Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the definition and application of grey belt land.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on the definition of grey-belt land. Shortly after their election, the Government introduced a new concept to planning and development: grey-belt land. This would be a subset of land currently designated as green belt that the Government considered less worthy of protection than the rest of the green belt, on which they wanted to make development easier. I asked for this debate because it is important that we understand the significance of this new concept. Specifically—I know the Minister will do his best to help with all these items—I am interested in understanding, first, how different grey-belt designation seems from what the Government originally said it would be; secondly, its likely impact on our countryside; and thirdly, how it combines with other changes the Government are making to the balance of development in rural and urban areas.

Let us start with the difference between what the Government originally suggested grey belt would be and their definition published in the “National Planning Policy Framework” document. In July 2024, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in her first incarnation as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, told the House that the Government’s intention was to

“release lower-quality grey-belt sites, disused car parks and garages, and ugly wasteland”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 315.]

She also said:

“The land we are talking about—grey belt, which we define in the NPPF consultation—is not agricultural land; it is disused garages and things of that nature”.—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1196.]

However, when the actual definition of grey-belt land appeared in the NPPF of December 2024, the concept was considerably wider. Grey belt is now defined as land in the green belt that does not strongly contribute to three of the five purposes of the green belt that were included in the previous definition of green-belt land. Those three purposes are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up are, to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. In other words, to remain as green belt and not be reclassified as grey belt, land must need protecting in order to prevent urban sprawl or to stop urban areas merging, or be near enough to a historic town to affect its setting or character. Even a moderate contribution to those objectives will not be enough; to save the land from grey-belt status, it must contribute “strongly”.

The remaining two purposes of green-belt designation are no longer considered important enough to preserve green belt from becoming grey belt. Namely, they are assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, or assisting urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

We can draw two conclusions from all this about what is actually green belt and what is grey belt. First, quite a lot of what is now green belt will probably end up redesignated as grey belt, because the Government have set the bar quite high to retain green-belt status. Only a strong contribution to the three remaining effective green belt purposes will do. I am not the only one who thinks that much of the green belt could end up as grey belt. Recent analysis from “Channel 4 News” suggested that 96% of the green belt around Guildford could be grey belt, along with 92% of the green belt around Stoke-on-Trent and 80% of the green belt around Solihull.

My second conclusion is that land that continues to qualify as green belt as opposed to grey belt will largely be on the edge of urban settlements. That is because the grey belt is, in effect, all green-belt land that does not strongly contribute to the three green belt purposes that only apply very near to urban settlements. It follows that land in open countryside currently in the green belt will be less able to meet one of those three purposes, and is therefore more likely to be redesignated as grey-belt land. Much of that is agricultural land, which the Secretary of State said the green belt would not be.

The Secretary of State also told the House in a written statement on 30 July 2024 that much of the green belt is:

“better described as ‘grey belt’: land on the edge of existing settlements or roads, and with little aesthetic or environmental value.”

Given the actual definition of grey belt that the Government have decided on, the opposite is surely true. By their definition, the land on the edge of existing settlements or roads is in fact more likely to be green belt, and land further from existing settlements is more likely to be grey belt.

Why does any of this matter? It matters because grey-belt designation is intended to facilitate more development—that is the point. The Government are trying to release more land that is currently called green belt for housing and other things, so it matters what land the Government are actually making it easier to develop with grey-belt designation. The reality is that the land that the Government are making it easier to develop is not disused car parks and garages or ugly wasteland; it is agricultural land and open countryside.

We can see an indication of that in the decisions of planning inspectors in cases where developers have argued for grey-belt status. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has examined cases in the year following the first definition of grey-belt land in the NPPF of December 2024. In that period, planning inspectors approved 13 developments of 10 or more houses on green-belt land, which they believed should be reclassified as grey belt in accordance with the Government’s definition. Of the 1,250 homes those schemes deliver, nearly 90% are in previously undeveloped countryside, not on wasteland or former car parks.

I appreciate that the Minister may say that grey-belt designation is not enough on its own to allow development; other criteria must also be met. That is so, but it is worth examining those other criteria. First, development on green-belt land must also meet an unmet need, but with many councils unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply—often, it has to be said, due to recent increases in Government housing targets, to which I may return—I suspect that, routinely, that unmet need will be easy to demonstrate.

Secondly, the development must be in a sustainable location, but sustainability is an elusive concept. If I am right that most grey-belt land will be in countryside away from urban settlements, then transport infrastructure, health and education provision and even mains gas and sewerage may well be less plentiful. Therefore, we have to ask if many of the grey-belt locations will really be sustainable. Presumably, the Government must believe so, or grey-belt designation is not going to move the needle on housing provision.

Perhaps the Minister expects to see considerable infrastructure upgrades to rural grey-belt locations, but that will be expensive and will affect the viability and deliverability of the housing developments that the Government may be relying on. Then housing developments in grey-belt locations must provide more social housing than elsewhere—perhaps 50% of the total. Whatever the merits or viability of that, social houses will have the same impact on the openness of the green belt and our countryside as any other kind.

Finally, the Minister may remind us that, according to the NPPF, a development on grey-belt land may only take place if it

“would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan”.

I accept that, theoretically at least. That brings back into consideration both the encroachment of the countryside and urban regeneration. Again, it is worth exploring how valuable and usable that safeguard is likely to be, and it seems it will be challenging to argue. The plan area for most of my constituency is south Warwickshire. It would be difficult to claim that building on a single grey-belt site would fundamentally undermine the green belt in half the county, unless the cumulative effect of many grey-belt developments could be considered in measuring the fundamental undermining of the green belt. Would the Minister clarify whether the cumulative impact of other sites, in conjunction with the sites subject to individual consideration, will be relevant in that exercise? If not, why not?

I turn to the broader impact of the grey belt on the countryside. As I said earlier, it appears to me that grey-belt land as the Government have defined it will increasingly be agricultural land and other land in the countryside, which will be easier as a result to turn into housing estates, warehouses or solar farms, for example. The protection for our countryside that green-belt status has thus far offered will be substantially eroded, and for constituencies with large amounts of green belt, that could be very significant.

My constituency is roughly 30% green belt, and others are substantially more. The residual green belt will be areas on the fringes of towns and cities but, to be clear, not around our villages, which are specifically excluded from the definition of an urban area in the NPPF. That might seem uncontroversial—logical even—but it has a practical effect in the context of the debate. That is because the difference between small towns and large villages is becoming increasingly academic. In my constituency, for example, the town of Southam had a population in 2024 of around 9,200, and the village of Wellesbourne had a population of around 7,600. Under the Government’s definition, small towns in the green belt can defend themselves from grey-belt designation, but large villages in the green belt cannot. Grey-belt designation means more pressure from development on villages and rural areas, more pressure on rural roads and schools, and more of our countryside lost to bricks and concrete on top of the huge housing developments already in and around villages in constituencies like mine.

