher—third in the world, in fact—for tourist receipts. Of course, that is particularly driven by London, which is a very high-value market, but overall, tourism is our third largest services sector by export earnings, and comparable to goods sectors such as automotive and pharmaceutical.
We do inbound tourism well, then; but tourism is also a competitive market and the reality is that we are not doing as well as we used to. We are doing well, but worse. Over the last 30 years, the UK’s market share of world tourism has tumbled. It has come down by something like half.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I will just pick up on that point about competitiveness and competitive advantage. Is it not the case that those much-visited cities—Paris, Rome, many cities in Spain and others throughout Europe—have measures such as this proposed levy, yet they have not seen decreases in tourism? How is that a competitive advantage point for us? Is it not actually the case that tourists want the culture, events, activities and even investments in policing that this sort of measure could fund?
Damian Hinds
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman heard the earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who made the point—quite rightly—that we cannot look at a single tax in isolation. I will come on to discuss that point, and I will invite the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) to look at the maths on what happens when we add up all the taxes together and compare the cities that he has just mentioned with cities in this country.
We have lost market share, and it turns out that reaching the big target that the Government now have, to reach 50 million arrivals in the next few years, will involve—believe it or not—us losing more market share. Therefore, the great big ambition is for us to lose share of the global market for tourism. We should be much more ambitious than that.
Governments of all sorts and all flavours have acknowledged the importance of tourism, verbally and in writing. I will not go through all the sector deals and so on that there have been through the years. We now have, or at least anticipate, the visitor economy growth strategy from the current Government. However, I do not think—and I am not making a party political point here, because this applies to multiple Governments—that any Government in this country in my lifetime have ever given attention to this sector commensurate with its importance and potential.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The visitor levy became law in Scotland in September 2024, allowing Scottish local authorities to apply a 5% charge on overnight stays. It is due to be implemented next year in my constituency and is estimated to bring in £1.7 million annually. Last month, I met Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Destination Group to hear their concerns about the tourist trade. While I suspect the right hon. Member disagrees with a levy, does he agree that, if a levy is to be introduced, it should clearly be invested in a manner that benefits and strengthens the local tourist economy, in consultation with trade—not just to fill a black hole in council budgets?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is a wise man, and he anticipates a point I will come to very shortly.
Under the previous Government, candidly, there were increases to air passenger duty, rises in visa charges, the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation at a price of £10, and of course the loss of VAT-free shopping for tourists. The new Government are not just carrying on with those things, but adding cumulatively to those costs at a significantly greater rate. They are doubling the price of the ETA, which will now be £80 for a family of four. In fact, ETAs and visas are now both considerably above European price levels—considerably so, in the case of visas. On ETAs, unlike others, we do not give even a discount, let alone an exemption, for children or for people over 70. The Government have also cut the marketing budget for VisitBritain by 41%.
On top of all that, they now propose to bring in a bed tax. What is that bed tax? We do not know. It could be many things. It could be per room or per person. It could be a fixed percentage of the room rate, a fixed amount or tiered fixed amount. If it is a tiered or fixed amount, what amount? In truth, however, whatever amount is set initially is probably pretty irrelevant. Let us not forget that air passenger duty started at a rate of £5 and £10 and now ranges between £15 and well over £200. Will children be discounted or exempt?
The consultation talks about giving powers to a mayor; what about places that do not have a mayor? What will the scope be? Will it include sleeping in a tent? Will it include holiday camps, static caravans, scout camps, school trips, pilgrimages, hostels, homestays or sleeper trains? We do not know the answers to any of these questions right now.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Joe Powell
I wanted to add one important category that he did not list, which is short-term lets and Airbnbs.
Joe Powell
He will know that in my constituency there is a very high concentration of Airbnbs—I have not read his speech in advance—which have contributed to antisocial behaviour, rubbish put out on the wrong day, and even breaches of leases, which can cause fire safety and insurance issues. I welcome the introduction of this levy, partly because it will help to collect a contribution from the short-term lets in my constituency.
Damian Hinds
Mr Efford, that really was my next sentence, because there are questions about short-term lets, and about second homes in Cornwall and so on. On the short lets issue—whether rents are being pushed up is sometimes another concern with short lets—this levy is not going to solve that problem. The Government will need to do something structurally different if they want to address those short lets questions.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
UKHospitality talks about this tax being
“the wrong policy at the worst time”.
One of my worries is that entrepreneurs in the tourist industry in North Yorkshire and elsewhere are on their knees due to post-covid issues, national insurance, rates and a whole range of factors. Would my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the merits of this policy, the levy must be paused until those businesses are back on their feet and start investing again?
Damian Hinds
I do agree. My right hon. Friend and I have been in multiple debates in the main Chamber talking about exactly those issues, both for tourism and for the wider hospitality sector.
There are some arguments in favour of an overnight visitor levy, some of which have come up already. The main one is summed up in the sentence,
“Visitor levies provide local government with a financial incentive to grow the visitor economy.”
That has truth to it, and there is definitely an argument for making hospitality more hospitable through more investment in the visitor economy—in facilities, events, policing and so on. The sector needs more money going into sales and marketing if we are to realise our potential, so there might be an argument for this measure if the money were truly ringfenced—if it were only being spent on truly incremental items. Even then, we would still get the problem where hotels over quite a wide area pay it but the events, attractions, extra policing and so on all take place somewhere else. That might apply in Hartlepool, for example, as has been mentioned. It will certainly be the case in London—a hotel in Brent Cross is not going to feel the benefit of some extra things being put on in theatreland in the west end.
Of course, though, the money will not be ringfenced. Even if it is nominally ringfenced in year one, do we honestly believe that in year five it will still be ringfenced? Of course it will not.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
As ever, my right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the concerns that businesses have is that this policy was not in the Government’s manifesto, so they are now trying to prepare for something that has come as a surprise. There has been no consultation on this levy, so by introducing it now the Government are making a very difficult situation even worse. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not the best way to help businesses thrive?
Damian Hinds
I certainly do. On the issue of incrementality—I suspect other colleagues will make this point during the debate—there is only one way to guarantee that the money will truly be ringfenced and used for incremental activity, sales and marketing spend, which is to write it into primary legislation. In these debates, people often have a list of five or six questions to put to the Minister. I do not have five or six questions; my one question is whether she will write into primary legislation that the money must be ringfenced.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am arguing against this levy in principle. I think we should be making it more attractive to come to this country. However, if it is to happen, will the Government write into primary legislation the thing that I am sure they will say verbally to a lot of colleagues, including Labour MPs in seaside towns and parts of the country that need inward investment? I am sure they will say, “This will all be for extra stuff.” Let us see that in a piece of legislation before this Parliament. In the absence of that, I am sure that what will happen—maybe not in year one, but in year three or five—is that central Government allocations of funding to local authorities will be made on the basis that they could have implemented an overnight visitor levy. In practice, it will become impossible for a mayor in any one area to say, “I’m not going to impose that levy,” because the budget will assume it.
I now turn to the arguments against the levy, some of which we have heard already from colleagues from multiple parties. This is a sector already dealing with big cost increases from national insurance contributions. For businesses that rely heavily on flexible labour, dealing with the Employment Rights Act 2025 is genuinely difficult—and then there are business rates, which we have not yet talked about. Yes, there has been a reprieve for pubs, but there are two things we need to know about that: first, it is only for pubs, and secondly, it is only a temporary reprieve. It does not help cafés, restaurants or many other parts of the hospitality sector; in particular, it does not help hotels.
As you know, Mr Efford, there has been a change in the structure of business rates with the higher multiplier level. The Government keep describing this higher multiplier as a way of ensuring that online retailers are helping to pay for lower rates bills for other businesses. To keep us within the bounds of parliamentary language, let us call that “creative framing”. According to my calculation—by the way, it is very difficult to get an answer out of the Treasury—some 91% of the businesses and buildings that are subject to that higher multiplier for business rates are not to do with online retailing. Many hotels are among them; again by my own estimation, 1,100 hotels will be paying that higher multiplier for business rates.
The levy applies to everybody but, turning to the additional costs of international travel, air passenger duty is already the world’s highest departure tax. ETAs are a new cost for tourism in this country. In fact, after—strangely—Bhutan, the UK is in the highest category for total cost when we look at all the taxes, charges and policy costs imposed on tourists. That means that although we score very highly on international comparisons of attractiveness, we score 113th out of 119 for price competitiveness for tourists. Some will say—some have said already—“All these other countries have a bed tax.” Yes, they do, but they do not have a VAT rate of 20%, which is the crucial point. Typically, VAT rates are about 10% across European countries. Amsterdam is the exception: it has just put up its VAT rate on hotels to 21%, but it seems that it is trying to reduce the number of tourists coming in, so that is not an example we want to follow. The one thing that has kept us just about competitive is not having a bed tax on top of all those other taxes.
To conclude—as you will be pleased to hear, Mr Efford—the levy is a bad idea from the point of view of the cost of living; it would add over £100 to a typical holiday for a family of four. It hits a sector that has already been hammered by national insurance contributions and business rates—a sector that is absolutely vital for employment, particularly for tackling youth unemployment, that is all about small business and that is important for seaside communities. I ask the Minister, and the Government, to think of the growth opportunity and about what international tourism can do for us. It is a growing global market that is largely AI-proof and plays to our strengths.
The Government say that they want economic growth, and this is a sector that can deliver it. I estimate that keeping on the path of the world growth rate for tourism rather than being below it would be worth between 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points extra in our economic growth every year. We have the capacity: it is true that some places, and certainly some individual attractions, are very busy, but it is not true for the country as a whole. Even in London, our biggest market, hotel penetration—the ratio of hotel rooms to the resident population—is still below that of Rome, Amsterdam or Madrid, for example. We score highly on cultural aspects, but low on value, which means that we are losing share to countries that take tourism very seriously and are actively trying to grow it. We can reverse that position—but not if we price ourselves out of contention.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for bringing forward this debate.
I have long campaigned for a visitor levy. York itself sees 1.7 million overnight stays—6.2 million visitors to our city—and as a result we recognise the cost of tourism to our local authority. Whether it is about tidying our streets, putting infrastructure in place, cleaning our city or making additional provisions, the pressure of tourism on our public services is being paid for by local residents. There is an equation where local residents feel that they pay into the system and tourism gains, but that tourists are not making their contribution. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member; he talked about the money, the taxation and the benefit that goes into the national funding pot from the taxation system but is not being invested in local communities.
Sir Julian Smith
I am a big supporter of the hon. Lady, and I do not want to attack her personally, but we have a big issue in York and North Yorkshire. The Mayor is proposing this tax, which will clobber my constituents’ businesses in North Yorkshire. It may be a benefit for York, but it will cause a massive problem for rural North Yorkshire.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Before you respond to that intervention, there are 10 Members on their feet and we have only just over half an hour for Back-Bench speeches, so that is roughly three and a half minutes each. Please bear in mind when you are speaking that the people behind you will have a three and a half minute limit—or less, if you speak for too long.
Rachael Maskell
I was coming to the point the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) raises, because I believe that the levy should be collected by local authorities. If the mayor collects it, it should be hypothecated to local areas so that they can determine the spend of that resource. Certainly I would propose that half the money be spent directly on tourism, through work with the industry, but there is also the opportunity to invest back into our communities and in local projects.
I would put in place exemptions for children; I think that would be appropriate. I would exempt certain forms of accommodation, camping and hostel accommodation, because we know that those are used for budget holidays. Of course we need to respect the cultural need of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people for overnight stays in different areas, but I certainly would include in a levy scheme short-term holiday lets. I just met the Minister to raise again the issue of short-term holiday lets, and the proper licensing system that we need in that respect.
I believe that this should be a flat-rate levy. I have always said that the price of a cup of coffee could be the benchmark—people would not think twice about going and getting an extra coffee. If it were something like £4, we would bring £6.8 million into our city and that would help our local economy. We will struggle to support our tourism industry otherwise, so I would encourage that factor.
We could use the money to promote the local tourism offer, from which the industry would gain, and could gain substantially. I am talking about putting on events, ensuring that we have better facilities and better infrastructure in our city, and supporting our bid to become a UNESCO world heritage site. All that would benefit not just York, but North Yorkshire and the wider region. It could include putting on projects such as Wild in Art and so on, to draw in even more tourism. I believe that a measure such as that could be seen as an investment in our future.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this incredibly important debate. Numerous constituents have contacted me about the proposals, which are causing great concern for the hospitality sector and tourist and charity groups across Keighley and Ilkley.
In February I met Toby Hammond, the lead volunteer for West Yorkshire Scouts. He first got in touch with me following comments made by Chief Scout Dwayne Fields about the impacts that the proposed tourist tax would have on youth groups such as the Scouts, Brownies and Girl Guides. For months, Toby has been campaigning tirelessly to seek an exemption from the proposed tourist tax for under-18s and volunteer groups. He has written to four metro mayors, 14 Members of Parliament and 159 local councillors, and amassed 64,000 views on social media posts to do with this campaign. I have no doubt that it was because of his efforts and others’ that West Yorkshire has now secured a full exemption from any future visitor levy for Scouts, Girl Guides and Brownies, as confirmed last night via a tweet by the Mayor of West Yorkshire on X.
