Jo Cox Civility Commission

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)]

My Lords, what an honour it is to follow such an amazing tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Bates—I thank him very much. I am going to take that speech, print it out and stick it on my mirror to have it as an affirmation in the mornings.

It is a real honour to take part in this debate, and I pay tribute to my noble friend for her work as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. As we reflect on the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission, we are reminded, as we have already heard, of Jo’s values, of how she lived her life and of her unwavering belief that a kinder, fairer, more tolerant society is within our reach. She understood, as we have heard, that connection is not an abstract ideal but something practised daily—through listening, through respectful disagreement, and through recognising our shared humanity. Her words, that we have

“more in common than that which divides us”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]

are an aspiration, but they are a challenge to us all, and we must keep them in mind as we go forward in our work in this House.

This challenge feels especially urgent today. The national discourse has become increasingly strained. Polarisation, declining trust and a harsher tone in public discourse are not simply political concerns; they affect how people relate to one another and how resilient our communities can be. The commission’s findings make it clear that the health of our democracy, as we have heard, depends not only on strong institutions but on strong relationships between citizens—between us.

If we are serious about rebuilding trust, we must recognise the essential role of our civil society. Across the country, charities, voluntary groups and community organisations create those spaces we need, where people meet not as opponents but as neighbours and collaborators. They foster belonging, participation and shared purpose.

I see this every day in the work I do with the Youth United Foundation. All these youth organisations, such as the Scouts, the Guides, about which we have already heard, St John Ambulance cadets, and the police and fire cadets, bring young people from all backgrounds together. They learn teamwork, service and responsibility. They form bonds that transcend difference and build the foundations of active citizenship.

Each week, in communities up and down the country, more than a million young people are supported by over a quarter of a million trained volunteers. These local groups give young people a shared identity rooted in service, teamwork and belonging. They also create opportunities for young people to build mutual understanding and enhance community cohesion. Their impact is strongest because local delivery is supported by national organisations which have the evidence, oversight and safeguarding frameworks to give young people the safe places they need to ensure that these programmes are effective.

When young people come together in these settings, differences begin to recede. They learn to lead, to listen and to support one another. They discover that citizenship is not merely a concept but something to be actively lived. This is how community identity and resilience are fostered—through shared experience and participation.

Yet, despite our Government’s best intentions, funding for these groups is shaky. The uniformed youth fund has come to an end, which jeopardises many of the new places that were created through that work, particularly in areas of social deprivation. I get that the Government need to review funding streams to align with the new youth strategy, which I wholeheartedly welcome. But we cannot afford a hiatus, and our communities need better.

Civil society’s contribution extends well beyond youth provision. With over 170,000 charities and millions of volunteers, it plays a significant role in both our social fabric and our economy. Yet its true strength lies in the trust it commands. These organisations are deeply rooted in the communities they serve, reaching individuals who may feel disconnected from formal institutions, or who experience loneliness, as we have heard, creating opportunities for meaningful engagement across differences. Yes, we saw this during Covid, but we also saw it through moments of unrest, such as in Southport, and in Belfast only very recently, where local people came together to repair the damage that had been done to their community—physically, with brooms, but also with support for other community members. By doing this, these community groups give us all hope, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bates.

However, we must also acknowledge the growing tensions that exist. Demand for services provided by civil society continues to rise, while funding and stability have not kept pace. We are asking more of these organisations at a time when many are under strain. This is especially true for youth services, where the work being done is not short-term programme delivery but the shaping of confident, resilient citizens. Will the Minister investigate the hiatus I have talked about and look at what can be done to stabilise the funding for the youth strategy?

Government has a crucial role to play here. I welcome the civil society covenant, which is an important step. The work being done there is very important and essential to the health of our democracy. Again, I welcome the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. We remember her today with love and with sadness.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and have added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is unable to be with us this afternoon and apologises to the Committee for his absence. The background has been well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and I shall emphasise a couple of points.

The purpose of the amendment is to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr Day v Shropshire Council. In paragraph 116 of her judgment, Lady Rose very fairly said:

“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation”.


The mess referred to by the learned Supreme Court Justice is that, although the land was acquired by the purchaser in good faith and for value, and the Local Government Act 1972 expressly confirmed that a good title passed to the purchaser, the fact that the local council failed to advertise the proposed sale in local newspapers for two weeks meant that the public right to go on the land for recreational purposes remained in place. As a result, the land cannot be developed and, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, suggested, it is blighted, effectively forever, because the original failure to advertise cannot ever be put right. Also, your Lordships will readily appreciate that the original sale by the local authority in such cases may have taken place many years earlier, which would likely give rise to the key evidential question: was the original sale properly advertised? It would be impossible to go back to the records in a case that had happened many years earlier.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, explained what happened in Committee and on Report during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I need not repeat the history. That said, when this issue was before this House, concerns were expressed by some noble Lords about the form and content of that amendment. The concern—I hope that I summarise it accurately—was that the amendment would merely have reversed the decision in the Day case, leaving members of the public who are concerned to protect recreational space with no ability to challenge a proposed sale.

Amendment 222C takes full account of that concern. It would make provision for a robust public consultation process; it would mean that an application would have to be made for a statutory trust discharge order, associated with strict requirements for the giving of notices and the publication of suitable local advertisements. Before making the order sought, the Secretary of State would be obliged to take account of all comments received and would have to be satisfied that the qualifying conditions were met, as per proposed new Section 128A(2)(b). The qualifying conditions are precise and stringent, as laid out in proposed new Section 128D. Most importantly, new publicity requirements, as set out in proposed new Section 128E, would have to be complied with, as per proposed new Section 128(D)(9), and the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied—this is critical—that it was in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the public trusts by virtue of the order, as per qualifying condition F in proposed new Section 128D(10). I inserted the word “public” there for clarification purposes. The public interest is fully defined. I do not need to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Banner, already said on that point, but it is defined in the widest possible terms in proposed new Section 128D(11).

I appreciate that there are more wide-ranging concerns regarding recreational space and general well-being, as expressed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and others. For those groups, we are told, this amendment does not go far enough. I will respectfully make two points on that. First, this amendment has a very precise scope. It is not concerned with the much wider political issue of—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.