It is hard to believe that that impact is accidental, because it has to be seen in the context of other changes the Government have made. Making it easier to build houses in the countryside goes hand in hand with revised housing targets from the Government that are higher in rural areas and lower in urban areas. My constituency, again, is a good example. Most of it falls within Warwick district and Stratford district, and just across the border is the city of Coventry. The Government have reduced Coventry’s housing target by 50%. The target for Warwick district, which is mostly green belt, has gone up by 65%. Stratford district’s new target is 99% higher. That is not accidental; it is a deliberate plan to transfer housing pressure from urban to rural areas.

It is no surprise, then, that the Government do not want the green-belt purposes of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting urban regeneration to stand in the way of grey-belt designation and easier development. However, my constituents and those of other Members present have seen considerable housing development around them already, and now they face even more, while predominantly Labour councils, it has to be said, in urban areas are not asked to find housing land within their own borders—land that would largely be brownfield sites. That is not just bad news for our countryside; it is bad news for our cities, too, as they will not get the new housing, particularly for first-time buyers and young families, that would help to revitalise the economy of places like Coventry.

It seems to me that the Government have described the green belt as one thing and then defined it as something else. It seems to me that there will be much more grey belt and much less green belt as the Government ask local authorities to review their green belt and as they or the Planning Inspectorate accede to developers’ arguments that the green belt they want to build on is actually grey. All of that will have a significant and irreversible impact on our green-belt countryside.

The Minister is of course entitled to disagree with my analysis or to tell me that I do not need to worry, but I would like him to address in particular the following points. First, does he accept that grey belt is likely predominantly to be open countryside and greenfield sites, contrary to what the Government originally suggested? If so, does he accept that the impact on our countryside in green-belt areas will be significant and destructive? Finally, is that likely impact deliberate or accidental? If accidental, will he look again at what grey-belt designation will likely deliver in practice? Will he be prepared to continue the conversation that I hope we will have this afternoon and seek to minimise the impact of this change on our rural communities, about which many of us are extremely concerned?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will say two things in respect to that, and I will come on to detail how the approach works in relation to decision making very shortly. In general terms, developers can make whatever claims they like about any particular site across the country; it is for the local authority to assess whether, in its view, that site constitutes grey belt, if that is part of the application that is submitted. Where there is disagreement and it goes to appeal, I have set out exactly how planning inspectors need to determine such applications.

It is crucial to note that where grey belt is identified, it does not automatically follow that it should be allocated for development or released from the green belt, or that development proposals be approved in all circumstances. Other considerations in decision making are relevant, as I will expand upon shortly. I also want to stress that any alterations to green belt boundaries must promote sustainable patterns of development by ensuring that any alterations, taken together, do not fundamentally undermine the five green belt purposes of the remaining green belt when considered across the plan area. Considerations also include giving priority to the release of previously developed land in the green belt, then considering low-quality grey-belt land, which will include disused petrol stations and other previously developed land of that kind, although not necessarily be limited to it, and only then exploring other green belt locations.

To respond to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam on whether allocating grey-belt land for development will necessarily lead to the cumulative erosion of the green belt over time, I would point out two things. First, as I have already mentioned, development proposals on grey-belt land must respond to a demonstrable unmet need—I will come to his points about the standard method shortly. Secondly, it is precisely to avoid the situation that we inherited—which was a haphazard and piecemeal approach to green belt land designation and release—that this Government have implemented the approach that we have. Its effective working is predicated on ensuring that designation and release take place in a strategic manner over time through local plans with a 10-year horizon, and in due course—because they are just as important—through spatial development strategies with a 20-year horizon. We want the approach to be plan-led.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I know that the Minister recognises the point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) was making to him is that, although we all want this to be a plan-led process, the NPPF still allows for grey belt designation to be achieved through an individual application, and that is what the Conservatives are also concerned about. I wanted to test him on this question of cumulative impact. He may come on to this later, in which case I apologise, but I put to him in my speech that if we look at an individual application or site, it may be difficult to make a credible argument that building there would undermine the purposes of the green belt across the plan area. On the other hand, if we look at a series of grey belt applications and their cumulative impact on the green belt across the plan area, it might be easier to demonstrate. Can he clarify which of the two the Government believe it should be?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to do so; it is a fair question. In terms of the sequential approach that local authorities need to take with grey belt assessment and green belt release through local plans, the test of fundamentally undermining is at a plan level. Local authorities look at all the sites they have assessed through a review to constitute what is grey belt and then select those that they might need to bring forward to meet assessed housing need. I cannot go into detail, but the joint local plan for south Warwickshire, which includes the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency, is instructive in that regard. It has gone through its regulation 19 consultation and the authority is looking towards submitting that emerging local plan. That will release land equating to 1.54% of Stratford-upon-Avon and 6.99% of Warwick. That is a plan-led approach to green belt release that will meet need in that area. I will come on to speak about decision making, but that is the test, in terms of fundamentally undermining the five purposes in the remaining green-belt area. I will briefly speak about what the guidance says in that respect as well.

There have been several questions about decision making. It goes without saying that we want local planning authorities to get up-to-date plans in place. I repeat that ad nauseum; we inherited a dreadful situation, where less than a third of plan coverage was up to date. We cannot have a plan-led system with such low levels of coverage; we are doing lots as a Government to ensure that we are driving towards universal coverage, including intervening where necessary. However, when development proposals come forward outside of a local plan, the NPPF also provides a limited route for development proposals of grey-belt land in the green belt in certain circumstances.

When considering development proposals, decisions should be informed by green belt assessments, as I have previously referenced. Where grey-belt sites are not identified in existing plans or green-belt assessments, authorities should consider evidence, informed by our guidance, on whether the site strongly contributes to the relevant green belt purposes.

It is important to note that where a site is judged to be grey belt, development proposals on grey-belt land must also respond to demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. If that does not exist, that is grounds for the local authority to refuse. It must also be sustainably located and meet our golden rules, which, as hon. Members are aware, require additional benefits to be provided to local communities— including higher levels of affordable housing, new or improved green spaces and improved local infrastructure where the green belt is developed—in recognition, and rightly so, of the value placed on that type of land.

As previously mentioned, the contribution that a specific plot of green-belt land makes to the relevant green belt purposes is only one consideration involved in the decision on whether to develop there. Decisions should also be informed by an overall application of the relevant policies in the NPPF. That includes policies in the natural environment chapter, which safeguard areas of importance for the landscape, geodiversity or biodiversity value, including protected landscapes and designated sites for nature.

