Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chatham Docks Basin 3 Redevelopment
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the redevelopment of Chatham Docks Basin 3.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Philip.
The debate over the future of Chatham docks has stirred strong emotions in our community. On one side, Peel Waters has proposed a residential-focused mixed-use development, but closer examination raises concerns about its sustainability and impact on our already thriving industries. The proposal has prompted legitimate worries about the quality of jobs, uncertainty surrounding investments and the overall environmental footprint, echoing sentiments that I have been expressing for several years.
In response to those concerns, I have been championing an alternative vision alongside the Save Chatham Docks campaign. It centres around the SPPARC Architecture masterplan, which sets out revitalisation focused on modern industrial space, emphasising job creation, economic growth and environmental sustainability—all essential for the future of the port’s activities. I appreciate the opportunity today to highlight that cause and to bring further information forward as to why saving the docks is the only sensible solution.
Chatham docks was part of the old Royal Navy Dockyard Chatham estate, which has stood proudly for 457 years.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Sir Philip, is it not normal to declare interests at the start of a debate? Is the right hon. Lady intending to make any such declarations?
Neil Coyle
Sir Philip, you may wish to explain the rules—but I think it is a requirement that where we have interests in a particular area, or a potential financial interest, we declare them before we comment on or speak to that issue. I again invite the right hon. Member to make any declarations that are relevant.
Kelly Tolhurst
I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on which financial interest he thinks I have.
Sir Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. We can carry on this exchange, but it is for a Member to determine whether they have an interest to declare. If they decide they do not have an interest to declare, that is a matter for them. I do not know if that satisfies the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), but it is for the Member themselves to determine that.
Kelly Tolhurst
Thank you, Sir Philip.
The dockyard has stood proudly for 457 years as a symbol of Medway’s economic backbone and our local heritage. On the banks of the River Medway, the docks embody the spirit of our community, connecting us to our past while paving the way to our future. Generations of families, including mine, can trace their stories alongside the history of Chatham docks. My mum’s family tells a familiar tale, with ancestors who have worked and served our country from those docks. Growing up in Medway meant always meeting people who shared similar connections—each a demonstration of the impact that the docks have had on generations across our community.
During its heyday, Chatham dockyard was the most important shipbuilding and repair dockyard in the country, contributing more than 500 ships to the Royal Navy and employing more than 10,000 skilled artisans. However, the closure of the Royal Navy Dockyard Chatham 40 years ago marked the end of an era, prompting a transformation that has been nothing short of remarkable.
The dockyard estate was split into three sections, and it has been revitalised into a mix of commercial, residential and leisure spaces. The establishment of Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust has ensured that a piece of our heritage remains accessible to all, serving as a living museum that educates visitors. It has played host to the sets of some of our favourite TV dramas and films.
English Estates took over another section of the old dockyard estate at the time, which is now host to basins 1 and 2 of the complex. Those have been formed into the Chatham Maritime Marina and a water sports facility, respectively, alongside significant retail and commercial office space. The northern section of the parcel is St Mary’s Island, which hosts a development and is now home to more than 5,000 residents.
Today, our focus lies on the third section—the easternmost—which surrounds basin 3 and is designated under Medway Ports Authority. It is a bustling commercial port and manufacturing hub that drives economic growth and offers fantastic opportunities for local businesses and residents. Basin 3 at Chatham docks is unique: it is the only non-tidal enclosed dock in Kent. It is regionally significant, as it plays a critical role in facilitating the transportation of vital materials to London and other regions across the UK in an environmentally sustainable way. Currently, it hosts nearly 20 businesses, and boasts a roster of notable multinational businesses such as ArcelorMittal, Aggregate Industries and European Active Projects Ltd, all of which have established UK bases within the port premises. In turn, they provide a number of high-quality jobs, particularly for local residents; they directly employ 795 people, including 750 full-time equivalent staff, and indirectly support an additional 1,500 jobs through the supply chain network. Those figures translated into a combined turnover of nearly £175 million in 2021.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Am I right in thinking that ArcelorMittal is the only tenant in basin 3 that has not agreed to relocate?
Kelly Tolhurst
My understanding is that there are other organisations operating within the port facility that want to stay where they are. Some have relocated because they unfortunately did not have another option; their leases meant that they were unable to stay.
The operations at Chatham docks span a diverse range of high-value industries. Materials and goods are brought in via water channels, undergo processing and manufacturing, and are subsequently exported.
Neil Coyle
Two of the companies that have been operating in Chatham docks for marine repairs are EAPL and Stick-Mig Welding. Does the right hon. Lady have anything to say about the relationship between Skipper Ltd and those two companies?
Kelly Tolhurst
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to Skipper (UK) Ltd, which I am still a director of—and which has no customers or interests in Chatham docks or any of the businesses that operate in Chatham docks.
A sometimes overlooked aspect of the incumbent operations at Chatham docks is the strong commitment to nurturing talent. The array of apprenticeship programmes provides excellent avenues towards rewarding careers. In 2020 alone, 16 apprenticeship programmes offered 20 positions per 1,000 jobs, massively surpassing the Medway average of about nine apprenticeships for every 1,000 jobs. The investment in people not only benefits the individuals involved but strengthens the workforce of the entire region, offering high-quality careers that make a real difference.
Importantly, the jobs offered at Chatham docks provide above average wages, raising the median wage in Medway. The average annual earnings were £43,000 in 2023—nearly 9% higher than the Medway median wage. These positions serve as a crucial driver of economic stability, especially in an area where 13.5% of Medway’s workforce earn below two thirds of UK median pay as of 2021. It is clear that Chatham docks are absolutely essential for the local population. In 2019, it was found that 20% of its workers lived in the Chatham docks three-digit postcode—ME1—and 45% across Medway.
The economic significance of the docks extends beyond direct employment and wages: it contributes significantly to the regional economy, accounting for more than 4% of Medway’s gross value added and generating approximately £89 million in GVA annually. In addition to its economic contribution, Chatham docks also plays a vital role in generating tax revenues, which contribute essential funding for local services and infrastructure. The annual tax revenues are estimated to range between £27 million and £36 million, and the annual business rates payments are about £2 million. Those revenues also provide financial resources to support the community.
The main issue at hand, and my reason for calling this debate, is the progress of Peel Waters’ attempt to end the use of Chatham docks as a commercial port, displacing the businesses within it, with the loss of high-quality jobs. Peel Waters has a vision to implement a residential-led, mixed-use development across the site. It has been over a decade since Peel Waters first set its sights on the redevelopment of Chatham docks, and started to redevelop part of the land. Its 2013 application initially boasted that development of Chatham Waters would provide 3,549 permanent jobs once fully developed, or 2,418 net additional jobs, with an associated GVA of around £92.4 million.
The projections suggested a substantial boost to both employment and the local economy. Looking deeper into the plans as time progressed, however, all is not as it seemed. The 2013 planning statement provided a more specific breakdown of the employment that would be delivered. It showed a significant proportion of projections included employment for retail and hospitality. For the projected 764 jobs as part of phase 1, 400 to 450 would be provided at the Asda retail food store, 40 to 50 at the pub and 20 at a coffee shop. I have long championed the hospitality industry, but this would be a stark contrast to the jobs that they would replace from the manufacturing, construction and transport industries.
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, which I appreciate, so that I can better understand the specifics of the case. My understanding is that the local plan has not been updated since 2003. Can she give us her view on why that is the case? Why have previous Medway Council administrations not brought that plan up to date to set out a viable and feasible dock retention policy?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right that Medway Council is out of a local plan. The previous local plan, which is occasionally referred to regarding planning applications, clearly designates Chatham docks as a commercial rather than residential area—hence my campaign, with others across the Medway towns, to demand and ensure that Chatham docks remains a commercial site, rather than a residential-led development.
Peel has also claimed that, on completion, 2,701 jobs will be in office space. Without the density specified, that would pose a risk of under-utilisation of the available area. Independent analysis revealed that in reality we have seen a shortfall in job creation, with around only 200 full-time jobs materialising since the plans were first introduced more than 14 years ago. That represents 26% of phase 1 jobs estimates and 6% of the total jobs promised across the whole of the Chatham Waters development—a far cry from the lofty estimates put forward.
It transpired that in 2019 Peel had desires to redevelop the Chatham docks site into primarily residential areas. The updated plan was led by 3,600 homes and claimed it would support over 2,000 jobs on site. Although the shift towards housing development appeals to Medway Council’s housing targets, it raises concern about the potential impact on existing jobs and industries at the docks.
It has been clear that Medway’s housing targets have been disproportionately affecting my constituency of Rochester and Strood. Over the past 15 years, we have seen delivery of thousands of new homes, with thousands more in the pipeline for my constituency, while sites such as Chatham docks are now at risk due to Medway’s focus on meeting targets. We require a more strategic approach to housing development, focusing on suitable locations with adequate infrastructure.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with these important sites, it is crucial to respect the character of the surrounding area in deciding what is to be built? In particular, there is a need for larger family homes, but many developments of this sort seem focused almost entirely on small flats.
Kelly Tolhurst
My right hon. Friend is right that one concern around developments such as this is that the focus is on number and units of flats, as opposed to delivering the type of accommodation that local people in the Medway towns desire in the locations. The numbers are a challenge, but the type of accommodation is just as important.
Rochester and Strood have spearheaded Medway’s efforts to meet housing demand, but Medway’s annual target, calculated using the standard methodology, remains at 1,667 new homes, culminating in 28,339 homes by 2040. Currently, the council has plans for 7,583 homes in the pipeline, with an additional 3,000 windfall sites predicted, which means the council faces the task of finding suitable locations for just over 19,000 additional homes. Unfortunately, Medway Council has cited the need to reach those targets as the reason why a unique, regionally important infrastructure asset such as Chatham docks is even being considered as part of the local plan process.
There is now a live application for part of the site currently occupied by ArcelorMittal that proposes to replace its operation with a different type of commercial space. This move aims to shift existing commercial activity, but signals a broader trend that could lead to the displacement of crucial industries and jobs. Sadly, in my view the application is the thin end of the wedge, threatening to pave the way for the loss of important industries, high-value jobs and the ability of the commercial port industries’ use of basin 3. The application is just the beginning, setting the stage for Peel’s larger plan to develop a large number of residential units across the site.
Following the campaign by fellow Conservative MPs urging the Government to initiate a consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities responded by amending the NPPF, notably by clarifying housing targets to be an advisory starting point rather than being mandatory, thereby promising positive outcomes for communities where there was robust evidence to support a difference. The new NPPF introduces several key provisions aimed at making local planning processes more effective and responsive to community needs. First, it empowers local authorities by giving them greater flexibility to address housing requirements specific to their area. That means they can tailor solutions to fit local circumstances rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.
The framework emphasises the importance of maintaining the character of a local area by preventing densities that would be “wholly out of character”. That helps to safeguard the integrity of local plans and ensures that new developments complement them rather than distract from the existing surroundings. Additionally, the NPPF introduces measures to help councils to resist speculative housing developments, giving them more control over how their communities grow. It also outlines criteria for when alternative approaches can be justified, ensuring that decisions are made with careful consideration of exceptional circumstances.
For local planning authorities, the changes mean a renewed focus on accurately assessing and meeting local housing need and on gathering robust evidence to support decisions. Although they are required to use a standard methodology for determining housing need, they have the flexibility to adjust plans according to local constraints and needs. That flexibility allows targets to be fine-tuned to reflect specific local circumstances, whether that means preserving the character of neighbourhoods or protecting green spaces. Ultimately, the reforms strike a balance between national objectives and local priorities.
In the light of the changes, Medway Council has an opportunity to produce a local plan that fits the needs of our community. Given the adjustments, Medway Council should reconsider the plans for Chatham docks. By prioritising the preservation of our commercial port and protecting jobs and an infrastructure asset that has national importance, we can sustain the local economy and its future development. The economic significance of businesses at Chatham docks should not be underestimated and destroyed. The area needs this type of industry and employment.
The lock gates, which allow access into basin 3 via the River Medway, have long been cited by Peel as a stumbling block to Chatham docks’ future economic viability, claiming that the cost of repairs or replacement is prohibitive. That assertion is refuted by surveyors and tenants who, based on studies carried out, believe that with a proper maintenance and renewal programme an ongoing commercial port operation has the capacity to flourish.
An important but often overlooked factor when considering the cost implications of repairs to the lock gates is the water management agreement, which has been in place since the initial split of the dockyard estate into the distinct areas described earlier. It governs the management of water flow through basins 1, 2 and 3, as well as access for naval vessels to basin 2 from the river. It was only back in 2019 that we welcomed the new HMS Medway to Chatham. Peel has a responsibility and the obligation remains, as outlined in the deeds, to maintain the lock gates as the custodians of the asset, whatever the future of the site.
The current closure of the gates is significantly affecting businesses within basin 3. Moreover, the blockage of salt water flow through the basin complex directly affects the water quality in basin 2, where the Chatham Maritime Trust, of which I am a trustee, operates a water sports centre. I am concerned that compromised water quality could render the basin unsuitable for such activities in future.
A clear example of one of the most successful businesses based at Chatham docks is the principal tenant, ArcelorMittal, which has called it home since 1988. Its presence at the docks speaks volumes of how it values their strategic location. The company is dedicated to the docks, and has further shown its engagement by commissioning Volterra Partners to conduct an independent socioeconomic assessment, which has evaluated whether there is a case to support ArcelorMittal’s future and the viability of investment in basin 3.
As the second largest steel producer in the world, ArcelorMittal supplies approximately 30% of the UK’s steel reinforcement and is a leading wire rod manufacturer in the UK, with influence extending far beyond Medway. Its involvement in landmark projects, ranging from Crossrail to the Shard and from Heathrow terminal 5 to the London Stadium, has marked its imprint on the iconic skyline of the UK. As London gears up for massive infrastructure investments totalling £27 billion until 2032-33, ArcelorMittal stands ready to supply the essential materials required in those ambitious projects.
ArcelorMittal relies heavily on water transport, sourcing around 85% of its steel through that method, primarily from overseas locations such as ports in Hamburg. To be clear, this is an operation that cannot simply be located to an inland site. ArcelorMittal has made it clear that should it lose its Chatham docks site, it would be forced to shift its operations entirely to continental Europe, to the detriment of the region and the national economy.
It should also be noted that shipping products produce far less emissions than transporting the equivalent via heavy goods vehicles and certainly when transported by aircraft. Maintaining and potentially expanding operations in the area would therefore be environmentally preferable to a total shutdown, given the transport emission savings. The commitment to sustainability is evident in ArcelorMittal’s production methods, with more than 98% of its steel reinforcements made from recycled scrapped steel. Its embracing of innovative technologies such as hydrogen also leads the way towards greener practices for steel production.
In recognising the importance of the location, ArcelorMittal is committed to expansion and enhancements. Currently, £5 million of inward investment is on hold, with a potential additional £20 million, pending the approval of the SPPARC masterplan. Although ArcelorMittal is the largest tenant at Chatham docks, it is just one of the many examples of successful businesses that make up the thriving commercial dockyard and manufacturing hub.
I have long been a supporter of the campaign to save Chatham docks. Back in 2021 I held an Adjournment debate on the issue, using the platform to highlight the thriving businesses already operating at the docks. Then, in summer 2022, the alternative vision from the Save Chatham Docks campaign was launched, laying out plans to ensure its long-term viability.
Key components of the SPPARC masterplan include a riverfront route, the green buffer zone and a port facility upgrade, all aimed at revitalising the area and attracting new opportunities. The anticipated impact of the masterplan is staggering, with projections suggesting the creation of up to 2,570 full-time job equivalents, while safeguarding the high-value, high-skilled jobs that exist today. That would result in a significant boost in worker expenditure, estimated at between £2.4 million and £4.2 million annually.
Furthermore, with the improvements proposed in the masterplan we could see a substantial increase in the amount of materials transported by sea freight, potentially reaching 600,000 tonnes per year, which would translate into a direct economic output of £119 million to £177 million, equivalent to 18% to 27% of Medway’s total GVA in the manufacturing sector.
The masterplan is all about unlocking the potential on the site, ushering in a new era of prosperity. The potential tax generation it could bring is also worth noting, with projected annual tax revenues estimated to rise to an amount between £36 million and £71 million, providing vital funding for essential services. Additionally, the influx of businesses could generate another £6.1 million per year in business rate payments, which would offer much-needed relief to Medway Council’s financial position.
The masterplan is not just about figures and statistics, though: it represents hopes and opportunities for people in Medway and the surrounding areas. It is a shot at creating a better tomorrow, not just for now but for future generations in my community.
Beyond the immediate concerns lie the environmental implications. As an island nation, nearly 95% of the UK’s imports and exports are transported by water, and Chatham plays a huge part in that. Approximately 85% of the materials imported into Chatham docks are transported by sea freight, contributing significantly to the reduction of carbon emissions. Analysis has shown that in 2019 the use of sea freight at the docks resulted in a saving of approximately 9,100 tonnes of CO2 emissions compared with emissions from heavy goods vehicles. That is equivalent to about 13,000 lorry trips.
If the docks were redeveloped in a way that shifted waterborne transport on to our roads, it would pose a significant environmental risk, in turn worsening air quality and potentially making Chatham one of the worst-affected areas in the UK outside central London. That would be a step in the completely wrong direction when it comes to the progress we are making on our emissions and the path to net zero.
