Marsha De Cordova MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Apr 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Ever since I took on this role, this issue has come up time and again. I commit to writing to the hon. Member on this, having looked into what other support is available to her. If she could also write to me and set out the churches that are impacted, she can also be included in any such a meeting.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  As I have outlined, I raised my concerns when I met the Secretary of State to discuss the impact on the many churches that will be affected, particularly those that already have projects and works ongoing. I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the potential funding opportunities that may be available to churches in Farnham.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  There is no question but that churches are facing many challenges in this space. The in-year increases in the running costs for parishes, such as the national insurance increases, increases in energy costs and, obviously, the changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme, have presented challenges, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Church Commissioners distributed £1.2 billion to support parishes between 2023 and 2025.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the importance of the scheme’s future and the impact that any changes will have.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue on many occasions. Yes, I will seek to arrange a roundtable meeting with the churches impacted. I hope we can also ensure that a Minister is present at that meeting, to hear at first hand about the impact of the cap and the potential future of the scheme.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Eco Church Awards · Hansard source

  More

  The Church of England is working with A Rocha UK to support parishes in meeting their net zero targets. Grants are being awarded to parishes to help them make quick wins in reducing their running costs, such as energy efficient lightbulbs and modern heating systems.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Eco Church Awards · Hansard source

  More

  I am very happy to congratulate the congregations of St Michael and Christ Church on achieving their silver eco church awards. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, there are many parishes that I am sure could learn from the great work those churches are doing. I also thank her for her commitment to her local faith organisations.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Lithium Mineral Rights: Weardale · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. The Church Commissioners have transparently registered all mineral rights with the Land Registry. I cannot comment on the specifics, as I am sure he would agree, but I am very happy to meet him and will ensure there are officials from the Church investment team, too.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Lithium Mineral Rights: Weardale · Hansard source

  More

  The Church Commissioners granted an option over its mineral rights in Bishop Aukland to a specialist exploration company, Northern Lithium Ltd, in 2023. It has invested significantly in the local economy, which is expected to increase as exploration continues.

• 27 Mar 2025 · PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for how he is responding to this urgent question. The Conservatives, after 14 years in government, broke our social security system and created a hostile environment for disabled people, and therefore it is for us—Labour in government—to fix our social security system. I would like to press my right hon. Friend on this: 30% of disabled people already live in poverty, and the proposed changes to personal independence payment could see more being pushed further into poverty and many being pushed out of work. Indeed, the Government’s impact assessment highlighted that 150,000 people could lose carer’s allowance or the carer’s element. May I press him again to think about how we ensure that we support ill and disabled people as we fix the mess that the Tories have created?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners' Liability) Measure (HC 773) Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners’ Liability) Measure (HC 773).

• 24 Mar 2025 · Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners' Liability) Measure (HC 773) Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772) · Hansard source

  More

  That is correct. This Measure is about making it simpler and the parishes will not incur any additional liabilities or charges. The second Measure is another piece of reforming legislation. It updates legislation dating from 1958 dealing with pooled investment funds that belong to various Church of England bodies. Those are collectively known as the CBF—Central Board of Finance—Church of England Funds, but I shall refer to them as the funds going forward. Approximately 11,500 church bodies invest in these funds, including diocesan boards of finance, parochial church councils and cathedral chapters. The current assets of the funds are in the region of £3 billion. The legislation authorising these investment funds, the Church Funds Investment Measure 1958, is out of date and prevents these funds from becoming regulated funds. To address that, the Measure enables the transfer of the funds to a “charity authorised investment fund”. The structure for that type of fund was created in 2016 by the Financial Conduct Authority working with the Charity Commission. It has significant advantages for investors. First, charity authorised investment funds are jointly regulated by the Charity Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority, which offers investors greater protection and reassurance that the funds are regulated and overseen in accordance with the industry best practice, while maintaining their charitable status. Secondly, no VAT is payable on the fees of the managers of these funds, resulting in modest cost savings for charities that invest in them. The Measure enables the trustees of the CBF Church of England Funds to transfer the assets of the funds to a charity authorised investment fund. The result will be that instead of being unregulated, the funds will be authorised and regulated jointly by the FCA and the Charity Commission. VAT will also cease to be payable on the investment managers’ fees, resulting in a cost saving to church investors. The Ecclesiastical Committee has found this Measure, too, to be expedient.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners' Liability) Measure (HC 773) Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772) · Hansard source

  More

  As you rightly highlighted, Sir Jeremy, the Measures are quite narrow, but the hon. Member for Weald of Kent was given much time to talk about important projects, such as Project Spire. A lot of her questions have been dealt with. If she would like written answers, I suggest she table them as written questions. I also point to the fact that a number of her questions have been answered, so she can also check those. In relation to the Archbishops’ Council certificates, these were published on 3 February. She can check those records. I am very happy to write to her on anything I have missed. Question put and agreed to. Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772) Resolved, That the Committee has considered the Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772). —(Marsha de Cordova.)