To assist local planning authorities and other decision makers in both plan making and decision making, and to support a consistent approach to determine whether land is grey belt, my Department published updated planning practice guidance on 27 February last year. That PPG sets out a range of considerations to help to determine whether land is grey belt and how to consider proposals on potential grey-belt land. When considering how any given land performs against the relevant green belt purposes, the guidance also sets out illustrative features to help to inform judgments.

The PPG does not—we have been challenged on this point, so I want to address it head on—provide an exhaustive or overly prescriptive list that accounts for all possible scenarios. It is ultimately for the decision maker to consider those factors in accordance with national policy and guidance. It is right that they exercise their judgment in doing so, given that local context and development-specific considerations will vary markedly across the country. We want that flexibility to allow expert local judgment to be applied. The more prescriptive we get in national policy, the more edge cases and difficulties we will create. Our system is discretionary in nature; it is for local authorities and decision makers to make that judgment in the round.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Woking, in instances where a given application goes to appeal, and the relevant inspector is asked to determine whether a site is classified as grey belt, they will consider relevant legislation and national planning policy, including the NPPF and PPG, and any relevant local development plan policies and material considerations.

I want to briefly address the standard method and the urban-rural balance. This issue is put to me frequently in debates and I attempt to set the record straight, but it appears in the next debate none the less. The targets we have introduced are ambitious—they entail uplifts in many areas, and we expect rural areas to play their part in providing the homes the country needs—but the formula does direct housing growth to larger urban areas. It does not, though—this is the significant change we made—direct it by applying an arbitrary 35% urban uplift to the 20 largest cities and urban centres. That was the previous Government’s approach; we think it was arbitrary.

Instead, the standard method that we have introduced increases targets by 20% across city regions. It also better directs housing growth to a range of urban areas, including smaller cities and other areas of growth, as well as to the larger cities. We think that is a fairer approach. It is not the case that we have uniformly dropped housing targets across metro areas.

Before I conclude, I want to touch briefly on villages—

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Before the Minister does that, I understand his point earlier about guidance, and I am certainly not asking him to comment on an individual application, but the purpose of the point that I made to him earlier was to suggest that the reality of grey-belt designation is that grey-belt sites are likely to be further away from urban settlements rather than closer to them, because those closer are more likely to remain as green belt. As the Minister says, there are three purposes—A, B and D—that would enable a site to remain as green belt rather than be designated grey belt. Can he see circumstances in which a field in my constituency that is not on the outskirts of an urban settlement could possibly satisfy the test of those three requirements and remain as green belt rather than be redesignated as grey belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific question in due course. Before I do so, I want to put on the record the policy in relation to villages. He can rest assured that I will address the point; if he is unsatisfied, he is more than welcome to intervene again.

A number of hon. Members mentioned villages. The PPG that I have referenced throughout my remarks makes it clear that, in assessments of contribution to the relevant purposes, large built-up areas and towns do not include villages. However, neither the NPPF nor the PPG includes a definition of a large built-up area, town, historic town or village. Considering whether any particular settlement constitutes a village is, again, a matter for the given local planning authority to judge, and it may be informed by the adopted local settlement hierarchy in that area. Where authorities may wish to restrict development in villages for other reasons, a range of tools are available, such as conservation areas or normal development management policies.

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific point, I say to him directly that I do not recognise his assertion that grey-belt land, in every part of the country, is likely to be predominantly in open countryside. The guidance that I have referenced is clear that land that is likely to be assessed as grey belt is more likely to include “existing development” or “other urbanising influences”, with land that is free from development more likely to make a strong contribution to the three relevant green belt purposes listed in policy GB2.

A point that needs to be made generally is that this issue is incredibly place-specific across the country. It will vary widely, given the significant variation in how green-belt land is constituted in different geographies throughout the country, so it is very hard to apply a blanket or generalised approach, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has, to say, “In all circumstances, such will apply.” It varies across the country and, as I have said, our policy as a whole ensures that development is directed towards sustainable locations, which will act to prevent development from coming forward in isolated or unsustainable locations. That hopefully clears up the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about open countryside—one of three.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman one last time, but I am more than happy to set out the full policy in writing.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

That may be very helpful, and I am genuinely grateful to the Minister, because I know he is doing his best to provide clarity. I know he would accept that the starting point for all these decisions will be the NPPF definition. I accept his point about guidance and the other qualifying criteria; we have spoken a little about the limitations that there might be on those qualifying criteria.

The substantial point remains, does it not, that the definition in the NPPF of grey-belt land overwhelmingly—perhaps not in every instance, but overwhelmingly—will be met by fields, farms and greenfield sites that are not near to urban settlements. A, B and D in the list clearly each relate to the fringes of urban settlements, and the Minister knows that the green belt encompasses more than just such sites. It is inevitable, is it not, that the starting point will be that grey-belt land will be those sites that are not on the fringes of urban settlements, which is of course the direct antithesis of how the Government originally described the concept.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. I am afraid I do not agree with his characterisation of the policy, which is, again, in essence that grey-belt land in every part of the country is more likely to be found predominantly in open countryside.

All I can do is to repeat again our approach: land that is likely not to make a strong contribution to the relevant green belt purposes is likely to contain existing development or other urbanising influences. But I say again that it is for individual local planning authorities to make green belt assessments and to make judgments about sites that might constitute grey-belt land. If some of those sites—in most cases not all of them, but some of them—are required to meet demonstrable unmet need, it is for the authority to select the most appropriate and sustainable sites from that list. I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his local plan, which is hopefully on the verge of submission—a small percentage of green belt will be released over the plan period to meet demonstrable unmet need.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Will the Minister give way again on that specific point?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I am testing the Chair’s patience. I will give way one more time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am sure the Chair will remind the Minister that we have plenty of time left in this debate.

On the specifics of the local plan, the Minister is right, of course, to point me to the specific statistics in relation to my local plan area. But he will recognise that, as was said earlier, there is a difference between decisions that a local authority makes about what to seek to extract from the green belt, and subsequent decisions about whether part of the green belt is in fact grey belt. The Minister has referred me to statistics relating to the former, not the latter.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is where I come back to the importance of having up-to-date local plans. If a local planning authority has in place an up-to-date local plan, it may or may not include grey-belt sites, as the policy feeds through the system. At the point that an authority has a plan in place that meets demonstrable unmet need, it has robust safeguards against grey-belt applications that come through the decision-making route. That is why we are encouraging local areas to get local plans in place.

We have inherited a situation in which we have extremely low up-to-date local plan coverage. That has exposed communities to speculative development, and it is happening all over the country. We have to put in place policies that, through the decision-making route, allow homes still to be brought forward in that interregnum, but then we have to push heavily to drive towards universal plan coverage. At that point, the protections are in place. Over the 10-year plan period and, as we roll out spatial development strategies on a sub-regional level, over a 20-year horizon, that will ensure that there is a strategic plan for green-belt land designation and release.

