Small Charity Sector

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I have two quick declarations of interest. I am the founder and still chairman of a charity working in prisons. It is 21 years old this year. My second declaration of interest is the fealty I owe to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—my original, and still my feudal lord. He is the leader that I first worked for. I pay tribute to all the work he has done over many years. I remember very well the Easterhouse visit and setting up the Centre for Social Justice, and all the work that he has done over the last two decades to advance the cause of social justice, particularly through the work of small charities.

We all love our small charities, and I, too, could run through a list of brilliant ones that work in East Wiltshire—I do want to quickly mention the LINK service, which drives people around the county, particularly to medical appointments. That is such an important service, provided totally free and voluntarily to the community.

However, I want to use the time I have to make a more strategic point. The role of small charities is not just for us as MPs to champion in a sort of neutral sense—“Oh, aren’t they good?” There is something profoundly important about this network for public policy. I was involved, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was, in those early years of thinking about social responsibility in the era of David Cameron. I think the big society was the best thing that David Cameron did—except perhaps for calling a referendum on the European Union—yet it did not quite work.

It did not quite work for two main reasons. One is that the Treasury did not really believe in it— George Osborne never got the point of the charity sector and its role in public life and in policy. Secondly, the difficulty is that if the state starts to support charities, it ends up basically enabling big charities to occupy the space that state agencies did previously. They effectively game the provisions that are made with the purpose of supporting the small charity sector, to exclude the small charities and create barriers to entry for those small organisations that it is so difficult for national Government to see and to work with.

Fundamentally, we need a big, new settlement with the charity sector; in fact, with society itself. This is not just about registered charities. It is about social organisations in all their forms. We need to trust communities much more fully, with all the mess, the disparity and what is called the postcode lottery that that can sometimes induce. We need to support philanthropy and direct public support—I think the United Kingdom could become the absolute global centre of philanthropy. The City of London should regard that as one of its key investment markets.

But this is not actually just about money, private or public. It is about the state enabling and authorising its agency throughout the public sector to rely meaningfully on the charity sector, so that it can do that in all the areas we have been discussing, including addiction, re-offending, homelessness, children in care—these knotty, wicked problems that cause so much distress and pain in our society and which the state is so inadequate at dealing with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point; the young volunteers were also talking to me about that data point yesterday.

One example is that the DCMS launched the voluntary, community, and social enterprise business hub last year, alongside the VCSE Crown representative. The hub contains a host of resources intended to support civil society organisations in finding and bidding for public funding. That is especially important for smaller charities with fewer resources to dedicate to seeking out such funding, and it is a vital source of information in our mission to encourage more civil society organisations into public sector contracts. Obviously, however, data is helpful across the board.

[Danny Kruger]

This is such an important debate. I want to pick up on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Although it is obviously very helpful if small charities, which do not have financial resources or indeed necessarily the right data, can demonstrate their value to the public sector, let us not build systems that force charities into a model that really works only for public sector agencies or large charities. The whole value of these small projects is that they do not have those clear processes, outputs and data, with everything being reduced to unit costs. We have to have a system that actually honours the way that charities work, rather than trying to force them into some kind of proxy of that quantitative model for demonstrating value. Why do we not just localise public sector funding so that small charities can be properly trusted?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues will have noticed that I have deliberately allowed the Minister to overrun her time because, given the time, it seemed important that she was able to respond fully to the debate. I now have to remind the Minister that I want the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate to have time to wind up properly.

UK Town of Culture

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to listen to these wonderful encomia for our towns, and I am going to add my voice on behalf of Wiltshire, and particularly Amesbury. I would be delighted if Marlborough, the other big town in my constituency, were to win the competition, but I want to speak particularly for Amesbury.

I was struck by the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), who made a very good speech on behalf of his constituency, boasting about its important link with the history of heavy metal. Anyone who has seen the film “This Is Spinal Tap” will know that in fact it is Stonehenge that is the genuine heart of the history of heavy metal. On that ground, if nothing else, surely Amesbury should win, because it is the town of Stonehenge. I will return to that point in a moment.