Given those efforts, how must it have felt for Toby and other Scout, Brownie and Girl Guide leaders across West Yorkshire to be dismissed merely as scaremongers by Mayor of West Yorkshire Tracy Brabin? They have been raising these issues for months, but the mayor’s office refused to publicly back an exemption for Scouts and Girl Guides until late last night via a tweet on X. It seems that the West Yorkshire mayoralty jumped before it was pushed. I sincerely hope that the Minister will join me in encouraging all metro mayors across the country to guarantee an exemption for under-18s and charity groups from any additional levy on overnight stays, to avoid a postcode lottery scenario for volunteer-led groups.
On postcode lotteries, I have definitely won the lottery in representing Keighley and Ilkley, because it is a wonderful place with incredible attractions such as Cliffe Castle, East Riddlesden Hall, the moorlands and Brontë country—Ilkley and Haworth—which attract thousands of visitors a year. However, it is not London, Paris or Milan and therefore does not need to keep up with its so-called international counterparts, which is how one West Yorkshire Labour MP has tried to justify proposals for this levy to her constituents. The vast majority of people staying overnight in our area are British workers, families and young people, which means that it is not really a tourist tax at all. It is another tax on British people, which could cost an average family going on holiday in England an extra £100, meaning fewer nights spent overnight in accommodation in constituencies such as mine—in Keighley and Ilkley. I fear that once these funds are collected, there will be no ringfencing associated with the tax coming from places such as Ilkley and Haworth; it will simply go into the West Yorkshire pot to be spent elsewhere.
Quite frankly, there are no winners with this tax: our young people, businesses and constituents will see increased costs, and some businesses may never recover. Does the Minister agree that the businesses, Scout leaders and tourist groups that have shared their concerns about this tax with me are not scaremongers but good, hard-working people with genuine concerns about what a visitor levy could mean for them and their livelihoods?
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I am applying an informal three and a half minute time limit. If Members can keep to that, it would help me; otherwise, I will have to impose the limit rigidly.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am incredibly proud to represent the centre of the capital; Ronnie Scott’s, Abbey Road, Tate Britain and all the best museums are right here in the centre of London. Every year, 25 million tourists visit Westminster, spending £1.7 billion to support businesses and residents across London.
This debate has not focused enough on the essential principles of devolution and the role that different organisations play in supporting the tourism industry. We need to hear, again, that nine out of 10 of the most visited tourist destinations in Europe implement a tourist tax. I have listened to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—although I have to disagree with the hon. Member, because I do think that Brontë country is an international destination, as I am sure many of his constituents will agree—but Hampshire, Hartlepool, Hillingdon and Haworth will not have the same needs as Hyde Park. That is the fundamental principle that we need to focus on today.
I firmly support introducing an overnight visitor levy. It is the right thing to do to enable localities to accurately reflect the particular needs of their neighbourhoods. Taking a local and regional approach means that we have to look carefully at what London might need specifically. Unlike in combined authorities outside London, London borough leaders do not have a formal say in decision making about budgets at the Greater London Authority, so it would be the only major city in the country where local authorities would not have joint decision making over the levy mechanisms. I therefore support the mandation of a 50:50 split, allowing local authorities to keep part of the receipts and enabling boroughs such as Westminster to invest in the vital services that keep the heart of London a world-leading tourist destination. That could include investment in the public realm as well as investment in growth measures—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division. I am told to expect six votes, so I must suspend the sitting for about an hour and 15 minutes. If there are fewer, we can come back more quickly. Please come back as soon as the votes are finished.
Rachel Blake
As I was saying, what is right for Hampshire, Hartlepool, Hillingdon and Howarth is not necessarily right for Hyde Park. That is why devolving the power to implement this overnight visitor levy is the right way to go.
I ask the Minister to consider the arguments in favour of mandating a 50:50 split in London; unlike combined authorities outside London, we are the only major city in the country where local authorities do not have a joint decision-making mechanism. In 2023-24, Westminster city council spent £31 million on street cleaning—more than four times the amount per head of the average London borough—demonstrating the significance that inner-London boroughs place on keeping our streets clean and ready for tourists. Other visitor and commuter services total £18.3 million a year, so allowing local authorities to keep half of these receipts would be right for all the London boroughs that provide tourist attractions for our world-leading tourism destination. It is already standard practice for revenues to be ringfenced locally, including in Paris, New York and Amsterdam.
I also ask the Minister to think through the implications for the registration system introduced for short-term lets. In some parts of Westminster, up to 30% of homes are now used as short-term lets. Doubling the density of short-term lets is associated with an 8% growth in per-bedroom rental prices—or £4,500 per year. Short-term lets should be paying this levy, and the levy should be implemented in a way that makes sure we can gather data on who is letting out their home on a short-term basis. That should be factored into the design of any scheme. I am grateful for the chance to discuss these topics in this setting.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. North Norfolk has many things to be proud of, and our half-a-billion-pound tourism industry is high on that list. However, that can bring its challenges: a seasonal economy leads to insecure employment and makes it hard for businesses to plan for the future. We also know that an oversaturation of second homes and holiday lets in some areas has carved the soul out of communities. We have to take steps to balance that out.
That is why I remain firmly open to seeing how a visitor contribution levy could bring more money to North Norfolk. If levied at a similar rate to Wales, it could raise more than £2 million a year for my area. That could make a huge difference if it was invested into the towns and villages that are the tourism hotspots, by supporting our tourism businesses and by investing in skills and apprenticeships for our young people.
Much of the devil of such a policy will, however, be in the detail, so I am pleased that it is devolved to local areas to decide for themselves. I am keen to see the evidence from the policy in Wales to understand, for example, whether this can work and how it could be applied to Norfolk.
It will be vital for any income to be fully reinvested in the communities where it is gathered. Local Lib Dems fought similar battles with the Conservatives over the second home levy, to prevent them from taking the vast majority of that tax increase to plaster over their financial mismanagement of Norfolk county council and leaving us with less than 10p in the pound. The strong leadership of the Lib Dem district council ensured that North Norfolk got its fair share. Getting local investment is a red line for me in supporting any future visitor levy in our area.
I am also quite shocked by the posturing of local Conservatives, who have said that this would be the death of the tourism industry. They seem to be struggling with the fundamentals of geography and human behaviour: the Norfolk broads cannot be picked up and moved somewhere else with a different tax bracket; Blakeney’s grey seals—which make up 90% of England’s population—will not swim up the coast to somewhere cheaper; and Cromer pier is not going to be sawn off and reattached to a different coastal town.
It is frankly quite offensive to North Norfolk to suggest that a mere £1 a day extra is the difference that would make tourists think, “Well, Norfolk’s really not all that; we’ll go somewhere else instead.” Have those opposing this measure thought that a €7 fee in Barcelona makes the Sagrada Família a bit too pricey? Maybe Gaudí was not that good after all. The broads, the pier, the seals, the shops, the museums, the historic houses and our natural environment: that is our Sagrada Família, our wonder of the world. If people think so little of our area that they want to stand here today and tell tourists that it is not worth £1 a night, they do North Norfolk down.
There are many discussions still to have about this policy, and I look forward to engaging with residents and stakeholders. If we do this, we must get it right, co-designed with our tourism industry. If the proposal is not right for North Norfolk, I will not support it—it is as simple as that. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Norfolk county councillor.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Efford. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, and as an MP for Blackpool—a town built on tourism—it is important that I share my insight on the proposed visitor levies or tourist taxes, formed by the close work I have done with the industry at both local and national level.
The tourism pound has an impact far beyond accommodation providers. It supports our local pubs, restaurants, cafés, attractions, cultural venues, the high street and transport networks. However, businesses across the country tell us that rising costs and an unfair tax system are holding them back. Granted, the UK cannot compete with the weather in other European countries—although it is always sunny in Blackpool—but even when we can compete, we are barely placing in the race.
The UK currently ranks 113th in the world for tourism price competitiveness. We apply 20% VAT on accommodation, compared with just 7% in Germany and 10% in France, Italy and Spain. A couple staying one night in a three-star UK hotel already pay around £26 in direct tax, compared with an EU average of just over £16. Even a modest levy of £2 a night would widen that gap further.
While many of those countries have visitor levies, they are paired with lower VAT rates, making their overall offer more competitive. If the Government consider introducing such levies, I urge them to review the case for reducing VAT in hospitality and tourism, in line with our European partners.
Fears about the impact of visitor levies are proliferating within the tourism and hospitality sector. If this policy is to be implemented, it must be done in the right way and take businesses’ concerns into consideration. For example, a levy would introduce new administrative requirements, such as updating booking systems and collecting charges—a burden that will hit small, independent businesses, especially guest houses in Blackpool, particularly hard.
Levies would need to be implemented consistently and with clear reassurances that the revenue would cover administrative costs and stay local to benefit the areas generating it. Levies must also benefit local areas more broadly. The squeeze on local government funding, in particular, has had a significant impact on tourism, as councils such as my own are less able to invest in infrastructure to support the visitor economy.
By introducing a visitor levy, the Government have said they aim to give local leaders greater control over funding, particularly in high-traffic tourist areas such as my constituency. That is a welcome principle: the Government are right to recognise the importance of local decision making, ensuring that those with the best understanding of their region can tailor investment and develop their tourism economy as they see fit. However, a visitor levy must not be used to justify the withdrawal of existing Government support, a reassurance I ask Ministers to provide to me, the industry and local authorities. Revenue from any potential levy should be retained locally and kept outside core spending power to provide additional support for activities that directly benefit tourism, such as major events, cultural and heritage assets, and transport services.
From our brilliant airshow to the illuminations, Blackpool prides itself on large-scale, free events that bring hordes of tourists to our coast in search of a family and budget-friendly trip. Yet the value of overnight stays, along with average visitor spend, is falling against a backdrop of enhanced competition, a tourism offer in need of refreshing, and the ongoing challenge of identifying a sustainable funding model.
Local leaders are best placed to identify the infrastructure, cultural assets and improvements that spur growth, and the Government must consult meaningfully with them on their proposals. Equally, it is critical that local leaders engage with businesses and their communities throughout the process. Alongside that, we cannot ignore the wider pressures facing the sector. I and colleagues have called for reforms of business rates, a fairer approach to employer national insurance contributions, and a reduction in VAT for hospitality and tourism. Those issues remain central to the sector’s long-term viability.
In Blackpool, there is an ambition to expand the current enterprise zone along the promenade for hospitality and tourism businesses. I am grateful to Ministers for meeting me to discuss this idea, which has the potential to create jobs and unlock growth and investment along the golden mile in my constituency. Like local leaders, I recognise that a tourist tax has some potential to support the industry and our local economies, but only if it is designed with fairness, consistency and meaningful engagement. If it is not, it risks placing further strain on a sector that is already under pressure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for leading the debate.
Tourist infrastructure is an incredibly important issue in my constituency; I know the motion is about the visitor levy in England, but I want to reflect my constituency and the concerns there. I think the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have set the scene incredibly well. I may have a slightly different opinion from others in the Chamber—I apologise for not always thinking alike—but I have to reflect the opinions of my constituents.
I hear the concerns in relation to tourism levies, which could harm areas that rely on tourism and burden them with additional charges. For context, I represent a beautiful constituency, which is as equally coastal as it is rural. I am aware of numerous Airbnbs along our peninsula, which hundreds of people come to stay in each year. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that to keep our tourism sites alive we must keep the price down. What is being proposed will have a clear impact on the tourism opportunities on the mainland. For us back home, it sends a cloud over tourism that a levy may, at some point, come our way.
I, like everybody else, understand that the value of money in my hand is important. I am, after all, an Ulster Scot and for us, every pound is a prisoner. That is a fact of life, and I always want to see value for money. I am also inclined to go for what I would refer to as affordable options. I believe that, in today’s age, many people are like me and the price of staycations and holidays is already, in some cases, extortionate. It may be a small fee, but people do not want to be asked to pay more just to stay in a certain area.
There is an even bigger issue back home when we look at the comparison between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because any levies would have an impact on both sides of the border. Adding a levy back home would make Northern Ireland relatively more expensive and push visitors to stay in the south. The potential impact of a levy on us in Northern Ireland would be the same as what the right hon. Gentleman has referred to here.
If something of this nature were ever to be introduced, clarity would be needed about where the money would be used. That question has been raised in almost every contribution. Local councils and authorities must provide clear road maps, and if people staying are asked to pay an additional fee, it should go towards the tourism sector in that specific area, not to other council services that do not benefit the industry.
The levy would not impact large chain hotels, but I worry about the family B&Bs. The right hon. Gentleman, when he set the scene, specifically pushed that issue hard. Nobody can deny that the levy would have a detrimental effect. Those B&Bs might not want to pass the additional fee on to their consumer, but they might find that they cannot sustain their business because people do not want to stay somewhere where they have to pay more.
I recognise the potential benefits that a visitor levy could bring in supporting local services and infrastructure, but we must proceed with caution. We need caution, we need a review and we need understanding before we go anywhere.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing the debate.