To come back to the point I made earlier, it is not as if no green-belt land was released before 2024. I know the Conservative party likes to give the impression that it did not, but it oversaw plenty of green belt release, in a completely haphazard and unplanned way. We are taking a strategic approach, which we think is right.

I have addressed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about what is likely to constitute grey-belt land. Let me directly address his other two specific points. Is this a significant policy? Absolutely, and it has been judged as much by the Office for Budget Responsibility and other external commentators. Is it deliberate? Absolutely. We want, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman asserted, to release more land into the system. This is where I take a principled different view from the CPRE and other commentators that say we can simply meet housing need through existing brownfield land. There is not enough land on existing brownfield land registers to meet the volume of homes that our country needs, let alone enough that is viable and in the right location. Where it is necessary, we want to see green-belt land released to meet demonstrable unmet need. It is right that when we look to release green-belt land, we focus on the lower-quality grey-belt land that does not make a strong contribution to those purposes.

To conclude, I again thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for securing the debate, and other Members for their contributions. I hope that, while I may not necessarily have been able to convince Members in my response, I have been able to provide some valuable clarity on the national policy with respect to grey-belt land, and particularly the different approaches to plan making and decision making.

As set out in the Government response to the consultation on the new NPPF that was published last month, we have already recognised that further guidance may be helpful to support spatial development strategy-led strategic reviews of the green belt, and we will consider producing guidance on the considerations that should inform that process. As we update PPG to fully reflect the changes made in the new NPPF—and we absolutely must do that—we will of course consider whether any further clarity might be helpful to inform decision makers. To that end, I will reflect on a number of the points made in the debate.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I thank everyone who participated in the debate, from the Back Benches and the Front Benches. I particularly thank the Minister, who—there will be general agreement on this—is an excellent Minister. He tried to engage properly with the issues in the debate and to give us the clarity that we asked for. He is a perceptive man, and he is right when he says that he has not quite persuaded all of us of everything, but I am grateful to him for what he said last, which is that he will reflect on what has been said here and consider whether further clarity needs to be provided.

Ultimately, the evidence as to which of us is right about what the grey belt turns out to be will become apparent over the years during which the policy is used. If I can ask the Minister to reflect on one other thing, it would be that the Government keep under review—as I am sure they will—what the impact of the policy change ends up being. If we see a great deal of new development in open countryside within green-belt areas, rather than in the type of land that he and his Secretary of State have previously described as wanting the grey belt to be, I hope the Government will reconsider the policy and look again at whether it is doing the damage to the countryside that many of us fear it will.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the definition and application of grey belt land.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government’s view is that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions creates a route for foreign or illegal actors to channel money through our politics, so we are introducing a moratorium on the use of cryptocurrencies to safeguard the integrity of our political finance system. We intend for to moratorium to end once the regulatory environment around cryptocurrencies is robust enough to protect that integrity. Further legislation would be required at that point, and until we get there, the moratorium will stand. I am quite happy to write to my hon. Friend on her other points.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I agree with the Minister that there is a great deal to welcome in Philip Rycroft’s conclusions. She talked about corporate donations. May I ask her to confirm that she is conscious of the vulnerability around unincorporated associations, which the Electoral Commission has identified for some time, and that she is focused on ensuring that that vulnerability is addressed?

[Samantha Dixon]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely correct. Through the Representation of the People Bill, we will take forward measures to address that.

Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I was worried when the hon. Gentleman was not on my list.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very grateful; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) never disappoints. He is absolutely right that housing is important everywhere and is a key part of this project.

I was thrilled with the appointment of Lord Vallance as the Minister and leader of this project. I think we are now finally getting into gear. Last year’s Budget identified it as a key priority for the Government, and the Chancellor’s publication of the prospectus is a statement of intent. I hope that the Minister can report on the progress that is being made.

I would like to make some brief observations from the Cambridge end of the corridor. Recent announcements about revving up the Cambridge Growth Company are very welcome, but could the Minister give an assurance that the funding announced will be made available quickly? That will mean that the very best chief executive officer can be sought with a green light that the funds are readily available, and will give investors the confidence they need. Could he also comment on his preferred approach on land value capture, including on direct Government purchase?

The Supercluster Board, which covers this whole area, includes some of the country’s leading FTSE 100 and privately owned companies, including AstraZeneca, GSK, Airbus and AVEVA, and other investors and Britain’s top universities. They have welcomed the ambition to double the economy of the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge region by 2035. Among their key asks is for what they describe as “taskforce-led governance”, modelled after the successful vaccine taskforce, which would embed a permanent partnership between Government—local and national—funding bodies, industry and academia to co-ordinate delivery. They want the taskforce to provide consistent decision making across Government that prioritises the growth corridor in national-level policy areas, and to be empowered to instruct Departments to act where existing rules prevent delivery. That is a very big ask, as I well know, but the governance issues really do matter. I well remember Sir John Armitt from the National Infrastructure Commission reflecting on how hard it is to co-ordinate when dealing with some 22 local government bodies along the corridor.

The University of Cambridge points out that together the universities of Oxford and Cambridge have produced over 400 spin-outs, which is the highest of any UK academic institution, and that in the last decade the University of Cambridge has curated no less than nine unicorn businesses. Its spin-out companies have also raised over £3 billion of investment in private venture capital.

The university also highlights the need for skills, seeking collaboration across the corridor to ensure that a pipeline of talent is available and that those living across the corridor benefit from the opportunities that it will provide. It wants to ensure that there is provision for training the highly skilled technicians who are needed to support world-leading research; they are critical to everything that the university does and vital to support emerging spin-outs. Can the Minister spell out what the Government are doing with local authorities and employers to develop a strategic skills plan to deliver infrastructure both in the corridor and the wider east, and how they will use this plan to raise outcomes and incomes for local people?

My local authority, Cambridge city council, rightly highlights the need for sustained and meaningful engagement with local residents and significant investment in social housing, including council housing. It also highlights the need for investment in skills to provide opportunity for local young people, and it supports having a wider talent pool for local businesses. It highlights the need for the corridor to be environmentally sustainable and seeks support for a doubling nature target. When the Minister was in Cambridge at the Innovate Cambridge event a few weeks ago, there was widespread welcome for his announcement of a new forest. Perhaps he could say more about that today.

The organisation Cambridge Ahead highlights the existing challenges that have to be tackled, including the way in which the infrastructure gap is constraining growth in the corridor. That includes issues around the fresh water supply, waste water treatment capacity, electricity grid capacity constraints, and intracity regional transport connectivity. It is worth asking what reassurances the Minister can provide about infrastructure-enabled capacity through to 2050 at least being in scope for the Ox-Cam project.