The hon. Gentleman for Redditch (Chris Bloore) intervened to suggest that the award should be about the future. I disagree. Surely it should be about the history of our places. There is no place in these islands with a longer, and therefore greater, history than Amesbury, because it is the oldest continually inhabited settlement in the British Isles. People were living there a very, very long time ago, in 8820 BC. In fact, the grave of what we now call the Amesbury archer—a man buried with a bow and arrow and various other valuable artefacts—was discovered in Amesbury some time ago. DNA testing has demonstrated that he came to Amesbury from the Swiss alps many centuries ago, in the days when this country was still connected to Europe by a land bridge. Those who believe we should rejoin our continental neighbours under some sort of terrible political union might be inspired to think of Amesbury as a place where that was demonstrated millennia ago.

Thousands of years after the original settlement, Stonehenge was built, and it stands as the greatest monument to a now forgotten civilisation—the heart of England from which so much derived. The great world heritage site that is the central district of Wiltshire is to be found in Amesbury. It is the site of Romans, Saxons and the myths of King Arthur, whose wife Guinevere is apparently buried in Amesbury—who can tell? We do know that King Alfred left the manor of Amesbury to his son. A little later, in the pre-Norman era, the first church was built there, and its remains are still there. Subsequently, and significantly, the remains of the only monarch of England whose whereabouts are not precisely known are believed to be somewhere in Amesbury. Queen Eleanor of Provence, the wife of Henry III, died somewhere in the area in 1291. We are hopeful that in the coming years we will discover her actual burial place and have a fitting memorial.

Having made the point about Amesbury’s past, I want to conclude by saying that it is a very vibrant, genuinely warm community that is rich in existing possibility and, indeed, in prosperity. It is part of the world heritage site, although sadly bisected from Stonehenge itself by the A303. We had been led to believe there was going to be a significant investment in tunnelling that road, which would have connected the town more closely to the site, but that is now not happening. Nevertheless, there is an enormous opportunity, and it is really important for Wiltshire that the town that hosts the museum for Stonehenge and is, as I say, the source of such amazing heritage should be able to benefit from the millions of tourists who come through every year. I hope that, through the town of culture award, we can recognise the importance of Amesbury locally, nationally and internationally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

2. What guidance the Church Commissioners have received from the Charity Commission on changes proposed under the draft National Church Governance Measure.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

I am sorry that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), is unwell; we wish her a swift recovery. She will be listening, and if my answers fall short, I am sure that she will follow up on them with Members.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, the Measure is still with the Ecclesiastical Committee—he is a member of it—which is still to update the Church on its decision about the Measure. The national Church institutions have worked closely with the Charity Commission on the draft Measure, and have considered its comments carefully, particularly on the objects of the proposed new charity, Church of England National Services. The commission took a different view from the Church on the remuneration of the chair of CENS. However, amendments were made to the Measure in response to the commission’s concerns, to ensure that the power to remunerate a chair is exercised only when trustees believe it is necessary to do so, considering all relevant factors.

[Danny Kruger]

That was a very helpful answer, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for it. The fact is, however, that the proposed new governance Measure that the Church is bringing forward substantially alters the charitable objects of the Church Commissioners, which is a body set up by this House to regulate the income of the Church. As he has explained, the Charity Commission differs with the Church Commissioners and the Church hierarchy on the proposed new body. My question is: to what extent does the Second Church Estates Commissioner regard it as necessary to secure the approval of the Charity Commission when Parliament is establishing a body that will have the power to alter its own constitution? A very substantial change is being introduced, and I want to know whether the Charity Commission has approved that, and whether the Church Commissioners think that it should approve that.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

It is unusual to be accused of giving helpful answers, but I will take that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the answer I gave before, which is that the national Church institutions have worked closely with the Charity Commission on the draft Measure and have considered its comments carefully. However, I will take away his comments and draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

The difference in this case is that what has tipped the balance of the decision is the risk presented to Maccabi Tel Aviv fans because they are Israeli and, in many cases, because they are British and Jewish.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

What has happened is that a political campaign—led, I am ashamed to say, by Members of this House—has caused the police to change their decision and calculation. The Secretary of State is right to suggest that this is not simply an operational decision. She is talking a good game, but she also says that all she can do is question the conclusion of the police, and now she is offering more resources and asking them politely if they will change their decision. Do the Government not recognise that, under the Police Act 1996, they have the power to direct police forces to make certain decisions and, if necessary, to dismiss the chief constable? If they do not, will the Government clarify the law to ensure that they do have the power to overturn decisions like this?

[Lisa Nandy]

There is a long-established principle in this country, as set out in law, that the police are operationally independent, and I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman seek to question that. I have been clear that the risk assessment and decisions around what would be needed for the game to go ahead safely, with all fans present, is for the police. The right and proper role of the Government is to work with and support the police to ensure that that happens.