South Shields is a beautiful coastal town that really comes alive in the summer months. The overall borough of South Tyneside has nearly 6 million visitors each year, adding millions to our local economy. Sandhaven beach in South Shields is a Sunday Times beach of the year and the famous Great North Run has its finishing line on our Leas. When tourists visit us, they get the best hospitality that the UK has to offer, the cosiest of places to stay, and a welcome like no other. We are naturally a friendly bunch who love our little part of the north-east and are proud to call it our home.
Given the context of rising energy costs, high business rates, employer national insurance contributions, minimum wage increases and high VAT, a tourist tax is the wrong tax at the wrong time. I understand that some of those issues are beyond the Government’s control. I know all too well that the decline in communities like mine, which suffered under the last Tory Government, will not be reversed overnight. I understand that national insurance contributions were necessary to fund key public services and I absolutely support the national minimum wage; its introduction under the previous Labour Government transformed my life.
I have been vocal, however—and I continue to be, along with colleagues—about working with the Government on a business rates reduction across all hospitality and a VAT cut. As a sector, hospitality is being hit hardest by the accumulation of those costs. Despite those ongoing discussions, the new, unexpected development of a tourism tax has felt like a kick in the guts for me and my local businesses. It is one burden too many for us, and it will result in job losses and more boarded-up businesses in the centre of my town.
That extra burden is very likely to tip hotels, B&Bs and small providers over the edge, and will be felt most acutely by low-income visitors. It feels as though the tax is simply a quick win to divert more money into regional coffers, but with drastic long-term consequences and adverse impacts locally. It feels like short-termism at its worst and does not feel very strategic. UKHospitality modelling estimates that the tax will lead to 33,000 job losses, just short of £2 million in lost tourism spending and a reduction in tax receipts to the Treasury of £688 million.
Hospitality is the largest employer in South Shields. We also have high levels of unemployment, which is rising for those aged between 18 and 24. The tax seems at odds with the Government’s aims for growth, youth employment and reviving local economies such as mine. That is why it was never in our manifesto. Just last year, the Government were continuing to rule the tax out. I believe that the legislation that will enable the tax is currently going through the House of Lords in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I implore my hon. Friend the Minister to revert to last year’s sensible position, because I have yet to meet a single business, trade body, operator or member of the wider public, especially in South Shields, who supports the proposal.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As everyone knows, Tiverton and Minehead is the most beautiful constituency in the country, and I am privileged to represent a part of the country that sits firmly in the tourist belt and has such rich heritage. In my constituency, tourism is not an abstract construct—it is the lifeblood of our local economy. On Exmoor alone, the visitor economy supports around two thirds of all employment. We have 8.4 million visitor days a year, generating economic activity of £682 million.
In principle, I am a firm believer in localising power and placing decisions as close as possible to the communities affected. Therefore, the idea of giving local authorities the ability to introduce a visitor levy is not something I instinctively oppose. However, we must be honest about the context. Hospitality businesses are operating in the most extraordinarily challenging climate. Many are already swamped by red tape and administrative burdens, and introducing a new levy now risks imposing yet another layer of cost and complexity. Businesses will have to update systems, retrain staff and absorb the administrative load. For many small operators, that is not a trivial undertaking.
There have been references to European countries, but the fact remains that visitor levies across Europe typically sit alongside much lower VAT rates. If we want to maintain our competitive edge, the Government must think long and hard about this issue and get the balance right. If they wedded the tax to a VAT slash, as proposed by my party, they would have my ear, but only on the basis that it was a hypothecated tax for the sole benefit of my constituents.
If the Government are determined to press ahead, I seek very clear assurances on behalf of the people I represent. Any revenues raised must be ringfenced, without condition, for reinvestment in the local visitor economy—and, crucially, within the immediate geography in which they are generated. They must not be absorbed into broader local authority budgets unless clearly aligned to defined visitor economy strategy. Otherwise, any levy becomes an additional tax, not a growth tool.
There are further concerns; the removal of rurality from funding formulae has already disadvantaged large, sparsely populated constituencies such as mine, which spans two counties. The rural premium is real and it is significant. Areas without mayoral structures could be left at a disadvantage. Unless that is addressed before implementation, the gap will only widen.
Crucially, we must ask whether any levy would genuinely support the local economy, or whether the risks to the hospitality sector would outweigh the benefits. Visitor spending does not stop at the hotel door. It sustains pubs, shops, attractions and transport. Any reduction in visitor numbers could ripple across the entire local economy.
I place on record my positive recognition of the Somerset & Exmoor local visitor economy partnership, which is already doing vital work to strengthen and co-ordinate our tourism offer. Any levy must complement, not undermine, such efforts.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate.
As Liberals, we strongly believe that power should be handed down to the lowest level and that we should give local areas the tools and ability to shape their own future. In principle, I would therefore support giving combined authorities the powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy—but, in this economic climate, that does not mean that we necessarily should. Let us be clear: hamstringing regional mayors with inadequate funding and then handing them the power to tax is not devolution—it is simply passing the buck.
Across North Yorkshire, from Whitby to Harrogate, from the dales to the moors, tourism is not a luxury, but a lifeline for many communities. Hotel owners in my constituency tell me that if the money comes back into the local visitor economy, they can make it work. That is a reasonable position—but they also say they have been promised investment before, and that is where the scepticism lies.
Tourism is a vital part of the economy of many local areas, supporting jobs, local businesses and community services. One topic that has not been talked about much today is the support from town and parish councils with the hard graft of organising events, supporting culture and bringing people into our communities. That is why I am supporting both Harrogate’s and Knaresborough’s bids to be towns of culture. The problem is that there is no requirement to involve them in that tourism strategy, or even necessarily on what a visitor levy may look like. That is a glaring omission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) cannot be here today, but she has told me about the work that her town council is doing in organising such events as the world-renowned Shakespeare birthday parade, which attracts visitors from across the UK and beyond. Under these proposals, the council could be expected to deliver the footfall to the town and the economy, but denied a say on the charge. That simply cannot be right.
If we are serious about devolution, local must mean local—not just mayors in their ivory towers, feathering their own pet projects and their nests. We should be including voices from town halls, parish councils and the communities they represent. That principle must extend to how any money raised from a visitor levy is spent. I have heard clearly from my own town councillors in Harrogate, Josie Caven and Graham Dixon, that if the mayoral tourist tax is introduced, people expect to see the basics done properly. Some of that revenue should go to funding services that tourists use—for instance, the cleaning, fixing, painting and refurbishing of parks and public toilets. If people are asked to pay more, they will expect to see where the money goes. If people cannot see where it goes, they will not believe a word about why it has been raised in the first place.
Crucially, people want to have an input and a proper say. That is why, in communities across the country, local Liberal Democrats are on the ground, working hard for their communities. They know much better than some of these regional mayors how any levy should be spent. For instance, across the other side of the Pennines in Stockport, local Lib Dem champion Niki Meerman is campaigning to bring a pavilion back into use at Bredbury rec. The local Lib Dem team in Offerton, led by Councillor Will Dawson and Councillor Dan Oliver, along with other local champions such as Jamie Hirst, wants to make sure the community gets the leisure facilities that have long been promised. Jason Jones is working to bring back Woodbank Hall into use. Those are not vanity projects. These are the things that make communities work.
Tom Gordon
They may well be focus articles too. The local community champions that we have on the ground are making the point that if money is raised locally, it should be shaped locally, spent locally and seen locally. That applies across England.
Councillor Hannah Kitching in Barnsley put it to me very clearly: if South Yorkshire ends up with a tourist tax, people will expect to see real investment in public transport—connecting the whole region, not just parts of it. That means expanding such things as the Supertram network beyond Sheffield and Rotherham, so that growth is shared from the visitor economy and not concentrated.
In my constituency, I have heard real concerns from businesses that a tourist tax has the potential to suck up money and take away from Harrogate and Knaresborough, rather than adding value to our community. If we are going to end up with yet another tax imposed by another Labour politician, it should at least fund the issues that will drive tourism and growth in our local area, for instance my long-standing campaign to dual the line between Knaresborough and York or the community campaign to get a restoration package for Knaresborough castle. Those things would bring people to the area and add, rather than taking away. They would not just be cases of tax and spend for the sake of it; they would deliver visible, tangible improvements that local residents and tourists alike would actually use.
Let us be honest about the context we are in. Hospitality businesses are already under pressure from every direction. Costs are up, business rates are rising and the Government are making it harder to employ the very people the sector depends on. A sector cannot be taxed into growth, especially when it is already struggling to stay afloat. When Ministers or mayors say, “It’s only a pound or two a night,” that might sound small to us, but it does not feel small to a family booking a week away or a small hotel running on tight margins. In a domestic tourism market such as ours, price sensitivity is not a detail; it is everything.
As it stands, the proposal’s fundamental flaw is that we would not necessarily end up taxing tourists; we would tax staying. Day-trippers, who often add strain to local infrastructure pay nothing, but those who stay overnight, supporting local jobs and businesses, pay more. We risk sending the signal, “Come for the day, but don’t stay the night.”
North Yorkshire is the size of a small country, so who are we really taxing? More often than not, it will not be international tourists, but people from our own region: a family from Harrogate staying in Whitby or a couple from York spending a weekend in the dales. That leads to the concerns that this would not be a tourist tax in North Yorkshire, but a tax on our own communities enjoying their own county.
The issues of fairness extend even further. Scout leaders have raised real concerns about whether they would be impacted. Are we seriously considering a policy that would put a price on a Scout camp, a school trip or young carers receiving residential respite weekends? We should be removing barriers for young people, who have already had a rough deal from this Government, not adding to them.
Perhaps the biggest question is: why now? The reality is that this has not been driven by a tourism strategy; it has been driven by funding gaps. The Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, David Skaith, is operating with far less funding than many other devolved mayoralties, despite covering a vast rural geography. Instead of fixing that, we are handing over a simple new power to tax. When the Government will not fund regions properly, they give them a new tax and call it empowerment. Let us call it what it is: a workaround for underfunding, not a plan for growth.
If Ministers are serious about this policy, three things must be clear. First, every penny must be reinvested into the local community it was raised in, and towns such as Harrogate and Knaresborough should not be used as cash cows for other places. Secondly, businesses should have a genuine say—not just a consultation exercise, but a seat at the table. Thirdly, there must be clear exemptions for young people, charities and community groups. Without those safeguards, this is not a visitor levy; it is simply another pressure on an already stretched sector.
Tourism in North Yorkshire is not just about places; it is about people and the welcome that they offer. That is what brings people back time and again. Yes, let us empower local areas and give them the tools, but let us not pretend that this policy is fully thought through, or that it would deliver the fair deal that our communities deserve.
Before I finish, I have questions for the Minister, some of which we have heard already. Will this levy apply to short-term lets, such as Airbnbs? If not, how is that fair? What exemptions will there be for Scouts, charities, young people and unpaid carers? What formal role, if any, will town and parish councils have in this scheme? How can we ensure that their voices are heard by these mayors? How will the Government guarantee that the money raised is not just spent locally, but spent with genuine input from local communities? If we get this wrong, we risk pushing our tourism and hospitality sector over the edge, and cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate and speaking so wisely, enthusiastically and knowledgeably about the sector in his opening remarks; to the relief of everybody, that means that I will not speak as long as I originally thought I would.
I have to start with a basic question to the Minister: what do the Labour Government have against the tourism industry? I mean that in all seriousness because, since the Chancellor’s first Budget, we have seen more than 200,000 job losses, and more than half of them have been in the tourism and hospitality sector. Why does that sector seem to be singled out for additional taxes on top of the burdensome ones already imposed across the breadth of the private sector?
Why does the tourism sector seem to be particularly paying the price, especially given how important it is to the UK economy? It brings joy to millions of people—both domestic and overseas visitors—every year, generates more than £147 billion in economic activity and employs well over 2 million people—about 3.5 million, if we include the broader tourism and hospitality sector. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out, it is also a major generator of export revenue, adding more than £30 billion a year. That is greater than the car industry and greater than the defence industry, but it is being singled out for yet more taxes. Why? How often do we have to say that we cannot generate economic growth by whacking up taxes, and we cannot create jobs by making it more expensive to employ people? That is why we are seeing unemployment.
Before I go on to further details and probably more negative comments, I want to take the opportunity, as many colleagues have, to praise the sector. Our tourism industry is a British success story, and we are very proud of it. Everyone who has contributed has spoken proudly about the amazing things in their constituencies that attract people domestically and from around the world. It is not just the overt tourism things, but our beautiful landscape, incredible heritage, specific tourist offerings and beautiful beaches. We have a lot to offer the world, so we should be proud of this sector, but that raises the question of why it is being hit so hard. It is a major employer in every one of our constituencies.
This is already a highly taxed sector. Those are not just my words; the former Tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said that a few months ago. He also said the Government had no intention of bringing in a tourism tax, but a few weeks later the Government are doing just that.
It has been pointed out that this was not a manifesto commitment, just as the national insurance increases were not. The credibility of this policy is therefore already in question, especially when it comes on top of those national insurance increases and the changes to the thresholds, as well as business rates changes that have undermined the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, and significant above-inflation increases in the minimum wage. We support and have supported increases in the minimum wage, but the increase so far above inflation for younger people has had a disproportionately negative impact on their employment prospects. The tourism sector is primarily an avenue for young people, so we have had increased unemployment and huge amounts of missed opportunity for people to have what could have been their first job in an amazing sector.