England’s Economic Heartland tells me that delivering an integrated transport system in the corridor should not be a choice for Government, because that is absolutely essential—and it is right. The global significance of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor means that it should be matched with a world-class transport offer, embedding the principles of the imminent integrated national transport strategy from the outset. It makes economic sense to do so, and the corridor should be an exemplar for that strategy.

Many others along the corridor will have similar asks and stories, and I am looking forward to hearing them. The Formula 1 sector tells me that the Formula 1 ecosystem employs over 6,000 people directly in the UK, and its teams work with 3,500 British-based companies that support approximately 41,000 jobs, including 25,000 highly skilled engineers. In total, the Formula 1 industry contributes more than £12 billion annually to the UK economy, and the key point is that from 2026 onwards, nine of the 11 Formula 1 teams will have bases within the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, alongside a dense supply chain of advanced engineering firms. This cluster supports tens of thousands of local jobs and positions the region as a global centre of excellence for motorsport engineering and innovation.

Similarly, London Luton airport, which I am sure we will hear more about today, is well placed to serve the corridor and has an important role to play in Universal’s plans to build its first European theme park near Bedford. The airport’s location and growth are both potentially key factors in the company’s decision to choose a location within the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.

I am conscious that I have been speaking for a while now. There is much more to be said and I suspect that many hon. Members will take the opportunity to raise their own issues. However, I hope that the Minister gets a sense of the enthusiasm that exists along the corridor and a sense of the huge opportunity that exists, not just for the area in question but for the UK economy in general.

I leave the Minister with the question that I posed at the beginning of my remarks. Will this be the decade when we move to action and, if it is, can he set out exactly the plans to make that happen?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I remind Members that they should stand if they wish to be called. Members can see the level of interest that there is in this debate. If everyone keeps their speeches to between three and four minutes, I hope we will get everybody in, but I will not impose an actual time limit yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a brilliant point about the contribution that further education colleges make to the agenda for skills, apprenticeships and ultimately good jobs for our young people.

The delivery of East West Rail, improving connectivity with Oxford and Cambridge as world-class education and innovation hubs, will be vital in providing more opportunities for young people in my constituency for study, apprenticeships and jobs that previously would have been out of reach.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

We have 10 speakers to come and I have to start Front-Bench speeches at about 3.30 pm, so speeches will need to be nearer three minutes, I am afraid. I call Pippa Heylings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I am trying to avoid setting a formal time limit, but people will need to help me; I am afraid speeches will need to be sub-three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

I have drawn the short straw here. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. I felt compelled to join the debate this afternoon because I wanted to underscore the point, which has been made by others, that if we want to make the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor a success, we cannot ignore the roles of the towns and cities that lie between them. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) articulately explained the vitality of the MK economy. All I will add to what he said is that I am particularly proud that Pulsar, Envisics and Starship Technologies call Bletchley home.

I particularly welcome East West Rail, as Bletchley and Winslow will host East West Rail stations. I cannot wait for passenger services to start, hopefully as soon as possible. I intend to use the Bletchley investment taskforce that I set up in the spring to catalyse more investment, businesses, jobs and apprenticeships in our town, so that we can realise the full promise of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.

I have little time remaining, but as the only Buckinghamshire MP able to participate in the debate, I want to shed light on Silverstone’s contribution to the east-west corridor, as articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. My constituency is home to a high-performance technology cluster in Silverstone Park, which already has 60 advanced companies, including Mercedes, Aston Martin and Andretti. If we can get the proposed Silverstone incubator village over the line, we can further demonstrate the region’s expertise in net zero propulsion, aerodynamics, meteorology and lightweight materials.

I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North about the importance of coherent, strategic and joined-up leadership across the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. I know that hon. Members from across the Bedford, Luton and Milton Keynes region would value more conversations about that.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to all the hon. Members who spoke for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks. I apologise to him and to the House for not being here for his opening remarks, which he has just mentioned. In them, he talked a little about Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 31. I am grateful to him for the concession that the Government are making and for the moves they intend to make. However, can I make just two criticisms of Government amendments (a) and (b)? The first is very minor; Government amendment (a) refers to the

“Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028”.

That should, of course, be 2018. I know that the Minister will be able to correct that error in due course.

The more substantive criticism is about data collection. The Minister will know that is the only substantive difference left between the Government’s proposal and the one that I made on Report in this place and that Lord Borwick made in the other place. When we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we should be able to keep track of progress. If the Minister is not minded to do that in the context of this Bill, will he consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the direction that he and I both want to see?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will of course pick up the drafting error that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has identified and rectify that. I am more than happy to take the data point away and reflect further. With the amendment in lieu that we have proposed, there is obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in. I very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised.

I will pick up a number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords amendment 1. For the purposes of clarity, I will lay out again the reassurances I have given to the House, both on Report and today. Where the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to a national policy statement, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at that Committee. On Report, I talked about that being wherever practicable to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face, but I hope it is noted that I withdrew those comments. We expect Ministers to make themselves available to the relevant Committee in all instances, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.

Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days. That is 21 sitting days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted.

On who makes the decisions, it is the relevant Secretary of State who will decide whether a change falls into one of the four categories, but the categories are closely defined. They include: relevant published Government policy, a change to legislation and a decision of the court. The intent of the relevant clause is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny, but to address the fact that, on average, the Select Committee inquiry process adds around five months to the process of updating a national policy statement. That is as things stand. We want to ensure that Select Committees are engaged and that we have regular and timely updates. I can happily confirm, as I have made clear, that where a Select Committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, they will be taken into account. However, we need this change to make reflective amendments to the NPS to ensure that things can be kept up to date.

Airports are a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. That would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process, and that is not the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must lay the proposed amended national policy statement in full before Parliament and specify a relevant period. If within that relevant period, either House passes a resolution or a Committee makes recommendations on the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must respond, and that response must be laid before Parliament. There are two different processes.

Turning to chalk streams, we have to be clear about the intent of Lords amendment 38. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams; it implies specific requirements on chalk streams in spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. We think there are important practical reasons why those authorities are not the relevant bodies to bring such protections forward.

In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) referenced a number of cases where other legislation or other Government agencies are ultimately responsible for addressing some of the problems in question, not the spatial authorities that will bring forward SDSs. We therefore do not think that Lords amendment 38 is the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the Government’s view. While I accept that chalk streams are not currently mentioned explicitly in national policy, the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value, and local plans should:

“Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks”.