National Highways has also raised concerns about the transport impacts stemming from the consequential increased use of heavy goods vehicles, particularly concerning the safety, reliability and operational efficiency of the M2 strategic road network. I too am concerned by that, and further concerned by the knock-on effects that it would have on local traffic and road conditions—issues that have already posed real difficulties in our area.
Local opposition to Peel Waters’ plan has been robust, with countless constituents contacting me on the topic and Medway residents and Chatham docks employees sending in over 170 letters of rejection to the current live application. I have been overwhelmed by not only the local support but the support from businesses and groups in other parts of the country. It makes no sense that such high-quality jobs, valuable industry and infrastructure assets could be lost in the pursuit of short-term profit for organisations. These industries are important now and will remain so in the future.
We cannot prioritise the short-term profits of developers over our community’s livelihoods and existing industries. The recent amendments to the NPPF that make housing targets advisory and allow more flexibility for local authorities should mean that Medway Council is under less pressure to develop a housing development at Chatham docks, and I hope that it, too, can see the importance of preserving the commercial port for our long-term local economy.
Local opposition to Peel Waters underscores the community’s strong desire to preserve the docks’ heritage, protect high-quality jobs and ensure sustainable development. We owe it to our community, the workers and the future generations as we approach these challenges and make sure that we save Chatham docks.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Philip. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) on securing this important debate. I know that a great many of her constituents value immensely the contribution that Chatham docks has made to Medway over many decades. I recognise that there is a general desire among them for greater clarity on the future of the site as a whole and the jobs linked to it, including, but not confined to, the 18-acre basin 3 plot that is the subject of this debate.
Constrained as I feel I am from delving into the fine detail of what is a live planning application, I will take a step back and place the debate in a wider context. As we all know, previously developed brownfield land is a finite resource and subject to competing demands when it comes to future use. The intense competition for such land in urban areas and the ever-present tension between economic and residential uses that results is precisely why a brownfield-first approach to development, which Government and Opposition agree on in principle, cannot mean a brownfield-only one, and it is why the current plot-by-plot approach to development will never be sufficient to meet total housing need across England. It is precisely because the Opposition recognise that the shortage of employment land is a growing concern that, although we are determined to improve on the Government’s lacklustre record when it comes to brownfield build-out rates, we intend to take a more strategic approach to planning in terms of both green-belt land release and planning for many more large-scale new communities, whether new towns or urban extensions, so that we are better able to sustain housing and employment growth across the country.
As things stand, the Government’s persistent failure to support local communities to accommodate housing growth strategically either by means of the development of major sites in their boundaries or through cross-boundary, strategic growth in co-operation with neighbouring authorities forces local planning authorities to wrestle with competing demands for employment and residential uses on the limited brownfield sites available to them.
Theresa Villiers
Many of my constituents are really worried about the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that he proposes to ignore the views of local communities in determining what gets built. Will the shadow Minister distance himself from those comments?
Matthew Pennycook
We certainly will not ignore the views of residents when it comes to planning proposals. However, it is fair to say—this is partly why I find the yimby/nimby debate incredibly reductive—that there is a core of people in the country who do not want development—
Matthew Pennycook
I will answer the previous intervention, then I will happily give way.
There is a core of people in the country who do not want development of any kind near them under any circumstances, and we have to take those people on and do so with conviction. There is a much wider group of people who oppose bad development in their constituencies, and we must change the offer of what development means, but that cannot mean that development does not take place. I will address the point on housing targets if it comes up later in the debate.
Kelly Tolhurst
I am grateful to the shadow Minister. However, I would like to pull him up on the point he made about the nimby debate. I want to be clear that this is about the future and jobs. The hon. Gentleman may remember that he wrote to me representing his constituents, who were also concerned about the operations at Chatham docks, because I believe that he has constituents who work there.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Lady for that point. I did indeed write to her; it is a small number, but I have a few constituents who work at Chatham docks. As I said in opening my remarks, I very much recognise the existing concerns about the future of the sites and the jobs linked to them. To clarify what I said, I did not condemn nimbys in the debate: I said that we need to move beyond the incredibly reductive debate between yimbys and nimbys. There is a far more nuanced position out there. As I said, there are people who oppose development under any circumstances, and we are clear that we will take them on. There is a wider group of people who oppose bad development, and we must change the offer to them.
Theresa Villiers
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Does he acknowledge that the vast majority of people expressing views about development proposals accept that we need new housing, but we just need the right homes in the right places?
Matthew Pennycook
I take issue with the right hon. Lady on the idea—I think that phrase is used too often to obscure what I think is her real position, to be fair to her—that her local authority should be able to plan for less housing than the standard method that the target implies. We take the opposite view; we have a very legitimate difference of opinion here. We do not think that local authorities should be able to plan for under-housing need targets, and that is where the difference comes on the NPPF changes. It is not a question of whether there should be good development. Yes, we must change what the offer of development means, but it cannot be the case, as the right hon. Lady so often advocates, that no development takes place because of the characteristics of a local area or many other attributes that local authorities can now use as a result of the NPPF to come in under target. That is a clear difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition.
I will return to the argument I was making. Like many other councils across England, Medway Council now confronts a dilemma with this brownfield site as a result of the nature of the housing and planning system over which the Government preside. First, through changes to national planning policy, Ministers have ensured that there is no effective mechanism for sub-regional strategic planning that might enable what is a relatively small unitary authority in Medway to meet housing need in a co-ordinated manner. That could have been done through a joint plan with neighbouring two-tier authorities in north Kent, as the historic south-east regional spatial strategy did with the Kent Thames Gateway.
Secondly, because central Government support has not been forthcoming, the number of viable potential sites within Medway Council’s own boundaries has narrowed. The most pertinent example is the Government’s decision to withdraw from the authority £170 million in housing infrastructure grant funding that would have facilitated the construction of 10,000 homes over 30 years on the Hoo peninsula, despite the Department seemingly not having spent £2.9 billion of the £4.2 billion allocated by the Treasury to that fund. As a result, Medway Council now must determine alone how it meets its housing targets across the sites that remain available and viable. As I said, we take the view that they must meet those targets.
The challenge I put to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood, leaving aside the considerations of investment required in the docks to bring it up to a viable operation in the future, is for those who take the position that it should remain a working port to identify the collection of sites across Medway that will ensure the authority can build 29,844 homes—the numbers have been slightly updated since the ones she cited were published—between now and 2040, because that is what it will take to meet housing need in that particular authority.
Medway Council proposes—quite rightly, in our view—to make that determination in a considered manner through the local plan development process. I very much welcome the fact that the present leadership of the authority have restarted the process and are working at pace to complete it. The pattern of indecision and delay that characterised the approach of previous Conservative administrations to planning and development in Medway over two decades was lamentable as, it must be said, is the Government’s record on boosting local plan coverage across England more generally. It is frankly laughable that, despite the extensive range of powers to intervene that Ministers enjoy, the Government are presiding over a local plan-led planning system in which only a third of authorities—and falling—have a plan that is less than five years old, with the number of plans published, submitted and adopted last year the lowest for a decade.
The local plan-making process in Medway is now firmly underway, and I do not think it is for Members in this place to pre-empt its outcome, but it is worth remarking that Medway Council obviously cannot prohibit Peel Waters from submitting a proposal for mixed-use development on the wider Chatham docks site as part of the local plan preparation process, in the same way that the authority cannot force that developer to make the necessary investment that might sustain the docks as a working commercial port. Just as the contents of the developing draft local plan are ultimately a decision for Medway Council itself, considering not only how to meet housing need but how other economic, social and environmental priorities can be addressed, so is the determination of the basin 3 application submitted for the present industrial state to be redeveloped for employment facilities.
As such, while I certainly appreciate that concerns exist about the employment opportunities changing on the site in question, and whether all the sitting tenants will agree to be relocated or compensated, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the application, just as I know the Minister will not be able to discuss details of the proposal, given the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State in the planning system.
To conclude, the case of Chatham docks reinforces our strong belief that we need to make changes to the planning system to ensure that the Government take a more strategic approach to development across the country, thereby enabling local planning authorities to better balance competing priorities regarding brownfield regeneration. It also highlights the pressing need to do more to boost local plan coverage. An up-to-date local plan is the most effective means of influencing where and how development takes place in any given authority area for both the housing and jobs that communities need.
The situation is lamentable, and many of the problems we are discussing stem from the fact that the authority has not updated its plan since 2003. Much of the uncertainty that the constituents of the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood are feeling about the future of Chatham docks would be significantly abated had previous Medway Council administrations prepared and adopted an up-to-date local plan with a robust and viable proposal for the site—the present administration finally doing so is to be commended. It is the elected members of that authority who are best placed through engagement and consultation with the local community to take decisions on local planning matters, including in due course the basin 3 application.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Philip. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) on securing this debate. I thank her for the opportunity to be able to talk—in the limited way that I am able to—about the importance of the Medway towns, and getting planning right in them and in her constituency of Rochester and Strood over the years ahead.
My right hon. Friend is a huge advocate for her constituency. We have spoken on a regular basis since I have taken this portfolio, so I know how strongly she rightly feels about ensuring planning is as right as it can be in the area. She strongly advocates for her constituents and for how important it is to get planning right. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) indicated, it is now Labour members who have the opportunity to make progress with those specific local plans. Given their variation of views in the last few months alone, that does not bode well. However, we wish them well, because we all want them to get it right, and we hope that they will do so, even if their current record does not indicate that this is very likely.
The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood highlighted not only what a strong advocate she is for her constituency but the huge importance of this issue from a historical perspective. She talked about her background and those of many of her constituents in the area. As someone who shares that link with my constituency, I know how important it is that representation is brought to this place, and my right hon. Friend did that in this debate, as well as in others before.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood appreciates, and as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich indicated, there are limits to what I can say. There are some things that I can say and some I cannot. The Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department have a quasi-judicial role within the planning system, which means there is the potential for all planning applications to come to us for final decision, so it is both inappropriate and incorrect for us to talk about individual planning applications. Thus, I am unable to talk about the specifics of the planning application today. I know that my right hon. Friend knows that and appreciates the point I am making.
When I have had debates like this in my constituency, I used to be frustrated by that answer, but it is a necessary one and one that we must honour to ensure that we do not prejudice anything that may come in the future. None the less, I hope I can say a few things about the general position and about planning. In order to enter them into the record, I will say a few things about the national planning policy framework, and the overall framework, not least because the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has made a number of assertions, which I will come on to in a moment.
The Government set the legislative and policy framework, including the NPPF, within which the planning system operates. Local planning authorities, as has been outlined today, are responsible for preparing a plan, then for making decisions that align with that plan. In doing that, they interpret the national policy and guidance, which is primarily generated through the NPPF, within the legislation and then according to local circumstances.
The stated and avowed purpose of the planning system in this country is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development that considers economic, societal, social and environmental objectives. Planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding developments towards sustainable solutions, but they must and should take into account local circumstances and reflect the local character, needs and opportunities of each area. We recognise that Rochester and Strood is very different from North East Derbyshire, as it is from Chipping Barnet and from Greenwich and Woolwich, which is why it is correct that local politicians lead planning within a broad national framework that the Government of the day set out.
We have talked in much of this debate about the importance of economic development and about protecting commercial activity. The NPPF also sets out the importance of planning for economic development. Planning policies and decisions should help to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. That is why the NPPF states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support growth and productivity, taking account of both business needs and wider opportunities for development. As hon. Members have outlined, the NPPF was last revised in December 2023 following a consultation process. The changes that we made try to support our objectives of creating a planning system that delivers the new homes we need while taking into account the important areas, assets or local characteristics that should be protected or respected.
Theresa Villiers
One of the important changes in the new NPPF is the affirmation that councils should not be forced to build at densities that are significantly out of character with the surrounding area. Can the Minister tell the House how that is operating in practice and what difference it is making to developments such as the one we are debating today and others around the country?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question. As she rightly outlines, we made a number of changes to the NPPF, including one to indicate that the character of an area is important to consider within any future local planning. As she will appreciate, local plans often take several years to come through, so we revised the framework a number of months ago. We have been clear that councils should seek to move quicker when they need to. We have asked a number of councils to provide timetables for getting to the endpoint, and we will closely monitor what is happening in the months ahead not just on the point about character, which is important, but on the other changes that we made. We made changes about the potential for local councils to look at alternative methods to assess their needs, the importance of beauty within a system, support for small sites and community-led developments, and greater protections for agricultural land. One of the reasons for the debate today is that, as we all know, the planning system is not perfect, but trying to balance all those individual areas is important.
As a constituency MP who went through an extremely difficult time with local planning a number of years ago—down to the Labour party, which failed our area for many years because it was too unwilling, unable and incompetent to ever put a local plan in place, creating over 1,000 more houses than was necessary—I have seen the pain caused by not doing local plans in a timely manner. I know how important it is to think through the implications that plans have for the local community and the consequences of not making decisions. I appreciate the points made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for Rochester and Strood.
Before concluding, I will turn to a number of points made during the debate. My right hon. Friend for Rochester and Strood has made a clear case for the position that she and many of her constituents have adopted. I know that she made that case over a number of parliamentary debates before I came into post, and she will continue to make it. We have spoken about the importance of getting planning in Medway into a better place that works for people. As we have just mentioned, the Labour party is now in charge. It owns the situation and it has the choices. It made a series of cases to the electorate a number of months ago, and now it has to work through that.
Matthew Pennycook
For the purposes of clarity for anyone watching, will the Minister confirm that when Medway submits its draft local plan, even under the revised NPPF, the standard method is the starting point, and the authority cannot just move away from the standard method number because it feels it is too high? It has to reason why it is moving away from it, and if it does not reason that appropriately and robustly, the plan will fail upon challenge at the examination stage of the process, will it not? So if the authority is going to move away from it, it has to reason how it will meet housing need, even though it is an advisory starting point, and any move away has to be robustly justified. It cannot be because the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood feels that the targets are too high, as she seems to suggest.
Lee Rowley
I am currently in discussion with Medway. We have sent correspondence to indicate that the authority needs to move, so I will not prejudice the outcome of that. The Labour party in Medway, as it does elsewhere in the country, stood on a particular perspective last year. It won legitimately and it now has to deliver. I hope that it can deliver the commitments and promises that it made to the people of Medway and of Rochester and Strood, knowing full well the frameworks within which the planning system operates, because that is what it promised and should endeavour to do.
I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, for whom I have the greatest respect, and we talk on a regular basis about the many elements of planning—
Lee Rowley
Far too many, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. In doing so, we are definitely aware of each other’s differing positions, and he is right to highlight those. In that spirit, I want to tease out a number of those differing positions, because they demonstrate how, for a party that is so keen to indicate that it is ready for Government, when we look under the bonnet at the actual detail, it is not there, and the plans are not where they need to be for the general election later this year.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the need to make changes to the planning system. He is right; that is why we made changes to the planning system back in December. That is why we have tried to strike that balance and ensure that there is greater control for local authorities, but recognising that we still have to build houses in the right places across the country to support our increasing population. He is right that we need development, but if we look at examples of where Labour is in power, rather than Labour talking, it consistently underdelivers on housing. The Mayor of London has consistently under- delivered on his own targets for a number of years, primarily because of the 500-plus page London plan that furs up, screws up and messes around with people being about to deliver housing in London. That is a great example of where Labour talks the talk but does not walk the walk in ensuring not only that people are protected, but that we build the houses people need. I hope that when people look closely at the planning policies of the major two parties, they will recognise that Labour, when it actually has the opportunity to do things, consistently fails to do what it talks about.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about a difference of opinion between ourselves, and he is correct about the sometimes reductive nature of the discussion. I absolutely agree with him and share that view. Where we disagree and differ is that the nuance needs to go over into individual policies, including the NPPF. The NPPF issued in December seeks to inject that nuance, strike that balance and recognise that we have to build more houses, but we have to build them in the right places. It seeks to do the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet indicated, such as to talk about the local character of an area and to ensure that alternative processes can be considered for defining housing need or explicitly talking about beauty. Next time the boss of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich gets the copy and paste out when taking some of our policies and passing them off as their own, but providing no further detail about how they would change them, I hope he will consider that.
Lee Rowley
I will give way after one more gentle point, if I may. Finally, on the hon. Gentleman’s statement around the approach of the Government on brownfield building, we have been clear over the past few months about the importance of focusing on brownfield. He is right that it is impossible for it to be brownfield only all of the time, forever more with no changes, but what he fails in his otherwise useful remarks to accept is that brownfield often comes with costs. If he is talking about moving even more into wholesale on brownfield than we are doing, encouraging and pushing, the question is, where are his cheques coming from? I am keen to hear from him.
Matthew Pennycook
What I would say to the Minister is to first spend the money that is allocated to the Department by the Treasury, which it is failing to do. Leaving aside the point about brownfield, I put to him that he is trying to have it both ways. He says on the one hand that we have to build the houses; on the other, they have to be in the right places and right locations. What is actually happening on the ground in terms of the immediate outcome of the NPPF changes that this Government have driven through is that scores of local planning authorities across the country are revising local plans and revising down housing targets. Just a few weeks ago, South Staffordshire Council reduced its housing numbers by 46% off the back of the revised local plans. The outcome of what the Government have driven through—for all the rhetoric—is policies that will see the numbers of consents and houses built reduced, moving the Government even further away from that target of 300,000 a year that they have not once managed to achieve in 14 years in office.