• 24 Mar 2025 · Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners' Liability) Measure (HC 773) Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772) · Hansard source

  More

  The lead Measure rationalises the legal basis on which the Church Commissioners are obliged to provide funds to repair the chancels of certain parish churches. The law in this area dates back to before the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century. The rule that applied generally in England was that the people of the parish were responsible for maintaining the nave of the church—the main part where people generally stand or kneel during services—and the rector of the parish was responsible for the chancel, which is the easternmost part of the church containing the altar and seats for the clergy. Legislation over several centuries, beginning with the dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s and concluding with the establishment of the Church Commissioners in 1947, has resulted in the commissioners inheriting some of the land that had belonged to the rectors of various parishes. Because the land once formed part of a rector’s endowment, ownership carries with it the rector’s liability to keep in repair the chancel of the relevant parish church. The commissioners’ land carries liability for about 350 parish churches. In some cases, the commissioners have the whole liability; in others, they share it with other landowners. In 2023, they incurred net expenditure of around £354,000 on chancel repairs, which is considerably less than the £608,000 incurred in 2022. They expect expenditure for 2024 and 2025 to be in the region of £1.2 million for each year. Cathedral chapters carry liability for the chancels of around 200 parish churches. The Church Commissioners currently have a statutory power to make grants to chapters to pay those liabilities. In 2023, the commissioners made net grants of about £124,000 to chapters for that purpose, meeting the entirety of the cathedral chapters’ liabilities in that regard. When land that carries chancel repair liability is sold, the purchaser takes on the liability if it is registered against the title of the land. That has the potential to reduce the value of the land in question and result in lower sale proceeds than would otherwise be the case. If the liability is not registered against the title of the land, a purchaser takes the land free of the liability, in which case the parish loses out because the liability effectively disappears and the parishioners have to find the funds themselves to keep the chancel in repair. The lead Measure will cut through some of the complex issues that I have just set out. It will detach chancel liability from any land that currently belongs to the Church Commissioners and turn it into a free-standing statutory obligation. Thus, parishes will no longer need to go to the trouble of registering chancel repair liability for which the commissioners are responsible, the parishes will continue to be entitled to receive payments from the commissioners to maintain the chancels of their churches, and the commissioners will be able to sell land without having to reduce the sale price to take account of a liability having been registered against the title. The Measure will also simplify matters for cathedral chapters. Instead of having to rely on grants from the Church Commissioners to defray their liability to repair the chancels of various parish churches, chapters will no longer carry the liability; it will be transferred to the commissioners, who will become subject to a direct statutory obligation to meet the liabilities that have, until now, fallen on cathedral chapters. As hon. Members will be aware from the report, the Ecclesiastical Committee has considered this Measure and found it to be expedient.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and case against the cut to aid. She knows that the world’s most vulnerable children include disabled children. The Government’s disability inclusion and rights strategy was going a long way towards supporting those children through healthcare, and when it came to social protections. Does she agree that unless we get clear assurances, many millions of disabled children will end up suffering greater loss? Brilliant organisations such as Able Child Africa, which is based in my constituency, are deeply concerned about the impact the cuts will have on disabled children.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) on securing this extremely important debate, and on the way in which he so eloquently set out the issue, the challenges, and the action and next steps that need to be taken. I share his desire to see survivors of abuse treated justly, with dignity and respect, and for perpetrators to be fully held to account. Like him, I look forward to a time when we all have our confidence in the Church of England’s safeguarding practices fully restored. When I was appointed Second Church Estates Commissioner last October, I could not have foreseen the storm that was about to engulf the Church. Since the publication of the Makin report, which exposed the devastating abuse inflicted by John Smyth, MPs—myself included—have received correspondence from constituents, local clergy, and victims and survivors. Indeed, in this debate we have heard from many Members from across the House about the many challenges that this issue has raised for them. They have rightly expressed their concern about the historical and ongoing failures to keep people safe in the Church—the one place that anybody would expect to be a place of safety and sanctuary. They have also expressed concern about what looks to be a lack of consistency and transparency in the Church’s approach to safeguarding and disclosures of abuse.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has also been using her voice to speak up on this issue. We need to focus on the matter at hand: safeguarding in the Church of England. We have seen the recommendations in the Makin review and in all the previous reviews, so my question is: if change does not happen now, then when will it happen?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with her 100%. These failures are not new. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland highlighted, before the Makin review there was the independent inquiry into child sex abuse. Over the past nine years, there have been multiple reviews into safeguarding abuses in the Church of England—multiple reviews with multiple recommendations, I might add. There have been some positive steps and changes, and I commend the work of the national safeguarding team and many people in our local parishes and dioceses around the country, who have all been working incredibly hard, but I think we can collectively agree that more needs to be done. Victims and survivors have been waiting for too long. We have come to a point where both Parliament and the public need to see the Church fully committed to change. We have to ensure that safeguarding is transparent, accountable, consistent in its approach to disclosures of abuse, and trusted by the public, congregations, clergy and, most importantly, victims and survivors. That is why, at the General Synod in February, during my maiden speech, I made clear my support for the Church’s safeguarding operations to be wholly independent of the Church. That was the approach put forward by the Church’s lead bishop for safeguarding, Joanne Grenfell, and it was known as model 4. That approach would have created independent safeguarding operations, an independent complaints process, an independent scrutiny function and independent audits. It was supported by Professor Alexis Jay, who was the author of the report “The Future of Church Safeguarding”, known as the Jay review, and by local clergy in my constituency of Battersea. They made it clear to me that, while they are getting on with the day-to-day work of the Church, serving and supporting their local community on the frontline, they want to see the Church as an institution show some humility. Like me, they do not think that the Church should mark its own homework. It was therefore a huge disappointment to me that the Synod chose not to back a wholly independent model of safeguarding. Instead, it opted for the creation of an external scrutiny body to examine the Church’s safeguarding practices. That approach was known as model 3, and it will see the transfer of most of the functions currently delivered by the Church’s national safeguarding team, except policy development, to an external employer. Although model 3 includes looking at some of the practicalities of creating a fully independent safeguarding body to take on all the Church’s safeguarding work, I do not believe that that was the approach that needed to be taken, as I have outlined. It is vital, however, that the work is taken up with urgency and at pace. At present, there are no clear deadlines and no clear plan for taking the work forward. I believe we need to see a clear plan if we are to give victims and survivors, and the public, hope that the Church will really transform its approach to safeguarding, and the safety of those who are part of it. It was right that the Synod voted to “lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to victims and survivors and the harm they have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church”, but we need to remember that keeping people safe and ensuring accountability is the best way to honour victims and survivors of abuse. Some are probably watching today’s debate; some may even be here in person. They will be listening, and they will know better than any of us that there is still a long way to go. The Church must treat its work on independent safeguarding operations as a matter of urgency. We need no more blocking; we just need action, because action will speak louder than any words that any of us say here today. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland for his commitment to seeing this change through. He should be commended for his relentlessness in ensuring that this place has the opportunity to debate the issue. This is one of the first Adjournment debates on an issue that affects the Church, and it is important that many hon. Members have chosen to be in the Chamber, to contribute and to raise such important issues. As I said when the Makin report was published in November last year, this has to be a watershed moment for the Church to transform both its culture and its safeguarding structures. Unless that happens, what will happen to the Church? Many of us here are Christians and followers of Jesus, so we want to see the Church change. The Church is a voice for the voiceless, as many of us know, and I hope I will not find myself in this Chamber in a year or two repeating the same sentiment.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Church Organs: Legislative Protection · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will know that I do not answer for the Church of Scotland, and that heritage and culture is a devolved matter, but when a parish church is to close, the Church of England tries to secure a new home for its instruments, working with local authorities, the diocese and national heritage bodies. I believe that the Church of Scotland is taking similar steps.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Church Organs: Legislative Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Again, my hon. Friend highlights the importance and significance of preserving instruments, particularly the one at St Margaret’s. I would be happy to write to her to suggest organisations that may be able to help the congregation. I would also be happy to put her in touch with the Church of Scotland to see how it can best take the matter forward with her.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an important point, and raises an issue that affects many churches. The £25,000 cap works for smaller projects, but it will not go far enough for larger projects, such as the one in his constituency. The church that I attend, Holy Trinity in Clapham, is experiencing similar challenges. I am happy to meet him.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  As I set out in Church Commissioner questions in January, the listed places of worship scheme is an effective way to deliver transformational benefits to local communities. The Government’s extension of the scheme is very welcome, but there are a number of unanswered questions about the impact of the changes to the scheme.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has raised this issue at Church Commissioner questions previously, and he is right to continue to do so. Although the scheme is being extended until March 2026, we do not have a long-term plan or solution. It is only right that the Government should set out their plans. We know that in larger-scale projects costing over £125,000, not all the VAT can be returned. It is important that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport comes up with a solution to ensure that the listed places of worship scheme can continue.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I will take my hon. Friend’s question back to see if we can set up a meeting. As she highlighted, many churches will be missing out on vital funds to carry out necessary repairs, particularly those that have already started work. If that work extends beyond the March 2026 deadline, they will not be able to reclaim any VAT. It is important that we find a long-term solution. I will be happy to take that forward.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Cathedrals: Local Economic Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  As I say, the Church of England meets regularly to look at the impact of costs on cathedrals, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about the issue.