In addition, when determining planning applications local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, in the last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. The application of these protections extends beyond strategic plans, to all types of plan and, crucially, to decisions on planning applications. As I said, the Government acknowledge the case for giving explicit recognition to chalk streams in national planning policy, although I cannot go further than the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box today that we will lay out and consult on proposals to include that explicit recognition and in so doing make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. That will be part of the consultation.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not need to point out that this is a very popular debate. I remind hon. Members that if they wish to be called to speak, they should please stand. To give you an indication, something like four minutes each should allow us to get everybody in, given the numbers who wish to speak, so please bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. This is just a gentle reminder that we are aiming for four minutes. I will not impose a formal time limit unless I have to, but it would help if we could keep close to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis]

I completely agree. Diversity is at the heart of Milton Keynes. We are a proud city that shows how people from many backgrounds can come together to enrich and strengthen our community. We have seen at first hand how the many people who have come to our city from Hong Kong have added to our local economy. The previous Government and this Government made a deal, a commitment, that was in keeping with our human rights commitments and our commitment to doing the right thing. It is important that we keep to that commitment.

Like most people, I welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to ensure that those who come to Britain are able to integrate and contribute to our society, rather than simply filling gaps left by uncertainty and under-investment in skills and training—changing the deal for BNO visa holders is not the way to do that.

I do not think the Government intentionally aim to create uncertainty for the people who came here, but unfortunately that uncertainty has now been created, and everybody in this room sees it in our inboxes. I hope that today the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and provide certainty, so that those who came here seeking safety, freedom and opportunity know that this Government still stand with them and will not change the rules, and that the five-year journey committed to by the previous Government will remain in place even after the immigration White Paper goes through.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is as good as his word.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

In view of the pressure on time, I will limit my remarks to amendment 141, in my name. The Bill, as we have heard, seeks to do many things, but one of them is to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points around the country to facilitate the move to electric vehicles. Drivers with disabilities, and there are 1.35 million of them, will also be expected to move to electric vehicles, but public charging points are often unsuitable for them to use. The amendment is designed to address that.

Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Marsha De Cordova]

If that church is on the list of 260, it would be, but I would be very happy if the hon. Gentleman follows that up with me after the debate so we can look into it.

Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing a new capital funding scheme for listed places of all faiths and denominations? Finally, would my hon. Friend the Minister, when he is liaising with Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, agree to meet me and representatives of some of the churches that are affected by the changes to the listed places of worship scheme, to listen to their experiences and find a solution? I think we can all agree that if we do not find a way forward, the impact will be great.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I remind all Back-Bench colleagues to bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The point about community activities is ever present in my constituency of Carlisle, so I profoundly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is almost 35 years since St James Church in Carlisle, the church I was christened into, set up an op-shop in the community of Denton Holme to repay the loan it had taken to expand its parish centre. I am delighted to say that that op-shop remains today. It has been joined by a coffee shop, which is a real community hub in Denton Holme. But more than that, the diocese of Carlisle took on that op-shop model. Today, there are five shops, all specifically located in communities on our larger estates in and around Carlisle where there is real need. It is not just the goods that they are selling, but the fact that they have a model that is about outreach into those communities. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the ability of our churches to diversify and innovate is one of their great strengths?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I observe that interventions are getting progressively longer. If those who want to speak are going to be able to speak, we will have to have shorter interventions.

[John Glen]

I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point. Every Member present today will have a vivid portrait in their mind of an impact that a church makes in their community. It is quite different in different places, and evolves according to the needs of that community. I will not go through every single church that I have visited over my 15 years as Salisbury’s MP, but the range and depth of their impact is considerable.

Andrew Rumsey, the Bishop of Ramsbury in the diocese of Salisbury, is, coincidentally, the co-lead on church buildings for the Church of England, which has 16,000 buildings, 42 cathedrals and 300 major parish churches. Of those, 12,500 are listed. That is nearly half of grade I listed buildings in our country. Contrary to elsewhere in Europe—France, Germany and Italy, for example—there is no central church funding for building works. While it will always be right that people look to the local community to raise funds, we have to examine what we have done in the past and what we might do in the future, given that churches and church buildings are a delivery vehicle for community services alongside local authorities, and how we can embed that understanding in public policy so that churches are supported and become a sustainable force into the future.

The first point I want to make is about the listed places of worship scheme. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) gave an assurance of continuity for one year, which I suspect is related to the spending review. On 11 June, we will have some clarity over what is happening on a multi-year basis—that cannot come soon enough. The point has been made about the 260 buildings that are in progress and outside the cap. The Government need to address that. Typically, this excellent scheme, which Gordon Brown set up in 2001, was underspent— I remember being Chief Secretary and seeing that the line was £42 million, and it was usually in the 20s. That money will be netted off at the end of the year, but I respectfully say that this is so valued that the Government must reconsider stopping those 260 buildings and putting them at risk of not achieving what they need to complete the works so that we are not left with a deficit.

In my constituency, I think the figure in the last year was £93,855. That is a considerable amount of money, and it makes a lot of difference on individual projects. That will have covered 15 or 20 projects.

[John Glen]

It is, and I wish St Mary’s parishioners well in all their endeavours. There is scope for the Government to come out of this in a very positive way in June by looking back over what they can do to put this right.

For my second point, I want to spend a few moments reasserting the impact that church buildings have on local communities. The hon. Member for Battersea mentioned “The House of Good” report. One of my constituents, Luke March, has been working for 10 years as chairman of the National Churches Trust, which put that report together, and it makes for interesting reading. We are talking about enormous support for communities, working with local authorities. The National Churches Trust report talks about how the care for those in need is worth twice as much as the total spend on adult social care by local authorities. There is a risk—I recognise this from my ministerial experience—that we say, “Well, this is going to happen anyway,” so we can bank that, and then worry about our overall budget. The Minister must recognise—he will know this from his own constituency—that there is often a synergy between statutory-funded local authority provision and the provision of churches working together. We need to look at embedding that understanding in policymaking.

The hon. Lady mentioned the value of church buildings as a source of encouragement and fun, through arts and cultural experiences. I massively recognise that at Salisbury cathedral: the flower festival this week, Sarum Lights, the number of visitors to evensong, the “From Darkness to Light” services—all of those things. Sixty-two per cent of church spaces are useful for leisure-time music performances, and they are used as such. Then there is the other side: the food banks, warm spaces, or acting as a venue for Alcoholics Anonymous, debt counselling, grief counselling, youth clubs and parish meetings.

Last year the independent Khan review looked into social cohesion and resilience. As the Minister will know, it understandably focused on the financial vulnerability of councils, but I reinforce the point that churches can surely be an effective and investable vehicle to deal with some of those deficits. Putting right the issue with the grant scheme can give more security to more buildings going forward. In its report, “Pillars of Community”, the Centre for Social Justice asserts that 12 out of its 29 policies for community thriving are supported by the presence and role of churches.

