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
Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of the specialist manufacturing sector to regional economies.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and a privilege to open this debate on the contribution of the specialist manufacturing sector to regional economies. The number of colleagues who have joined us this early on a Wednesday morning is a mark of just how important this issue is to so many constituencies.
Manufacturing is the backbone of our economy. This country is unique. We do not mass-produce rubbish; we make specialist things that only our foundries and factories can produce. Decent manufacturing brings good jobs but also economic power to our country. Manufacturing contributed £217 billion in output to the economy last year—nearly 10% of GDP—and supported 2.6 million jobs.
Calder Valley has manufacturing in its history. The story started with wool, but has developed into chemicals and specialist manufacturing. As new businesses opened in old mills, we also focused on particular industries. Calder Valley has long been known for its engineering. We are home to what many call valve valley, a cluster of more than 20 firms that design, build and service valves that are used across the world. In the valve community, which I mainly discovered after becoming an MP, Brighouse and Elland are central hubs. These companies are not household names, but they are businesses that keep industry moving, from energy to water to pharmaceuticals. They employ local people, train apprentices and anchor our economy in towns that too often feel overlooked.
When I visit manufacturing and engineering firms in Calder Valley, I see the same thing again and again: highly skilled workers who are proud of the worldwide reach of their products, from 60% of water in New York city travelling through valves made in Brighouse to oil rigs in the North sea being made safer because of the expertise of workers in a West Yorkshire factory. I see innovation, with companies investing in new technology and tapping into various sectors such as defence, renewables and nuclear. I see resilience, because these businesses have survived downturns and global shocks, yet they continue to provide good jobs in Calder Valley.
But we cannot ignore the fact that the numbers working in manufacturing are falling. As of 2024, 15% of jobs in Calder Valley are in the manufacturing sector, compared with a national average of 7%, but that share has been declining. In 2007, just under a quarter of jobs in Calder Valley were in manufacturing. From the financial crisis to Brexit and the Tories’ disastrous deal, the past couple of decades have ripped the heart out of our manufacturing industry.
We will hear a lot in the next few weeks about growth and so forth. It will come as a relief to many Members that I am not in the Treasury, so rather than talking about statistics, I will share what local manufacturers tell me. They tell me that their order book has never been so bad, because of the impact of tariffs. The lack of stability means companies are not making long-term decisions that would see them step up. That is why we need a strong domestic manufacturing sector, but it is also why we need to be strategic in our support for the industry and how we spend our money on the infrastructure that we need to rebuild.
If we are serious about Labour’s promise that two thirds of young people will go to university or achieve a high-level qualification, this is exactly the kind of work we need to encourage. We need to make sure that those qualifications are linked to opportunities in advanced manufacturing, engineering and design. That means working with local authorities and businesses to understand the needs of industry in each region.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. On the point about training and upskilling, does he agree that we need to do more to develop the skills and competitiveness of our manufacturing base, and that that needs to spread beyond the large cities so that smaller towns and their residents can benefit?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The point about smaller towns is so important, because as well as creating brilliant jobs in the smaller economy where they will make a difference, they give a sense of place and value to what we produce. People are proud of what their town produces, whether it is valves or textiles, and they think of those things as defining their town. That commitment is something that only a small town can offer, and it really makes a difference.
Businesses in this country are ready to grow, but they need support with skills, infrastructure and investment. They need to know that their order book is guaranteed for the long term. The Government have made really positive noises about encouraging skilled apprenticeships; that is welcome, but apprenticeships work only if the companies can afford to hire and train young people. We need to ensure that small and medium-sized manufacturers, which are the lifeblood of Calder Valley and other small towns, have the support that they need to take on apprenticeships without being too financially stretched.
In September, I visited the Brighouse-based training charity West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services, as part of National Manufacturing Day. It showcased a range of firms in Calder Valley to school students. I also met Stuart Billingham, who is set to become the managing director of KOSO Kent Introl next year. The company, founded in Brighouse, employs about 150 people and exports specialist valves across the world. Stuart started at 16 on a youth training scheme and has worked his way up the company to become its managing director. His journey is a brilliant example of how skills and apprenticeships can lead to as rewarding, lucrative and challenging a career, with as massive a global impact, as we are often told that universities can. It shows that those careers have progression and responsibility. I want this Government to produce 1,000 Stuarts, albeit that some of his close friends might not want that many Stuarts.
At that event, there was so much interest from young people and so much curiosity about the opportunities that a career in manufacturing could bring. That spark of curiosity must be nurtured into a flame of ambition, especially at a time when too many young people feel pressured into pursuing degrees that may not suit them or lead to secure employment.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I praise my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. On apprenticeships, I wonder whether he would care to comment on the excellent work of the Catapult centres, which are Government-funded and which work collectively between business and academia. In my constituency of Rugby, at Ansty Park, we have the Manufacturing Technology Centre, which has its own training facility. It has already trained 1,200 apprentices. That can only be a good thing for our region, and particularly for our young people who want to get on and get jobs.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Yes, 1,200 apprenticeships is 1,200 decent jobs and 1,200 families who have pride that their son or daughter will make a real difference and make products that make it around the world. That is why this matters.
