Westminster Hall Presses Government On Heritage, Services and Reform
High-Level Summary
The day’s Westminster Hall debates considered recognition of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage, special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision in rural communities, council housing delivery, domestic farming and food supply, and the Government’s response to the Covid-19 Inquiry’s Module 4 report. Members raised concerns about declining industries and local services, geographical barriers, housing shortages, farm viability, food security and support for people affected by vaccine-related injury. Ministers described current and planned measures on heritage assessment, SEND funding and reform, council-house financing, farming support and border enforcement, and Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme reform. The motions were agreed; the transcript records no division or Ayes and Noes figures.
Detailed Summary
Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage
Jacob Collier moved that the House consider recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage. Members described the skills involved in brewing, conditioning and serving cask ale and linked it to pubs, tourism, agriculture, local identity and community life. They also raised the decline in cask sales, brewery closures, pressures on pubs, market-access barriers, beer duty, business rates, energy costs and support for British agriculture. Collier argued that cask ale should be included in the UK’s inventory of living heritage: “Cask ale should be included in that inventory.”
Stephanie Peacock said that “Cask Ale Culture” had been formally submitted and was being assessed by an independent panel. She said that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would launch a public consultation the following year on practical measures to safeguard living heritage. On proposed Marston’s brewery closure, she said the Government stood ready to support affected workers through Jobcentre Plus and the rapid response service. On a guest-beer arrangement in England, she said: “Ministers are giving it their consideration.” The motion was agreed and the sitting was suspended; no division figures were recorded.
SEND Provision: Rural Communities
Terry Jermy moved that the House consider special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision in rural communities. Drawing on casework and his South West Norfolk report, he described concerns about delayed assessments, limited local provision, long journeys, workforce shortages and children being out of education. He said that 46% of parents responding to his survey reported that their child had spent significant time out of school. Members also discussed transport costs, reduced parental choice and the effect of SEND responsibilities on parents’ employment. Jermy said: “From our own assessments, it is clear that rural areas typically have a limited range of local SEND provision.”
Georgia Gould acknowledged that recruitment difficulties, travel distances and limited provision could exacerbate pressures in rural communities. She referred to £1.8 billion for the Experts at Hand service, £200 million for teacher training, £3.7 billion in capital investment, and proposed specialist-provision packages and school clusters. She said that high-needs capital funding for Norfolk would be £13 million in 2025-26 and £15.8 million in 2026-27, and agreed to provide an update on the assistive-technology lending-library trial. She also described planned cross-government working and said that the home-to-school transport system included a separate formula taking distance travelled into account: “People will get the support they need, wherever they live.” The motion was agreed; no division figures were recorded.
Council Housing
Chris Hinchliff moved that the House consider the delivery of council housing and asked the Minister to specify the numerical target behind the Government’s commitment to the “biggest council house building programme” since the post-war period. Members discussed housing waiting lists, temporary accommodation, rural and coastal housing pressures, housing revenue account debt, borrowing capacity, the loss of social housing through right to buy, empty properties and community-led housing. Proposals included reviewing or cancelling housing revenue account debt, providing low-cost finance, enabling councils to acquire land and empty homes, retaining right-to-buy receipts and supporting local delivery capacity. Hinchliff said that falling waiting-list and temporary-accommodation figures should be a key measure of progress: “It must be one of the most important yardsticks by which the Government measure themselves.”
Sarah Bool criticised the Government’s housing record and the Social Housing Bill’s right-to-buy provisions. Jim McMahon, responding for the Government, said councils had delivered around 10,600 homes in 2024-25, that more than £21 billion remained to be allocated under the social and affordable homes programme, and that preferential Public Works Loan Board borrowing rates would be extended. He also referred to £46 million of additional capacity-to-build funding, councils’ retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts, reforms to empty dwelling management orders and an estimated net gain of around 18,000 social homes over 10 years from right-to-buy reforms. He did not provide the numerical programme target requested by Hinchliff. The motion was agreed; no division figures were recorded.
Domestic Farming and Food Supply
Carla Lockhart moved that the House consider domestic farming and food supply. She focused on farm viability, proposed inheritance-tax changes, investment, regulation, trade, food security, public procurement, illegal meat imports and the position of Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. She cited an Ulster Farmers’ Union survey in which 84% of respondents had postponed, cancelled or reduced investment, and argued that the proposed changes could create pressure to sell farm assets. She also called for fair returns from supermarkets, stronger border enforcement and policies supporting domestic production, concluding: “No farmers, no food, no future.”
Stephen Morgan recognised pressures from volatile markets, extreme weather, animal disease and rising input and energy costs, and said that food security was a national-security issue. He said the Government would maintain food and animal-welfare standards, use quotas, exclusions and safeguards where necessary, and pursue export opportunities. He described a proposed sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union as intended to reduce checks and paperwork. On taxation, he said that up to £5 million could still be passed on free of inheritance tax, depending on individual circumstances. He also referred to £11.8 billion for sustainable farming and food production over the Parliament, including funding for productivity, innovation and drought resilience, and said further details of a border-enforcement framework would be published in due course. The motion was agreed; no division figures were recorded.
Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response
Christopher Chope moved that the House consider the Government’s response to the Covid-19 Inquiry’s Module 4 report, focusing on recommendation 5 concerning the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS). Members who called for reform supported uprating the £120,000 payment, introducing graded payments, making transitional arrangements and reconsidering the 60% disablement threshold. They also raised delays, administrative costs, vaccine-safety monitoring, public confidence and the effect of the scheme on people who had suffered serious injury. Bradley Thomas described John Cross’s case, in which: “he was deemed to be 55% disabled”. Gregory Stafford said that the Government’s response gave “no date, no figure and no commitment” to the inquiry’s minimum reforms.
Other Members discussed vaccine development, vaccine equity, health-data systems, public trust and lessons for future pandemics. Diana R. Johnson, the Public Health Minister, said that the Department would begin open engagement with affected people and families. She said possible reforms included multiple levels of payment and addressing the 60% threshold, and that officials would meet families’ advisers before the end of the year and engage with key partners through the spring, with an update in the spring. In response to Jeremy Wright, she confirmed that payments for people below the 60% threshold were among the options being considered: “That is certainly an option that I have asked officials to look at.” She also agreed to meet Esther McVey to discuss concerns about the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Chope said the response remained insufficient, but the motion was agreed; no division figures were recorded.