My third and final point is about capital grants. There is a considerable precedent here, although, as a former Chief Secretary, I feel anxious about that constant demand for more money. I recognise that, but we did find money from 2014 to 2018 for the first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund, which benefited 57 Anglican and Catholic cathedrals. The roof repair fund gave £55 million over a similar timeframe and was administered by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The heritage stimulus fund gave grants for programmes of major works as part of the culture recovery fund after covid in two tranches in 2021 and 2022.

The public finances are clearly challenged, but there is enormous willingness in many communities where the Government are doing something to match that funding. There is an enormous opportunity for a multiplier effect. It is usually easier to secure capital funding than revenue funding. A Chancellor is always looking for small items, or good news stories, as George Osborne did back in the day, so I urge the Minister, when he plans his budget and finalises what is happening in these final weeks, to recognise that this would be a great opportunity to find a capital grant scheme for match funding from philanthropic and charitable giving that would be really popular and welcomed across the House.

I will not detain colleagues for much longer, but I want to emphasise that we must fully acknowledge the enormous contribution that our church buildings make and the value-add that they provide—spiritually, socially and in looking after the most vulnerable people. I call on the Minister to take to heart the cumulative effect of all that he will hear this morning and reflect on the impact of church buildings, which is felt across our country. There are just four weeks until the spending review on 11 June. There is time for a late addition and to put a few things right; this would be a great opportunity to do so.

I also want to give thanks to all those church leaders—not only in the Anglican Church, but in all denominations—who do so much to achieve positive outcomes for people in our communities. They do so alongside their formal ministry of preaching the gospel, but the impact they have, and what they speak of Jesus Christ to their communities, is instrumental in the mission they have. I hope that we and the Government can acknowledge that and assist them in the maintenance of this vast estate of church buildings, which is so important to our country.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We will need to move to Front-Bench speeches at just before 10.30 am, so if colleagues can keep their speeches to around three minutes, we might get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the joint sponsors, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), on obtaining this very important debate, which highlights the important role that churches play in our local communities. I will give a few examples of that.

Last week, we marked the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Yes, there was a grand national service across the road in Westminster Abbey, but there were civic services up and down the country to mark the occasion. I attended one that had been arranged by the Mayor of North East Lincolnshire. He is a Catholic, so we attended the Catholic church last Thursday evening. Amazingly enough, while we were there, we heard of the election of the new Pope. Just as an aside, I would say that perhaps the Catholic Church has something to teach the Church of England in the speed with which it appoints its head. We desperately need a head of the Church of England, and that it takes a year to come up with a candidate is staggering. I am sure the hon. Member for Battersea has relayed that point already, but I emphasise it again. VE Day showed the importance of church buildings and the role of the Church within our national and civic life.

On Sunday, it was National Fishing Remembrance Day. Part of my constituency has a ward in Grimsby, which is noted for fish. Sadly, the deep sea fishing industry is no more, but many people in the area worked as trawlermen or were connected with the industry. It is still vital to the area. At the service I attended, Canon Mullins from Grimsby Minster drew links between VE Day and the fishing industry. The great west window in Grimsby Minster depicts St Peter and the fishermen going out into the Sea of Galilee. In 1943, two bombs landed on the minster, or St James’ church as it was then, shattering every window in the church. The original drawings still existed, so many of the windows were recreated, but the new west window paid tribute to the fishing industry.

Any country church or churchyard tells the story of the local community. This weekend was an open weekend for many churches in Lincolnshire, and on Saturday, I visited St Mary’s in Broughton, a village close to Scunthorpe. I heard there from a local historian who lives across the road from the church. He was extremely knowledgeable about the history of virtually every brick in the building. He pointed out to me that it was one of four churches in Lincolnshire to predate the Norman conquest, and guided me to the evidence for that. I was a bit disturbed by that because the church that I attend regularly in Scartho in Grimsby, St Giles and St Matthews, has what is claimed to be an Anglo-Saxon tower dating to 1042. I pointed that out to the historian and he said, “Oh no, it must be at least 50 years later than that”, but nevertheless, it points to the long history of the stories that churches tell of their local communities.

One of those other four churches in Lincolnshire that was referred to as pre-dating the conquest is St Peter’s—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets on to any more churches, I gently pointed out to him that he is well over his three minutes. It is not a formal time limit, but I am trying to get everybody in.

[Martin Vickers]

My apologies, Sir Jeremy. In that case, I will conclude by saying that our churches and cathedrals play such an important part in our local communities. The National Churches Trust is conducting a survey at this time, which I urge Members to take part in to refer to the importance of the churches in their local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

To put the situation in Egypt into perspective, each church, irrespective of denomination, has the police and army on guard 24 hours a day. In 2013, Christian churches were burned and Christians were murdered. Today, however, the opportunities have changed, and there will be a new church in upper Cairo.

In Jordan, churches and mosques have been working hand in hand to support Syrian refugees by offering shelter, food and education. Those interfaith efforts are rooted in the power of religious communities, and the spaces that those communities occupy serve as a powerful reminder of what is possible when freedom of religion or belief is respected and protected. That includes ensuring that places of worship remain accessible, protected and supported.

I end on a Scripture text, as I often do in these debates, because I think it is important. Isaiah 56:7 says:

“Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”

That is not just a call to protect buildings; it is a call to safeguard the freedom to worship. Every individual, regardless of faith, should be able to worship freely without fear of persecution or obstruction. When such places are attacked, it is an assault on the fundamental right to practise our faith, to live according to our beliefs and to do so without fear. Let us continue to support efforts to ensure that churches and other religious buildings remain places of peace, welcome and faith. Let us speak out for those whose right to worship in safety is still denied.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

We have five more speakers and about 10 minutes left, which means, I am afraid, about two minutes each.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I will speak quickly. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

In a Westminster Hall debate earlier this year, I was pleased to note that there are an impressive 138 listed places of worship in my constituency. I am very proud of the work they do; they enrich our lives in so many ways. More disappointingly, I recently noted that I am the Labour MP with the highest number of places of worship on the heritage at risk register—13. I hope that reflects the sheer number of churches locally, rather than our desire, or not, to look after them.

Earlier this year, I was delighted that, despite the difficult economic situation the Government inherited, they confirmed that they would extend the listed places of worship grant scheme, providing £23 million to enable important restoration work. That includes many places in my constituency that have been busily co-ordinating their improvement plans, because churches, particularly in such rural areas, are often the heartbeat of the community.