It has been said frequently today that this is not just a tourism tax, but a tax on overnight stays—I agree with my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who made that point a few moments ago. It is an overnight accommodation tax, and it is therefore unclear who exactly would be within the remit. Yes, obviously hotels and hostels, but is it caravans, tents and B&Bs? Will the private rented sector and other sectors be included? Who would be included? Would there be exceptions for groups such as Guides and others, who rely heavily on and get great joy out of overnight stays?
As has been said, even if it is proposed at an early stage that the level should be £2 per person per night, that is an additional £56 on a family holiday for four over a seven-day period. That might not sound like a lot to a lot of people, but in the shoulder seasons in a caravan park, for example, it could add a quarter or more to the cost of a holiday. That would make the decision about whether to go very real, and could do immense damage to the shoulder season. One of the most important things we need to do, particularly for our coastal resorts, is extend the shoulder season to increase the sector’s productivity.
I am sure the Minister will comment about how this tax fits into the overall finances of local government and could help local authorities, but there are many practical concerns about how it could be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire asked whether we could get a guarantee that the money would be ringfenced. There is a suspicion that the tourism industry would be subsidising and paying towards broader local government finance. Would the tourism tax end up paying for adult and children’s social care? Unless the Minister can guarantee that that will not be the case, that will always be the suspicion.
Tourism taxes are often brought in around the world and then spent on additional tourism and marketing, tourist centres or supporting local tourism offerings. If there is a suspicion that this tourism tax will be spent on other things, it will be doomed to fail from the beginning. The history of all these taxes also shows that, although they may be brought in at a very low level, they always go in just one direction: up and up. So the £56 a week I mentioned could quickly become a much bigger amount. Is the Minister therefore considering putting a cap in the legislation on the maximum amount that could be achieved? Other hon. Members have mentioned that sometimes when these taxes are brought in, there is the quid pro quo of a lower VAT rate; very rarely is there both a high VAT rate and a tourism tax.
There are other points to consider. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the point about the challenges if one area raises a tax and another does not, and he has experience of that on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What if Cornwall brought in a tax but Devon did not? Businesses right on the border would face stark issues because of perfectly reasonable decisions made by holidaymakers. That would be through no fault of their own, but because of a decision made by local government.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) spoke of the peculiarities of local government in London, where we have the boroughs and the mayor, and that point has been raised by Conservative councillors as well. She made the reasonable argument that if the tax is brought in, it maybe needs to be split; otherwise, all the benefit goes to one and some of the costs go to others.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) raised the fear that if this tax is brought in, there could be 33,000 or more job losses in a sector that is already suffering—I mentioned the over 100,000 jobs that have already been lost in hospitality and leisure. There are real concerns here.
I have further questions for the Minister. The key one is about ringfencing: can we please make sure that we can include in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—if it comes in—that the money will be ringfenced for tourism? Has an assessment been made of the impact of this tax? Can the Minister confirm whether she has had discussions about VisitBritain and VisitEngland spending, which has also been cut? That is the argument I am making: why are the Government constantly attacking this sector, reducing its funding and increasing taxes on it, when it used to be a great success story? Could the Minister confirm whether she will support Conservative party proposals for 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure? There is an alternative to constant increases in taxes.
Whatever the problems may be with local government finances—and there are challenges—we all recognise that they should not and cannot be resolved off the back of an already struggling tourism industry. This is the wrong tax at the wrong time. But if it is coming in, can the Minister assure us that the money raised from tourism will absolutely, 100% be spent on tourism?
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing today’s debate on the proposed visitor levy in England. It has been an absolute pleasure to hear from—I think—nine Members on the Back Benches about their constituencies, all of which, I am certain, are equally lovable and great places to visit.
As Members have set out, this is an extremely important issue across the country. I respect the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who speaks for the Opposition. He has a passion for the tourism and visitor economy, and he is right to say—as other Members, including the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, set out—what an important part of our economy the tourism industry is. I agree with the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham on that.
I will focus some of my remarks on devolution, because the approach we are taking is based in the strengthening of devolution. We now know that mayoral devolution works in terms of economic growth. From the construction of the Elizabeth line here in our great capital to Greater Manchester’s integrated transport, devolution has delivered results in getting the infrastructure that we need for growth.
I just say to hon. Members that I am not immune to the arguments they have made about the challenges to economies in different parts of the country; those points have been well made. If somebody had told 13-year-old me that one day people would go for a mini-break on Merseyside, I would have thought they were barking up the wrong tree. But, believe it or not, tourists and visitors of all kinds have saved the city I love, so I am not remotely immune to the arguments Members are making. It is extremely important that we consider carefully how to grow those parts of our economy that really need it, and particularly coastal areas. I take what Members have said very seriously, and I will consider it as part of the Government’s consultation.
When I was listening to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire describe very effectively the effect of tourism on our economy, I wrote down the word “Brexit”, given the effect it has had. It is too late in the day for me to become grumpy now, so I will just crack on, because this is a serious subject. The truth is that our country’s economy needs to grow at a faster rate than it has over the past decade and a half or so. The question is how we make that happen. The truth about our country is that power is extremely centralised, which means we have historically taken decisions for those places with the most power—largely the south-east.
However, recent decades of devolution—under both parties that have been in power—have begun to show a different story: when we give local leaders real powers, they can take better decisions, invest for the long term and change their fortunes. That is what devolution is all about. Mayors already hold levers for growth, from transport to planning, skills and housing.
Alison McGovern
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he first allows me to give a little shout-out to my local mayor, Steve Rotheram. The Centre for Cities recently found that over the past decade under his leadership the employment rate in Liverpool has gone from 61% to 71%—a 10-point increase. That is a miracle, and I pay tribute to Steve Rotheram for his work on that.
Tom Gordon
I completely agree, and as Liberal Democrats we want to see devolution and the handing-down of powers. But, again, I come back to the question whether it is really meaningful devolution if, when I ask the Labour Mayor of York and North Yorkshire about removing the 9 o’clock time limit on disabled bus passes, his answer is that he does not have the funding to do it. These are not real choices if the funding settlements are not there in the first place.
Alison McGovern
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to respond to a point that a number of Members raised. We have just concluded the local Government funding settlement for the next three years, so we have set the path for local Government funding. This question before us is a separate conversation; it is about whether, in theory, as part of devolution, we should enable mayors—if they choose to, and they do not have to—to use this power to invest in and grow their economies. That is a completely separate question from local government funding, which I could bore this Chamber for England on, but I am not going to.
In her speech last week, the Chancellor set out that if we are serious about growth across the country and not just in a few places, we must go further. Giving towns and cities more say over their revenue is essential. Our international counterparts give city leaders real fiscal powers, and we want to begin to make progress in closing that gap for English mayors. That is the context for the proposed visitor levy we have been discussing. Its purpose is to address the gap between the responsibilities we place on mayors and the funding they have in order to meet them. A modest levy can provide a reliable income stream that mayors can reinvest in local infrastructure, transport and the visitor economy itself.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked me to spell out what will be in primary legislation, which I am obviously not able to do at this point. However, I have heard what Members have said and I understand where they are coming from, and we will take that on board as we move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) also asked about that issue, and we will set out the legislative process as we move ahead.
Emma Lewell
When I was looking through the guidance, it seemed to indicate that mayors will have to consult local authorities and local industry before they come to any decision, but there is no requirement to hold discussions with local MPs, who arguably know their constituencies far better than any mayor ever could. Could the Minister look at that for me, please?
Alison McGovern
If mayors are not talking to their local Members of Parliament, they are missing an opportunity and an important part of their role. I will certainly take what my hon. Friend says into consideration as we move forward with this.
We have seen internationally how well-designed visitor levies can support growth, making places better to live, work in and visit, while also strengthening tourism and local businesses. Visitor levies have been used internationally for tourism, promotion and marketing, sustainable tourism projects, public transport, parks, public facilities, cultural heritage, restoration and so on.
The principle is very straightforward: visitors who benefit from local services and amenities make a fair contribution to maintaining and improving them. That is fiscal devolution. Mayors will be best placed to judge whether a levy is right for their area, reflecting different priorities, their own economies and local democratic accountability. That is the point I want to emphasise. Hon. Members have mentioned different parts of England and different economies, a point I accept entirely. That is the whole point of devolution. If decisions about the economy are taken only in this postcode, they will not be right, because England’s economy is extremely diverse.
I want to turn briefly to questions about exemptions, specifically scouts and guides. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) who spoke passionately about the campaign run by his constituents is sadly not here, but I hope he might find out that I applaud the civic responsibility shown by those young people.
The consultation proposed that the levy would apply to commercially let short-term accommodation, not a main residence, as queried by a couple of hon. Members. This is obviously a consultation, and we will say more when we bring forward proposals.
Several national exemptions were also proposed, such as stays on registered Gypsy and Traveller sites where it is a primary residence, which a couple of hon. Members mentioned; charitable or non-profit accommodation for shelter, respite or refuge; and certain types of temporary accommodation. I take the point about scouts and guides very seriously. Final decisions will be set out in the Government’s consultation response.
A number of Members mentioned the cost of family holidays, and I want to flag that that issue is worth bearing in mind, particularly as we did not do all that work on the child poverty strategy to improve family incomes if they cannot afford a break, which many families up and down the country truly need right now.
The devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales have already legislated to introduce visitor levies and we are learning carefully from their experience. We also want to learn from those who would be affected by a levy in England, which is why we have taken a thorough and open approach to consultation. We received more than 1,000 responses from mayors, local authorities, hospitality representatives, independent accommodation providers and many others. Those responses covered a wide range of views, and they will continue to inform our thinking about the design of this power.
On the use of revenues, any money raised through a visitor levy should be reinvested in those places where it is generated. That is why we propose that the decision on how those revenues are spent should sit with local leaders, who can best understand local needs, pressures and opportunities. The levy must be fair and proportionate, which is why we consulted on the different types of accommodation to which it should apply. We asked whether there should be a threshold below which providers are not liable, and proposed a small number of national exemptions, which I have spelled out.
We also sought views on how the levy should be charged. In the consultation, we asked about a percentage-based rate, which would scale with the cost of a stay, but we also recognise the potential benefits of alternative approaches, such as a flat-rate model. Recognising that local leaders know their area best, we asked whether mayors should have the flexibility to set levy rates locally, reflecting local priorities. Those questions, alongside many others, are being considered carefully by my Department and the Treasury as part of the next stage of policy development. I will ensure that other Ministers involved receive a copy of Hansard that covers this debate.
The Government will set out their legislative priorities for the second Session of this Parliament in the King’s Speech, which we expect to provide the framework for local leaders to introduce a visitor levy before the end of this Parliament. Between now and then, we will continue to engage closely with all those who may be affected to ensure that this policy is well designed and locally led and that it delivers for communities as well as for visitors. I take it as read that Members who have contributed know that my door is always open to them if they want to discuss this issue.
The proposals we have discussed reflect a clear direction of travel for this Government. We want to give leaders the powers and tools they need to support growth, to introduce policies that can help shape their communities and to give their place the strongest possible future. By strengthening devolution and giving communities a greater say over their own revenues, we can build a system that is simpler, more accountable and better able to deliver for the people of this country.
Again, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for securing this debate. I look forward to continuing to work with Members from right across the House and with local partners as we move forward in developing this policy.
Damian Hinds
Thank you very much, Mr Efford, for presiding over proceedings. I thank everybody who has taken part in what I think has been a very good discussion in this two-part debate, and I thank the Minister for her considered response.
Broadly, there are three main objections to this new tax. The first concerns the cost of living, the second concerns adding costs to a sector that has already withstood a lot of costs, and the third concerns international competitiveness. I say gently to a couple of colleagues who spoke that they cannot just wish away the law of the elasticity of demand. Yes, it is true that the Norfolk broads are unique, but on the international market, there is also the Loire valley and the Black Forest. Yes, London is unique, but for people who want to come and do high-end shopping and go to cultural things, there is also Paris and Milan.
I have only two asks. First, I ask the Minister to talk to colleagues and other Ministers, as she said she would, to consider the growth opportunity from this sector, and to calculate how many people would have to be deterred from visiting for the new tax to be value destructive, just in terms of the tax take from the VAT on hotel stays, food and beverages, attractions and everything else, quite apart from the overall effect on the wider economy and job creation.
My second ask is to everybody else, especially Labour MPs. We will all be told repeatedly that this tax will be ringfenced, earmarked and reinvested into the visitor economy, so that it will bring more people in and create more jobs. Just hold the Government to that. To the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, I also say this: the only way she can guarantee that is to see it in black and white on a Bill that becomes an Act of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the proposed visitor levy in England.
Waste Crime: Knowsley
(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
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of waste crime in Knowsley.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am really pleased to have secured this debate on waste crime in Knowsley. I know this is something that my hon. Friend the Minister cares deeply about; she has met me to discuss this issue many times, and I am grateful for her genuine and meaningful engagement with finding solutions.
