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.