Only 14% of apprenticeships that started in the past academic year were in engineering and manufacturing, however. The Institution of Engineering and Technology has reported that engineering faces one of the largest skills shortfalls in the economy, with more than 46,000 vacancies in the sector. Similarly, the welding industry needs 35,000 more people. That is the key to growth. It represents a real opportunity to support young people into secure, well-paid work. Without it, our manufacturing sector will be in trouble.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but may I encourage him to go one step upstream and look at some of the wider policy context? If we are to regrow our manufacturing base, as we absolutely need to, we have to accept that it will be about future technologies, not just replacing what we had in the past. In my constituency, the development of tidal energy offers a supply chain of 80% UK product, which would then be exportable. If we could capture that, we would have something special—but for that to happen, we need a better policy framework to come out of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
We have to be really bold. We need to look at our future-focused industries and at what we specialise in. The right hon. Gentleman talks about tidal energy, but we will not be able to produce that without a load of specialist valves. I want to ensure that they are built in Calder Valley and go throughout the country. That is what this debate is about: we need to plan and think, but we also need to look at what we do well.
The imbalance between small and large manufacturing companies is accentuated by the fact that larger companies often secure Government contracts, particularly in defence. Not only does that provide them with guaranteed revenue, but it often allows them to poach skilled staff from smaller firms that cannot compete with the salaries and the security that those contracts bring. Yorkshire and the Humber received the least defence spending per person, despite the fact that across our region we have a manufacturing sector that is eager to grow and develop.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. As he knows, the south-west has a brilliant, large defence-related manufacturing sector. Needles and Pins Aerospace is a small, women-led business based in Somerton that provides precision textile engineering for aviation and defence. It should be entitled to the same opportunities to compete on a level playing field for the larger contracts. Does he agree that if the Government are prioritising value and security, they should offer equal commercial opportunities to UK businesses and supply chains in respect of defence and security-related manufacturing contracts?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I absolutely agree. The Defence Office for Small Business Growth—I believe it will open in January, but the Minister will know better than me—will be a great opportunity to grow businesses such as Needles and Pins Aerospace in the hon. Lady’s constituency and the many businesses in my constituency that want to get into the defence industry. She is right that the south-east does very well out of defence. In fact, the defence industry supports 85,000 direct jobs in the south of England, but just 3,750 in Yorkshire and the Humber.
As part of the Government’s mission to make defence an engine for growth, there should be a concerted effort to spread its benefits across the regions and our small towns, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said. We will grow this economy only if the Government interact with industry, including in Calder Valley and West Yorkshire, in a way that encourages competition rather than dominance. Smaller manufacturers are equally vital and are a sign of a balanced and resilient economy. They must be supported if we are serious about building the balanced and resilient industrial base that we really need.
Valve manufacturing is a reminder that regional economies thrive when we back specialist sectors. It is not about chasing the latest fad; it is about recognising and building on our strengths. In Calder Valley, that means supporting our manufacturers with a skills pipeline, and with the apprenticeships and investment that they need to grow. We can use the power of the public purse to do that, but—I will be honest—we have failed to do that over multiple years and multiple Governments. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point has more than 100,000 valves, but they are all made in China. The only company in Calder Valley that has benefited is the company that fixes faulty valves, because the quality is not as good as that of British-made valves. If we expect other countries to use our high-quality valves in manufacturing, our Government must lead by example.
This is about the pride that people feel when they know that something they made in their town is used in projects around the world. It is about the contribution that specialist manufacturing makes to identity as well as GDP. It is about ensuring that places such as Calder Valley are not left behind, but are recognised as central to Britain’s industrial future.
I will finish by making a few points directly to the Minister. In Calder Valley, we know how vital apprenticeships are, yet only 14% of apprenticeships last year were in engineering and manufacturing; what will the Government do to ensure that new training opportunities match the skills shortages that we face, such as those in welding and advanced engineering? Our small and medium-sized manufacturers are the lifeblood of towns such as Brighouse; how will Government support for apprenticeships and investment reach those firms rather than being skewed towards the largest players? Defence strategic procurement could be a real engine for growth in places such as Calder Valley; will the Minister set out how contracts will be used to back British industry, particularly in specialist sectors such as valve manufacturing and precision engineering?