It is not just a question of resourcing. We are looking at a whole range of factors and practices that are well established in this country and across Europe, including ensuring that there is transportation to get fans safely to and from the game. We are looking at the number of ticket sales made available to away fans, as well as measures that have been tried and tested in order to ensure that those who would seek to create trouble are excluded from the game. It is absolutely not right to characterise the position of this Government as simply standing on the sidelines. The fundamental principle that people, whoever they are, should be entitled to walk the streets and attend football games in our country is, for us, non-negotiable.

Victory in Europe and Japan: 80th Anniversaries

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that we pay tribute to all those who served from the Commonwealth. As part of a stakeholder roundtable, I met the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We are working in my Department and across Government with the Ministry of Defence, which we meet regularly, and we continue to work together.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank the Government for these excellent plans. The ghosts of men who went to liberate Europe and never came back are all over Wiltshire—the county that I represent part of. Lord Alanbrooke’s diaries are full of the villages and towns that he visited during the war while supporting our troops who were preparing to go and fight in Europe, and Wiltshire was very much the launching pad for Operation Overlord. In addition to the plans that the Minister has set out, may I encourage her to consider ensuring that there is proper, senior representation from a national level in Wiltshire around D-day?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point on behalf of his constituents. I am very happy to meet him to discuss the events taking place in his constituency and the ways in which the Government can potentially support them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

The fact that those three Church schools are rated “good”, including New Holland primary, which my hon. Friend has visited, shows that they provide not just excellent teaching, which is really appreciated by parents—such schools are generally oversubscribed—but a caring and nurturing environment, as he rightly says. That is well encapsulated by the values of New Holland primary school, which he read out just now. I am grateful to him for highlighting their excellent record, and I think that we all pass on our thanks to those schools.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

6. What steps the Church of England is taking to provide funding to parish churches.

[Andrew Selous]

Parish ministry is at the heart of all that the Church of England does. Between 2023 and 2025, the Church Commissioners are distributing £1.2 billion to support our mission and ministry. That is a 30% increase on the previous three-year period, and the lion’s share of that funding goes to dioceses to strengthen and grow local ministry in parishes and worshipping communities. In addition, the commissioners wish to maintain that level of funding over the next six years, which would mean £3.6 billion being distributed between 2023 and 2031.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that very encouraging information, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done during this Parliament on behalf of the Church Commissioners. He has been unfailingly assiduous and courteous—almost holy—in the conduct of his work on behalf of the Church.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the forced amalgamation of parishes that many dioceses across the country are undertaking? Vibrant and viable local churches in dioceses such as Liverpool are being offered the invidious choice of either surrendering their autonomy to become part of new mega-parishes or giving up access to resources from the centre—resources that they themselves contribute to the centre. As my hon. Friend has said and implied, surely the whole value of the Church of England is in the local parish system, not in its regional bureaucracies. Can he tell the House how the Church of England will continue to ensure the integrity of our parish system?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight to the House that there are pressures in some areas, and he is also right to point out that the parish network across the whole of England—across every one of our constituencies in England—is extremely precious. We must do everything we can to preserve it, and I make that point at every opportunity. I know that many Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend, also make that point regularly, and that message has been heard at the top of the Church, which is why we are putting the vast majority of our funding back down into parishes. Of course, we are also encouraging parishes to do what they can to raise money at the local level, but my hon. Friend’s point is absolutely right.

Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on the progress made on the Bill, which has all our support. Of course we should extend the lease. To echo the point that has been made about London zoo, it is 200 years old—the oldest zoo in the world. It had humble beginnings, I am sure, as a sort of entertainment for the public, and it has become an incredibly important conservation charity of great global importance. While my hon. Friend was speaking, I thought of how, as barbarism took over the world, learning and culture retreated into the medieval monasteries. It is almost as if the endangered species of the world have been saved by some of these zoological institutions, and are then able to return. It was interested to hear about the species that have been saved or preserved—kingfishers, tigers, the quagga. Well, I am sorry to hear that the zoo did not in fact help to save the quagga, but at least it has some photographs of it, which is encouraging. I did not know about the mountain chicken, and I had no idea of the story of Winnie the Pooh. I am only sorry that Winnie did not stay on Salisbury plain, which is part of my constituency, where we would have given him or her a happy life. It is a very good thing that Winnie ended up in London zoo, and we can all be very proud of that.