As the Minister knows, waste crime is a national scandal, and it is felt acutely in parts of my constituency. It is important to call it what it is: serious criminality on an industrial scale. Some 38 million tonnes of waste are dumped illegally every year. What does that look like? It is enough to fill Wembley stadium 35 times over. The cost to the taxpayer is more than a billion quid a year. The scale of this is enormous, and it is often tied to organised crime, money laundering and modern slavery. It is seriously damaging communities such as mine, but unfortunately it is thriving. When The Guardian describes it as the “new narcotics”, I have to agree.
I know the Minister understands this, which is why I know she and this Labour Government will tackle it head on through the new waste crime action plan, which I strongly welcome. I look forward to hearing in her response how this plan will help people in Knowsley, where we have two major sites of concern.
The first site is what I have named the “Simonswood stink”. Although it is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton)—I thank her for her work and support on this—it primarily affects my constituents who live in Kirkby. It is completely out of control. While the people of Kirkby, my local Labour councillors—and, indeed, those across Knowsley—and I have been campaigning consistently on this, I must say that the Reform-led Lancashire county councillors and council have been beyond useless and have done absolutely nothing on this matter, on a site in their local authority jurisdiction.
People in parts of Kirkby are living with thick dust and a foul stench day in, day out. They tell me about issues with their health—nausea, headaches, respiratory issues and throwing up. Kids are missing out on education because schools sometimes have to shut for days due to the dust and smell. Even when they are in school, they are sometimes not allowed to play outside because of it; they are cooped up. Home life is severely affected as well. Doors and windows cannot be opened, gardens cannot be used, and washing cannot be hung out without being coated in thick dust. Cars that are washed are almost immediately covered in a thick film of soot.
Maria is really worried about her 10-month-old granddaughter’s health. She has a respiratory tract infection, and Maria is anxious that the site is making it worse or may even be the cause. Michelle has told me that since moving to the area, she has had constant nausea and headaches from the smell. Gina says it has given her child a persistent sore throat, while Joanne and her husband are having breathing problems. Hon. Members should see the photos that people send me and post online. When I am out and about in that part of the constituency campaigning, I see homes, streets and cars covered in this absolutely shocking thick dust. Hon. Members should see the size of this waste dump. It is not meant to be more than five metres high—that is a joke. It looks like the Welsh mountains.
This has been going on for years. I have been campaigning about it since I was elected—holding specific surgeries on the matter, promoting petitions, raising visibility with posters and stickers, meeting Ministers, asking questions here and pushing the Environment Agency to address it—but I am getting really fed up. I am really frustrated because the progress is just far too slow: nothing seems to be happening. People are living with this on the daily. I do not want them to go through yet another summer of this, which is when the stink and the dust get worse.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this forward—I spoke to her beforehand as well. She has outlined a serious waste-crime issue specific to her area. She is probably fortunate to have a Minister who will respond in a positive way, and I look forward to that response. However, it is not just an issue in Knowsley; it is an issue everywhere, including in my constituency.
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that, for rural communities, part of the problem with challenging those committing waste crime is the isolation of the countryside? When it comes to the Minister’s response on how to address that, there must be other ways, such as extra policing or CCTV, to catch those doing this.
Anneliese Midgley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which will come as a surprise to no one. Yes, I know that Labour’s waste-crime action plan addresses many of the concerns that he has raised, and I am sure that the Minister will go into that in more detail in her response.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Fleetwood stinks again today, but the Jameson Road landfill site still has not been closed. After 14 years of Conservative cuts to all our public services, bodies such as the Environment Agency are on their knees. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Environment Agency desperately needs more boots on the ground to take on the criminals who care nothing for our communities or our planet?
Anneliese Midgley
I know that my hon. Friend has done such hard work for her constituency of Blackpool North and Fleetwood in campaigning on this. We are working closely together on this issue, and I absolutely agree: a big part of the problem is about the resources and enforcement powers of the Environment Agency, which, again, Labour’s waste plan will go some way to addressing. I am sure the Minister will respond to us with more detail about that.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has outlined clearly the issues caused at Simonswood in my constituency, which my constituents are also really concerned about. Constituents on the other side of my constituency are also dealing with a very similar problem at the St Joseph’s college site. Would my hon. Friend agree that, if the Environment Agency cannot or does not act promptly and robustly when we have these problems, it leads to a significant erosion of trust in the Environment Agency—and, actually, in Government agencies as a whole?
Anneliese Midgley
Absolutely. I pay tribute, once again, to my hon. Friend for the work that she has been doing with me on that specific site in her constituency. She is right. In a moment, I will move on to another site with major issues, but where the Environment Agency did move swiftly, which has made such a difference. I absolutely agree with her.
I do not want my constituents in Kirkby to face another summer with this stench and smell. Summer is something that we should look forward to, but they are going to be dreading it.
I will move on to the next waste dump, which I have briefly mentioned. Late last year, between 15,000 and 20,000 tonnes of waste was illegally dumped just off the M57 and East Lancs Road. That is enough to fill more than 12 Olympic-sized swimming pools, and it is one of the largest illegal waste sites in the country. If those roads had to close because there were any issues or problems from that waste dump, 800 businesses could be affected, with 20,000 employees struggling, or not able, to get into work.
These sites show that there has been a failure throughout the system. Taken together, they send a message that Knowsley is being treated as a dumping ground, and that is impossible for me and my constituents to ignore. We can see what is happening across the country. The Government have rightly stepped in to support the clean-up of illegal waste sites, first in Oxford, and now announced for Wigan, Lancashire and Sheffield. That is great, but what about the dumps affecting Knowsley? I am sure that the Minister will understand why my constituents and I see that as unfair. It is not right for my constituents and struggling local authority to have to pick up the tab for outright criminal behaviour.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I wholeheartedly support her campaign for her constituents, given the appalling situation they find themselves in. Does she agree that issues are often also at street level where, sadly, a tiny minority of residents drop off mattresses, old furniture and bags of rubbish, leaving them at the end of the street, causing a local stink and an eyesore? In my area, that is being tackled by the local authority, but we would like more resources. It is important that the Minister is present, and I look forward to her addressing the issue later.
Anneliese Midgley
I absolutely agree: this matter affects us across all our constituencies. In the action plan, I have read about some good measures, but they need to be put into action. I am sure that the Minister will go into that in more detail.
I finish with four questions for the Minister. First of all, will she look at whether Knowsley could receive the same level of support as other areas that have been cleaned up following Government intervention? Secondly, will the Government ensure that struggling local authorities are not left to pick up the bill for large-scale organised waste crime? Thirdly, what will actually change to ensure earlier intervention, so that no community has to endure what a number of my constituents are living with now? Finally, what will the consequences be for the criminals, so that this is just not worth it for them?
My constituents deserve better. They should not have to live like that. They should not be breathing this in, cleaning it off their homes, missing out on education or reorganising their lives around it, and they should not feel like they are being overlooked or left behind—but right now, that is exactly how it feels to us. That is not acceptable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I have slightly more time than normal, so I hope that we can have a bit of discussion because I am absolutely passionate about tackling waste crime. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for securing this debate and to all hon. colleagues who made such valuable points.
I say first that we have a programme called Pride in Place. Everyone’s environment starts at their front door, and if their front door has dog mess or fly-tipping on it, or if, as we have heard today, their car is covered in dust from an illegal waste site—or from a permitted waste site in breach of its permits, as the lawyer on my shoulder would say—then people do not feel at ease where they live. Those waste criminals and permit breachers violate our spaces.
Organised criminals, as we heard, are exploiting the waste sector for profit. They have moved in on a large scale over the past 15 years, on the Conservatives’ watch. They damage our environment, threaten public safety and undercut decent businesses doing the right thing, and they are making a lot of money out of it. That happened under the previous Government and was allowed to continue, so that it became a consequence-free crime.
The Environmental Services Association estimates that 20% of all waste in England is illegally managed. That costs our economy more than £1 billion. In the 2024 financial year, criminals evaded at least £150 million in landfill tax. They do not pay it, so we all pay it. Waste crime is organised crime. Waste crime is serious crime, and this Government will treat it as such. We are calling time on waste crime.
What have we done? We have put boots on the ground and we are putting drones in the air. Since coming into office, we have boosted the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget by 50%: it has gone up from £10 million to more than £15 million. When I was Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in a previous Parliament, before my enforced gap years, I remember sitting and watching pollution happening in our country. I was really frustrated, and I understood the Environment Agency’s frustration that it was not equipped and funded to do its job. We have pursued major regulatory reforms, and we have boosted the joint unit for waste crime.
In the first 18 months of this Labour Government, the Environment Agency has stopped illegal waste activity at more than 1,200 sites. It has achieved 122 prosecutions and 10 people have gone to prison. The action plan that we announced last Friday is the next step up, and it is a scale up. We are calling zero tolerance on this crime in three different areas. First, we are preventing illegal activity before it starts, by getting better at working out how criminals act. Secondly, we will strengthen enforcement so that offenders are caught and punished. Thirdly, we are cleaning up the most harmful sites. I will come on to the site mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley shortly, but let me first take each of those areas in turn.
First, on prevention, we are tightening the rules and closing the gaps that criminals exploit. How? We are overhauling the regulation of the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime, moving from a light-touch, paper-based regime—where campaigners registered Oscar the dog for a licence—into a full, environmental-permitted scheme. Those paper systems are going. We are going to have mandatory digital waste tracking. There will be a single UK-wide platform to monitor those waste movements—as it goes from the transfer statement on to someone else and on to someone else, as that is where it gets lost and it goes out into the environment—so that we can spot diversion and fraud earlier, further up the chain before it turns up on a motorway.
We are also removing widely-abused waste permit exemptions on three things. The first is waste tyres; we have all seen the mountains that somehow catch fire. The second is end-of-life vehicles, and the third is scrap metals, where we know there is a criminal industry with cable theft and so on. There was a similar site in Wakefield that eventually went bust, owing the taxpayer £60 million.
Matt Rodda
The Minister is making an excellent speech. I am really pleased to hear about the new strategy and determination from the current Government, in contrast with their predecessors. Would she able to address—this is a niche matter, but it is really important in some areas—the issue of abandoned boats? We have a serious problem in our section of the River Thames with sunken boats. When I walk along the river, I can often spot three or four of them. They are an environmental hazard. Fuel oil could get out of these boats—
Mary Creagh
Understood. We are talking about Knowsley, and I am not the canals Minister, but I will take that back to the Department. I am sorry to do the DEFRA silos, but this is not the first time I have heard that. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
I was talking about tyres, scrap metal and end-of-life vehicles. We are tightening seven more activities that people currently do not need a waste permit for. We are also going after the tax evaders; it is the Al Capone method. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is going to expand tax-check rules to the waste sector. If someone has not paid their taxes, we are going to be asking them questions before we renew their licence. We are going across the chain on that.
Secondly, let me turn to enforcement. We are matching our preventive work with tougher enforcement. We are pursuing waste criminals with every tool in the box. We are doubling the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget, with an additional £45 million over the next three years. There will be more boots on the ground and more drones in the air to stop the criminals in their tracks. We are giving the Environment Agency new police-style powers so that it can intervene earlier, disrupt criminal networks and bring more criminals to justice before illegal operations, such as the one my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned on the motorway, become established.
Alongside that, the joint unit for waste crime—I visited it in the midlands just a couple of weeks ago, where it is doing some absolutely excellent work—is strengthening its hand. It is bringing together environmental watchdogs, police forces and the National Crime Agency; some of this involves very serious, hardcore, dangerous criminals, so we need some heavy people with us to deal with heavy people. They are getting ready to dismantle the serious organised crime networks that blight our communities.
The penalties for the crime must match the harm. The carriers, brokers and dealers reform will increase the penalties for offenders to up to five years’ imprisonment. Our manifesto made it clear that those who spoil our streets and parks should face up to what they have done and put it right with their own hands.
I am extremely keen that carriers or brokers should have their registration numbers on all their advertising and on their vans. If digitally excluded or older people give their waste to somebody, they should not get the fine. They should be able to clearly see that the van coming to pick up the stuff is a registered vehicle. We should have that confidence, because we as consumers should know that the van is compliant.
We will consult with councils on powers for them to issue fly-tippers—we have heard about them—with conditional cautions to make them clean up the mess they make. What is a conditional caution? I, too, have learned some things: it is an on-the-spot fine of up to £300 and an on-the-spot penalty of 20 hours of unpaid work. We think that clean-up squads are educating people about the harms they have caused, and that getting people to clean up is the best possible way to get them to think twice before they do it again. We will also look at putting penalty points on the driving licences of persistent fly-tippers—again, to make them think twice before they do a job for their mate on a Friday night, shall we say, that may affect their regular employment during the week. We are coming at it at all levels of the chain.
Jim Shannon
I have a quick question. Does that apply to the obfuscation of the vehicles and vans used? If it does, that will also hurt them.
Mary Creagh
Local authorities have those powers already, but they are not very confident at using them, so I have issued guidance to local authorities to say, “Come on—you’ve got these powers. Why don’t you use them?”. One of the things I hear back is that local authorities have to store the vehicles, pay for a pound, and make sure a vehicle is properly illegal before they seize and crush it. But Labour’s Merton council, in south-west London, does an excellent job on seizing and crushing, as does Sunderland city council up in the north-east. They are in my star hall of fame for seizing and crushing a lot of vehicles; I hope that, if we have this debate next year, other local authorities will be in the mix.