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I will impose an informal time limit of five minutes to allow all Members to get in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me early, Mrs Harris; you are very kind. I am sure hon. Members are wondering why. I thank the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing today’s debate. In his short year and a half in the House, he has shown himself to be assiduous on behalf of his constituents. He works hard, with a key focus on the subjects he brings to the House, both in the main Chamber and here. Well done to him.
Our manufacturing sector is crucial to the UK-wide economy. We must not forget the unique build-up of this country. I always say that we are better together, and there is no Scots Nats person here to tell me otherwise—not that that is a bad thing, but anyway. Whether it be Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, we can do it better, with a significant contribution to the manufacturing industry.
Library research highlights that in 2023, Northern Ireland added £2.2 billion gross value added in manufacturing economic output. In 2024, around 900 direct jobs were supported by the defence industry. Defence plays a crucial role in Northern Ireland, but it does not get its full percentage of defence contracts. I gently put that point to the Minister to get a helpful answer. The defence sector should get more contracts, although there have been lots of commitments.
With great respect, Northern Ireland people—men and women—have proven themselves as leaders in their contribution to the sector. The best is yet to come, with more young people becoming interested in all aspects of manufacturing and engineering. There is a keen interest in science, technology, engineering and maths study and employment in Northern Ireland, especially from young people and from women who have leading roles in manufacture. We are doing and seeing good things happening; we see equality and opportunity.
This is a good news story. Northern Ireland is home to major companies such as Thales and Bombardier. Bombardier at one stage had two major factories in Newtownards, hiring hundreds of people from the local area, showing our skill in the design and manufacture of composites and polymers. I usually visit Thales at least once a year with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who told me that the majority of the workforce live in my constituency of Strangford, so it is obviously to my advantage to be there.
The good news with Thales is that, with Government help, 200 new jobs have been created there. There are also important apprenticeship opportunities. Given my age, I have known some of the young fellows there since they were born. Aged 18, 19 or 20, they now have jobs at Thales, with fantastic opportunities, a good wage and help with their student fees. I have met unions on various occasions to hear their concerns, and have brought this issue to the Floor of the House to seek assurances.
There are some things I ask of the Minister. It would not be right to take part in this debate without highlighting the risks in the manufacturing industry relating to job security. At times like these, the Government are able to step in. That is my Great British Government, and everybody’s Government, whether we voted for them or not. On this occasion, efforts fell short in committing to the manufacturing industry in the way we wanted. I will mention Spirit AeroSystems, the plane manufacturer, and the contribution made by Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland may be a small nation, but we are mighty—a word not often used—just like small David, who took on big Goliath in the Bible and beat him.
Alongside Scotland, Wales and the mainland, specialist manufacturing is crucial to economic prosperity. There must be an unwavering determination to achieve that. I ask the Minister to engage with me and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and other Northern Ireland MPs to ensure that, when it comes to helping each other, to make this great United Kingdom of Great Britain even greater and better, we do that together. It takes that commitment. Will the Minister work alongside a Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, the Assembly and us to deliver for everyone?
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing this debate and for his call for the use of British parts in British infrastructure.
The debate is incredibly pertinent to my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and to neighbouring areas across north Staffordshire, and unsurprisingly my colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent are here with me today. Ours is a post-industrial city and, typically for the coalfield and other regions across the north and midlands, we have lagged behind others in wage growth and investment. Although we rightly take pride in our industrial past and heritage, we must also look with ambition to our future. North Staffordshire is the home of the British ceramics industry, and we are incredibly lucky to have manufacturing specialisms in advanced ceramics, which form part of the supply chains for critical industries and the IS-8—the eight sectors identified in the industrial strategy.
Without ceramics, we cannot have steel, glass or mobile phones. The industrial strategy rightly recognised ceramics as a foundational industry, and I am delighted that the national materials innovation strategy, championed by the Henry Royce Institute, recognises the importance of ceramics as critical materials. Ceramic materials are used in specialist components for high-tech industries, and I will name just a few. They are used in implants and prosthetics in the healthcare sector and as jet engine coatings for civil and defence aerospace. They are used in fuel cells for small modular reactors and in defence applications including rocket components, antennas, surveillance and armour. In fact, they are the only class of materials capable of enabling hypersonic weapons for defence.
North Staffordshire’s advanced ceramics industry is therefore a cornerstone of the UK defence capability. We have a well-established cluster for advanced ceramics in our region, with established companies and research consultancies. That includes Mantec, Ross Ceramics and Lucideon. Lastly, north Staffordshire is incredibly lucky to have AMRICC—the Applied Materials Research, Innovation and Commercialisation Company, which is the Government-funded centre of excellence for advanced ceramics.
