Social Enterprises and Community Ownership

Debate between Simon Opher and John Hayes

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

The new community right-to-buy model has been transformative, and community ownership is at the heart of what we do in Stroud.

What I have noticed, and other Members have already pointed out, is that each organisation has to go through the same learning process to get funding. And the other thing I have noticed is that a lot of local people are willing to put funds into community ownership, but they need some sort of guarantee that those funds are safe. There is a role for some regional support in that regard.

Just in the last week, the Stratford Park lido in Stroud has been threatened with closure. I know that local people hope that local government will be able to step in and offer support. If that does not happen, though, community ownership will provide a guarantee for this much-loved community service.

As many hon. Members have pointed out, there are many pubs—including in the Stroud area—that are now moving towards community ownership, simply because capitalism does not work very well in rural areas, but assets such as pubs are deeply valued. I will mention the Rose and Crown in Nympsfield, which was recently bought by the community. I have a personal interest in that pub, because it is about 2 miles’ lovely walk from my house and I am really glad that it has remained open. Community energy is also crucial. We have a scheme now whereby solar panels can be put on schools; we are trying to get community energy in every school in our area.

However, I have campaigned for the environmental right to buy to be part of the community ownership model. I know that the Government have committed to issuing some statutory guidance, so I would like to hear some more from the Minister about that guidance. Strengthening our small towns and villages means giving actual powers to communities so that they can purchase crucial parts of our society.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Excellent. Thank you, everyone, for being so disciplined with your speeches.

Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention

Debate between Simon Opher and John Hayes

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Opher]

I thank the Minister and all those who spoke and brought their fantastic experience of this really difficult problem. Let me say two very simple things. We need to imprint on healthcare workers the idea “Think domestic abuse”, so that we do not miss it. If someone presents, we must have in the back of our minds the question, “Is this domestic abuse?” That will help to identify victims much earlier. After that, we need to enable them to be referred in a simple and effective process that brings them support immediately.

I thank everyone here, and you, Sir John, for chairing the debate.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Thank you for winding up. This has been a really important debate and I am so pleased that everyone was able to contribute. I hope that, had I spoken in the debate and not chaired it, I would have spoken with the same passion and insight that everyone has shown.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the role of the NHS in preventing domestic homicides and domestic abuse-related deaths.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Debate between Simon Opher and John Hayes

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) is right that this is not unprecedented; in fact, it is the normal procedure for a money resolution relating to a private Member’s Bill to be debated ahead of Report. That is not true of Government Bills, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it is really important that we examine the detail of what we are presented with today, which is an open-ended commitment. The wording makes it absolutely clear that

“any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and…any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act”,

money is so provided. The hon. Lady says that this is not a blank cheque, but it cannot get much more blank than that. Essentially, any moneys associated with the Bill—if it becomes an Act—will be provided.

Pertinent to this vote, we have to ask the question: where will that money come from? Presumably it can come only from existing resource, and one assumes palliative care; it will not come from A&E, surgical treatments or GPs, so it will presumably come from that source. One does not know, of course, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask that question.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will in a second.

On the judicial point, I simply say to the hon. Lady that the establishment of a judicial competence to deal with this system will be resource-hungry. To offer her a parallel example, when I took the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 through the House, we established what was then described as a double lock—it became a triple lock—which required a whole new judicial function to make it happen. It may well be that the same applies in this case, with immense cost and immense pressure on an already overstretched judiciary.

Therefore, in considering those precise matters—not the ethics of the Bill, which are an entirely different consideration, and highly questionable—it is absolutely right and pertinent to ask what this will cost, when, and how it will be delivered. Those questions have not been answered. I scanned the hon. Lady’s speech on Second Reading, and it contained no mention of scale or cost. That is why I am immensely sceptical about what we have before us. While I accept that the money resolution is not unprecedented, it is certainly not desirable.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Debate between Simon Opher and John Hayes

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

Well, it is not for me to second-guess the sentiments of the Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend is certainly right to say that a number of promises and comments were made. I will talk about them in a little more detail, provoked by his very helpful intervention.

I see in the Chamber today the former shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He will know that the Labour manifesto in 2019 was fulsome in its support for the WASPI women, promising a generous financial settlement. It is perfectly reasonable to say that parties move on; the new Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, may have taken a rather different view. He may have taken the opposite view.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will just make this point, and then I will happily give way.

But that was certainly not the impression given by the current Prime Minister’s remarks. He said:

“Justice to end historic injustice”—

that was specifically about WASPI women. The now Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government “stole” the pensions of WASPI women and that Labour would compensate them. Therefore, one can understand why the women, some of whom are represented here today—they are being incredibly diligent and quiet, Dr Murrison, you will be pleased to know—feel that this was indeed a “betrayal”, to use the word that I used at the beginning of my remarks. An expectation was established, and then it was blighted by the decision made since the general election.

[Dr Opher]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Could I make an appeal to all of us? I do not think that either side of this debate has covered itself in glory. I agree that this is a very dangerous precedent about the ombudsman, but let us not make this party political, please. Let us make this about the WASPI women. Is there not a way, at least, of compensating the very worst off among the WASPI women? I would appeal for that.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a measured intervention, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. It is true that a package could be put together and discussed with the campaign group and the women concerned; one would expect Government to do that. As a Minister, I would have had submissions. I have no doubt that this Minister has had them, and the Secretary of State must have had submissions that gave her options, before she said what she said when she let the WASPI women down. Those options would no doubt have included a series of ways through this. I know the Minister will be eager to explore those options with us when he sums up the debate. I have no doubt about that because he is a diligent and decent man; he will not want to betray those women again in what he says today because he is not that kind of character.