A couple of weeks ago in the village of Welney, on the Norfolk and Cambridgeshire border, I was pleased to join St Mary the Virgin church to mark its 100th community coffee morning. That initiative was started during covid by Laura and her husband Antony, along with Marie, Guy, Sue, Karen, Shirley and Tracey. They estimate that they have now had more than 3,000 visits, which is very impressive for a small village. As nice as the cake was—as I can attest—they also, more importantly, provide a warm space in the winter, bring people together, reduce isolation and much more. I commend them for their efforts. It was through the church in Welney that I heard about fen skating—I urge hon. Members to look it up; it is a really important part of our heritage in South West Norfolk.

Although I am the Labour MP with the highest number of churches on the heritage at risk register, the second on that list is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I gently suggest to the Minister that I am sure that the Prime Minister will be very interested in ensuring that the Government continue to support churches and commit to a long-term plan for the listed places of worship grant scheme.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

We will find out in a few minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Yeovil has some truly beautiful religious buildings, and polling of the general public shows that 75% of people agree that church buildings are important for society. Holy Trinity runs a baby bank, supporting three to four families each week with essential items for newborns, such as nappies and baby grows. The church also has a thriving eco-garden cared for by volunteers. St John’s has the Gone Fishing café, which is very popular in the community. It also hosts Christians Against Poverty once a week, providing support services.

Almost half of all grade I listed buildings in England are historic churches. Over 900 churches are at risk, according to Historic England’s heritage at risk register. That is why the listed places of worship grant scheme for church repairs is so important. The scheme allows congregations of all faiths to recover the value added tax costs of vital repairs to the listed buildings, making it the most universal and accessible source of relief.

I was glad to see that, following public pressure, the Government extended the scheme until March 2026, but with a lower cap of £25,000 towards repair costs. I thank the Minister for writing to me to confirm that following my early-day motion on the topic. I am concerned about the introduction of the cap, and I urge the Government to make sure that existing claims are honoured under the previous agreement where no cap existed.

In conclusion—I am under time, which is good—churches are not just for the faithful, but for all communities, whether that is local groups and clubs, charity workers and the vulnerable, or people celebrating weddings and christenings or mourning the passing of loved ones. Religious buildings play an important role in key moments throughout our life, bringing us together as a community. That is why we must do all we can to support these fantastic buildings as cornerstones of our British society and culture.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity, as I am sure is Brian Mathew.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I also thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for leading the debate.

For over 20 years, the Government have run the listed places of worship grant scheme, which allows listed churches, chapels and other places of worship to reclaim VAT on the costs of repair. That grant scheme has been renewed every few years, and it needs to be renewed again in full if communities are to be allowed to keep what is often their heart and soul in good order, and in doing so, keep themselves healthy.

Any reduction in the scheme would be a disaster for listed places of worship. Nearly half of all grade I listed buildings in England are churches. Those buildings are largely run by volunteers who have to raise the funds needed for repairs. The ability to reclaim VAT on such works makes an enormous difference, particularly when the cost of all building work has increased substantially.

Historic churches are not only places of spiritual importance, but architectural and cultural landmarks. They offer a window into our past, reflecting the diversity of our communities and our shared history. They also do a tremendous amount to support local communities, often hosting or helping to run services such as food banks, youth clubs, and drug and addiction support, which contribute to health and social welfare across our country—from rural idylls to inner city neighbourhoods.

Without the scheme, many historically and architecturally significant buildings will quite simply face neglect, and even closure. That would not only have a severely negative effect on local communities, inevitably impacting the most deprived communities the most, but result in a loss of this hugely significant heritage. By continuing the listed places of worship grant scheme, the Government can ensure that those treasures are protected for future generations as places that promote beauty, education, community cohesion and tourism.

I have received 40 letters from 24 church communities in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes. Those churches are quintessential to what makes up the best of our nation; they should be celebrated, visited and utilised, because that is what they were built for in the first place.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation and self-discipline. I now call the Front-Bench speakers, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the scheme we are introducing today is not perfect, but we hope to work with him and others to make sure that it is improved as it develops. One of the things we want to do is to stress that anyone who has six months’ residency in the UK can act as a sponsor, but he quite rightly draws attention to the fact that there are Ukrainians in this country—some are students, for example, and others are in a position where they do not have indefinite leave to remain—and we will seek to regularise their status. The Home Secretary and Lord Harrington are, I know, already on it.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I very much welcome the conduit for the immense generosity of the British public that my right hon. Friend has set out. However, as he has recognised, what a Ukrainian refugee needs is not just a home, but the services that go with a home and, as others have said, local authorities will be providing those. Can I ask him about the very substantial co-ordination challenges not just between his Department and the Home Office, though that is important, but between the services that are being provided to refugees who are already here from other places and the services for those who will arrive from Ukraine? The fact is that, under the scheme he has described, people will go where there is a home for them, not necessarily where there is service provision for them, and he will need to ensure, will he not, that that service provision is indeed provided?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and this is a cross-Government, and beyond Government effort. As he reminds us, we have welcomed people who have come here from Syria or Afghanistan in a compassionate fashion, but there are delivery challenges for everyone in Government that we need to work out, to ensure the right services are there. We expect, but do not predict, that many of those who will benefit in the first stages of this scheme will be people moving to areas where there are already a significant number of people of Ukrainian ancestry. Some of the social networks will help, but we must ensure that as the scheme expands, the support is there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

It is published fully and frankly on the Government website. The hon. Gentleman can have a look at it; I would advise him to do so. Authorities are already receiving capacity funding, so it is not true in any way to infer that every single Scottish local authority will not receive support through this initiative. We are hugely excited about the opportunities this presents us with. We are going to be investing directly into communities. There is huge support for this funding. I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman both to read the documentation on the website and to get involved in playing a full part in the process.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to promote energy-efficient house building.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)]

The future homes standard will ensure that new homes produce 75% less carbon than those being built today. Those properties will be future-proofed, with low-carbon heating and high levels of energy efficiency, and they will not need any further retrofit to become net zero in line with the electricity supply. That is what building back greener looks like.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. As he knows, building regulations are one tool we can use to improve the environmental performance of new homes, and I am conscious that the Government are consulting on how those regulations might be reformed. However, as he also knows, the regulations in place at the moment require compliance by developers to a design standard rather than a performance-in-use standard. Is his Department considering whether that should change? In any event, when does he expect revised and improved building regulations to be in place to compel that improved environmental performance?

[Eddie Hughes]

My right hon. and learned Friend will be delighted to know that we will update the regulations relating to fuel, power and ventilation this year, in advance of the introduction of the future homes standard in 2025. But we are not waiting for 2025; in the short term, our priority will be to implement an interim 2021 part L uplift. That sounds a bit esoteric, but it means that there will be a 31% reduction in carbon production compared with the 2013 standard. With regard to the point that he makes about performance standard versus design standard, I would be delighted to meet him and his constituent to discuss that further.