The global ceramics market was valued at £200 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach £358 billion by 2035. Advanced ceramics account for 54% of that market, with the UK holding a share worth £4.5 billion, so the opportunity for growth here is clear. I must stress, however, that advanced ceramics are only part of the advanced manufacturing specialisms in our part of the country. The west midlands has the UK’s second highest number of advanced manufacturing jobs and contributes 6.7% of total GVA. In my constituency, the engineering manufacturer Goodwin produces materials for submarines, aeroplanes and advanced surveillance systems.
Key to the potential for growth is the A50/A500 growth corridor, the nexus of which is in Sideway in my constituency. It is the key connector between Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Along the A50/A500 growth corridor are world-renowned advanced manufacturing companies, including Bentley, JCB and Toyota. That growth corridor connects more than 1 million people and 500,000 jobs in clean energy, hydrogen and technology. If we extend to Nottingham, it connects three university city regions, and if we use the East Midlands rail line, it will take us all the way to Lincolnshire.
Midlands Connect has estimated that the A50/A500 project, along with the building of more houses, will generate more than £12 billion in GVA, could create up to 39,000 new jobs—an unbelievable number—by 2045, and has a projected annual growth rate of 1.6% until 2070. He will tell me off for doing this, but I am going to quote the chief executive of Stoke-on-Trent city council. He said to me that it “could deliver a greater bang for its buck than the northern powerhouse.”
The project requires £3 million to develop the business case. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister to support the project and development of the business case. The economic benefits from the project would link manufacturers in north Staffordshire to the east midlands, with strong implications for devolution and economic growth across the regions. I believe that it might be worth considering a north midlands strategic authority to unlock those benefits further, as the corridor is a critical supply chain and distribution artery for businesses to the east and west and, indeed, the north and south, because it connects the M1 and M6.
There is an incredible amount of specialist manufacturing in our regional economy, particularly in the advanced ceramics sector. With the right investment in innovation, infrastructure and skills, the north midlands advanced manufacturing corridor could become a leading growth hub for our regional economy and the UK economy more broadly.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome today’s debate. Plymouth and the surrounding area boast some of the finest examples of British advanced manufacturing. Babcock refits the Royal Navy’s frigates, maintains our nuclear deterrent and assembles the Supacat Jackal armoured vehicles at His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport. Today, Helsing is opening a resilience factory in my constituency, manufacturing autonomous underwater gliders to protect critical infrastructure. The date was supposed to be last week, so I went to visit. Unfortunately, I am here for this debate today rather than there for the official opening today, but it is an exciting opportunity for my constituency of South West Devon and Plymouth as a whole. The company was attracted to the city because of its easy access to deep water for testing and sea trials of marine autonomy. For similar reasons, Thales at Turnchapel Wharf is delivering the first end-to-end autonomous maritime mine-hunting system to the Royal Navy.
Plymouth’s industry is not just defence companies equipping the men and women in uniform with world-class kit. Mars Wrigley, a company I visited last month, manufactures its chewing gum in Plymouth. Alderman Tooling, another advanced manufacturer in Plympton in my constituency, is a metal fabrication company that produces a range of products, including metal bed feet, bus handrails and displays for museums and fashion retailers. Plessey Semiconductors, Demon Pressure Washers and Princess Yachts are all significant to South West Devon, and many other businesses manufacture in neighbouring Plymouth constituencies.
It should therefore come as no surprise that Plymouth wears the crown as the south-west’s pre-eminent manufacturing city, ranking ninth across the UK. This is within the south-west region, which has the third highest proportion of advanced manufacturing jobs in the country, employing 86,500 people. Indeed, the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group represents over 50 local businesses right across the city, employing almost 5,500 people.
With the current focus on the defence sector across the country and in Plymouth, it is easy to just focus on the prime companies: Babcock, BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. However, it is important to also recognise the immense contribution of small and medium-sized businesses to the advanced manufacturing sector—both the defence supply chain and the wider manufacturing sector that populates Plymouth and the surrounding area.
Plymouth’s regeneration is being led by manufacturers, small and large, in our city. Our city’s future success is tied to theirs. The city’s offer is impressive and often overlooked. Our advanced manufacturing sector contributes hundreds of millions of pounds of GVA to the local economy and the country as a whole. Defence in the south-west adds £3.6 billion of GVA, with 43,500 jobs. However, it is well documented that Plymouth has a skills shortage. This in turn risks local growth, social cohesion and cost increases to the defence programme. To unlock Plymouth’s potential, we must meet those challenges head-on.
Recent data has highlighted that as many apprenticeships are needed by local SMEs as by defence primes—something we must be alive to as we promote our manufacturing sector and the skilled employees required. That is especially the case since high wage inflation—something already mentioned—brought about by the demands from the defence primes can impact those critical SMEs that also provide significant numbers of jobs and need to grow their skilled workforce, too.