Clean-up costs should rest with the landowner. The polluter should pay, and we will go after the criminals to make sure they pay. We are supporting the clean-up of three illegal waste sites, which my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned, and we have published clear criteria for those sites where intervention is needed most urgently. They include an assessment of the landowner’s capability to clear up the site without Government needing to spend taxpayers’ money.
I understand why the residents of Knowsley want the site next to the M57 motorway to be included in that work. We still need to see the fire risk from Merseyside—that was covered in the last meeting we had—and the Environment Agency is in conversation with the landowner about clearing the site. We are getting cleverer at working out what happens before an illegal waste site is created, and we are going to use satellite technology, as well as drones, to be much smarter about how we move earlier on these things. In the meantime, we are monitoring the situation and working with local partners.
For local authorities that want to clear up waste sites on their land, we are looking to develop a rebate scheme for the landfill tax they pay. We will also look, with the insurance industry, at developing an insurance model to shield farmers, businesses and landowners from bearing the cost of waste dumped on their land through no fault of their own.
Let me quickly return to the issue of St Joseph’s college, because that was not on my radar—I thought, “What problems do we have here?” I have a note that refers to the development of a new golf course bringing waste material on to the site. Let me look into that as soon as possible once I get back to my desk, because if something is going on there we want to get in super quickly and get it done super fast. If it is a golf course, then let it be a golf course—not something else. The key is to raise it earlier and to call 999 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. If something does not look right and feels wrong, a person must tell the police. It is no good assuming that it is the council, National Highways or workmen. I have spotted vehicles fly-tipping on the M1 while driving back from Coventry at night, and I have called 999 straight away because it is clearly a waste crime in progress.
We heard about the action that was happening on the Simonswood industrial estate, with the Environment Agency. We have had investigations; the Environment Agency has stopped burning and sent reminders to all permitted sites. However, it is clear that the ongoing waste odours and problems mean that further action must be taken. I remember that when we first met, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley told me the site was making Mo Salah sick. I am devastated that he is leaving Liverpool before we have had a chance to make things right.
On Windmill Services, the EA is looking at the next regulatory enforcement step, including revocation of its permit. The EA will conduct site visits imminently to make that assessment and there is a live enforcement case under way. Finally, on Jameson Road, there have been over 500 odour complaints in February, so clearly there is an ongoing problem. We are not going to fix this overnight, but we are doing our absolute best.
I give all hon. Members present from across the House my absolute commitment that we will tackle these rogues. We are coming for them, and we are going to put them out of business.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Baths and Lidos
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
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of public baths and lidos on local communities.
It is a pleasure to speak in a debate that I think should be called in Hansard, “For the Love of Lidos”. It is a delight to open this debate on the value of our public baths and lidos. It could not be timelier, as Peterborough lido is set to open for its 2026 season this coming weekend.
I am delighted to see so many colleagues. That shows the love of lidos in our communities, how important they are and how much interest they generate around the entire country—not just in my constituency. The UK stock of public outdoor pools represents deep cultural heritage, serving our communities for over a century and generating health, happiness and pride in our places.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions community. Does he agree with me that pool users’ groups are crucial to keeping up standards in our ageing facilities? Would he also agree that we must target younger children so that they can swim lifelong in what is often very cold water, and that school swimming is crucial?
Andrew Pakes
I agree on both points. I will talk later about how I am blown away by the dedication of so many of the volunteers who have supported and built our lidos over a long period, and particularly during some very dark years in funding for some of them.
Nowhere is the happiness and pride that I have talked about greater than in Peterborough. Our art deco lido is a jewel in our city’s crown and, after a number of years on the down, it is now on the up. Two years ago the lido faced a bleak future because of the nature of local government funding cuts. Despite great enthusiasm from swimmers, it had seen better days. I am pleased to say that the council was forced to think again after more than 2,500 people got involved in the campaign to save our lido, and I am pleased to have played my part. Last year, the lido, with support from the council and residents, went on to have its best ever season.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I apologise to the hon. Member because I had hoped to speak in this debate and give some thoughts from my constituency back home. However, I cannot because I have to chair an event at six o’clock, so I apologise for having to intervene and then leave after his speech.
In many communities, lidos are far more than just outdoor swimming pools; they are valued public assets that promote health, wellbeing and social cohesion. Yet without sustained support, the facilities remain vulnerable to closure due to financial pressures. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that their importance for public health, community wellbeing and access to affordable leisure is vital?
Andrew Pakes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that lidos are critical to public health, but they need to be accessible and affordable for people from all parts of our communities. We need to build that as we go forward.
That links to my next point about the generations that built many of our lidos and the echoes of that today. Built in the lido boom of the 1920s and 1930s, Peterborough lido proudly celebrates its 90th anniversary this year.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Worthing lido recently celebrated its centenary. It is a symbol of our wonderful seaside town’s history, but it has been unloved for some time. I am delighted to be working with my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), Worthing’s Labour council and the local community to restore our lido to its former glory as a community space, and hopefully, in the long term, to build a tidal pool nearby. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) agree that lidos should not just be a part of our past, but should offer an opportunity for a glorious future for our towns?
Andrew Pakes
I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. It is not just the fact of having a lido: it is about the community and volunteer spirit that builds around it, which adds something greater than just a pool.
Peterborough is a working city. The lido was built in an era of recession and global uncertainty and it represented an important investment in public health in our city. Today, on its 90th anniversary, we face similar shadows: a decade of austerity and cuts for public services and local government; a world facing anxiety; and families still worried about living costs. Since its opening in 1936, Peterborough lido has remained a constant feature in our city. It has withstood many changes: changes in management, bomb damage during world war two, multiple threats of closure and demolition, and, most recently, the covid pandemic.
Why does it matter? It matters because swimming and the public good go together. No only did we nearly lose our lido, but two years ago the Conservative council closed our only public indoor pool as well. We are now the only one of the top 10 fastest growing cities in the country without an indoor public pool. I am glad that the new Government have listened, and, thanks to the work that I helped lead, the Chancellor has provided £20 million through the growth mission fund so that we can now have both a majestic lido and a new indoor pool, which is being built.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I want to thank my hon. Friend for his speech that he is making and for bringing this matter to the Chamber. I am greatly enthused by what he has achieved because every time I visit Stanhope, I know that it is a great source of sorrow for people that our lido closed during covid and has never reopened. Likewise, if I am in Crook, the No. 1 thing that people raise with me is the loss of the swimming baths about 10 years ago. Those are two areas where I am working with people and hoping that we can bring those services back. This is something that my hon. Friend has achieved, thanks to the funding from the Labour Government. I would love to hear more from him about that and hear how he and his community have been successful in that campaign.
Andrew Pakes
Brilliant—I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The only correction I would make is that it was not my achievement. It was the achievement of the friends group, the campaigners in the council and its good officers, who have all worked together to rebuild our lido after a difficult period, learning from the successful campaigns in other places around the country.
At a time when prevention is the overriding health priority and physical activity is recognised as the key to lifelong health and wellbeing, these accessible and inclusive facilities have a vital and powerful role to play. Swimming remains one of the most popular activities in England. Each year, around 12.5 million adults go swimming, and over 4 million people enjoy swimming outdoors, including in lidos. I pay tribute to all those involved in promoting the benefits and enjoyment of swimming, including Swim England and Future Lidos, both of which have helped me to prepare for this debate.
I also pay tribute to the award-winning City of Peterborough swimming club, and to the swimmers, parents and volunteers who support it. There are no finer volunteers in our communities than the parents who give up their weekends and early mornings to help their children and other children to engage in the beauty of sport.
I could not make this speech without recognising the incredible role of Friends of Peterborough Lido. In particular, I pay tribute to the wonderful Clare Marshall, who this week stood down as chair after many successful years of shepherding the group. I know from speaking to many hon. Members and hon. Friends across the House that friends groups and volunteers are vital to saving our lidos and keeping them in rude health.
I welcome the Minister. We have a shared love of community sport and facilities. However, as the evidence suggests, this issue cuts across Departments and is not restricted to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, so I will put a couple of friendly questions to him.
What assurances can the Minister give the House that the Government understand how swimming is integrated across public health, DCMS, local government and a range of Departments? Can he reassure us that the Government, as a whole, understand the importance of these facilities? What role do lidos and swimming play in the Government’s commitment to grassroots sport and public leisure? And with a little cheek, I invite him, on his way home to his constituency, to join me for a dip at some point during the 90th anniversary of Peterborough lido. We will even supply him with a cuppa and a camera to record the moment for posterity.
Peterborough lido is not just a pool; it is part of both our heritage and our future. It is about the memories made and the memories still to come. It is one of our key leisure and visitor attractions. Its 90th anniversary is a city celebration, not just a pool celebration. Last year, I was privileged to help form Peterborough’s first ever tourist board and to serve as its inaugural chair for the first year. Peterborough brings together the art deco jewel of our lido with our cathedral, our museum, our green spaces—including the John Clare countryside and Nene Park—and our history in Flag Fen. I am also proud that Peterborough Museum will host a civic exhibition on the importance of our lido, with a documentary being recorded later in the year.
Our lido, like so many lidos, is in the heart of our community, which is where they should stay. For that to happen, we need to safeguard these assets for the long term. The public sphere has been much eroded over the last decade, but together we can rebuild it. Through community ownership and involvement, we can strengthen these bonds, which will become much easier with Government support.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members to remain standing to give us a chance to work out a time limit. It will be roughly four minutes, although I will not impose a strict limit.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this excellent debate.
I begin by paying tribute to Kitty Wilkinson, the woman to whom we owe a debt of thanks for giving us modern public baths. In 1842, thanks to her determined advocacy, Liverpool opened the first combined public washhouse and baths in the United Kingdom since Roman times. Crucially, she inspired national interest and, just a few years later, Parliament passed the Baths and Washhouses Act 1846, which empowered local authorities across Britain to build public bathing and laundry facilities.
However, as we discuss the impact of public baths, we should remember that they were never conceived as leisure facilities, but as tools to improve the health of working people. Indeed, the 1846 Act does not mention swimming at all.
Carlisle’s public baths opened in 1884, funded by the proceeds of the municipal gasworks. However, the funds did not stretch to including Turkish baths, which had become popular—again, not as leisure facilities—thanks to the work of Richard Barter and David Urquhart, a doctor and a diplomat who extolled the therapeutic benefits of hot and cold treatments and drove the expansion of Turkish baths across the UK during the 19th century. Turkish baths catered for the working man, for it was men who were in the factories at the time. After a long shift in the mills and factories, they could be cleaned and cleansed, inside and out, by a Turkish bath.
Carlisle’s Turkish baths were finally added in 1909. Sadly, the relocation of the main swimming pools in 2022 forced the closure of not simply the Turkish baths, but a community facility used by a loyal group of regulars—Barry, Iain, David, Richard and Keith, to name but a few—who knew of the baths’ physical and mental health benefits.
On one visit just before its closure, I spoke with a young man who explained that, as a recovering alcoholic, his weekends were lonely because he could no longer go to the pub, but a couple of hours in the baths had been filled with the conversation he missed. Another said that the baths had kept him together after he and his wife separated, and another spoke of how they alleviated his asthma. Barry, a regular of more than 50 years, would often say that he could name half a dozen men who had not needed mental health treatment because the baths provided a space to unwind and talk.
It has been three years since the closure of Carlisle’s Turkish baths, but the campaign and the charity that I started continue the work to secure a community asset transfer from Cumberland council and reopen them as an expanded centre for health and wellbeing. I pay tribute to Steve Yeates—
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a heartfelt and moving speech in support of somebody who was clearly very dear to her, for which I commend her. I hope I have given her a little breathing space.
Ms Minns
My hon. Friend has, and I appreciate it.
Steve Yeates was the secretary of Friends of Carlisle Turkish Baths, and he sadly passed away last year. I also thank the Architectural Heritage Fund for the advice and financial support that have enabled the group to evidence the viability of its vision, which will include a community laundry because, as Kitty Wilkinson knew, baths are a community facility that supports public health, and they are open to all.
I conclude by inviting the Minister to visit Carlisle, to endorse the work of the friends group and to back its vision of reopening the north-west’s last Victorian Turkish baths.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for his continued advocacy. As someone who lived down the road in Huntingdon for many years, I am delighted to hear that Peterborough lido is up and running again, which is fantastic. Lidos are not just leisure facilities; they are part of the fabric of our communities, as other hon. Members have so eloquently spoken about already.
In Worthing West, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) has already alluded to, our lido tells a similar story. It was originally built as a bandstand in 1925, and was later transformed into a pool. It has long been a defining feature of our seafront, and it is a place to which people feel deeply connected. For some time, it has stood empty. However, it has not been redundant, as it has played host to a fantastic series of film backdrops. The 2018 Laurel and Hardy biopic was set in our wonderful lido, and it can also be seen in “Wicked Little Letters” with Olivia Colman.