I commend the Bill. The zoo is an historic institution, which is one of the reasons we should be so proud of it, and it has a very bright future. I was encouraged to hear from my hon. Friend about the plans for the zoo. I was not aware that Matthew Gould had taken over as chief executive. I knew him slightly when I was a civil servant at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and he was in charge of the nation’s digital policy. It is amazing how people move around in our elite. Why should he not be running the zoo? He is obviously doing a great job, and I commend the plans for it that I hear about, and the skills that he brings from his background. I am interested and inspired by what I hear about the modernisation of the zoo; it is looking forward, and using digital skills and immersive technology to give visitors an enhanced experience that gets them closer to the reality of the natural habitat that these animals come from, and to which we hope that they or their descendants will be able to return.

What I hear is encouraging. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s argument that to raise the capital that is needed for long-term investment on the site, the investors who finance that work will need certainty that the zoo will be around long enough. This change is the right thing to do, and I echo the point that it would be nice if the zoo was there in perpetuity with a freehold. I commend the Bill. I am pleased that Members across the House support it, and I will be happy to do so myself.

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the reason we tabled new clause 1 is for openness and transparency, so that the public and this House can scrutinise exactly where this funding is being placed. Scrutiny is at the very heart of our jobs here in this place, and an annual report brought forward to Parliament, as new clause 1 stipulates, would be a crucial step forward.

Lastly, on Government amendment 1, I am pleased to see the clarification around collective scheme investments. It is vital that such investments remain eligible for incorporation into the reclaim fund. I hope to see further assets incorporated in the future, as I stipulated earlier.

Ultimately, Labour supports the Bill as our priority remains expanding the dormant assets scheme in line with our commitments first made in 2008. The programme so far has been extremely successful, and predictions suggest that expanding the scheme in such a way would identify about £3.7 billion of unclaimed assets, of which about £1.7 billion would be eligible for transfer to the reclaim fund. From that, £880 million would be repurposed for good causes across the UK. Labour supports that extremely welcome step, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister to tackle the challenges around extending the scheme to other assets. I hope that he will take on board our concerns about future governance of the fund, too.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill. I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, the release of dormant assets started with Labour and has been a cross-party achievement. My thanks, congratulations and appreciation also go to the financial institutions that have made the money available.

I am pleased with the Government’s proposals, including the consultation on the potential introduction of a community wealth fund. My congratulations and appreciation to the Minister for including that as a possibility, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their work in bringing that idea forward.

There are other great ideas—we could abolish personal debt by capitalising credit unions with this money or distribute it direct to community foundations in our constituencies—but I think that the community wealth fund is the best idea. I hope that we will see the money going into civil society and social infrastructure and into supporting the great levelling-up agenda to which the Government are committed. This is a tremendous Bill, and I very much support what the Government are doing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in these debates. I thank the Government and the Minister for all they have done to make this Bill happen. Clauses 12 and 29, to which the Minister’s amendments refer, indicate things that the Democratic Unionist party wish to see, and I let him know that our party will support the Government tonight. However, I now wish to speak to new clause 1.

I agree that there must be further provision for dormant assets. Why not make good use of funds that would ultimately lie dormant unless further action was taken? The Bill aims to expand the current criteria, which will come with some great benefits, so it is great to speak on an important issue such as this. I welcome the Bill and look forward to the debate’s conclusion.

The Bill’s core purpose is to extend the dormant assets scheme to other financial assets, which could generate an additional £880 million of contributions. The figures are gigantic when we think on them, and they indicate where the Bill is going and what it can achieve. The Bill has three main functions: to track dormant account owners and reunite them with their account; to allow account owners to reclaim any amount they would have been eligible for; and to allow firms to partake as a voluntary process. The Bill will expand the assets involved further, creating a more sustainable economic success rate, make it a requirement for firms to get involved, and remove further financial restrictions. It is a win-win for the Government and for the Minister in particular.

The dormant assets scheme currently supports and boosts, by some £800 million, innovative, long-term programmes that aim to address some of the most pressing social and environmental issues. As I said, its expansion through the Bill will unlock an additional £880 million. It is stated that the Bill’s benefits will be felt across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I for one would like reassurances from the Minister that it will extend to Northern Ireland and that we will benefit as well. The potential for benefit in the UK mainland is great, but we also want to see it, if we can, in Northern Ireland.