Sir Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I have shown a huge amount of latitude to both Front Benchers about this. I appreciate that it is the local elections tomorrow in many places and that we may well be in a general election year. However, I just remind everybody that this is a debate specifically about Chatham docks basin 3 rather than a ding-dong about who has the best planning policies per se. I think it is appropriate for me to say that. As I say, I think I have given quite enough latitude for discussion of other issues, but if we could get back to the subject of the debate, I would appreciate it.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for the clear steer from the Chair and I appreciate the point that you are making, Sir Philip, so I will seek to take greater care with my excitement and interest in talking about housing policy more generally.
It is probably important that I sum up and come back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood has made. This has been a useful debate. Although I am obviously limited in what I can say regarding individual cases and individual planning applications, I think the debate has demonstrated the strength of commitment to trying to get planning right across the country, including in specific areas such as the Medway towns, and the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood to her constituency, both in trying to make planning on progress and more broadly.
The Government have a long-term plan for housing that seeks to build more houses, but we also seek to build houses in the right places. I know that my right hon. Friend, in securing this debate today, in the speech that she gave and in highlighting the importance of getting planning right for her constituents, is working exactly within that spirit of building more homes and building them in the right places.
Kelly Tolhurst
Thank you, Sir Philip, for calling me to wind up. I thank the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), for the time he has spared to talk to me prior to this debate. He has been very generous with his time when I have brought to his attention issues that particularly affect my constituency. I also totally understand his unique position in relation to what he was able to say in this debate today. I am sure that he has heard what I have said in this debate and understood the principles that I have tried to outline, and I am grateful for his continued interest in the planning and development of the Medway towns.
I will just pick up on a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). It was disappointing to hear from him today that Labour has decided not to be as robust as before in its support of Chatham docks. That has been borne out locally with the local council and my hon. Friend the Minister highlighted the definite change in position by Labour that has been expressed.
It is not my view that the housing targets are not correct; actually, the standard methodology can be calculated in a number of different ways. My argument has always been that I do not agree with the displacement of a major, regionally significant piece of infrastructure, and with it jobs—high-skilled jobs—in industries that can contribute importantly to a local area, and for it to be wiped out in the pursuit of profit for landowners who want to build flats, which I have to say will be used to accommodate London’s failure to deliver on its housing supply, because most of the new developments within my constituency are not being taken up by local residents.
I also want to mention the importance of robust evidence. For me and I think for my local community, robust evidence in plan-making or in any planning application is key. We hope that Medway Council will actually deliver such robust evidence, rather than worrying about how many houses it will build in my constituency, which I reiterate has absolutely been playing its part in reducing the burden that exists and delivering on housing numbers, with the amount of new development that is going on within it. I would like to see such robust evidence being used to support the process of deciding where development sites across my constituency will be located. And I believe that there is robust evidence to support Chatham docks remaining as a commercial entity rather than being used to build flats.
Finally—I want to be clear about this—the businesses operating in Chatham docks are there because it is a non-tidal basin. The River Medway has a 6 metre fall and rise, and therefore a non-tidal basin is massively important for any kind of water-based activity. If certain businesses cannot operate in the docks in the future, they will not be relocated down the river or to an inland facility; they will be displaced and will not operate in the Medway towns any longer. That would have a direct impact on the number of people who are employed.
I am supporting the workers in my constituency, but unfortunately I have yet to see the leader of Medway Council honour the commitment he made when he stood outside with me waving a banner saying, “Save Chatham Docks”. He said that Labour is the party of workers.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for her support in planning matters. She made some great contributions and understands fully some of the challenges that I experience in my constituency. I very much welcome her support and her contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the redevelopment of Chatham Docks Basin 3.
Financial Conduct Authority: Accountability
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the accountability of the Financial Conduct Authority.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Philip. I welcome the Minister to his place. I know that he has an interest in these issues, and I hope that this debate will be a productive exercise for us all.
It may be worth explaining a little bit about how I came to be interested in the FCA. I probably speak more about fishing than financial services in this House, but the FCA came to my attention as a consequence of constituents who I have been helping. They were victims of a Ponzi scheme, and they lost hundreds of thousands of pounds as a consequence of fraud. The perpetrator was sentenced to 14 years, later reduced to 10 years, in the High Court of Justiciary.
On no fewer than three occasions, the FCA, or the Financial Services Authority as it was initially, failed to read the warning signs and take action. As a consequence, that was allowed to continue. Had it acted at the first available opportunity, there would have been only one victim of Alistair Greig, rather than hundreds.
As is often the case with these matters, a handful of people were determined to fight, but they were rebuffed at every turn. They were told, “No, this is nothing to do with us. It is not a matter of regulation; it is a question of the creation of a principal and of an agent,” and the rest of it. They took court action, which cost them £2 million, and they lost, but eventually the FCA was forced to put them into the financial services compensation scheme, which gave most of them compensation, albeit capped at £85,000. One of my constituents was out for £130,000, so he is £45,000 down and has suffered a further loss as a consequence of the fact that he was one of the brave souls who was party to the court action. The 95 people who were behind that court action are now left with a bill of almost £2 million.
Notwithstanding the fact that this is a consequence of the way that the FCA has gone about its business, it wishes to have no further part in any discussions with the people who were affected. I organised the screening of a documentary in the House a few weeks ago. Even the judge who heard their case turned up. I have never heard of this happening before, but the Financial Conduct Authority did not want to know. No one from the organisation was prepared to come to this House, sit in a room for an hour with the people whose lives had been most dramatically affected by their decisions, look them in the eye and explain what they had done.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend is outlining a very concerning story. When many hon. Members think about the FCA, including me as an MP from the 2019 intake, it is in relation to its legislative authority for ensuring the changes on access to cash. Does he agree that ensuring that people get the right support so that communities have the access to cash that they deserve is a real concern?
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, as I hope will become clear as my remarks develop, the way that the FCA is going about its duties at the moment is working for nobody. It is clearly not working for the communities most directly involved, for the financial services sector or for members of the public such as my constituents, who have been left to beat their head against a brick wall for years in their dealings with the FCA.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wholeheartedly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that, for many of us who have brought constituents’ financial issues to the FCA over the years, the FCA often appears to be a barrier rather than a help for the ordinary man or woman? Let us be honest, that perception needs to be altered by a seismic shift in how the FCA engages. I know he feels the frustration that all hon. Members present feel.
Mr Carmichael
I am delighted and relieved to see the hon. Gentleman in his place; he is absolutely right. The engagement of the average constituent—I am legally qualified, but I include myself in that—with the financial services sector is often a matter of supreme consequence. Very often, they have to rely on the judgment and expertise of the people with whom they are dealing, who are regulated by the FCA. That is why this matters for all of us.
The parallels with the Post Office are unavoidable. It is the same situation time and again: a well-resourced public body decides to deny, deny, deny until eventually people have to give in. That worked for the Post Office, although we were able to break through it. That is just one of the most egregious examples. Lower down the food chain, where fewer people are affected, including my constituents, it is much more difficult for anybody to get justice.
That is how I became interested in the first place. As is often the case, when one starts to lift rocks, what is underneath takes one off in other directions. I am afraid that I have found little under any rock that I have lifted to make me think there is anything in the FCA at the moment about which we should be happy or optimistic.
The FCA is consulting on proposals to change its enforcement code. Essentially, it is talking about naming and shaming much earlier people who have become a subject of concern. That has to be viewed in the context of its performance: an average FCA investigation takes at least four years. In 65% of cases referred to it, no further action is taken. For such an industry, the reputational consequences of naming and shaming at such an early stage could be catastrophic. The people most directly affected are not the big City firms, because they are big enough to withstand the damage, but the small and medium-sized enterprises, for which the FCA does not demonstrate the level of concern that it should.
A report by Spotlight on Corruption in February showed that 90% of the value of fines against directors in the financial services sector was levelled against directors in SMEs, and only 2% against senior executives in large companies. It is part of the culture that the regulator seems to be staffed and driven by people in the big City firms, who seem to get a different level of service and, dare I say, protection than the SMEs. That matters in relation to the enforcement code changes because there is a real risk of undermining this country’s reputation for stable and predictable regulation. Given the importance of financial services to the economy as a whole, the wider national economic interest is clearly at play.
The culture also goes wrong when we look at the way in which the FCA runs itself. I have had the benefit of a briefing from Unite the Union, and will turn later to some questions it poses through me. Independently of that, I have spoken privately to a handful of people who work for the FCA. I am not going to tell the House what they told me, because even though what they told me was in general terms—just for my own background and understanding—they were concerned that if something I said allowed them to be identified within the organisation, it would be to their professional detriment. Just hold that thought for a second: they are so concerned, and the culture in the FCA is so poor, that they are not prepared, even anonymously, to speak to Members of Parliament. If anybody doubts that there is a cultural problem within the FCA, that should surely remove those doubts.
The morale among staff is pretty poor. I have to say, though, that the staff I met genuinely understand the importance of the work they do in the public interest; they value the role they play, but clearly feel undervalued by the senior executives and the people at the top—and, actually, they are undervalued. Sixty staff working at the FCA earn salaries of less than £29,500, which is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s minimum salary recommendation that is required for an acceptable living standard. In fact, that amount would not even allow someone to bring a spouse into the UK under immigration regulations these days.
Unite the Union has surveyed staff extensively and speaks about the toxic environment within the FCA for staff reps, who are given little assistance or support and minimal information. The FCA carries out a quite remarkable performance assessment framework, which is not a million miles removed from the one that I knew when I first became a civil servant at the start of my legal career 30 years ago. I thought we would have moved well away from that, because it was hopelessly inadequate—but no; it seems as if it is almost designed to encourage mediocrity. It is the sort of system that was used by a number of public sector and City companies for a long time, but I do not know of many companies that have used that sort of framework for the last 10 years. It has destroyed the collaborative working environment within the FCA, and 81% of respondents to the Unite survey identified it as being unfair to them.
Unite has posed some questions to me that I will read into the record. I do not expect the Minister to answer them all, but perhaps he could follow up in correspondence. Why does a public sector organisation that pays its chief executive over £450,000 a year find it acceptable to pay a large number of staff below the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s minimum income standard? Why has the FCA not made any cost of living adjustments for its staff in the 2024 pay round, following a punishing cost of living crisis? Why has the FCA not delivered the resource and priority it has promised staff representation in the wake of recent failures? If the FCA is committed to “best in class” staff representation, as the FCA chair Ashley Alder told the Treasury Committee last year, why will it not recognise a trade union?
What are the Government doing to hold the FCA leadership to account for the problematic culture of fear and burnout, the high staff turnover and the sinking morale that Unite the Union has consistently reported over the years? Why has the FCA persisted with a severely outdated model of staff performance grading, long abandoned by the industry it regulates? Surely the FCA should be leading the sector as a role model, should it not? Finally, why has the FCA made no headway in its large disability pay gap? Unite the Union reports that staff with disabilities, neurodivergence or complex personal circumstances are simply getting poorer performance and pay outcomes than their peers.
The FCA as an organisation does massively important work in the public interest but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), it is surely clear that it is working for nobody. It is not working for members of the public who rely on the protection it might give them, as evidenced by my constituents and the impact they felt from the Midas Financial Solutions Ponzi scheme’s fraud. It is not working for the benefit of the sector that it regulates, as evidenced by its proposed changes to the enforcement code. It is not working for our communities, as evidenced by the work on access to cash referenced by my hon. Friend, and it is most certainly not working for the benefit of the people it employs.
It is apparent to me that the poor culture in the FCA is driven from the top and then bleeds into every aspect of its work. As an organisation, it has lost direction and lacks leadership from the top. However, we all remember why we have it and why it was set up. For the national economic interest of us all, it is too important to fail, but surely it is apparent that it is failing, and somebody needs to take control and change that.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
It is a pleasure to be here. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for raising this extremely important issue for debate. Neither he nor the House will be surprised to hear that the Government agree—and I very strongly agree—that accountability for the financial services regulators is of the utmost importance. Before I was in my current post, I set up, chaired and ran the Regulatory Reform Group, which brought together over a dozen Members of this House to think about how we reform the regulatory and accountability structures in this country. I have thought and been concerned about that issue for many years.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and other Members will be aware that the FCA is operationally independent and must act to advance the objectives that Parliament has set for it. Independence of the regulators, however, must be balanced with clear accountability; appropriate democratic input, for which this debate is one forum; and transparent oversight. That is why the FCA is fully accountable to Parliament and the Treasury for how it discharges its functions.
To ensure that the regulators consider the financial services sector’s critical role in supporting the British economy, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, last summer we gave the regulators new secondary objectives to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth for the medium to long term. By putting growth and competitiveness at the heart of our regulatory system, while retaining the primacy of protecting the safety and soundness for financial services firms and the wider system, we will ensure that the sector remains at the forefront of the global economy. It is vital that we hold the FCA to account for delivering on those objectives; I take that responsibility very seriously.
I will come on to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman, in no particular order. What comes to my mind first is that he mentioned the FCA’s so-called naming and shaming proposals, which have been covered in the media and elsewhere. The Chancellor has been publicly clear that he thinks the FCA should rethink that approach, and I share his view completely. I am particularly interested in, and strongly support, the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman that it is most often the small players that see the sharp end of that approach. What that does to innovation, competition and actual money for individuals invested in those small players, be they customers or shareholders, is very significant. The right hon. Gentleman explained eloquently that the impact of being named and shamed very early could be significant. I want to put on record, following up on what the Chancellor has said publicly, that I believe the FCA should rethink that and rethink it quickly.
Wendy Chamberlain
That is my concern, given what I have heard today in relation to access to cash. One real concern of communities is that banks rush to leave town and leave one bank standing. When we think about banking hubs and communities, we are thinking about ensuring that the most vulnerable have access, so it is really important those bigger players are held to account. Does the Minister agree?
Bim Afolami
The hon. Lady makes an important and fair point. I agree with her that access to cash—which, as she knows, this Government legislated for—needs primacy in the way she has described. Banking hubs are a replacement when several banks have shut in a town or large village, and I believe that the assessment criteria relating to where they come in and the speed of the roll-out should be looked at again. To be fair, that is not down to the FCA. The expected timeframe for it to finish its consultation on access to cash is the third quarter of this year, and although the FCA is part of that process, it is worth saying that it is not the primary driver; the primary driver is the industry.
Let me come to a case that I know is close to heart of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: the failure of Midas Financial Solutions. Mr Alistair Greig perpetrated a large-scale fraud over a period of several years, lying to those who trusted him with their pensions and life savings. Those were people who had done the right thing in their lives—they had done everything right—and because of the fraud of that individual and his company, they lost out. The FCA intervened in 2014, following the receipt of intelligence related to the Midas scheme. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme was subsequently able to compensate eligible customers for a significant portion of what was lost, and Mr Greig was charged, found guilty of fraud and imprisoned.
It is imperative that the FCA continues to robustly enforce its rules and standards, not just against firms that are carrying out blatantly fraudulent activity as in the case of Midas, but to ensure that all the firms it supervises meet high standards and deliver high-quality outcomes. The FCA operates a risk-based approach, not a zero-failure regime. It is important Ministers say this: we are not in a world—nor should we aim to be in one—where it is impossible for anything to go wrong ever. What we have to do is say to the FCA, “Your job is to maintain a high standard and high quality in the market for all the firms you supervise.”
Mr Carmichael
I have absolutely no argument with the Minister on that point—it is absolutely sensible—but the fact of the matter is that the regulator was told not once, not twice, but three times, and each time it failed to take the appropriate action. It was sometimes just as basic as putting people through to the wrong extension when they phoned. The truth of the matter is that if my constituent and the 94 others who took legal action had not stuck with it, nobody would have got any compensation from the FCA. That is why there is surely a basic point of fairness and justice here: having been the ones who got the money for everyone, the money that they spent getting that compensation should be recognised.
Bim Afolami
I thank the right hon. Member for that point, which I will consider carefully while I discuss the accountability of the FCA to Parliament and the Treasury. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 establishes multiple ways for the Government, Parliament and the public to scrutinise the FCA—through, for example, its annual reports, which must set out how it has advanced its objectives. This year, down to the proposals of this Government and this Treasury, the FCA will for the first time report on how it has embedded its new growth and competitiveness objective. The Treasury can direct the FCA to include extra things in its reports. The FCA also regularly publishes a large amount of data on its performance—for example, on the time taken to respond to applications for authorisation—which demonstrates to the public whether it is meeting its targets. Indeed, the Treasury can shape the focus of the FCA by writing to it to set out which aspects of Government economic policy it should have regard to when advancing its objectives and carrying out its functions.
The right hon. Member mentioned concerns that had been shared with him about the internal culture, and pay decisions by the FCA. It is not appropriate for a Minister to pronounce on those things, beyond saying that I will be with him in scrutinising the annual report when it comes out to see in which areas those things are addressed. I am happy to discuss that with him, as well as the methods for accountability in that regard. It is also important that we set out through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 that the regulators are now required to respond annually to the recommendation letters. This provides greater transparency about how the regulators respond to Government recommendations.