Even though we welcome our lido being a film backdrop, it is now changing into something much more proactive for our community, as there is real momentum behind bringing it back to life. It has been a local priority for me and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and we have been working with partners, including Worthing borough council, Worthing Heritage, businesses and community groups, to help drive that forward.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I cannot let a debate on swimming pools go without mentioning Falmouth, which is on a peninsula with sea on three sides. The children of Falmouth have lost the swimming pool, as it was shut by the Conservative council in 2022. We have been campaigning rigorously, including with a petition to this House, to try to reopen it. In the meantime, community organisations, Falmouth town council and Pendennis Leisure have taken on the site to try to keep it running. I pay tribute to those organisations.
Dr Cooper
Excellent. I thank my hon. Friend, who has nicely paid tribute to them. Well done.
What has been so striking about the work we are doing is the level of local energy in our community. People care deeply about these spaces, and they want to see them thriving again. We have an opportunity to do that in a way that reflects who we are now as a town, by creating a space that works for the future—one that can bring people together and host community life, and that makes the most of its unique position on the seafront. In Worthing, the sea is not just a backdrop. It is part of our identity, which gives us the chance to think a little differently about how people experience this space and the role it can play in everyday life.
At this point, I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The lido is right on the seafront, and being on the channel, as Members can imagine, the structure is not terribly stable. Worthing borough council is putting in a lot of money, and Historic England is looking to shore it up so that it does not fall into the sea. Although I am not an engineer, the prospect of putting a swimming pool back into that structure looks quite unlikely. My mighty hon. Friend is undeterred. He says that we must have some sort of sea pool, so we are looking into the possibility of having a sea pool near the lido structure. We are also looking at the possibility of green energy generation. What started out as a community project is blossoming into something quite fantastic for Worthing. It is in its early days, but we are very excited.
As a public health doctor, I can see real value in these spaces, and many Members have mentioned public health already. Access to healthy outdoor spaces should not be a luxury; everyone should benefit from them, regardless of where they live or what their circumstances are.
I conclude by inviting all hon. Members to come to Worthing to see the lido in its current art deco glory, and I ask the Minister to consider the options for Government contributions to our lido. There will be mighty funding contributions, and I ask the Government to contribute in whatever way possible to our community “ DIY SOS” project.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this debate. Lidos are important to us all—particularly to me, because I learned to swim in Grange-over-Sands lido, which is a saltwater lido that is currently closed but will hopefully be reopening shortly, and my first job was in south Oxford at the Hinksey open-air lido. Lidos mean a lot to me.
We are in crisis in Stroud: last week, we found out that our lido in Stratford Park is not going to open for a number of maintenance reasons. That is a recurring theme—my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) said that his lido has not opened either. We are in a crisis, and we need extra Government support. Our lido, like many in this country, was built in 1938, and throughout the war, people swam there to relax. Lidos are lifesaving: 25% of children in this country are unable to swim when they leave primary school, which is a scandal. The health benefits, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) just talked about, are important, and they include fitness and combating stress. On the community value of lidos, one of my constituents said:
“It is no exaggeration to say that there are people who would not have been born in Stroud were it not for their parents or grandparents meeting at the lido and it is no exaggeration to say that there are people in Stroud who would now have died were it not for the enormous health benefits of swimming in the lido.”
At our lido, a load of things have been found that are probably quite familiar to many others: the lining is beginning to break up and there is some worry that the pump and the valves, which are all 80 or 90 years old, are about to fail. We are very angry in Stroud because we were not told about that before. I believe that there are ways to open the pool this summer so that we can benefit from it, and then maintain it in the winter.
It is said that the lido is going to be closed for safety reasons, but if it is closed, people in my constituency will go to the many rivers and lakes around Stroud, which are much more dangerous for swimmers. There have been a number of deaths in a lake in the area, so opening the lido will save lives. We need to fix the bottom of the pool quickly and fill it up for the summer, and then we need to consider a change of ownership. It is currently owned by the district council, but maybe it could be run through community ownership or with support from the Government.
Many of those in charge of lidos in this country should look to Penzance’s hot saltwater pool. It was redeveloped after storm damage, and it is lovely to sit in. We need to offer day tickets. The Government should make lidos cheap and cheerful because people love them. Would the Minister consider creating a national lido fund? If the Government are serious about public health, communities and opportunity for young people, they must be serious about saving our lidos.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing such an important debate. Sadly, the reality is that more than 1,200 swimming pools have been closed since 2010, a net loss of around 500 due to the austerity imposed by the coalition Government and subsequent Conservative Governments.
In Stockport, not only have we lost Reddish baths, but we have serious issues at the Grand Central swimming pool in our town centre. That pool is a valuable asset for the community, and I am concerned by the lack of investment in the facility by the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council. It is a valuable 50-metre pool. The ability to switch between short-course and long-course swimming provides significant benefits to local swimmers. The pool is essential to the physical and mental wellbeing of many, and we cannot afford to downgrade yet another facility. I am sorry to share that, and I would like the Minister to intervene on this issue if possible, because when I engaged with Sport England, the organisation was less than helpful—I think it should take a better attitude to engaging with MPs.
Reddish in my constituency faces many issues, including health inequalities and a lack of high-quality public facilities. Reddish baths closed in 2005 and the building has stood vacant ever since. For generations, the swimming baths brought the community together, gave young people the opportunity to learn a vital skill and served as a much-loved facility. I am currently running a survey asking residents in Reddish to share their views about the baths, and 86% of respondents placed “swimming or fitness facilities” in their top three preferred future uses for the site. I thank Councillors Rachel Wise and David Wilson for supporting my survey.
I regularly meet people who are frustrated by the lack of provision in Reddish; many respondents to my survey referenced childhood memories, the loss of local pools and frustration at seeing a valuable building left unused. Despite that, Stockport council currently has no firm plans to reopen or reinvest in the baths. Across five facilities, Stockport council has a public supply of 2,648 cubic metres of water. To meet the recommended supply, Stockport would need another 990 cubic metres, so there is clearly a water provision deficit.
Nationally, swimming outcomes are worsening, and that is a cause of serious concern. I recently visited Stockport Metro swimming club at Grand Central to see the performance squads in action. I pay tribute to the dedication of the swimmers and coaches. Stockport Metro continues to be a vital pathway for young people to progress in the sport. Since moving to Grand Central pool, 14 Stockport Metro athletes have qualified for the Olympic games and the club has produced four Olympic medallists, making it the most successful in British history. That is a point of pride and celebration for us in Stockport, and I wish Stockport Metro the best of luck in the upcoming Commonwealth games in Glasgow.
To add to the list, I invite the Minister to Stockport to visit Reddish baths and Grand Central. I want to see the Government engaging constructively with Stockport council to secure the future of facilities in Reddish and our town centre. I am grateful to all staff at Life Leisure in Stockport and everyone who has written to me about these issues, and I place on the record my thanks to Swim England for all its work on the issue.
All of us want high-quality public services in our constituencies, in particular for health, fitness and mental wellbeing. Britain has a rich tradition of producing world-class athletes; if we do not invest in such facilities for people of all ages, that will be lost. I could go on and on, Mr Efford, but I know you are getting uneasy in the Chair, so I will conclude my remarks.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this fantastic debate about lidos.
I am proud that my constituency is home to Brockwell lido in the magnificent setting of Brockwell Park. Brockwell lido is an unheated outdoor swimming pool that opened in 1937, and it is grade II listed. It is a very special place. Crowned Britain’s best outdoor pool by the AA in 2025, it is known locally as Brixton beach. It is a place where generations of children have learned to swim and enjoyed the freedom of a summer by the pool. It is where many local residents enjoy the ritual of year-round swimming and a range of activities, including gym, fitness, yoga, and a truly wonderful programme of inclusive children’s activities run by the brilliant Whippersnappers.
Brockwell lido is firmly at the heart of our community, and it has a special place in my life too. I have swum there regularly since 1996. In 2024, after many years of trying to summon the courage, I—pardon the pun—dipped my toe in the water of cold-water swimming, continuing my weekly swim into the autumn months. I very much enjoyed the experience until the Sunday before Christmas, when the water temperature was a balmy 8°. I fainted in the changing room afterwards. I am grateful to the kind women who found me and helped me to recover my pride and dignity, as much as my consciousness; I am now not quite a year-round swimmer at Brockwell lido.
Throughout Brockwell lido’s history, however, it has faced precarious times. It was closed for a period in 1990 and opened again after a vigorous campaign by the Brockwell Lido Users group. I pay tribute to BLU, which played such an active role in advocating for lido users and for the protection and maintenance of Brockwell lido. In 2023, when the lido needed major investment to be able to continue, BLU was involved in the choosing of a new operator, Fusion Lifestyle, which secured the investment needed at the time and ran the lido well for the first few years through good collaboration with BLU, Whippersnappers and Lambeth council.
In recent years, however, following a change in the leadership of Fusion Lifestyle and some of the challenges faced by the leisure industry as a result of the pandemic, there has been increasing concern about the quality of the facilities and the lack of investment and maintenance at Brockwell lido. Right now, Brockwell lido is facing a new risk, as it is understood that Fusion Lifestyle faces grave financial difficulties and may no longer be in a position to continue to operate the lido.
On Sunday, I attended a meeting of more than 200 local residents, who came together with Lambeth councillors and members of the BLU committee to talk about the future of Brockwell lido. Were any confirmation needed as to how loved and valued Brockwell lido is by local residents in our community, that meeting was it. I am pleased that Lambeth council agreed to step in if needed to ensure that Brockwell lido stays open, but the anxiety in recent weeks poses a number of questions about protections for our lidos, and whether sufficient protection is afforded to them given their great value to our communities.
We know, for example, that Brockwell lido is a profitable site, but there has been little transparency about, and no ringfencing of, the funding that the lido brings in, such that it is spent on the maintenance and investment that is needed for the lido. The process is under way for designating Brockwell lido an asset of community value, but I wonder whether such a designation should be automatic for facilities that are always going to be assets of community value. There is no guaranteed role for users of our lidos in their governance, despite the fact that the users are so often the custodians of such valuable and important places. Finally, in the event of insolvency or administration, there is no obligation on an operator to co-operate with, or to hand the facility back to, the council so that it can continue to operate for the public benefit.
We love Brockwell lido and, as a community, we will work to ensure that it has a sustainable, viable and long-term future, but without doubt, having had this experience, we are learning about possible additional protections. I hope that the Minister will have some response to such concerns.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for giving me the opportunity to talk about our public baths and lidos, and the positive effect they have on our local communities.
This year, the outdoor swimming pool in Hathersage will be celebrating its 90th anniversary, an incredible achievement for a community asset that has faced many challenges. In 2014, Hathersage parish council agreed to pursue listed status for the pool, a process that locals described as time-consuming and arduous. It is vital that we protect historical facilities such as the outdoor pool at Hathersage by minimising barriers to achieving listed status, therefore giving more access to grant funding so that they may continue to play a central role in community life for many years to come.
Similarly, the lido in Matlock Bath plays an important role in supporting both residents and visitors, who contribute to the local tourist economy and travel from far and wide for the unique experience that Matlock Bath has to offer. The outdoor pool at the New Bath Hotel is fed directly by the site’s natural geothermal spring—in fact, it is the only lido in England heated by spring water, with temperatures naturally reaching up to 23°C. The lido plays a role as not just a community space, but a direct provider and supporter of jobs, both in maintaining and running the pool, and a provider of secondary employment in the hotel, pubs, cafés and restaurants that benefit from tourism in the area.
In many parts of the country, especially rural areas with underfunded public transport, lidos are now under real pressure from rising costs, ageing infrastructure and shrinking access to funding. If we lose them, we do not just lose a pool; we lose something that holds the community together, brings in tourism and has real historical value.
I simply urge that when we talk about investment in public health, local infrastructure and community assets, we recognise the value of facilities such as those in Matlock Bath and Hathersage. In areas such as the Derbyshire Dales, they make a real difference to people’s lives. I will not add to the Minister’s growing workload by inviting him to the Derbyshire Dales, but he will always be welcome there.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on obtaining this debate and on the delightful picture he painted of the Peterborough lido. It is concerning to hear from the Members who have spoken so far about the precious yet precarious position that lidos are in.
At their peak, there were over 300 active public outdoor pools in the UK, but during the 1960s and 70s, policy and funding for lidos shifted away. Many were closed, filled in, or turned into car parks, supermarkets or garden centres. This continued in the 1980s and 90s, when the national stock of outdoor pools shrank by almost two thirds. But even as this was happening, communities were starting to fight back. The 21st century has seen a national lido revolution gaining ever-growing momentum.
We saw dozens of lidos reopened in the 2000s and 2010s after vigorous community campaigns. Many have been transferred to community-led charities, as we have heard from across the Chamber today, where innovative and responsive models maximise the positive impacts. Others have been revived and sustained by councils that saw the benefits to public health, community cohesion and the local economy. Future Lidos, which connects, represents and advocates for lidos across the UK and Ireland, lists 125 operating lidos and 40 projects either developing new pools or working to revive these precious heritage assets.