Thus far, the scheme has benefited many foundations. The Youth Futures Foundation, which has undertaken significant work to tackle youth unemployment, got some £90 million, and Big Society Capital got over £400 million to tackle homelessness. These are great projects. The Bill makes money available to address social issues; how could anyone not say that that is great?

Also at the heart of this scheme is securing protections for those who own any of the financial assets involved. Dormant assets remain the property of their owners, who can reclaim any money owed to them in full at any time. In Northern Ireland, the Dormant Accounts Fund NI works to support the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, and we can see the benefits immediately. In Northern Ireland more than 44,000 staff are employed in the sector, which accounts for 6% of the total Northern Ireland workforce. I would encourage all organisations to contact the National Lottery Community Fund to take advantage of the wonderful scheme that Northern Ireland has to offer.

I thank Members who have already contributed, and those who will contribute later, to a debate that has made clear the potential for a great economic impact following this expansion. I want to ensure that the devolved institutions can take advantage of this scheme as well, and that the funds generated in England are greater than those generated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There must also be further engagement with local communities and smaller organisations to ensure that they are not left behind.

I acknowledge the benefits that the Bill has introduced so far, and I shall welcome further discussion and expansion to ensure that financial assets are not wasted and the money is put to good use. We have seen what the scheme can do; it can do more.

Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 28th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I congratulate, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). In a sense the Bill is very technical, simply extending a law that is already in force, but it is seems significant at a time when our country is going through a period of great change.

Earlier, Mr Speaker objected to a reference to global Britain, suggesting that that was some sort of party political point. I do not think it is. Surely, even Opposition Members believe in the UK playing a successful role in the world, and I think it matters enormously that we are doing this; it is an important signal of our commitment to global exchange.

I hope that it is not just because he is the Chair of the Treasury Committee that my right hon. Friend is promoting the Bill. There have been lots of references to the boost to GDP from our role as a place of cultural exchange; my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) also made the pounds, shillings and pence argument, rather depressingly. It is a fair point—£75 billion is not to be sneezed at—but surely, the real value of what we are proposing and, I hope, voting through today is the value of cultural exchange. It is a great thing. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who is also on the Treasury Committee, made the point that at a time of tension with Russia and China, increasing the opportunities for exchange of cultural objects with those countries matters enormously.

While I enthuse about the role of the UK, and particularly of the London museums, as a meeting place for the world’s artefacts, surely the real value of the United Kingdom in the cultural sphere lies in our local museums. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) about the importance of regional museums. My hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) and for East Surrey made the same point about their local museums. Those were good efforts, but surely the Wiltshire Museum is the one to mention. We have in Devizes the museum that houses the oldest artefacts in the United Kingdom. We talk about the terracotta soldiers and Tutankhamun’s tomb and the Elgin marbles, but those are flashily new objects—box fresh—by comparison with the Neolithic artefacts that were dug out of the long barrow at East Kennett and, of course, our great stone circles at Stonehenge and Avebury, which are 5,000 years old.

I welcome the renewed focus on the United Kingdom as a place of cultural exchange, and I hope to welcome the terracotta army to Devizes at some point.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I will be brief. I did not know Jo Cox, but I intrude on this debate because it is about her legacy. I did not know her, but we did have some friends in common outside politics, and I had the pleasure of having some contact with the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) before the election, and with Brendan. It strikes me that we are really debating this concept of having friends in common, and we are talking about friends in the Commons.

I am struck by everything that has been said about Jo, much of which was new to me. My impression of her, having done some work with the foundation after her death, is of someone who worked very deliberately to cross divides, build bridges and live up to her statement that we have “more in common”. I want to reflect briefly on that phrase and wonder what it actually means. What is it that we have in common? What is it that binds us together? Without presuming to speak for her, but from listening to the debate so far and from knowing what I do about her, I think it is—and it is what I think as well—that we have in common the things that we care about. What we care about fundamentally, and what we are all here to work on in this place, is our families, our communities, our country and our common humanity. We have all sorts of different expressions of those affections and attachments, but those are really what life is about.

I just wanted to make the point—I hope it is not too politically partisan—that while we might agree that those are the things that matter, we do not necessarily agree on how to fulfil those obligations and how to serve those affections. In a sense, that is what this argument is about, but the fundamentals are the same. These are the things that matter. We serve a common set of ideals and obligations. I look forward, in a friendly way, to debating with the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) about how on earth we can strengthen our families, communities and country across this House.