The Treasury also has a range of powers to direct the FCA in certain exceptional circumstances. For example, it can require the FCA to conduct an investigation of relevant events where it is in the public interest. That happened once in relation to the FCA; in 2019, the Treasury directed the FCA to review the events relating to the failure of London Capital & Finance. After that report was done, the FCA subsequently accepted and implemented all recommendations, which included a significant overhaul of its operations through its transformation programme.
In addition to the Government and the Treasury, Parliament also has a vital role in scrutinising the actions and performance of the FCA. We have the Treasury Committee, and there is a new House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, which regularly examines the work of the FCA. I would add that it is important that we think more about how we scrutinise in the most effective way. I fear that sometimes when it comes to the FCA, there are so many methods of accountability that it almost appears that there are none. They are so disparate, bitty and numerous that it is time consuming and expensive for the FCA, and often difficult to follow for Members of Parliament.
There is more work that we can do to streamline the process of accountability to ensure that it is rock solid and firm, and focused on not just consumer outcomes but ensuring the market works—and to do so in a way that makes sense for both Houses of Parliament. For example, between December 2019 and March this year, the FCA provided oral evidence to Select Committees on 36 occasions. That is a lot. In addition, there is constant discussion between Members of this House and the FCA. I think there is accountability, but we need to find ways to ensure that it is streamlined and more focused.
I hope I have reassured the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that the Government take holding the FCA to account very seriously—I know that I do in particular. The legislative framework is designed to strike the right balance between the independence of the regulators and ensuring that they are held properly accountable. The Government have built on that accountability through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. This House, and Parliament as a whole, will be able to judge the FCA’s progress through things such as the upcoming report on how it has advanced its new secondary growth and competitiveness objective since it came into effect last year, and whether it takes account of the view of this House and the Chancellor on its naming and shaming proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Youth Homelessness
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered youth homelessness.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I should declare that my husband is chair of YMCA Together, in Liverpool—it is an unpaid role—and that I am a national patron for YMCA. I pay tribute to the colleagues and friends from various organisations in the homelessness sector who are here today. We have representatives from New Horizon Youth Centre, Centrepoint and Depaul. Thank you for the work that you do and for being here today.
Those colleagues who know me well know that I have a very keen interest in all matters relating to homelessness —hopefully, some would say a serious interest. I am also very proud to be a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. I use my role to regularly raise awareness, where and when I can. I am more than happy to be considered a broken record on homelessness. Given that I care deeply about being a voice for those who may feel they have none, I will accept such a charge. I know that if I am a nuisance to the Minister—I have a lot of time for her, as she well knows—and my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), I will be playing my small part in moving the needle towards progress and change.
Homelessness is multifaceted. Different forms exist. They range from sofa surfing and rough sleeping, to being stuck in temporary accommodation, and so much more besides. Yesterday we saw the latest statistics released by the Department and they once again reveal the scale of the problem—more than 112,000 households and 145,000 children in temporary accommodation.
Of course, homelessness is caused by different factors: poverty, trauma, leaving care, being a victim of domestic abuse—the list goes on and on, and different demographics of people are affected in a multitude of ways. They include women, young people, those who define as LGBTQ+, our veterans, prison leavers and many more. The solution to the homelessness emergency therefore must be multifaceted. Yes, we desperately need to build more homes for truly affordable and social rent, but so too must we properly fund our local authorities and reform the welfare system—although not in the way that we have seen announced this week—and essentially we must tackle the underlying trauma that the vast majority of people who find themselves homeless have experienced in one form or another. All of this will require all of Government—not just one part—to put it front and centre. Anything less is simply not good enough.
Amid such an emergency, young people are often overlooked by the system. There is growing concern that ever greater revenue constraints being placed on local government lead to young people and young adults getting a raw deal from a system already at breaking point. Young people who experience homelessness are overlooked, in my opinion, by Government, by the Department and, yes, by Members from across this place. Although I know that there are local elections tomorrow, I am saddened that we are not seeing more Members here today for this incredibly important debate.
I am reliably informed that this is the first time in nearly 40 years that such time has been dedicated to the specific issue of youth homelessness. The previous time, in 1985, was largely because the late Alfred Morris, the former Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe and latterly Lord Morris, took it upon himself to raise the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I was reading through the Hansard entry and I despaired at the fact that that contribution, the words that Alfred Morris spoke in 1985, could be said here today, in 2024. The former Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe said there was
“no information available on the numbers of homeless adolescents and young people in London and the other major conurbations.”—[Official Report, 24 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 1303.]
He went on to talk about the lack of cross-departmental working to tackle the problem, saying,
“the present piecemeal approach to the problem of homelessness among young people is hampering other valuable work in this sector”,
and,
“The DHSS, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and local authorities are all involved in different, but not very clearly differentiated, aspects of the problem.”—[Official Report, 24 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 1304.]
It is staggering to think 40 years later how little overall progress has been made. Even where it has been—for example, under the last Labour Government—surely it has since been eroded. We still do not truly know how many young adults find themselves homeless. The data collected by the Department could be so much better and so much more far-reaching. Given that we are almost certain to have a general election at some point in 2024, I truly hope that my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues will consider the demands that I will put to the Government today. Collecting better data on young adults between the ages of 16 and 24 will not alarm any fiscal hawk at the Treasury. It is good policy, and can be achieved very simply: by making amendments to the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
As it is, we rely on the likes of Centrepoint, the national youth homelessness charity, which through its databank work has estimated that nearly 136,000 young people approached their local council as homeless in 2022-23. Many of them were not even close to getting formally assessed. Despite Centrepoint’s numbers being much larger than those of the Department, it should be noted that those are a small c conservative estimate that do not include the thousands of young people classified as the hidden homeless—for instance, those young people sofa surfing and those who have not approached their local council in any way.
To obtain such information for England, Centrepoint had to make freedom of information requests for every local authority in the country. That is absolutely ridiculous and shameful. How can the Government properly begin to solve the problem if they do not truly understand the scale of it? That is why charities like Centrepoint—teaming up with the likes of the Albert Kennedy Trust, the YMCA and the fantastic New Horizon Youth Centre, which does so much to help young people in London, and 100 youth organisations—are calling for a national youth homelessness strategy: a plan for the 136,000.
Back in March, campaigners calling for a plan for the 136,000 homeless young people garnered more than 15,000 signatures on a UK Government petition. As they rightly said in their petition,
“no one is talking about this”
and there is no specific national plan to tackle youth homelessness. I ask the Minister to please refrain from trotting out the usual spiel about how much money the Department is throwing at homelessness—with little success, may I add?—and to instead commit today to start putting together a far-reaching and ambitious national youth homelessness strategy this side of the election: a plan for the 136,000.
As Alfred Morris highlighted in 1985, Departments did not work with each other then, and they still do not today. Those experiencing homelessness, not least our young people, are always the ones who bear the brunt of Whitehall working in its traditional silos. Despite a valiant effort by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) when he was a Minister to at least secure some cross-departmental buy-in for the rough sleeping strategy, this Government have shown no real vision in operating the cross-departmental working that a national youth homelessness strategy would rely on.
Young people can experience homelessness for a plethora of reasons. Their experience if they do can be nothing short of desperate, and they are routinely institutionally failed by the state. Many are not supported to transition into adulthood and, as such, they face unique barriers that can push them into homelessness. They may lack the documents to evidence their homelessness—for example, written confirmation from their caregiver that they are no longer welcome in the home. I have had the privilege of meeting many young people at New Horizon in London. They told me that they were not taken seriously or believed when they were presented at a council, and many local authorities fail to provide a proper homelessness assessment. Some young people are asked to return home when that may not be safe. Furthermore, they may not know what support is available beyond the family home that they need to leave. So we need wholesale change. Young people deserve better. Our care leavers deserve better.
The cost of youth homelessness to the Treasury is estimated to be £8.5 billion a year, or an average of £27,347 for each young homeless person. Young people are vulnerable to homelessness due to unique barriers, including a lack of visibility, reduced benefits and a shortage of affordable youth-specific housing. I just mentioned the poor outcomes for young people who approach their local council for support. In my city of Liverpool, 1,849 young people approached the council as homeless, but only 332 were assessed by the local authority. A total of 1,743 people were not supported into housing after approaching Liverpool City Council. I do not blame my council; I blame this Government. Resources are scarce and the council is stretched to absolute breaking point. Young people often bear the brunt of local government austerity more than most. Liverpool City Council is projected to see temporary accommodation costs rise from £250,000 in 2019 to £25 million by the end of this financial year, which is a rise of 10,000%.
What could a national strategy achieve? A national cross-departmental youth homelessness strategy could look at extending priority need to all care leavers up to age 25, as well as exempting them from council tax payments. A national strategy could work with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to look at taper rates for those young people in supported housing who are disincentivised from taking on extra hours at work, and as a result cannot move on to independent living. In hotspot areas, a national strategy could see councils adopting localised youth homelessness strategies, with dedicated youth homelessness teams. It could also look at repurposing a small part of the single homelessness accommodation programme to include youth-specific provision. We need a plan for the 136,000. A national strategy could do that and so much more much besides.
Behind the headline figures and the policies are human stories of desperation and frustration—stories of untapped potential and young people not being able to fulfil their hopes, dreams and aspirations. I have witnessed first-hand the fantastic work of local charities such as the Whitechapel Centre in Liverpool, the Mustard Tree in Manchester and the New Horizon Youth Centre in north London.
New Horizon’s chief executive, Phil Kerry, head of policy, Polly, and their whole team told me the story of Zephyr. At 20 years old, university student Zephyr suddenly had to leave his family home in east London after a family breakdown last summer. He had nowhere else to go, so he spent over a week on the streets of London, which he says was awful. He struggled to find food, so spent much of the week starving. During that time, Zephyr came across New Horizon Youth Centre outreach workers, who invited him into the day centre where he received food and was able to shower. He was given emergency accommodation for a week. After at least three weeks of waiting, he was accepted into a medium-stay hostel where he was able to volunteer.
Being off the streets and in stable accommodation allowed Zephyr to focus on his future. However, he was developing severe issues with his mental health as a result of being homeless and of his financial situation, so he had to drop out of university. Through mental health support, jobs education and training support from New Horizon, he is now in full-time employment as a support assistant for a housing association in London. He is still staying in hostel accommodation and is waiting until he can afford a room of his own in the private rented sector. Zephyr’s dream is to become a youth worker to help other young people in situations like his own.
There are at least 136,000 more stories like Zephyr’s, and for every Zephyr there is someone like him who may not have a New Horizon Youth Centre to support them. Never mind the economic cost: if a person fails to get angry when contemplating the possible waste of human potential through youth homelessness, I would argue that they are simply not human. Zephyr needs hope, but more importantly he deserves a future. Surely that is why we all entered politics. Austerity economics, the cost of living crisis, low wages and a housing crisis that is out of control have led us to this place.
All our young people are struggling, across the board, but care leavers, those who cannot access mental health support and those who have suffered family breakdown, have untold trauma and then fall on the wrong side of a homeless emergency—who will speak up for them? The third sector does an absolutely amazing job, but we cannot absolve ourselves of our responsibilities in this place and across Whitehall. This has been going on for far too long. The state has a much more active role to play.
It falls to all of us in this place to speak up for our young people who experience homelessness and, crucially, to make change happen. I hope that the Minister can agree today to changing how data is collected and commit to implementing a youth homelessness strategy. I would also very much welcome a commitment to looking at removing the elements relating to homelessness from the Criminal Justice Bill, which is an issue that I have consistently raised in this place.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I was going to make a proper speech, but as hon. Members may have noticed, I have a small problem with my voice today. I shall be very brief and make just two observations.
I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this debate. My first observation, when the hon. Lady talked about building more homes, was that we need to start being honest. One of the significant reasons for our housing shortage in this country is net immigration. Last year, we took just under 700,000 new people and built just under 150,000 new homes. We do not have to be rocket scientists to realise that that is absolutely going to drive things in the wrong direction for the sort of people the hon. Lady was talking about.
Secondly, I believe I am the only person in Parliament who has spent a significant time living homeless on the streets of various cities in this country and overseas. In total, I think I have spent about five months homeless, including about four months on the streets of London, for television documentaries where I played the part without cheating. A big observation from that time is that the overwhelming majority of young people who are on the streets of Britain’s cities, and indeed those of the United States and so many other places in Europe, are there because of drug addiction. Until we start to treat drug addicts primarily as people who are unwell, and only secondly as committing criminal acts, we will get nowhere with this problem. Particularly for young people, but also across the board, the money, effort and rhetoric that we put into the criminal justice system to deal with drug addicts, who are sick people, needs to be diverted into the health system. Until that happens, we will continue to have relatively large numbers of sick young people living rough on the streets of our cities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for leading the debate and for illustrating the issue so well with the story of Zephyr. Nothing tells a story better than an example like that. It is also an example of what can be done to help that person: he has accommodation and a job to go to, and he wishes to be a councillor and help others. That tells me that if the effort is made, a change can be made. The hon. Lady deserves to be congratulated, as do all the groups and charities that work to ensure that Zephyr and others can have a better life.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway). I thank him for his interest, his observations, his focus and his two suggestions, which the Government should be encouraged to support.
I will give a Northern Ireland example, as I always do, because it is important that we have a perspective from across the United Kingdom: it adds to the debate and shows that what happens here is also an issue elsewhere. Homelessness has become a major issue across the UK, especially among our young people. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree referred to early intervention; I believe that there is a real opportunity for early intervention and to ensure that our young people, who are our future, have the means to get the best possible start in life. It is great to be here to talk about the issue and hear about experiences in other constituencies.
“A Place to Call Home”, a report produced by Queen’s University on behalf of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, included interviews with some 32 participants across three main strands. It showed that the basic minimum to support children and young people in Northern Ireland is not being met. I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I want to give a flavour of where we are. Now that the Assembly is up and working again, the responsibility for an action plan to address the issue will fall on the shoulders of the Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The issue of young people and families in temporary accommodation within the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has become a prevalent one back home, as they simply have nowhere to go. That is, without doubt, a form of homelessness. The figures speak for themselves and cannot be ignored. In the period from January to June 2022, households and families accepted as homeless in Northern Ireland included 3,495 children. Furthermore, in July 2022, 3,913 children aged under 18 were living in temporary accommodation in Northern Ireland, an increase from 2,433 in January 2019. That includes children living with their families and young people aged 16 to 17 living independently. That massive increase shows the size of the problem and illustrates that this is an issue not just here, but across the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Young people not having a decent place to live has a direct impact on other aspects of their life, such as poor health and wellbeing. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree talked about how Zephyr’s anxiety issues rose as a result of what happened, and depression and mental health had knock-on effects as well. We also have to be aware of wellbeing outcomes and the inability of children to learn at school and beyond. If someone is focusing on their health issues and how they feel mentally and physically, it is quite difficult to have a positive focus for the future.
It is worth noting that Northern Ireland has a major problem with hidden homelessness among our youth, who sleep rough or sofa-surf with friends or family. I probably encounter that every week in my office myself or through my staff: people depending on the good will of family members, or more often friends, living in their cars, sleeping on benches or sofa-surfing.
The Simon Community in Northern Ireland is instrumental in supporting young people with accommodation. It has youth accommodation projects designed to assist young people aged 16 to 25 in their transition towards independent adulthood. We must recognise just how difficult that is. Those projects provide a nurturing environment where young people can flourish. I give credit to the Simon Community for what it does and for how it tries to address these issues.
The hon. Lady’s introduction emphasised to me and everyone here how sympathetic she is to this cause. She has done some fantastic work on it through her role as shadow Minister for Housing. Data from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities shows that 54% of homeless people report experiencing homelessness for the first time when under the age of 25.
This debate is so important, because it focuses on a group of young people who we hope will have opportunities for the future, as well as a job, accommodation and relationships that can help them to build the society we live in. Some 48% of those people experience rough sleeping for the first time before the age of 25. The impact of the youth homelessness crisis can be seen all across society. Until the root causes of youth homelessness are addressed, this crisis will continue to escalate.
I am ever mindful of the importance of this debate, and I want to suggest two suggestions that I think will be helpful. We are here not just to raise awareness of this matter, but to give suggestions, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree has done. We will hear more from others in this debate, and we look to our Minister to ensure that we can get positive responses.
What can we do? First, we need an early identification programme to ensure that children at school—as early as that—who are at risk are identified and supported. I suggest respectfully that the Minister should co-ordinate our campaign with the Department for Education to ensure that those who are showing signs of having problems at home and who may end up homeless or on the street are identified and supported.
Secondly, we need to have more affordable youth-friendly accommodation, like the accommodation the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree referred to, which saved young Zephyr and many others. Such accommodation will probably save many more lives in the future, but it needs help to make that happen. We need to have a focus on more affordable youth-friendly accommodation that young people can be expected to afford to live in. The hon. Lady outlined the issues: these young people are trying to study for their exams, their money issues are piling up around them, and they are wondering, “Where am I going to go next?”. These issues compound each other. We have all seen the extortionate prices people are paying for rent—it is completely unrealistic to expect a young person to be able to pay that, especially looking at the figures in London.
I look respectfully and honestly to the Minister for solutions. While there is an understanding of this situation, I believe it is so important that we take the appropriate steps to support our young people and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree says, address the issue of youth homelessness. It is a blight on society and it needs to be addressed. I look to the Minister to give us those solutions.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Dame Siobhain. I speak not only as the shadow Minister responding to this debate on youth homelessness, but as a former Connexions manager. It was my job, with my team, to get people into education, training, work and housing.
Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this important debate. As a former shadow Minister and the joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, she has a genuine passion for this subject, as she showed eloquently in her powerful speech. Like myself and many others, she is determined to provide the homes, support and housing that young people need.
Yesterday, as my hon. Friend said, this Government broke even more records on homelessness. Despite bold promises to end the most visible form of homelessness—rough sleeping—by the end of this year, in reality, rough sleeping, which affects many young people up and down the country, rose by 27% last year. That is more than double the number of people recorded as rough sleeping in 2010, when records began.
Despite spending a considerable amount of money—I imagine the Minister will reference a figure around £2.3 billion—the current approach is simply not working. It is broken. It is there for all to see, whether it be a visible form of homelessness on the streets of London, Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham and so forth, or the people many of us know who come to our surgeries and who are sofa surfing or living in temporary accommodation. Is the Minister confident that the Government will deliver on the target of ending rough sleeping by the end of 2024? What is not working? It would be useful to have a response in the not-too-distant future.
Adam Holloway
For street homeless people who are drug-addicted, part of the problem is that if someone needs to beg for a couple of hundred pounds a day to feed their addiction, the answer is not for them to be accommodated somewhere in south London. They need to be at a main station or in a capital city to get the money to pay for the drugs. I think the hon. Member will agree that that is a real conundrum.
Mike Amesbury
I do not disagree with the hon. Member. In fact, I recently met Baroness Casey, who has worked across Governments of all political colours, and she repeated that exact argument. I agree 100%.
Again, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, another record was broken yesterday: 112,660 families now live in costly temporary accommodation, costing around £1.8 billion a year—a 12.1% increase since last year. Shamefully, we now have 145,800 children living in temporary accommodation, and in that regard I pay tribute to you, Dame Siobhain, for all the work you have consistently done and will continue to do in championing their cause.
Youth homelessness is also up, with 136,000 young people presenting as homeless to local councils—a 5% rise on the previous figure of 129,000—and that is just the tip of the iceberg, if we take account of those who are sofa surfing, in temporary accommodation or bed and breakfasts, or sleeping in friends’ houses on a temporary basis and so on. As my hon. Friend said, young people are often overlooked in the homelessness emergency and get a raw deal from a system that is often overstretched and uninformed. A point echoed by hon. Members across the Chamber today is that training is required to remedy that.
Research by Centrepoint suggests that 67% of young people were not prevented from becoming homeless by local councils last year. I am keen to hear the Minister explain how she will ensure that local authorities, including councils, up and down the country respond to their obligations laid out in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
As a Wythenshawe lad, I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer to Lord Morris of Manchester, a previous MP for Manchester, Wythenshawe. She is right; almost 40 years on from his speech on youth homelessness in 1985—the year I left school—and despite innovations by the last Labour Government, which left office some 14 years ago, very little has changed. We still have a Government who lack political leadership, operate in silence, provide insufficient support and are certainly not building the genuinely affordable homes that people need. I came into politics because I genuinely want a socially just society. Ending all forms of homelessness must be a driving goal of any future Labour Minister or Labour Government. I commend the great work of all the charities here today—Centrepoint, New Horizon Youth Centre and Depaul UK—and the hundred youth organisations that came together and called for a national youth homelessness plan for the 136,000.
Let me outline what Labour’s approach would be. The four pillars would be, first, upstream and informed; secondly, cross-departmental political leadership; thirdly, the supply of genuinely affordable housing and supported housing for young people; and fourthly, providing a helping hand. Before that, however, an immediate intervention is required on section 21 no-fault evictions. Sadly, since 2019 nearly 80,000 households, far too many of them young people, have been put at risk of homelessness. We must have no more kicking the can down the road with the narrative of court reform. A Labour Administration will end no-fault evictions for good. They will be abolished.
Let me outline the pillars in turn. The first is upstream and informed. On youth homelessness, we need to get upstream of all the problems. All too often, young people become homeless when they are passed between institutions and fall through the many glaring cracks in the system. Early intervention and identification in schools and colleges will be required, with better support for children, parents and carers. I find this quite irritating, because I was previously a Connexions manager and had staff who did exactly that until the coalition Government abolished Connexions. We can learn from some of the good things of the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree mentioned data collection, which is a clarion call for the 100 or so organisations working in this area. It should be strengthened and not reliant on freedom of information requests. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that could be achieved by a simple change to the Homelessness Reduction Act.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, for individuals at the heart of the homelessness emergency, trauma and mental health issues are often at the core of their story. Homelessness could be prevented and ended for good if we had person-centred psychological support. I know that Centrepoint and other charities provide such support, but we need to hardwire it into the system. Trauma-informed care must be part of a successful strategy. That would please my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree.
The second pillar is political leadership on ending the silos. We have to stop Government Departments operating in silos. It was mentioned that a previous Minister attempted to do that, but let us look at when we have had some success. I mentioned Dame Louise Casey, whom I met again recently. We created a cross-departmental rough sleepers unit that sat in the Cabinet Office and drove that programme forward, and we saw a real reduction in rough sleeping and the use of temporary housing. That was 14 years ago under the Labour Government, and we can certainly learn from that as we work in the context of a new landscape, with metro Mayors and devolved Administrations across the UK.
Pillar three will be building more genuinely affordable homes—social homes, council homes and housing that is youth specific, with the appropriate stock. Supply is key. We have stated that a future Labour Administration will build 1.5 million homes over five years, and genuinely affordable homes—homes for social rent—have to be a fundamental part of the mix. We will build homes on a scale that people in this country have not seen in generations. Last year, the Government created 9,500 homes for social rent. There are 1.3 million people on the housing need register. If we take into account homes that were bought through right to buy and demolitions, the figure is minus 14,000 every year since 2010. The system is broken. We have to build the houses. Labour has to get Britain building again for all our people, but particularly young people.
Finally, the fourth pillar is about providing a helping hand. The Labour party is the party of work—that is what “labour” means. We were set up by the trade unions and the labour movement to provide good, secure work. The current social security system penalises people, particularly young people living independently and trying to get on with a job, education and training. That has to change. My colleagues in the shadow DWP team are determined to ensure that they have good, secure work. We will deal with the systemic issues. There was a reference to care leavers and council tax and so forth. We will provide a hand up to ensure that people can stay in their homes or move to other homes.
Ending youth homelessness is not just a moral imperative, as stated by my good colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree. It costs over £27,000 per individual—£8.5 billion—but the issue is more important than that. It is about young people’s hopes, dreams and futures. I hope that in future as a Minister I can do my bit to provide hope, houses and opportunities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the House for assembling here to debate the very important topic of youth homelessness, and those in the Public Gallery who have come into Parliament today. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), who I know well as my shadow Minister, for her thoughtful contribution. I will address her big picture points on data and the youth homelessness strategy, but first I will address a few of the specific questions that I have been asked.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) for his powerful and brief contribution. It is good that he was able to do so with a struggling voice. I agree with him that alcohol and drug addiction are significant drivers of homelessness. That is why the Government are investing £186.5 million over the three-year spending review period, and we allocated £15 million as part of the cross-Government drug strategy. I agree that homelessness is a complex problem, but addiction clearly is part of it. I reassure my hon. Friend that I work incredibly closely with colleagues in the Department of Health.
I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution. I particularly thank him for participating since housing is devolved in Northern Ireland. He raised powerful points.
The suggestion that the Government are not working in a cross-Government way and are siloed is slightly ironic, because this morning I chaired the cross-Government rough sleeping board, part of which consists of the senior officials in every relevant Department. I assure the House that there is a lot of cross-Government working happening, which is critical.
Paula Barker
It is wonderful to hear the Minister speak about chairing the cross-Government rough sleeping board, but has she asked why it is failing and why the numbers are consistently going up?
Felicity Buchan
Rough sleeping has ticked up over the past year, but it is still down from the pre-pandemic numbers and the peaks in 2017. Clearly, every single person rough sleeping is one too many. We have particular issues in London with rough sleepers who have no recourse to public funds, and we encourage support for them, but that is an entrenched issue. The Government are working to address any new flow of rough sleepers; I want to give the House a few examples of that.
We have been working incredibly closely with the Ministry of Justice to address those leaving prison. There are sometimes relatively simple solutions, such as not releasing someone from prison on a Friday, given that there is no local authority support over the weekend. I was very happy to hear that the number of prison leavers who are rough sleeping has gone down by one third, but there is clearly still work to be done.
I have also worked incredibly closely with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people are not released from hospital on to the streets. In the winter, we formulated new guidance on that for all hospitals, and we made exceptional money available and suggested that it could be used on hospital discharge.
I work incredibly closely with my colleagues in the Department for Education. The hon. Lady rightly referred to care leavers who are rough sleeping, and I will talk about them in more depth.
We also work very closely with the Home Office. An issue that has come up in the Chamber in the past is that there are a lot of people who have successful asylum claims, and in some instances when they leave Home Office accommodation they go to their local authority for support. We have clearly seen an uptick in successful asylum seekers.
I could not agree more that we need to build more homes, and this Government are on track to achieve our manifesto commitment of 1 million homes during the life of this Parliament; we have a target of 300,000 homes per year. I thought it was a bit rich when the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) said the Labour party would be better at delivering more homes, given that London under the Labour Mayor is the worst-performing region for housing delivery and has required intervention from the Secretary of State.
Mike Amesbury
In the last year of the Labour Government, we built 30,000 homes for social rent. The Minister mentioned 1 million homes, but we are not talking about four and five-bedroom homes built by Redrow, Morris Homes and so forth—nice companies though they are—which are beyond the reach of young people; we are talking about homes for social rent. Sadiq Khan has very ambitious plans to build 40,000 council homes, and I am confident that people will give him a strong mandate tomorrow.
Felicity Buchan
Well, we will see what the electorate decide tomorrow. One thing that is very clear is that in 2022, London was the worst-performing region for housing delivery and the west midlands was No. 1.
Let me get to the substance of my speech. We can all agree that every young person, no matter where in the country they live, no matter what their personal circumstances may be, deserves a roof over their head and a safe place to call home.
Young people are the future of this country; they will help shape the Britain of tomorrow. That is why this Government are committed to delivering the safe, warm, decent and affordable housing that every young person needs, providing the solid, stable foundation to get on in life and achieve their potential. We are committed to tackling all forms of homelessness and are investing £2.4 billion over three years to help achieve that. Importantly, of that £2.4 billion, £1.2 billion is for the homelessness prevention grant. That is critical; we need to prevent homelessness before it occurs in the first instance.
That money—the £1.2 billion—can be used flexibly by local authorities, to offer financial support for people to find a new home, to work with landlords to prevent evictions, or to provide temporary accommodation. I want to say one thing on temporary accommodation. Clearly, we all want people to be in settled accommodation, but temporary accommodation is an important step to get a roof over people’s heads, ensuring that young people are given the support that they need to prevent or relieve their homelessness.
Someone posed the rhetorical question: what has this Government done to help young people and their homelessness? I would say it is meaningful that we passed the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which was a private Member’s Bill that Government supported and came into force in 2018. That Act has been revolutionary in its effect on our approach to youth homelessness. The Act means that local authorities have a duty to assess, prevent and relieve homelessness across the board, not only for those who are vulnerable. We have helped more than 740,000 households avoid homelessness, courtesy of the Act, and it has been revolutionary.
We have come a long way with that Act, but we are not blind to the challenges that we continue to face. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree asked me about cross-Department strategy to end youth homelessness. We recognise that young people experiencing homelessness are confronted by particular challenges in accessing and maintaining accommodation, but a strategy is very important. That is why this Government published the landmark strategy in 2022 called, “Ending rough sleeping for good”, which prioritises prevention.
I am often asked, “Can you ever end rough sleeping for good?” We defined ending rough sleeping as that it should be prevented whenever possible, but if it cannot be prevented it should be rare, brief and non-recurrent. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree that data is incredibly important. That is why we are working with the Centre for Homelessness Impact, which has a huge data project in which it is monitoring us and local authorities against these targets: have we got rough sleeping rare, brief and non-recurrent? I have also sat down with the chief statistician and talked to him about the importance of data in homelessness, because it is only when we know what and where the problem is that we can address it.
A key part of our “Ending rough sleeping for good” strategy was the single homelessness accommodation programme, which is worth £200 million in this spending review. We have committed to more in the next spending review. That programme is providing up to 2,000 homes for people sleeping rough or at risk of sleeping rough. It is targeted at young people and at those with complex needs. At least 650 of those homes are reserved specifically for young people. I am delighted to say that Liverpool will receive over £2 million of that funding, delivering 20 homes for single homeless young people to help them live independently. Our rough sleeping initiative in 2024 targets £2.5 million of funding at youth-specific services in eight local authorities across England. That funding provides specialist support for young people, such as outreach workers and prevention officers, and specialist housing for those under 25.
We talked about councils being required to carry out their statutory duties, and I want to make it very clear that councils are required to implement the Homelessness Reduction Act, which puts prevention at the heart of local authorities’ response to homelessness. If there is reason to believe that an individual or household may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the housing authority must carry out an assessment to determine whether that is the case. Of all households assessed for homelessness, 89% were owed a prevention or relief duty.
We have talked about the hidden homeless. That is very important and I would encourage anyone who is hidden homeless to contact their local authority. Our specialist youth homelessness advisers work closely with housing and children’s services across the country, providing advice, support and challenge to local authorities to help improve the delivery of homelessness services and to support compliance with the statutory duties.
We have also discussed the difference between Government data and that presented by Centre Point’s databank research. I am tremendously grateful for all the work that the voluntary and charitable sector does in this space. I have had the privilege of doing many Government visits to charities. I went to visit Centre Point in Wandsworth about a year ago, and I have always been impressed by everything that is done by the voluntary sector. They are an integral part of supporting our homelessness efforts.
Just last week, I visited a youth homelessness house in my constituency, Dashwood House, which was run by the Salvation Army Housing Association. That house was for 18 to 25-year-old women. I was incredibly impressed with the service that they were providing and the move-on support they offered. It was wonderful that a lot of people who had lived in Dashwood House, but who had now moved on to their own settled accommodation, came back to visit that day. I am very grateful to organisations for all their research and work to support those dealing with youth homelessness.
Let me explain the difference in numbers. The Government numbers are official statistics and are closely verified and accredited by the Office for National Statistics. One reason for the differential is that the Centrepoint data includes all initial inquiries to a local authority. The Government report on the total number of homelessness assessments and the numbers of young people owed a homelessness prevention or relief duty. I just wanted to clear up the reason why the numbers are different. The Government numbers form part of the official statistics and follow very robust statistical methodologies.
Clearly, I regret the uptick in homelessness—it is very serious and the Government are doing everything to address it—but the most recent homelessness statistics, published yesterday, show that over 17,000 households had homelessness prevented in the fourth quarter of 2023, and almost 50,000 homeless households were supported to secure accommodation in that same period. This shows that local authorities continue to work hard to prevent and relieve homelessness for all households, including young people.
I want to touch on the issue of care leavers, because this is a very important point; I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree for raising it. We know that young people leaving local authority care can be especially vulnerable, which is why, through our strategy on children’s social care reform, “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, we are working to increase the number of care leavers living in safe, suitable accommodation and to reduce the rate of homelessness among that vulnerable group. To achieve that, the Government are providing the following money: nearly £100 million for local authorities to increase the number of care leavers who stay living with their foster families up to the age of 21; £53 million to increase the number of young people leaving residential care who receive practical help with move-on accommodation, including support from a key worker—that practical help is very important; and £9.6 million over three years to provide extra support to care leavers at the highest risk of rough sleeping.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree asked about social housing priority need for care leavers. Care leavers have priority need up to the age of 20; the hon. Lady suggested that it should be up to the age of 25. I want it to be clear that once care leavers reach 21, they will continue to have priority need if they are vulnerable because of having been looked after. That will continue.
On relation wider housing support, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the autumn statement that we would restore the local housing allowance rate up to the 30th percentile. That was very important. It took effect in April. It will mean that 1.6 million low-income households will be on average £800 a year better off, and will make it more affordable for young people on benefits to rent properties in the private sector. About one in 10 of those aged 16 to 24 currently lives in the private rented sector. That is one reason why the Renters (Reform) Bill, which passed its Third Reading last week, is so important.
We have talked about building more homes, which I think the entire House would agree is critical. We have the affordable homes programme, which represents £11.5 billion to provide new properties for rent, for low-cost home ownership and for specialist and supported housing. As I have said, we are on track to deliver our manifesto commitment of 1 million new homes within this Parliament.
I conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree once again for securing this thought-provoking debate. I admire her determination to tackle the causes and impacts of homelessness, particularly for young people today, which is a determination that the Government and I share. I hope I have underlined the scale, depth and diversity of the investment this Government are making to address this challenge. We know that, as a Government, we cannot solve this issue alone. That is why we value so much the support and commitment of local government, charitable partners and great advocates for the homelessness sector across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and the hon. Member for Strangford.
I thank Members again. Let us keep working towards our shared goal of ending rough sleeping and tackling youth homelessness.