We are not alone in this reality in the south-west. Recent Transport Committee hearings that I was part of have focused on the skills shortage in transport manufacturing, too. We often hear about welding, but ultimately those welders are needed right across the country in a whole range of jobs. It is very important we ensure that that supply and demand match each other. I am particularly interested to hear how the Minister can address that, because I sit in those meetings hearing about the need for welders, and I am not convinced that there are enough young people out there to fill those jobs, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. The need for a laser focus on skills is crucial, and a reality check is needed on the numbers required across all manufacturing sectors to ensure we tackle the demand effectively.
Although I welcome the Government’s defence spending and commitment to Plymouth, I am watching to ensure that their investment also addresses the broader systemic challenges I outlined facing Plymouth’s advanced manufacturing sector. Labour has pursued policies that actively harm our SMEs. The jobs tax is costing small businesses £615 more a year per employee, and the Employment Rights Bill is tying them up in red tape. I hope that the Chancellor is taking a second look at the harm that those policies are causing to small businesses ahead of the Budget next week.
Plymouth is an exciting place to set up a business, with the Plymouth and South Devon freeport providing incentives and a skilled workforce that is growing every day, even with the challenges I have mentioned, all in the most beautiful place in the country to live. It is clearly the place to be to invest and to seek those jobs. My hope is that the Government will help and not hinder the city’s potential.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate. We do not talk nearly enough about manufacturing in this place—I am sure the Minister would agree with that, given his personal commitment and understanding of the sector from his previous role.
I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). I am sure that parts made in my constituency, at Meighs & Westleys, Goodwin or Mantec, make their way down to her local businesses, but I say gently to her that scaremongering about the Employment Rights Bill is a disincentive to industry and a restriction on our economy. The Bill is not yet anywhere near implementation.
Gareth Snell
Very briefly, as long as the hon. Lady is going to admit that she is wrong.
Rebecca Smith
I am not going to do that. Many businesspeople across my constituency have contacted me to stress how damaging the Bill will be. It seems to be more of an ideological issue on which Opposition Members differ. The red tape, particularly around things like zero-hours contracts, will have a massive impact, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
Gareth Snell
I am many things, but I have never been called an ideologue. We can have a debate about the Employment Rights Bill on a different occasion, but I suggest that securing the right for people to know what hours they are working does not seem to me like a minimum ask for anybody.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley raised the importance of manufacturing to pride in place. He rightly talked about the valves made in Calder Valley, and he will know that I and my colleagues from north Staffordshire talk quite a lot in this place about ceramics and pottery—I cannot imagine your disbelief, Mrs Harris, but it is true. We talk about that because we are proud of the things that we make. We are proud to know that the tableware in our dining rooms was made by Duchess in Stoke-on-Trent, and the gifts in the Lords gift shop were made by Halcyon Days in Stoke-on-Trent. There are Wedgwood plates, Spode mugs and Burleigh prints all around this building that were made in Stoke-on-Trent.
It is not just Stoke-on-Trent that has a unique commitment and an integral identity connection to manufacturing. Think about the cutlery manufacturers of Sheffield, the jewellery quarter in Birmingham, the shoe manufacturers of Northampton, the knitwear and textiles in Scotland and, of course, the shipyards of Barrow and Belfast—clear commitments to industry that have helped to shape people’s identity. That is why we have to think about what regional investment means. We are proud of the things we make: they contribute to our local economy, which therefore contributes to the national economy. The supply chains need to stretch right across the whole United Kingdom because, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says, this is about the nations and regions of this country coming together to do what we all do best in our localities for the greater good of the nation.
In Stoke-on-Trent we do not just make tableware, giftware and ceramics; it is also proudly home to a factory that makes all the cherry bakewells in this country. I did not know she was here this morning, but one of our guests in the Public Gallery works in that factory. The workers there are proud of what they do and their creation of pastry, frangipane, icing and hand-placed cherries.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Did the hon. Gentleman bring any with him?
Gareth Snell
No—but those workers know how they contribute to our national economy.
When manufacturing, pride in place and identity overlap, that is something to be celebrated, because it drives innovation. Hannah Ault of Valentine Clays in Stoke-on-Trent is incredibly proud of the work she does. She is formulating a new clay that can be baked at a lower temperature for a shorter period of time, because she has an intense connection to the ceramic sector and the use of such skills. That research and development would not ordinarily happen; it happens because of her connection to a place and the support she can give to a sector that still has things to make.
I want to press the Minister on two points. First, on procurement, it is a travesty that only a third of the cars in the Government Car Service are made by British manufacturers. The proportion is even less for police cars purchased in this country. We have bus manufacturers, train manufacturers and brick manufacturers in this country, all of which make wonderful products, yet we import products from other parts of the world. Local and regional manufacturers can make them at better quality and lower cost if we give them the opportunity, but to do that the Minister—he knows what I am about to say—has to get a grip on industrial energy costs, which I know he is doing.