The lido sector is flourishing, collaborative, imaginative and resilient, yet these pools are being sustained against considerable odds. Alongside indoor pools, lidos have been hit hard by energy crises and costs. National insurance increases and the volatile cost of living have not helped either. These vital public health resources are run by cash-strapped councils and small independent charities operating on ever-tighter margins, often within the constraints of heritage facilities and outdated equipment.
I apologise; at the beginning of my speech, I should have reminded Members of my registered interest as a member of Teignbridge district council. In Teignbridge we have six pools: Chudleigh, Bovey Tracey, Kingsteignton, Ashburton, Moretonhampstead, and Teignmouth lido. Of those, Teignmouth is the only one by the sea, and the only one that is still council-run, but hopefully it is under transition to a community group—a familiar story that we have heard across the Chamber. It is also unusual in that it opened in 1976, but it has been an important part of Teignmouth’s history ever since. As a vital community asset, it is used by around 10,000 people every year.
Swimming at the lido is one of the most accessible activities to support an active and healthy lifestyle. Swimming pools such as the Teignmouth lido play a vital role in the community for those of all ages, backgrounds, ethnicities and financial circumstances. Devon has one of the highest proportions of people who swim regularly; residents are twice as likely as those in the rest of England to swim regularly in an outdoor pool. The lido offers residents of Teignmouth and the surrounding areas the ability to swim. I welcome the calls for Government support for lidos across the country, which would help save Teignmouth lido for future generations.
We know that swimming has enormous benefits for our health and wellbeing, and that those who get into swimming are more likely to remain active than those who participate in other forms of exercise. Public baths and lidos are vital community assets and public places for relaxation and mental wellbeing. However, some communities simply do not have access to them. Among people with long-term health conditions or disabilities, participation in swimming is much higher than in other sports. Investing in public baths and lidos is an investment in the nation’s health.
The Liberal Democrats have called for swimming pools and leisure centres to be designated as critical health infrastructure to protect them from closure; if things are not statutory in councils’ budgets, they can and will be cut in these times of hard choices. That designation would enshrine protections in law, meaning that central and local government would have a legal duty not to cut these services, and to maintain adequate funding to keep them open, as they are critical to the national health.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing this important debate.
Across the United Kingdom, public baths and lidos play an essential role in encouraging people of all ages to keep fit and healthy, as well as teaching them a vital life skill: how to swim. Although we often, rightly, discuss the critical importance of our indoor leisure centres, which provide year-round access for our schools and competitive clubs, I want to take the opportunity to focus on the unique cultural and economic value of our lidos and public baths.
Around 12.5 million adults go swimming each year, and more than 4 million people enjoy swimming outdoors, including in our historical lidos. These venues offer a communal experience that is hard to replicate elsewhere. They are social and recreational spaces that act as a liquid town square, bringing together families and children in a controlled and safe environment.
From a health perspective, lidos offer a unique form of blue health, supporting the prevention of ill health and, indeed, the Government’s own prevention agenda in health policy. The cold-water environment and the connection to the outdoors provide significant mental health benefits, while the low-impact nature of the exercise is particularly important for older generations and those with disabilities or musculoskeletal conditions.
Beyond health, we must recognise the role of lidos in our tourism sector and visitor economy. A well-maintained lido is a destination in its own right, attracting visitors who support local cafés, shops, hotels and other businesses. In my constituency on the Isle of Wight, I am backing a campaign to get a new sea pool built in Sandown bay. That visionary, community-led initiative seeks to integrate an accessible, nature-based tidal pool directly into our coastal defences. By linking our traditional heritage of public baths with the natural blue health of the Solent, the project demonstrates how we can provide safe, year-round swimming that complements our UNESCO biosphere status. It will serve as a model for how coastal communities can reclaim their relationship with the water through sustainable, integrated solutions that offer health, tourism and regeneration all in one. In the spirit of dishing out invites during this debate, I invite the Minister to visit the new sea pool—but he may wish to put my invitation to the bottom of the pile, because it has not been built yet.
We must confront the reality, however, that these facilities are under threat. More than 25% of children leaving primary school are unable to swim 25 metres. The facilities they use are now at risk due to their age and increased costs. Looking at pools in general built since 1960, the average age of a pool at the time of closure is 39 years. More than 1,200 pools operating in England are more than 40 years of age and therefore approaching the end of their lifespan. In fact, the average age of a pool among Community Leisure UK members is 55 years, making them older than the average Member of this House. This is a wider issue than only lidos.
Every £1 invested in community sport and physical activity sees a return of £4.20, and swimming specifically generates £2.4 billion of social value each year. Those benefits can continue only if there is a genuine strategy for investment. I secured a similar debate on Government support for swimming facilities almost 300 days ago, yet we have had no plan or update since then. I endorse the questions put by the hon. Member for Peterborough to the Minister and I will also ask him some of my own.
Will the Government commit to a long-term capital strategy for swimming pools and lidos, recognising the ageing condition of much of the current estate? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of rising operational costs, including employer national insurance increases and energy costs, on the financial sustainability of community pools? Finally, when will we see a joined-up strategy across DCMS, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to guarantee access to swimming for every child?
The Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am pleased to respond to this lively and informative debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing it and such good attendance, too. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions; I think I have collected invitations to Peterborough, Carlisle, Worthing, Stockport, Matlock and the as-yet-to-be-built sea pool on the Isle of Wight.
Sam Rushworth
I just want to extend the Minister’s invitation list: I invite him to see the lido that we want to reopen at Stanhope and to come to Crook, where the public baths closed 10 years ago. Will he write and let us know what opportunities there are for Sport England funding for that sort of project? At the moment, I am not promising it to my voters, although I am really committed to it. I am meeting with Crook Community Leisure and others and trying to make it happen, but I struggle to see a way to do it without Government support.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend’s energy and willingness to work with Crook Community Leisure speaks for itself, but I will certainly take away that question and share it with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock). She was meant to respond to the debate, but unfortunately, due to the change in the voting pattern, she needed to get the last train to Cornwall at 7 pm, so she sends her apologies to hon. Members. She is disappointed not to be here, as she was very excited to talk about lidos. She will be keen to read the debate and follow up with hon. Members on any questions that I fail to answer appropriately.
As we heard, it is an exciting time of year for the art deco Peterborough lido, which is a jewel in the crown of Peterborough. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough will be one of the first to make a splash in the newly reopened lido.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Tomorrow, he will be splashing. He invited me to drop into Peterborough as I pass by on my way home to Scunthorpe, but unfortunately I am not sure that I will be able to do that.
Lidos are not only a vital part of our culture; they offer a great contribution to our health and wellbeing, too. We heard about the restoration of Worthing lido to its former glory. We heard about the value of Brockwell lido, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) talked about at great length and with great passion—I thank her for that. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) about Matlock Bath; the lido’s contribution towards the heritage and tourism there is a good example of the contribution of lidos across the country.
Lidos are part of our deep cultural heritage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, and I think that has been demonstrated by the energy of the debate. Certainly, we have the beginnings of a lido network here, and I encourage hon. Members to work with their local lidos to join them up. I think that would help in working with the Department, Sport England and other bodies to ensure that the voice of the lido world has its full impact.
Sport and physical activity, especially activities such as swimming, play a vital role in tackling the health challenges facing our nation by helping to treat and manage a wide variety of health conditions. My hon. Friend spoke with passion about his local lido, and I can understand the appeal of outdoor swimming. He is right that swimming and the public good go together, and lidos are an important part of that.
The Under-Secretary of State experienced some of the benefits of outdoor swimming when she joined Mental Health Swims for a swim in Hampstead ponds a while ago. That reinforced for her the positive impact that swimming, and outdoor swimming in particular, can have on mental health. Last Sunday I attended the annual north Lincolnshire swimarathon at The Pods in Scunthorpe, which is organised by local rotary clubs and raises thousands of pounds for local charities. It is good for the wellbeing of both volunteers and swimmers.
A golden thread that ran through everybody’s speeches was the voluntary effort that is put into running these facilities, whether by campaigners to maintain the facilities or to rejuvenate them. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) drew attention to Steve Yeates, the secretary of Carlisle Turkish baths. His story is an inspiration for all the other volunteers across the country. We pay tribute to him and, through him, to all those other volunteers who do so much in our world of sport and wellbeing to make the world a better place.
Swim England’s “Value of Swimming” report highlighted that 1.4 million adults in Britain felt that swimming significantly reduced their anxiety or depression, and that swimming saved the NHS and social care system over £357 million annually. Physical activity interventions contribute to an immense saving to the NHS by preventing 900,000 cases of diabetes and 93,000 cases of dementia every year. As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) said, investing in lidos is an investment in the nation’s health.
The Government are committed to pivoting our health system to focus on prevention, and sport and physical activity are central to that. The biggest health gain comes from supporting those who are inactive, or less active, to move more. We know that swimming is a fantastic activity for the more inactive.
Catherine West
The Minister is making an excellent point about prevention. The other thing that Swim England always emphasises is the importance of 11-year-olds being able to swim when they leave primary school. As a former teacher, does he agree with that?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I absolutely do, and my hon. Friend moves me on to my next point. Before I come to it, though, let me emphasise that we are acting on the 10-year health plan by developing a national plan for physical activity. That plan will set out how the Government are working across sectors, from health to sport to transport, to enable everyone, and particularly the least active, to access physical activity and benefit from social connection and improved wellbeing.
My hon. Friend rightly raises the importance of swimming. As a former teacher, I fully understand the importance of swimming lessons for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) drew attention to that, too, as well as to his local lido.
Swimming is a vital life skill, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), said. Swimming and water safety are compulsory elements of the physical education national curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. Pupils should be taught to swim a minimum of 25 metres, use a range of strokes and perform safe self-rescue in different water-based situations.
It is clear that we are facing significant challenges, and the number of children leaving school able to swim the required 25 metres unaided is sadly falling. We need to put additional focus and effort into this area. Last year’s data shows that only 73% of year 7 pupils aged 11 to 12 can swim confidently and proficiently over distances of at least 25 metres. We must strive to get that percentage as close to 100% as possible, so that children can safely enjoy this wonderful activity.
What is clear is that the inequalities between those who have access to opportunities to swim and those who do not—we have heard much about access in this debate—are widening further. Through the Government’s work to reform school sport, we are committed to protecting time for physical education in schools, including by supporting schools to provide opportunities for every pupil to learn to swim.
There is evidence of a direct correlation between increased activity levels and areas of the country with the highest density of accessible facilities that are safe, inclusive and affordable. It is fantastic to see Peterborough council and the Government working together to ensure that those facilities are available for the local community in Peterborough. I am delighted to hear that the lido has reopened and is flourishing, with over 37,000 visitors last year—a record year. That should give heart to all hon. Members who are endeavouring to move forward with their local lidos in a similar way.
It is positive that the Government are supporting the development of a new swimming pool and sports quarter, by providing £20 million from the growth mission fund. Sport and leisure facilities can help create a sense of pride in place and improve community cohesion, whether through team sports, gym classes or children’s swimming lessons.
My hon. Friend the Minister saw this at first hand at Bletchley leisure centre in Milton Keynes and the physical activity hub in Bedworth, both of which she was fortunate enough to visit in February and March. It is clear that those facilities make a huge difference to people’s lives. She has also seen the impact of community facilities in her own constituency. Your Space Hoyland provides swimming, football, badminton, netball, basketball and a gym. The centre is not for profit and reinvests money back into its facilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough knows all this and has made a powerful and passionate case for the important role that quality, accessible community swimming facilities can play in his constituency, illustrating his commitment by securing this debate. Local government has an integral role to play. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), who is working as best he can with Stockport council, and I commend his continued efforts to engage with it. I also share his best wishes for Stockport Metro in the upcoming Commonwealth games.
While local authorities are responsible for decisions on sport and leisure provision in their areas, we recognise the challenges faced, especially by smaller councils. The Government are committed to supporting local government and ensuring that funding goes to the places that need it most through the local government finance settlement.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for the overall approach to sport and leisure provision across the country. We work closely with Sport England, the Government’s arm’s length body for community sport, to invest over £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually into some of the most deprived areas of the country to help them increase physical activity levels. That includes a vital £10.6 million through Sport England for grassroots swimming, empowering more people to learn to swim, enjoy the water safely and compete.
Sport England’s place-based investment approach, which now covers over 90 communities and places local voices at the heart of decision making, is a testament to our evolving strategy. However, we recognise that the journey does not end there. Certainly, if Members want the Department to look into facilitating more MP engagement with Sport England, we would be happy to do so.
We have had an excellent debate, and I thank everyone for their contributions. We have shouted out very loudly for lidos this afternoon, which I think will continue with the efforts of my hon. and right hon. Friends present.
Andrew Pakes
Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Efford, and I thank everyone for sharing their experiences. We in government talk a lot about connection, the importance of communities coming together and pride in place. Nothing brings us together more than the pride in our lidos and public baths, as we have heard today.
The one person I would single out is Kitty Wilkinson, and the wonderful story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). It was working men and women, through generations gone, who fought for public health and the ability for people to wash after a day’s work. They transformed and created a movement that has led to today’s lidos, and it is the passion of volunteers today that will keep lidos in rude health for years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of public baths and lidos on local communities.