Paula Barker
I thank all Members for taking part in this important debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) for his contribution, which was delivered with his usual aplomb even if he was quite croaky today. We disagree on the issue of net immigration and those factors—we have served on the Home Affairs Committee together. I suggest that the immigration problems are part of the wider issue of the Government not getting to grips with the backlog, and also the significant money they are spending on hotels. I am sure we will have that debate outside this place when he has his voice back in full flow.
As a journalist, the hon. Gentleman spent time on the streets, and he spoke about drug addiction in his usual, knowledgeable fashion. I completely agree that we have to do more to support people with drug and alcohol addiction. For me, that starts with trauma-informed services. Trauma-informed and trauma-led services should be mandatory, and that is a challenge that I pose to my good friend on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), if we are lucky enough to form a Government at the next election.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is sadly not in his place, delivered his contribution with his usual knowledge and compassion, and it was very interesting to hear about his contributions in Northern Ireland. I know how much this debate means to the sector, which does so much to serve our communities, and particularly young people. Once again, I thank all Members for being here today, and I hope that my colleagues have taken something away from the debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale for his valuable contribution. I know, through our many years of friendship, that he understands the issues, and I am committed to ensuring that, in the months ahead, he loses the word “shadow” from his title. We can then start to tackle some of these matters head on, and hopefully together. I applaud his commitment to increasing housing supply, ending section 21 evictions and tackling all forms of homelessness, including youth homelessness. I hope that the shadow Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities team considers how we can learn lessons from the last Labour Government. We had practically eradicated homelessness and rough sleeping by the time we left office in 2010. My good friend spoke about Dame Louise Casey, and I hope we can learn lessons from her marvellous work and have a truly cross-departmental strategy.
I thank the Minister for her thoughtful contribution and reply. I totally respect her commitment to these matters but, sadly, I feel that she is a member of a tired Government who have manifestly failed to deliver on their intention with respect to all forms of homelessness. She has been set up to fail in the same way as some of her predecessors. Homelessness may have briefly been a priority for the Government under the stewardship of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but I believe it has since fallen down the agenda.
I finish by imploring right hon. and hon. Members to continue talking about youth homelessness. Please talk up the need for a national youth homelessness strategy and be the voice for those 136,000 young people, because they deserve to have a life well lived in which they can fulfil their potential and realise their dreams, hopes and aspirations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered youth homelessness.
Furnished Holiday Lettings: Taxation
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the taxation of furnished holiday lettings.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I welcome the Minister and other colleagues to their respective places.
This debate arises because of the changes announced in the Budget to the taxation of the furnished holiday letting—FHL—regime, which have already acquired the nom de plume “the staycation tax”. As I mentioned in the Budget debate on 12 March, I am concerned that the proposal could have unintended consequences.
I acknowledge the thinking behind the change, because there are areas of the country where local people are having great difficulty renting local properties, and it is possible—I will put it no more strongly than that—that holiday lettings might be contributing to that. In other areas across the UK, however, holiday lettings are not having such a negative impact, and they are a vital component of local economies all around our four nations. That is the case in the Waveney constituency, although I acknowledge—this may be where we have difficulties—that there are significant challenges for local people looking to rent a home in nearby Southwold, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, which is a good one for North Norfolk, where there are clearly problems with housing supply. I put it to him that, in an area such as mine, which has a large number of second homes, the policy change may well lead to more homes coming on to the market to be snapped up by people who are buying them as second homes, making the situation even worse in picturesque places like North Norfolk.
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend may have read my speech, because that is one of the issues that I will highlight, and I will mention some statistics that the Professional Association of Self-Caterers—PASC—kindly provided to me to make that point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing the debate forward. I suspect that I might be about to add a controversial opinion, but we will see how it goes. As a representative of what I believe to be the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom, Strangford, it is my desire to attract more bed nights to the area, and the Airbnb-type scenario was one way in which we felt that could be done. Does the hon. Member agree that the removal of the tax incentive may prohibit people from doing up the old granny flat in the garden, and so prevent the local economy from benefiting from bed nights? I see the benefits of the incentive, and I think it could be to our advantage.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In certain parts of the country, the incentive’s removal might well have benefits, but I argue that it is a rather blunt instrument, which could have unintended consequences in other areas.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I understand the concerns about housing shortages, which I have in my constituency. The answer to the shortage of housing, however, is to build more houses; it is not to punish what is a very important part of the local economy, including in parts of the country like mine. The advantage of such a tax provision is that it allows for the improvement and professionalisation of the sector, which at the end of the day can only improve the visitor offering.
Peter Aldous
I agree with the right hon. Member on both counts. There are other measures being introduced, such as the register, that I believe will help bring professionalism into the sector. In fact, I know from the constituents I have spoken to and the businesses that operate this type of furnished holiday accommodation that they are incredibly professional businesses.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Several owners and operators in East Devon have been in touch with me about the changes, about which there is widespread concern. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should hold a public consultation about the changes—my hon. Friend might be intending to say that—and consider a list of exemptions, for example if a property cannot be a permanent residence because it is on a working farm?
Peter Aldous
I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly, and I intend to develop some of those points.
Peter Aldous
I will give way one more time at this stage, after which I will have to make some progress.
Anne Marie Morris
On the basis of the contributions that have been made, does it not seem obvious that what we need is a proper impact assessment of the reform? We need to look at the impact on the economy, the impact on housing and the impact on the tourism sector. I am sure my hon. Friend will also come to the expected impacts on gross value added and on jobs.
Peter Aldous
I agree wholeheartedly. I had planned to raise a lot of the points that have been made; let me now get on to back them up with the evidence.
Since the Budget, I have been contacted by many constituents highlighting their concerns. I am grateful to them for their feedback, as well as to PASC, the Short Term Accommodation Association and the National Farmers Union for all their briefings and advice.
In some ways, I have a sense of déjà vu, in that the proposal mirrors in many ways those put forward in the 2012 Budget to tax Cornish pasties and static caravans. In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stated that he had concerns that the current tax regime for FHLs is distorting the market and that there are not enough properties available for long-term rental by local people. Therefore, to make the tax system work better for local communities, he plans to abolish the FHL regime. In the accompanying Red Book, the proposals are described as having the advantages of tax simplification, creating a level playing field and supporting people to live in their own areas. I have concerns that the proposals will not fulfil those objectives, and I hope I can illustrate why.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has calculated that the measure, along with the abolition of the multiple dwellings relief, will raise £0.6 billion of additional receipts by 2028-29. That figure pales into insignificance compared with the potential loss of value added and local jobs, which I shall outline shortly.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for securing the debate. In a response that I had from the Chancellor last week on this very issue, he talked about housing and the distortion for local people, but there is no evidence that if these houses went on sale they would become affordable houses by any manner of means. To echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), it is many years since the housing charity Shelter told me that there were more second homes in Norway than in Scotland, but there were more first homes in Norway as well. The point is, let us have more first homes, but let us not be damaging the very weak economy of many of Scotland’s islands by doing that.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which he made particularly well. Hopefully, it will also come out as I move forward in my speech.
In the first instance, it is necessary for me to set out what I would describe as a few home truths and to set the record straight. First, it is important to point out that the FHL regime is not a tax loophole; it was introduced in 1984 specifically to cater for the fact that a holiday let business is very different from a private rental business. Forty years on, that remains the case, and it should be pointed out that strict criteria are in place if people wish to move into the regime.
Secondly, it should be emphasised that furnished holiday lettings are a long-standing economic lifeline for many coastal and rural areas.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a lot of very good points, specifically about these lets being a lifeline for areas. I was recently visited by representatives of the furnished holiday lets association in Scotland, who feel that they have been hit by a double whammy: this legislation and the short-term let licensing legislation in Scotland. Should there not have been a joined-up approach? Would it not have been better for the Government to speak to the devolved Administration and find a way forward for the whole industry, rather than hamper one of Scotland’s biggest and most profitable sectors?
Peter Aldous
I think the hon. Lady has hit on the way forward. The solution to this problem—if indeed there is a problem—needs to be sorted out locally, in consultation with the devolved Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with local authorities elsewhere in the UK.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. In April last year, the Welsh Government increased to 182 days a year the occupancy threshold that allows holiday lets to qualify for business rates. They have also allowed local authorities to increase council tax premiums to up to 300% in cases where that threshold is not met. Does my hon. Friend agree that that Welsh Government policy is destroying legitimate business among holiday let operations, and damaging the local economy?
Peter Aldous
I do agree, and that point illustrates that this is a multifaceted problem or issue. A whole host of organisations need to sit around the table and come up with solutions that are bespoke and right for their councils or counties, or indeed for their devolved nations.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is bang on. He is essentially saying that one size does not fit all and that we should find the right solution for every place, because the current provision is a very blunt instrument.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further observation; he is right.
As I was saying, my second point is that it should be emphasised that furnished holiday lets are a long-standing economic lifeline for many coastal and rural areas. The regime supports micro and small businesses that are the cornerstone of many visitor economies. Abolishing it would hurt those businesses—including farmers who have diversified into tourism, as well as other businesses such as pubs, which rely on the lets for trade—and PASC estimates that even a modest 20% reduction in furnished holiday lets could result in the loss of £1.9 billion GVA and 46,000 jobs. The former figure is considerably higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of the additional tax that will be generated.
Thirdly, furnished holiday lets are not the cause of the housing crisis, as I think colleagues have mentioned. PASC estimates that a total of 197,000 properties in the UK fall within the FHL regime. Due to planning restrictions, 39% of those holiday let properties can only be used for holiday purposes. That means that 76,000 furnished holiday lets could not be used as residential dwellings, and only 121,000 furnished holiday lets have planning permission to be used as residential dwellings. The context is important: those 121,000 dwellings without planning restrictions have been established not in the past three or four years but over many decades; however, they represent 0.4% of the 30.1 million total UK housing stock and just 40% of the annual house building target of 300,000 new homes. Although there might be anecdotal evidence to suggest that private rental landlords are moving into the short-term let sector, PASC can find no quantitative data to support that conclusion. Indeed, less than 2% of traditional short-term let businesses had previously rented their properties out as a long-term let.
Anne Marie Morris
Is it not also clear, following the Renters (Reform) Bill, that there has been a haemorrhaging of landlords who do not wish to be in the private rented sector? As a consequence, they used to go to holiday lets, so holiday let individuals are hardly going to be going back to the private rented sector, which they wanted to leave and are leaving in droves.
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend makes a good point that reinforces my arguments about the unintended consequences of this proposal.
My fourth point is that there is no statistical evidence to suggest that furnished holiday lets have a disproportionate impact on house prices. As part of the consultation on the proposed introduction of the new planning use class for short-term lets in England, the Great British Holiday campaign commissioned an economic impact study by Frontier Economics on the size, growth and economic importance of traditional holiday lets in rural and coastal communities—unfortunately just in England, but I am sure that is equally relevant to Scotland and Wales. Frontier Economics found that there was no relationship between popular holiday let areas and the growth rate of real house prices between 2015 and 2022.
My final home truth is that there would be unintended consequences of a change to this taxation regime.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
While listening to the hon. Gentleman, it occurred to me that extended family or community members who come back home to an island often use such holiday lets—I could give personal examples from the past year of people returning from New Zealand, Canada and even mainland Scotland. Such properties have a community health aspect to them, over and above the money that they are raising in the economy.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is correct.
The unintended consequences of this taxation regime are that there would be thousands of job losses; a proliferation of empty properties, which could not be used for long-term lets for planning reasons; and a loss of billions of pounds to coastal and rural areas. According to PASC, of its members whose businesses would become non-viable and would have to be sold, 39% believed that the most likely buyer would be a second-home owner; 37% that the property would be bought by another holiday operator; and 16% that the purchaser would come from outside the area. In short, the policy would provide very limited assistance to the group that it is seeking to support: local people looking to rent a local home.
I will finish quickly and not take any more interventions to give the Minister an opportunity to respond. I have nine questions for him. First, what is the Treasury’s evidence to suggest that abolishing the holiday letting regime will encourage a significant number of businesses to convert from furnished holiday lets to the private rented sector, so as to justify the harm that it will cause to tens of thousands of small and microbusinesses? Secondly, why was there no consultation prior to the proposal, and will the Treasury now commit to a full public consultation due to the significant number of businesses that expressed concerns subsequently? Thirdly, has the Treasury considered the potential unintended consequences of abolishing the FHL regime, including the risk that it will lead to more empty second homes in rural and coastal areas? Fourthly, if the abolition of the FHL regime results in a reduction of furnished holiday lets, what evidence does the Treasury have to suggest that this vital bedstock of many rural and coastal economies will be sustained by other visitor accommodation?
Fifthly, will the Treasury consider the recommendations of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and reverse the mortgage interest relief restrictions that have stifled the supply of the homes that renters desperately need? Sixthly, why does the Treasury consider that a bespoke tailor-designed scheme for holiday lets that has operated successfully for 40 years should now be abolished if there is scant evidence to suggest that different tax regimes have resulted in private rental landlords switching to furnished holiday lets? Seventhly, will the Treasury ensure that the abolition of the FHL regime will not result in a group of people who are essentially entrepreneurs being retrospectively taxed at a rate that is 4% higher than the top rate of capital gains tax that applies to a passive investor of listed shares?
Eighthly, does the Treasury consider that the 5,000 new furnished holiday let properties in the UK that PASC guesses may have been created annually since 2016—so 40,000 properties—have had a significant impact on the current housing crisis when compared with the 30.1 million UK homes, 1.5 million empty or vacant homes and the commitment to build 300,000 new homes each year? Finally, will the Treasury align the VAT treatment of holiday lets with that of long-term lets if the policy intention is to align the tax treatment of furnished holiday lets and the private rented sector, or will actively managed FHLs now face a more punitive tax regime than a passive private rental investor?
In conclusion, the proposal does not create a level playing field. If it is to be equitable, it will be necessary to complicate the tax system, not simplify it, and it will have a very marginal impact, if any, on enabling local people to rent homes in their local area. The industry is asking that the Treasury undertakes a full public consultation of any legislation, which I personally think is being remarkably polite.
I cannot see a case for changing the current regime. There should be no future finance Bill to legislate for these changes, and like the proposed taxes on Cornish pasties and static caravans, the proposals should be shelved. Instead, a consultation should take place so that a more targeted localised approach, as opposed to this rather blunt instrument, can be worked up by Government, the devolved Assemblies and local government. That way, more focused and localised solutions can be put in place where they are needed, so as to ensure that more properties are available for long-term rent by local people.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for raising this issue today. It is a topic that I have discussed previously with him and with many hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and I am happy to continue to discuss it. I should say up front that there are no plans for a consultation, but that does not mean that hon. Members cannot engage with me.
At the moment, there is broad recognition that the current system is contributing to some distortions. My hon. Friend mentioned having a bit of déjà vu. In my former capacity as Tourism Minister, I travelled around the country and stood in this Chamber discussing the issue. I had colleague after colleague and industry after industry making claims for and demanding the exact policy that we are introducing, so hon. Members need to recognise that there is another side to the argument.
Although my hon. Friend outlined a different pattern in his part of the country, there are parts of the country where the current regime, with beneficial rates for FHL properties, creates an incentive for a disproportionately large number of properties to be FHL—short-term rentals, rather than long-term rentals—which is causing problems. I have heard hoteliers and owners of B&Bs say that the current system is not fair and reasonable. I have heard owners of pubs, bars and restaurants complain that the large number of short-term lets and FHL properties is undermining their value proposition.
I gently say to hon. Members that we all have colleagues from different parts of the country and there is another side to the argument, although I understand the vehemence and strength of feeling in the Chamber today. I know the pattern is mixed across the country, but the problem is that we cannot do tax treatment, such as income tax relief, ward by ward or constituency by constituency. As hon. Members know, we have a whole range of other initiatives to encourage the supply of housing more broadly and limit the impact, including through local taxation and restrictions on housing.
We are proposing not to abolish FHLs, which play a vital role in our tourism ecosystem across the country, but to change their tax treatment to put them on an equal footing and create a level playing field with long-term lets. The problem is that if I were an investor thinking of buying a property in a certain area, it would make pure economic sense for me to get a short-term let rather than a long-term let. Therefore, in certain communities across the country, when a new property becomes available, there is an incentive for an investor to straightforwardly go for a short-term let rather than a long-term let because there is beneficial tax treatment. We are not eliminating the tax incentives but levelling the playing field so that the perverse incentive no longer exists.
Anne Marie Morris
If the Minister is unwilling to undertake a consultation, is he willing to look at a carve-out—an exemption—for properties that cannot be used in the private rented sector because of covenants on them? That was discussed by the Office of Tax Simplification. Will he look at that seriously?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which she has raised with me previously. I should put on the record that many hon. Members in the Chamber have raised concerns about the implementation of this proposal with me. The challenge is that one of the goals is simplification, and when we start moving into the area of carve-outs and exemptions, it opens up the system to challenges and potential abuse. I hear what my hon. Friend has to say. She will always hear from Ministers that we keep tax policy under review, but as soon as we start moving to an exemption here and an exemption there, it causes great difficulties. I also thank PASC for its constructive engagement with me on this issue and for giving me information.
I have had lots of correspondence and have engaged with colleagues, and I want to make this very clear. There is a belief that when we said we were abolishing the FHL tax regime, that meant we were abolishing FHLs. No, of course we are not. As I said, they play a vital role in the visitor economy, but we want to change the tax policy. The intention is for the tax reform to apply to all properties.