Small manufacturers in this country face some of the highest industrial electricity prices anywhere in the world, and although our gas prices are relatively competitive with Europe, they are much higher than they were two or three years ago. Small manufacturers need help with export finance to ensure that they can go to trade shows and exhibitions. We also have to get a grip on skills; it is brilliant that T-levels are coming online, but they have to come online quicker.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing the debate, and not least for mentioning one of the many shocking things about Hinkley C in my constituency.
My Tiverton and Minehead constituency is home to some truly remarkable specialist manufacturers whose contributions extend far beyond our borders and into the global economy. I have chosen to confine my speech to just three examples—so apologies to HepcoMotion, Rotolok and others.
Heathcoat Fabrics is a shining example. Founded by John Heathcoat, it has a storied past. After the factory in the midlands was destroyed by the Luddites, Heathcoat led his workforce to the south-west and established a major lace-making enterprise in Tiverton in 1816. Ahead of his time and a thoroughly righteous man, not only did he build a thriving business, but he invested in the welfare of his workers, building a series of cottages for them. The homes are, of course, still standing, and are well lived in by Tivertonians today.
The company carried forward Heathcoat’s vision and ethos of worker welfare, providing pensions to employees before Lloyd George’s Old Age Pensions Act 1908. Today, Heathcoat Fabrics designs specialist fabrics that are trusted by NASA for its space missions. I say that again: trusted by NASA. Enough said—wow. It is quite the distinction, and a testament to Heathcoat Fabrics’ world-class innovation.
Impressive, too, is Shearwell Data, a family-run business based in Wheddon Cross, Somerset. Under the leadership of director Richard Webber, Shearwell has become a global leader in livestock-monitoring systems. Its technology supports farmers worldwide and is backed by advanced data storage and a remote support network that stretches across continents. Agriculture is a way of life in our part of the world, and Shearwell’s success puts Somerset firmly on the map in conversations about agricultural innovation.
I also want to mention Singer Instruments, which is based in Roadwater, in Watchet. Its precision instrumentation accelerates scientific discovery, supporting and supplying labs in more than 60 countries and in every corner of the globe. It is a source of great local pride to know that such cutting-edge science is powered by a company rooted in the constituency.
Although it is not in my constituency—it is just over the border—it would be remiss of me not to mention Agratas, Tata’s global battery arm, which is building the UK’s largest electric vehicle battery factory. Once fully operational, it is projected to generate more than £700 million annually for the south-west economy, and will be a significant employer, with around 4,000 people across the full site—opportunities for talented constituents of mine.
All those enterprises form the backbone of a flourishing hub of specialist manufacturing. They demonstrate how innovation, resilience and a healthy dose of ambition can drive prosperity for our communities and contribute to the wider south-west regional economy.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate, and echo his calls to buy British.
As the first seaside resort in Britain, Scarborough pioneered bathing machines for women—horse-drawn sheds on wheels—who entered the ocean clad in vast garments, helped by servants. In those days, it was all about protecting modesty, but today the innovators in Scarborough are, thankfully, all about protecting the environment, as we move to net zero and tackle the climate crisis.
Local business SeaGrown has created the Kelpedo, which is an innovative and robust offshore seaweed cultivation system. The small cylinder is literally fired from boats into the sea like a mini-torpedo. More than just a structure for growing seaweed, each Kelpedo unit actively contributes to ocean health by sequestering carbon, improving water quality and creating vital habitats that enhance marine biodiversity. It can be scaled up to be used in offshore wind farms, and shows how new employment opportunities and local identities can be created beyond conventional maritime activities.
The move to net zero also inspires Alexander Dennis Ltd, formerly Plaxton—manufacturers of fine electric buses and a major employer in Scarborough—and in September, Schneider Electric opened up a brand-new, £42 million, state-of-the-art smart plant that produces the critical electrical equipment needed as the UK moves to cleaner energy. I have visited that incredible new facility in Eastfield, which makes the low-voltage switchgear needed to manage and distribute incoming power supplies into separate circuits, such as the feeder pillars for electric vehicle charging. The plain green box behind the whizzy plug-in will probably have been made in Scarborough. The facility is net zero in scope 1 and 2 emissions, and it uses modern technologies to reduce energy waste and maximise the use of renewable energy, 30% of which will come from its own solar energy system.
By manufacturing in the UK for UK organisations, our investment builds resilience into the nation’s critical infrastructure, reducing exposure to global supply chain shocks and slashing both cost and carbon emissions through shorter, optimised transport and logistic routes. UK production means faster and more flexible delivery of bespoke engineering solutions, tailored to the unique needs of UK projects. Customers can visit the Scarborough site and collaborate directly with product designers and engineers to ensure that products fully meet their needs before they move into production. Companies like Schneider and Alexander Dennis are looking to us for joined-up policy and a stable regulatory environment, as well as a Government commitment to electrification, transport decarbonisation and buying British through procurement incentives.
