Ministers Quizzed on Fairness, Care and Community Impacts

High-Level Summary

Westminster Hall considered five subjects: proposed asylum reforms’ impact on people with protected characteristics; palliative care and Ashgate Hospice in north Derbyshire; the cumulative impacts of housing development; neurodiversity in the workplace; and Government support for membership‑based charities. Members questioned Ministers on equality duties, hospice and ICB funding, housing targets and cumulative impacts, workplace inclusion and Access to Work, and consumer‑law changes affecting charity membership income. Ministers outlined existing policy, funding and planned guidance or consultations; in two debates Ministers offered to broker or convene discussions with stakeholders. Debates concluded either with a resolution that the House had considered the topic or, for 30‑minute debates, with the motion lapsing; there were no divisions.

Detailed Summary

Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

Kirsty Blackman argued that recent asylum policy proposals disproportionately harm women, LGBTQ+ people, disabled people and children, and lack equality impact assessments. She said changes have “failed to take account of the fact that the negative impacts are not felt uniformly across the board” [ref: a373.1/4], highlighted that “92% of the people who receive grants under family reunification are women and girls—92%.” [ref: a374.1/8], and warned that “not disclosing trauma early in the process will likely have a negative impact on their case.” [ref: a374.1/5]

John Martin McDonnell raised concerns about frequent 30‑month status reviews, family reunion limits, an article 8 review, financial support and appeals, noting “92% to 93% of family reunion visas…I think about 1,200—in the last year were for wives and children” [ref: a380.2/16]. Minister for Border Security and Asylum Alex Norris stated that an individual’s case “will always be assessed on its individual merits” [ref: a391.0/6], that the Home Office would comply with the public sector equality duty and equality impact assessments [ref: a391.0/7], and that “There are no children in detention. We have no intention to detain children” [ref: a394.1/2]. On the proposed ‘contribution’ test, he said, “There are other ways to contribute, and that is reflected in our earned settlement consultation” [ref: a395.3/1]. Outcome: “Resolved, That this House has considered the potential impact of proposed asylum reforms on people with protected characteristics seeking asylum.” [ref: a396.0/6, a396.0/7]

Palliative Care: North Derbyshire (Ashgate Hospice)

Toby Perkins set out Ashgate Hospice’s role and the shock at proposals to make up to 52 redundancies and close 60% of in‑patient beds, citing financial strain and uncertainty with the integrated care board (ICB) [ref: a397.1/4]. He sought clarity on funding responsibilities and a sustainable national approach to hospice support.

Minister Stephen Kinnock cited recent Government support: “we announced a £100 million capital funding boost for adult hospices and children’s hospices” [ref: a401.0/6], with “Ashgate hospice… receiving over £845,000” [ref: a401.0/7] and multi‑year revenue for children’s hospices [ref: a401.0/8]. He said the ICB’s “core contract value… has increased by 55% since 2022” [ref: a401.0/9] and offered to “broker a discussion between the ICB, concerned Members of Parliament and the hospice” [ref: a401.0/11]. He also outlined development of a modern service framework for palliative and end‑of‑life care [ref: a401.0/13]. Outcome: 30‑minute debate; “Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).” [ref: a405.0/2]. Next step: Minister to convene talks and progress the framework.

Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Damian Hinds argued the new standard method skews targets towards rural areas, doubling East Hampshire’s annual requirement “from 575 a year to 1,100,” while urban areas saw much smaller uplifts of “around 16% to 17% on average” [ref: a406.2/5, a406.2/6]. He said the rapid hike collapsed the council’s five‑year land supply to “a 2.9‑year housing land supply,” enabling speculative applications and making it hard to assess cumulative impacts [ref: a406.2/16]. He asked Ministers to rebalance the formula, fix perverse affordability incentives and allow cumulative impacts to be considered pending plan adoption [ref: a409.3/3‑a409.3/6, a406.2/19].

Minister Matthew Pennycook said the mandatory standard method aligns to the 1.5 million homes target and “the Government have no intention of withdrawing or modifying the standard method” [ref: a427.1/2]. He noted they “scrapped the arbitrary 35% urban uplift” while increasing targets across city regions and reinforced brownfield‑first policies, including “a default ‘yes’ for development on land within reasonable walking distance around train stations.” [ref: a427.3/3, a427.3/5] He emphasised faster plan‑making, flexibility for local constraints and work towards “a simpler, more transparent and more robust section 106 system.” [ref: a428.1/6] Outcome: “Resolved, That this House has considered the cumulative impacts of housing development.” [ref: a430.0/4, a430.0/6]

Neurodiversity in the Workplace

Sarah Hall described barriers faced by neurodivergent people at work, calling for support based on need (not diagnosis), stronger enforcement of reasonable adjustments, improvements to Access to Work and public sector leadership. She noted “one in seven people in the UK are neurodivergent” [ref: a431.2/6], that “one in five neurodivergent workers have experienced harassment or discrimination at work” [ref: a432.1/2], and that “nearly a third of neurodivergent workers have not told their manager or HR department at all” due to fear of stigma [ref: a432.3/2].

Minister Diana R. Johnson pointed to an independent panel led by Professor Amanda Kirby, ACAS support and future training, saying “ACAS will be offering free masterclasses to small and medium‑sized employers in early 2026” [ref: a437.1/1]. She referenced the Disability Confident scheme [ref: a437.1/6], Access to Work collaboration and supported employment [ref: a437.1/7‑a437.1/9], and “the independent review… launched by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 4 December” [ref: a437.1/12]. Outcome: 30‑minute debate; “Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).” [ref: a437.1/17]

Government Support for Membership‑based Charity Organisations

Caroline Dinenage highlighted the scale and pressures on membership charities and warned that the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act’s subscription rules could undermine gift aid on memberships. She noted “The National Trust, for example, has nearly 6 million members” [ref: a440.1/5] and that national insurance changes “have collectively added £1.4 billion to the charity sector’s bills” [ref: a440.3/5]. She argued the Act’s approach “move[s] us away from a place where we view a charity membership as an expression of support” [ref: a440.3/12] and urged excluding charity memberships via secondary legislation and reconvening a roundtable [ref: a440.3/15].

Civil Society Minister Stephanie Peacock said the Department for Business and Trade would shortly publish its consultation response and that HMRC’s interim guidance allows charities “to continue to claim gift aid on eligible membership subscriptions” [ref: a449.0/7]. She defended difficult fiscal choices but noted the employment allowance was “more than doubled… to £10,500” [ref: a449.0/9] and outlined wider tax reliefs and funds for the sector [ref: a449.0/12‑a449.0/13]. She offered to meet and relay concerns to DBT [ref: a449.0/6]. Outcome: “Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for membership‑based charity organisations.” [ref: a452.0/5, a452.0/6]