There will continue to be benefits. After the abolition of the FHL tax regime, a higher rate paying landlord with mortgage interest costs of £12,000 per year would still get up to £2,400 taken off their income tax bill through the relief. If they spend a further £8,000—for example, on insurance, letting agent fees and replacing domestic items such as sofas, fridges, washing machines—they could save a further £3,200 in income tax by using the reliefs that are available for all landlords. It is about levelling the playing field. There will still be tax incentives, but we do not want that distortion. When somebody buys a new property or an existing property, there is a false incentive that is causing some problems, because human behaviour that naturally seeks a better return on investment leads them towards short-term lets, rather than long-term lets. That is what we are trying to correct.
Mr Carmichael
On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. When I intervened, I should have pointed out that I have a declarable interest registered. I apologise to the Chamber for not doing so at the time and I hope the position is now clarified.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Okay. That allows me to shorten what I was going to say.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
World ME Day
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World ME Day.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and I am extremely grateful to colleagues from across the House for their attendance.
There is no single universal experience of myalgic encephalomyelitis, otherwise known as ME. For those living with the condition, the distressing and familiar pattern can be all too clear: initial signs of fatigue, a drastic change in physical ability and activity, and the loss of mental focus and confidence.
The condition can begin after a battle with a viral infection, but for others the start of symptoms can simply seem unexplainable. Answers and hope are sought by visiting medical professionals, but too often ME patients are misdiagnosed or, at worst, dismissed entirely. Parents and carers who simply try their best can be chastised, as a once healthy person—a loved one—is slowly taken away by this cruel condition.
As a country, we have made tremendous progress in combatting so many diseases and illnesses. There has been a welcome step change in medical advancement and attitudes, but people with ME have not seen that progress—in fact, I would argue that they have been left behind. This debate provides an opportunity to share the experiences of people living with the condition ahead of World ME Day on 12 May and for us to consider what more can be done to improve experiences and outcomes for people across the United Kingdom. Today we are joined in person and online by many people who live with this condition, and I thank them for their continued strength.
When I was appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, we were in the middle of fighting the pandemic. Of course, priorities and resources were naturally stretched, but the emergence of long covid saw renewed attention brought to ME. For me, the fight against that illness was not just an important policy area but simply very personal. My cousin, who is here today, has an amazing daughter who bravely battles this condition. Until the age of 13, she was a happy, healthy teenager. She was academically gifted and a talented netball player. Seven years later, today, her life has completely changed.
As Secretary of State, I set out my vision for a new approach to ME chronic fatigue syndrome in May 2022. I co-chaired a roundtable with the chief scientific adviser, Professor Lucy Chappell, to bring together experts, including people with lived experience, to discuss what needs to happen next. I also announced the Government’s intention to develop a cross-Government delivery plan for England. Two years later, although Ministers have understandably changed, I hope the determination that I had to tackle this condition remains in Government.
I was pleased to see the publication of an interim delivery plan by the Government in August last year. Supporting people with ME should be a cross-Government initiative. Although the work is rightly led by the Department of Health and Social Care, I was pleased to see that the plan was jointly published with the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I am very pleased to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I want to raise the issue of the involvement of multiple Departments, and it relates to my constituent Sienna Wemyss, who is 16 years old. Sienna was diagnosed in 2022, but she still has not got an education, care and health plan. She got a place at our local Barking and Dagenham College, but when she arrived there, despite her mother having spoken to the teachers, she was sent home because she could not attend. She finds it difficult even to comb her hair, so she is at home and has lost out on her education.
Does the right hon. Member agree that it is really important that not only health but education plays its role? While I am on my feet, I should say that Sienna has to travel as there are no local health facilities to respond to her needs and to care for her. She has to travel into University College Hospital—miles from my constituents in Barking. Does the right hon. Member further agree that there should be local healthcare facilities to respond to the needs of people with this condition?
Sir Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention, and I agree with her on both points. She first emphasises the importance of the Government’s final plan being a proper cross-Government plan; I hope the Minister will speak to the cross-Government nature of the work that he is leading on their behalf. I also agree with her point about local health support. That must also be addressed and covered in the final plan that is published. I have heard very similar stories from constituents and others, and I completely agree with what she said. I thank her again for that intervention.
When I committed the Government to developing a cross-Government delivery plan, I stated in a written statement to this House:
“officials will work with stakeholders ahead of publishing the delivery plan later this year.”
Despite the commitment that the delivery plan would be published by the end of 2022, it was not until August 2023 that an interim plan was published. In the ministerial foreword to that interim delivery plan, the Minister’s immediate predecessor—my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—stated:
“The final delivery plan will be published later this year”.
That was the end of last year. We are now in May 2024, approaching exactly two years since I made the initial commitment.
I am also now hearing disturbing reports that, despite two years of waiting, the final delivery plan may not be published until the end of this year. Everyone knows that the Prime Minister has committed the country to a general election by the end of this year. We also know that when that general election is called, there will be no Government publication of any sort, which means there is absolutely no time to waste. I ask the Minister, when he responds, to give a specific commitment to the House that the final delivery plan will be published before the summer recess—or at the very latest, just after.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the leadership that he has shown, and continues to show, on this issue. I have been contacted by Phoebe van Dyke, a young woman living in my constituency who is struggling with ME. She is concerned about the extent of the skills of the general medical profession: too many of the doctors she encounters do not understand enough about the condition. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the delivery plan that he wants the Government to bring forward will ensure that there is much better training across the range of medical professionals, so that they have the skills to understand the condition?
Sir Sajid Javid
I assure my hon. Friend that that is definitely what I want to see in the plan; perhaps more important now, however, is to hear that commitment from the Minister. It is touched on in the interim plan, but we all want to see that issue, among the others, addressed in that final cross-Government plan.
The interim delivery plan set out some of the current challenges that we must address to improve outcomes and experiences for individuals with ME. We must ensure that the final delivery plan focuses at least on two key areas: outcomes and experiences. However, making progress in these areas also requires us to address more fundamental problems. For example, there is a huge cultural problem, when it comes to ME, with a lack of medical understanding and awareness. There is a critical lack of data and research, and there is still no existing cure or even treatments. It is estimated—this number is often cited; I use it myself—that about 250,000 people are living with ME in the UK, but even that figure is 10 years old, highlighting the lack of data and research in this field. Without a clear dataset and understanding, tackling the issue of course becomes an even bigger uphill battle.
That is why there are research projects such as DecodeME. They are vital because they help to increase understanding and they serve as a critical platform for future work.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that another issue faced by constituents is that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines that were introduced are not being used by every single trust in the country? I think that only 28% of NHS trusts are using the NICE guidelines. Does he agree that consistency of treatment and approach would be an important step in ensuring that people can get the care that they need?
Sir Sajid Javid
Yes, I agree with the hon. Member. Indeed, those guidelines were changed while I was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I remember welcoming them, but the expectation of course was that they would be properly followed. As the hon. Member says, in some 70% of cases that does not seem to be the case. We all want that to be addressed. I hope that the Minister will be able to pick up that point when he responds.
Another example of research is a groundbreaking project on long covid and ME diagnostics called LOCOME. It is co-led by Action for ME, the University of Edinburgh and a computational biology company called PrecisionLife. It is hoped that that new project, which is utilising the data that has been gathered from the DecodeME project, will provide insights that will be able to create the first predictive diagnostic tools for ME and long covid. I take this opportunity to thank the charity Action for ME for its world-leading work on the project, its crucial support and the research and campaigning that it does to improve ME research and outcomes.
It is vital that we continue to support organisations such as Action for ME and researchers in this way. The focus of World ME Day in 2024, this year, will be to build a “Global Voice For ME”. In that spirit, it is important that we collaborate with allies across the globe to further research in this area. However, we know that, even with more research, it will be a long journey to achieve our desired outcomes. That is why improving the experiences of those living with ME, and their families, is also vital.
I know from my own engagement that individuals with lived experience often feel dismissed. I recall a recent Channel 4 report that even highlighted the case of a family who saw social services investigate the care of their daughter because they believed that she was being kept in bed against her will. If it were not for campaigning organisations such as Action for ME, the ME Association, the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis, Forward ME and the World ME Alliance as well as the work of incredible individuals such as Sean O’Neill, who I believe joins us today and who has led an inspiring campaign in memory of his daughter, Maeve, the situation would feel almost hopeless. That is how it would feel if we did not have these people battling for more work to be done on ME. It is because of them that the case of this community is being heard, and having served in Government for so long myself, I know that when people speak up with the support of many honourable colleagues from right across the House, the Government must listen.
This year, 2024, marks 55 years since the World Health Organisation officially acknowledged ME. For too long, we have failed to recognise the severity of the condition for thousands of people across the UK. As we mark World ME Day on 12 May, we must renew our commitment to improving outcomes and experiences for everyone affected. It is great to see so many hon. Members from across the House in the Chamber, and I am grateful to everyone who has attended today’s debate in the Public Gallery, as well as those who may be joining online. Where such support exists, there is always hope.
The ambition is to improve the lives of people with the condition today, and to ensure that future generations have a brighter future. Helping make that ambition a reality is now the responsibility of the Minister, and I look forward to his response and the contribution of other hon. Members.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and to be speaking at this important time, ahead of World ME Day on 12 May. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) for securing the debate and for continuing to champion the cause, which is so needed. I also thank Action for ME for its research and campaigning, and for providing visibility for so many people who have ME who are bedbound and housebound, and cannot speak for themselves. That is why I have been championing this condition, because so many of my constituents have been in touch with me.
To be honest, when I was pregnant, I had very severe morning sickness. It was not morning sickness: it meant that I was bedbound for many months. I got an inkling, I think, of what is suffered by people who have ME. However, they suffer for so long with such little hope because, as the right hon. Member said, there is no treatment and no cure. To raise those issues, and to talk about the research and treatment that are needed, and the understanding that is needed in workplaces, schools and the healthcare system, is important. This debate will mark a huge step forward for that.
ME is a chronic illness that affects multiple body systems and leaves those suffering unable to take part in everyday activities. In the UK, we know that at least 250,00 people suffer from ME. However, that is an outdated statistic that has not been updated for over a decade. The real figure is likely to be far higher. An estimated 1.3 million people live with ME or ME-like symptoms, and 50% of people with long covid have symptoms that mirror ME. One in four of those is housebound. Women are five times more likely to develop ME, and to have more symptoms from their ME, than men. I think that might be at the heart of why it has been such an underfunded and neglected disease, because it is predominantly women who are suffering more than men.
People with ME suffer disproportionately high levels of stigma and lack of understanding compared with other major chronic illnesses. That ignorance makes it more of a challenge to address and treat, and they suffer misunderstandings in education, work and healthcare. Many constituents have shared such stories with me. They have told me stories about personal independence payment assessments as well, which do not meet the needs of a fluctuating condition, and do not take account of the condition in the timings and the way that people are assessed, leading to them receiving less support from the state.
Over the last 10 years, only £8.05 million has been spent on ME research. If that had been equitable to other illnesses, ME would have received over £10 million or more. Without urgent research, those estimated 250,000 people in the UK living with the illness—and many more—will continue to feel unseen and left behind. That inaction comes at a significant cost. Without research, people living with ME will continue to suffer from a range of debilitating symptoms that push them towards the edge of society. The links with long covid offer hope for research, and should be entirely embraced. I hope that it will be embraced in the plan that we hope will be published soon and that the Minister will tell us about in his speech.
The Government claim that they want to get people back to work, yet they continue to underfund vital investment in ME that could help thousands of people to rejoin the workforce. While the Government continue to dither and delay on that plan, others are stepping up. Action for ME is co-leading a pioneering research project into ME to uncover its genetic causes. It is called DecodeME and is funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research. Understanding how ME affects people is the first step towards developing effective treatments.
Although I and others welcomed the Government’s announcement of the cross-Government ME delivery plan, which was announced by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove on ME Day in May 2022, the publication of the final plan, as has been outlined, has been delayed again and again, but it is badly needed by sufferers across the country. My constituents are feeling the direct implications of the lack of funding for research. I especially want to highlight the inadequacy of secondary care.
Zoe, one of my constituents, wrote:
“I’m lucky that my GP is great and recognised the symptoms early and found me a good clinic to go to. But ongoing support in secondary care is non-existent. Compared to others, I was…lucky to have what I got, but it was six appointments with a consultant and his team and that’s it. No ongoing care, no ongoing support. Because of the complex nature of the illness I’ve had to be referred to multiple secondary care clinics to manage all my ongoing symptoms. I go to St George’s, Bart’s, Kings, UCL and the Royal Free, at best they’re well meaning, but not well educated about ME, at worst I experience a huge amount of medical gas lighting or complete indifference, disbelief or disinterest in the ME. (I had such a poor experience with secondary care this week that the stress of dealing with the doctor/clinic has further exacerbated the flare of symptoms.) It’s a lot to expect a person with ME to manage.”
Just yesterday, I was walking through Putney and Donna in my constituency came up to me to tell me about the hugely life-limiting impact that ME has had on her. She was in a wheelchair and said that that trip out to get a prescription means that she will not be able to go out again for the next two weeks. She said she is constantly misunderstood and neglected in the health system.
Recently, the cases of Carla, Milly and Karen—all young women in hospital with severe ME and struggling to access the care they need, the appropriate feeding, tests and medical care—paint a picture of a broken system. They have been treated as psychological cases, not medical and physical. Carla, Milly and Karen have been let down time and again. I urge the Government not to permit the growing cases of ME across the country to morph into a health crisis for which there is no cure.
I will end with a call for five actions: first, ending the stigma and taboo in healthcare situations, work and schools; secondly, the full implementation of NICE’s 2021 guidelines on ME and chronic fatigue syndrome, including diagnosis across the country; thirdly, funding research into severe ME and joining that up with research into long covid; fourthly, looking into the situation in care for Carla, Milly and Karen and poor hospital care for all other sufferers of ME; and fifthly, publishing, funding and implementing the cross-departmental ME delivery plan before the general election.
I hope the Minister has written all of that down. I hope to hear about it later, and I hope that this debate will mark a step change in the understanding of people with ME and hope for the future.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) on his leadership on this issue. We know that he started the train of getting work done on ME when he was Health Secretary. Too often in this place, we move on from Departments and never speak of them again, but he has not. He has championed the cause of the sufferers of ME, and indeed their families, with real vigour.
It seems bizarre in this place to refer to long covid with a welcome message, but long covid has shone a spotlight back on ME. We know that it is a post-viral condition, but we do not know why. The number of sufferers of long covid has given us an opportunity to look again at ME. Hopefully, in this place some of us will begin to understand more and broaden our knowledge of the condition. My right hon. Friend taken a new approach, and my constituents certainly wish to extend their thanks to him for that.
I always say that I am blessed with constituents in Romsey and Southampton North who are not only articulate and willing to share their views with me, but in many instances are often experts as well. Professor Sir Stephen Holgate contacted me ahead of the debate to make the pertinent point that, for sufferers of ME, many of whom have been bedbound for years, surely I could spend an hour of my time raising their plight in this Chamber. I am certainly very pleased to do so. He highlighted, as did the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), the well-established sex bias among sufferers of ME. Of the 17,000 sufferers recently surveyed, women made up 83.5% of the respondents. We know that they are five times more likely to suffer than their male counterparts.
I say to the Minister, very gently—an unusual stance for me—that we have to do more about the bias that exists in medical research and clinical trials. We have to stop the situation, which prevails to this day, where too often conditions suffered by women are portrayed as them being simply hysterical. ME is a serious condition. It is not all in the mind, as my constituents have been told on too many occasions. We need to ensure not only more investment into research to find the causes of ME and hopefully more effective treatments—and of course, the holy grail, a cure—but research focused on the women who need it.
I welcome the cross-Government delivery plan that was set in train by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, but we need to see it. We need to see not just the interim version but the final plan, and we need it to be delivered. We need it to be rolled out into every trust and integrated care board. We need it to be effective for our constituents, which brings me on to my next point: my constituent. I was contacted by a mother, Elaine. The point she made in her email was that she wants her voice and the voice of her daughter to be heard. Her daughter was a high achiever, training to be a dancer. She had already secured 5 A-levels when she was struck down with ME. The words that she used are heartbreaking. She has been stigmatised, gaslighted and ridiculed. As a result, she now avoids doctors. She avoids going to get the very help that she needs because she fears that her condition will lead to ridicule.
That is simply not acceptable in a 21st-century health system. We have to do more to ensure greater awareness not just in the Chamber today, but out in our ICBs and GP surgeries, so that the sufferers who are presenting for the first time do not get ridiculed or labelled as hysterical women, but actually get the help that they need. We cannot have a situation where our constituents are avoiding the people they need to turn to for help.
As I have said, there is bias that we have to overcome. There is a gap in research funding. Only £8 million has been spent on ME research over the last 10 years, which is simply disproportionate to the number of sufferers—it should be several times that figure—and we still know less about every aspect of female biology than we do about male biology. I would like to hear a commitment from the Minister that, while he is in this role, he will do his utmost to eliminate the gender bias that we still see in medical research.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) not just on securing the debate, but on the groundbreaking work that he did in establishing the delivery plan. We are all grateful for that.