Advanced manufacturing employs nearly 50,000 people across Yorkshire and the Humber, contributing £6.2 billion to the country’s economic output. I am proud to represent a coastal constituency where innovation and excellence in specialist manufacturing proudly plays such a major part in addressing the climate emergency and in our regional success story.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on shining light on a really important part of our economy, both locally and nationally.
Specialist manufacturing is critical to my Taunton and Wellington constituency, as well as to growth across the United Kingdom. I could talk about a range of companies, including Pearsalls, which is part of the Corza Medical group and has been spinning its looms in the same building since the 18th century. Today, it is the world leader in manufacturing sutures and surgical stitching materials, which it ships around the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) mentioned the Agratas factory that is being constructed just across the border from my Taunton and Wellington constituency. As she said, it will employ around 4,000 people and have a huge impact on not only our two constituencies but the whole south-west economy. Many of my constituents work there already, and many local suppliers will be involved in the supply chain, so the regional economy will be greatly affected in a positive way. That is what specialist manufacturing can do for regional economies, but only if we get the skills right.
The University Centre Somerset College Group, which is based not only in my Taunton and Wellington constituency but across Somerset, is the largest college provider of apprenticeships in England. It has partnered with Agratas to develop new training pathways, including apprenticeships for upskilling and reskilling, to deliver the skills the new facility needs. It is not just another training programme: UCS has to develop a first-of-its-kind programme to meet the demand, which barely existed just a couple of years ago. It is not an easy task, but it is exactly the kind of innovation required to build a skills base that can support the new specialist manufacturing sectors we need, such as battery production.
UCS has done all that at its own risk, and without Government support. It is developing a curriculum and hiring specialist trainers in a completely new industry, with a lack of up-front funding. It will receive funding from the Government or other sources only once the course starts. As a further education college, it cannot borrow against potential future funding. The current FE model does not support the up-front investment that is required, and specialist skills will suffer as a result. Such investment is desperately needed and the current system has to change.
There is another way in which UCS skills investment is being held back. Colleges are no longer allowed to borrow in order to invest in the student accommodation they need as they used to be able to. The community of Taunton and Wellington, as well as the college itself, desperately want to see such investment. However, the college cannot facilitate that, because it is no longer allowed to borrow to invest. We cannot expect colleges to shoulder all the risk of these initiatives while the Government take the credit for positive outcomes without having supported them in the first place.
This issue is not just about specialist manufacturing skills; sites such as the Agratas site require an enormous amount of construction skills and labour. During peak construction years, the construction of the site will generate a total of £540 million for the region. If we are serious about boosting regional growth through specialist manufacturing, we need to be equally serious about training the people who will build such facilities and work in them. Agratas shows what is possible. The investment appetite is there. Battery manufacturing could be a brilliant new green growth opportunity for the UK. However, we need the Government to match that ambition with support for skills in both specialist manufacturing and construction. That means properly funding institutions such as UCS and ensuring that Skills England invests up front in these partnerships that deliver, rather than just producing consultation papers that plan.
For Taunton and Wellington, and indeed for the south-west as a whole, the opportunity is in front of us. The Government need to grab it with both hands and provide the support and the certainty to turn it into a success.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this important debate.
In discussing the contribution of specialist manufacturing to regional economies, there is no better example than the city that I am so proud to represent. Indeed, we have a bit of a pincer movement going on today, because all the MPs from Stoke-on-Trent are in Westminster Hall today. That speaks to the importance of our ceramics industry, whether it is traditional or advanced. That industry is personal to me, because my mum and my grandad worked in it; they would rightly expect me to be here for the debate.
As we know, Stoke-on-Trent was moulded by ceramics, and ceramics remains one of the UK’s most distinctive specialist manufacturing clusters. It is an industry built on technical skill, precision and an understanding of materials that has been passed down from family to family for hundreds of years.
When Moorcroft closed its doors earlier this year, I met its incredible workers who, between them, had over 800 years of experience in the ceramics sector. That is not some abstract figure but lived experience of firing temperatures, glaze chemistry—dipping, as we call it—moulding techniques and quality control. Those skills cannot simply be recreated once they are lost. I am delighted that Moorcroft now has a new lease of life. It has reopened under the stewardship of Will Moorcroft, the grandson of the company’s founder, which is great news for the city.