We all come to this debate with our own experiences. My first constituency case was nearly 30 years ago. I remember it well. It was heartbreaking: a young women who had a full-time job, was bringing up her family with two children and was active in her local community and trade union, went down with a condition that she never understood. It was not recognised for a long time, even by a local doctor. There was a lot of stigma attached to it at that time—I think a few members of the media were running stories like that. It took her years and a lot of support before she could come to terms with it and re-engage fully with her life.
Debates like this give us the opportunity to share those experiences, but they also prompt organisations to send us briefings. I congratulate Action for ME on the excellent briefing that it has circulated. It has brought us up to speed on a whole range of issues and focused us in advance. I want to respond in support of the half a dozen demands made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). The first is about the recognition of the consequences and scale of ME in our society. One area that we have not explored enough is the mental health consequences of ME. In the cases that I have dealt with, ME has led people virtually to breakdown, because of the frustration of no longer being able to live an active life, as well as facing all the barriers and the stigma. We do not fully understand the range of consequences.
I fully agree with the point about research. Demand is doubling, at least. I was shocked that the figures in the briefing were so low after all this time and all the debates that we have had. Long covid has also brought a new dimension to the debate. I am receiving lots of representations from constituents about long covid; it is like we are going through the ME process all over again. I congratulate Action for ME. As the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove said, the establishment of the centre of excellence in Edinburgh is a huge breakthrough; it will be a world leader.
I thought that the NICE guidelines were being rolled out more effectively, so I was shocked that 76% of ICBs do not have a specialist service. We need to think about how that has gone wrong and what will put it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney made a point about benefits. The Government are yet again reforming the benefit system, and I am worried about the reforms. I have met with a range of disability groups, and people are petrified. There is real fear out there, including among people with this particular condition. Anyone who has assisted a constituent through the appeal process understands how difficult it is to get it across that someone has a fluctuating condition, as was mentioned. I do not criticise clinicians, but there is still a lack of thorough understanding among some clinicians about the condition.
I want to make one further point, which has not been raised. I have come across case after case in which protection at work has not been in place, and people have lost their jobs, promotion, or access to training and so on. The reasonable adjustments that we thought we had built into the legislation have not been made. That needs to be reviewed going into the next period. There will be new employment legislation, certainly if there is a change of Government, and perhaps whether or not there is a change of Government. There are issues about the quality of employed life that have to be addressed, and this is one of them.
I am grateful for the debate, because I will be able to report back to constituents that Parliament has discussed the matter. I have the same confidence that the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove has: when a group of MPs works on a cross-party basis and makes noise like this, civil servants and Ministers listen. I hope that the Minister can report today particularly on the timing of the delivery plan, which will give us so much hope.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I will call Jim Shannon next. If he would not mind, I ask him to voluntarily restrict his comments so that at 5.08 pm I can call the Opposition spokesperson for five minutes and the Minister for 10 minutes, because I think people want to hear what the Minister has to say.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I certainly will do exactly that; I had planned a five-minute contribution.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) on highlighting World ME Day. I listened to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). When I was first introduced as an elected representative, as a Member of the Assembly at Stormont back in 1998, a person with ME came to me one day. I will be honest: I had no idea what it was. But I knew one thing, which was that that lady was ill. I am no wiser or smarter than anybody else, and I am not a doctor, but I can recognise pain. I can recognise a disability that hurts. It was making her life absolutely unworkable.
I helped her with her benefits; incidentally, we won on appeal. We won because if I could see what that lady was going through, the four people on the panel could see it, too. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the appeals process. I always ask the person, “How many days a week are you ill?” and the person will tell you. Sometimes they are ill for a week, sometimes they are not ill and sometimes they are ill for three of the seven days. The point I am making is that they are ill, and it is a case of proving that.
The article by Hope 4 ME & Fibro Northern Ireland really summarises how the ME community feels:
“In recent times, the landscape of ME has undergone a transformation, with COVID-19 emerging as the most common trigger for this chronic illness. The intersection of these two health challenges has resulted in a significant increase in the number of people affected by ME. An estimated 55+ million individuals worldwide are living with the debilitating effects of this condition.”
It is an epidemic across the world.
“Amidst these escalating numbers, Hope 4 ME & Fibro Northern Ireland proudly stands alongside World ME Alliance members across the globe. We collectively amplify support for initiatives that seek to address the multifaceted impact of ME on individuals and communities alike.”
As an active Member of Parliament, a former Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and former councillor—I think this is now my 39th year in elected service—I have seen the debilitating effects suffered by those with ME suffer. One of the harsh realities is that there is no cure. Individuals grappling with ME often endure both the physical toll of the illness and the stigmas that accompany it. It is imperative that we as a global community and in this House come together to address these gaps in understanding, treatment and research. That is where we in this place have a part to play. The right hon. Member for Bromsgrove set the scene well, as did others who have spoken; those who follow will tell it again.
I do not believe that we have done more than scratch the surface of fulfilling our obligation to those who are in inexplicable pain daily and who are made to feel as if it is somehow only in their head. It is not. I am not a doctor, but I can see pain; I can see agony; I can see trauma. I can see people who need help. If I can do that, everybody in this room could do the same, because that is what we do every day when we deal with people. They live feeling ashamed of an illness, when most other illnesses are accepted as being out of the victim’s hands. There is work to do in how our health and benefits Departments view ME—there is a big role for them to play—and subsequently treat those who suffer from ME and associated illnesses. Support should be offered not just to them, but also to the families—never forget the families. It is not just that one person suffering; the whole family suffers, because they can see the pain and the agony. Undoubtedly, the burden is often shared with the entire household, emotionally, physically and financially.
On World ME Day, we need to be aware that the people we may see for a brief moment may be fighting a battle with pain that we cannot fully understand. We cannot share that pain, but we can hopefully appreciate what they are saying. It is our job in this place to fight harder for them. For them, this debate is a continuation of that very battle they have fought. We fight today alongside them.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I will start by declaring an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I thank the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) not just for bringing forward this debate, but for the work he has done. It is the second anniversary of the publication of a report produced by the APPG called “Rethinking ME”. As Health Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman came to its launch event here in Parliament, and that was very much appreciated by the ME community. More importantly, under his direction, the Department of Health and Social Care started engaging with the APPG in a way that had not happened previously, to learn about our findings and recommendations from the report.
Following that, the interim delivery plan for ME was announced and the consultation opened up for those with lived experience. The right hon. Gentleman’s hand was all over that work, which has really been transformational in getting the opinions of those who are actually living with ME on a day-to-day basis. The publication of the final plan, however, has been delayed several times, as we have heard already. I will press the Minister on this: we need to know when the final delivery plan will be produced. We do not want it to be after a general election, because another Government might mean different priorities. We need that plan now.
Another step that has taken the situation forward for those with ME was the publication of the new NICE guidelines in 2021. That replaced the previous guidelines, which had recommended graded exercise therapy as a treatment for ME—a treatment that many had undertaken, and many had had their symptoms made far worse as a result. It was good to see the publication of those guidelines, but there is still much more to be done. We heard from the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) how this condition impacts women far more than men, so there has to be a focus on women in research, treatment and diagnosis.
People with ME experience a lot of issues, such as a lack of understanding from healthcare professionals, as was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That leads to delays in diagnosis and to inappropriate treatments. We are still hearing of people who have been forced through graded exercise—that is, the old NICE guidelines, not the new ones. Parents of children with ME find themselves subject to child protection investigations; that has to stop. Of course, many people face difficulties negotiating the welfare system, as was highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). According to Ann Innes, a welfare rights adviser with the ME Association,
“Repeated assessments are a huge drain on people with ME. They put them back considerably, in terms of their health”.
One of the areas of greatest concern is the treatment of those with severe ME. It is estimated that one in four people with ME has it severely, which means they are house-bound or bed-bound and need 24-hour care. Between 2017 and 2021, 62 deaths have been attributed to ME, and the tragic death of Maeve Boothby-O’Neill highlights the need for urgent action. Maeve was repeatedly hospitalised and discharged due to a lack of specialist services for ME patients. The absence of known treatments meant that her diagnosis sadly came too late. I pay tribute to her dad Sean O’Neill, who joins us this afternoon, for the work he has done.
Over the next couple of months, the APPG will be taking evidence from those affected by severe ME. I encourage Members present to join us for those sessions, where we will hear what we can do as parliamentarians and what we should be doing. If outcomes are to improve, increased funding for biomedical research is vital. I ask the Minister how much funding there will be, how it will be delivered and where we will see that. I know that I am out of time, but I will pay tribute quickly to a couple of people: the Countess of Mar from the other place, who has sadly had to retire, but she has done decades of work; Sonya Chowdhury from Action for ME, who joins us; Forward ME; the ME Association; and all those affected by ME and their families, who have done so much work to bring the issue to the attention of Members in this place.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) on securing this important debate and on the work he not only did as Health Secretary, but continues to do as a Member of Parliament on ME, which we know is a profoundly debilitating and chronic condition that affects various systems across the body. Figures estimate that at least 250,000 people in the UK live with it. However, it is estimated that upwards of 1.3 million people live with ME or ME-like symptoms following a covid-19 infection. As we have heard, women are five times more likely to develop ME than men, and they experience more symptoms than men.
Many parallels have been drawn between ME and long covid, given that research has indicated that at least half of those living with long covid have symptoms that directly mirror those of ME. As someone who continues to suffer from the effects of long covid, those symptoms are all too familiar to me: a draining fatigue that never seems to go away; constantly disturbed sleep and an endless feeling of exhaustion; and a debilitating brain fog that can strike at the most inconvenient of moments.
I just want to place on the record that I have managed to control my long covid for the best part of two years, but this week has been a very bad week for me; I was in bed for all of today, and I have only come in to give this speech. The reason that there is a bundle of tissues here is because the sweats just hit me while walking into work. I do understand—I have lived with the experience of symptoms similar to ME—and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the impact it has on people in work, because we do not know which days will be our good days and our bad days, and sadly we are judged against our bad days. That is true.
We need to educate employers about ME and long covid so that reasonable adjustments can be made, and about changes to the welfare system. When I was on my very worst of days, very early on after I contracted covid-19, I would have been signed off work if I had turned up for a work capability assessment, because it was obvious to all. On my best days, though, people would think, “There’s nothing wrong with him,” so if I had the misfortune of having a work capability assessment on one of my better days, I would then be put into work when I was not capable. We must attend to those issues across Government.
We know that ME costs the UK economy about £3.3 billion a year, and that number is growing. We need far better understanding of this debilitating condition and its impact on the day-to-day lives of too many people. That is why Labour is committed to putting Britain at the front of the queue for treatments by boosting clinical trial activity in the NHS. We will speed up recruitment to trials and give more people the chance to participate. We will link up clinical trial registries to create national standing registries, and harness the power of the NHS app to invite eligible participants to take part in research studies for which they are eligible. We also need to rebuild the system so that it recognises the impact of post-viral conditions like ME and equips people with the tools needed to work with it.
We need to refocus our services away from hospital settings to be rooted in the community, so that patients can access care when and where they need it, and we need to bolster a workforce that can better understand ME so that people can get timely care. Above all, we need to get that delivery plan published sooner rather than later. I implore the Minister for World ME Day: he has cross-party support, so let’s get it published ASAP.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) for bringing forward such an important debate ahead of World ME Day on 12 May. As Health Secretary, he laid the foundations for our cross-Government delivery plan, and from the Back Benches he has been a tireless champion for people living with ME. I join him in welcoming his cousin to the House today. I also pay tribute to the ME Association, Action for ME, Forward ME and many other outstanding charities that do incredible work in this area.
I thank the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the SNP spokeswoman—the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan)—and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for their thoughtful contributions. I particularly pay tribute to the SNP spokeswoman for the work she has done on the APPG, and to the shadow Minister for coming here today despite his own health challenges.
I will do my best to address as many of the points raised as possible in the time allowed. To start, I will address one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Barking. This is very much a cross-Government piece of work. I will be working very closely particularly with the Department for Education, and others, to ensure that we get this right. It is correct that this is a Health lead, but it is right that it is a cross-Government piece of work.
ME, or chronic fatigue syndrome, is a complex medical condition with a wide array of symptoms. Some people with ME struggle to do even the most basic things that we all take for granted, such as going to the office, seeing a GP, or even taking their children to football. This debate comes at a critical time, as new studies are beginning to pinpoint parts of the brain that affect the condition. A recent report has shown the yearly cost to the UK economy could be above £3 billion. While our understanding is improving, people with ME must receive the right care and support to manage their symptoms and, where possible, to be able to move on with their lives.
Sadly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) has so eloquently set out today, there has been a real lack of awareness among some medical professionals and the wider public, as also highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. For so long, people were dismissed, ignored or even told their symptoms were all in their head. However, as anyone who lives with ME knows, it is so much more than just feeling very tired; for a quarter of sufferers with severe symptoms, it is truly debilitating.
This is why our delivery plan is vital. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove knows, it has two core principles at its heart. First, we must know more about ME if we are able to improve outcomes. Secondly, we must trust and listen to people with ME to improve their experience. That is why the Government published the interim delivery plan last August, proposing a set of actions on research and education, but also tackling those old attitudes and adapting the language we use to describe the condition. Since then, we have consulted on the interim delivery plan to understand where the plan is strong and where we need to go further. I would like to thank the more than 3,000 people and organisations right across the United Kingdom who took part.
As we speak, officials are analysing thousands of responses and we will publish a summary shortly. These responses will be instrumental in developing the final cross-Government delivery plan, which will be published later this year. I completely understand my right hon. Friend’s frustrations, and he makes a powerful case for publishing the plan before the summer. While I cannot make that commitment at this time, I have assured him privately, and I will do so again today publicly, that I will do all in my power to ensure that the plan is published as soon as possible.
Our consultation had a huge response, which is fantastic, as we wanted the broadest range of voices to inform how we shape the plan, but the responses have also shown just how complex the challenges are. Once we have published our response to the consultation in the spring, it is vital that we go back and work very closely with patient groups to finesse the final plan, which could take some time.
As my right hon. Friend has said, people with ME have for too long been ignored and dismissed. That is why we want to take the time to properly understand the challenges they face and listen to the solutions they propose. It is so important that we get this right. I have heard my right hon. Friend, and I will continue to work hard with officials to come up with a plan that delivers for people with ME as soon as possible.
John McDonnell
It would be really helpful if the Minister could write to us about the areas that require the finessing for the eventual final plan.
Andrew Stephenson
I am happy to provide an update to Members. I hope that when we provide the summary of the 3,000-plus responses, it will shine a real clear light on that, but I am more than happy to write to everyone who has engaged in today’s debate to provide an update, and perhaps to address any points that I am not able to in the time allowed.
Patients can receive the care they deserve only with timely and accurate diagnosis. Sadly, there is no specific test for ME, which can be challenging to diagnose as it shares some symptoms with other conditions, as set out by the shadow Minister. That is why in 2021 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published the new guidelines on the management of ME that several Members mentioned. That was a step forward in helping medical professionals understand the condition so that people could be diagnosed as soon as possible. It also set out best practice for healthcare professionals in the management of ME, and the care and support they should offer patients.
Carol Monaghan
Given that we have heard that many health trusts are not implementing the new guidelines, can the Minister or his Department undertake to write to health boards to remind them that they are in place?
Andrew Stephenson
I completely understand the frustration that was raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others about the lack of implementation. At the moment, we and NHS England are working hard to understand the barriers to the full implementation of the guidelines. They should have been fully implemented but we acknowledge that they have not. It is so important that we get this plan over the line because the final delivery plan will, without doubt, underline the need to follow NICE guidelines. That will be underpinned by e-learning from the Department on the development of new medical professionals and other initiatives that have been taken as part of the plan. I am keen for that to be looked at. I will now turn to medical training, but I will finally say that the NICE guidelines should be followed, and we are trying to understand why that has sadly not been the case in all too many trusts.
The new guidelines, while important by themselves, must come with a broader cultural shift across the NHS. That is why we have been working with NHS England to develop an e-learning course for health professionals, which they themselves have helped to develop, alongside charities and people living with ME. The Medical Schools Council will promote the course to every medical school in the country, while encouraging schools to take students to meet patients who suffer from ME face to face to help bust some of the myths around the condition.
I want to end by saying a few words about the future. I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove on the importance of research. As he knows, the Government are funding research into ME through the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. As he kindly mentioned, those institutions came together to fund DecodeME, the world’s largest genome-wide association study of the condition, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney. We are backing the study with over £3 million to analyse the samples from 25,000 people in the search for genetic differences that may indicate an underlying cause for the increased risk of developing the condition.
The study is already generating key insights. For example, while it has long been known that women are more susceptible to the condition, the DecodeME study has shown for the first time how their experience differs from that of men. I am happy to provide my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North with the assurance that not only will we do everything to get the plan over the line as quickly as possible, but I will work with people such as the chief scientific adviser, Professor Lucy Chappell, to eradicate the gender bias in research.
Genomics is already revolutionising the way we diagnose and treat a range of conditions, solving riddles for diseases that were mysteries just 10 years ago. By improving understanding, investing in research and implementing our delivery plan, we will go further and faster in the years ahead. I know there is much to do. I will end by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for everything he has done on the matter. I will continue to work with him and other hon. and right hon. Members to ensure we get this right.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World ME Day.