The reality of specialist manufacturing is that it is place-based. We have heard about the importance of identity. It crosses generations, and it has an economic and cultural value that goes far beyond any set of accounts. Across Stoke-on-Trent, ceramics companies continue to innovate. They support supply chains that reach into retail, hospitality, construction and advanced industries. They offer skilled employment and apprenticeships for our local people, anchoring our local economy, yet, as we know, the sector faces some real difficulties at the moment: rising energy costs, international competition from countries that do not have the same regulatory or cost environments, and an older workforce that needs a pipeline of new talent. If the Government are serious about backing specialist manufacturing, clusters such as ceramics must be treated as a strategic national asset that is worthy of receiving targeted support on energy, skills, exports and fair competition.
We all know that Stoke-on-Trent stands ready to play its full part in the UK’s industrial future, but we cannot afford to lose our skills and our manufacturers, which the generations before us built up. I hope that the Minister will set out clearly today how the Government plan to protect and grow specialist manufacturing sectors such as our ceramics sector, which remain essential to regional economies and to the country as a whole.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing the debate. We have some Yorkshire people here today.
Our manufacturing towns and communities have long been the engine rooms of this country. They built our economy, drove innovation and gave generations of working-class families good, secure jobs and pride in their local identity. From textiles and engineering to precision manufacturing, these industries shaped the story of our country.
In my constituency of Huddersfield, that story runs deep. The town’s industrial heritage is woven into its very fabric—literally, as Huddersfield’s rich textile history dates back to the early 1700s. Since establishing a worldwide reputation for the manufacturing of fine woollen and worsted cloth, the words “Made in Huddersfield” have been a highly revered global brand. Merchants travelled from across the world to buy Huddersfield cloth, and generations of local workers powered an industry known for exceptional craftsmanship, precision and skill. I have seen at first hand the skill and dedication needed to work in these industries, as my dad worked as a weaver for over 30 years at a local textile firm, C & J Antich & Sons. It makes the cloth for the best fashion houses in the world, as well as putting together materials for Formula 1 cars, which is very exciting.
The truth is that manufacturing matters to Huddersfield, and it matters that we make things in our country. Since becoming the MP for Huddersfield, I have had the opportunity to meet and visit many incredible family-owned and locally born manufacturers working in Huddersfield. That includes W. T. Johnson & Sons, a fourth-generation family-run textile finishing firm that has operated in Huddersfield since 1910; David Brown, a defence manufacturer providing highly complex equipment to the defence industry; the Textile Centre of Excellence, which provides training and research; Thomas Broadbent & Sons, which has run its company in Huddersfield since 1864; Olympus Technologies, which has been designing robotic solutions since the 1980s; Camira Yarns, a woollen spun yarn specialist that was founded in Huddersfield in the 1860s; and Reliance Precision, which has been around for 60 years and does some highly technical stuff that I do not fully understand, but it is very exciting. I also recently attended a roundtable hosted by the Calderdale and Kirklees Manufacturing Alliance.
On those visits, manufacturers and industry leaders often told me the same story. They want to grow, innovate and recruit locally, but there is an issue with finding a younger workforce, so continued investment in vocational training and partnerships between industry and education is really important. Energy costs continue to be a concern, and they want to make sure manufacturing —not just advanced manufacturing—is a strategic priority for this Government. We must invest in the businesses that make things here in Britain.
The ongoing impact of Brexit on trade and the supply chain is a concern for some businesses. SMEs particularly need support with cyber-security. Could the Minister explain what support is available to them? There was also some positive feedback on the export growth programme, which provides tailored advice to industry, and businesses asked what we can do to make sure that model goes further.
These businesses are not nostalgic for the past; they are building for the future. The challenge and the opportunity is to make sure that the benefits of that innovation reach the people and places who need them most. Skills and workforce development will be particularly important for that. Without long-term funding for skills, the system will continue to fall short of what both learners and employers need. If we invest in people, prioritise skills and provide stability for the specialist industries that underpin our economy, we can restore pride and prosperity to the regions that built this country. That means creating secure, high-quality jobs. It means keeping our young people in the towns where we grew up, and it means ensuring that the next generation can take pride in the industries that define their communities.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate. When I woke up on this cold Wednesday morning, I did not think I would learn so much about the manufacturing in all our regions—and when there are so many Members from Stoke-on-Trent in the Chamber, how could we not learn so much about ceramics?
Specialist manufacturers do not operate in a vacuum; they need certainty to make investment decisions spanning years—often decades—and they need to know that the Government understand their sector and will back it for the long term. I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to British business and reinstated the industrial strategy, and I am pleased to see it focusing on many of the same sectors that the Liberal Democrats have prioritised for so long: life sciences, clean energy, professional business services, aerospace and automotive.
Obviously, the background to that is disappointment from the previous Government’s decision to scrap the industrial strategy in 2021, pulling the rug out from under businesses that had planned on the basis of Government commitments. However, I am disappointed that not enough attention has been paid to the agrifoods industry and the rural economy.
Agricultural technology was one of the 11 priority sectors that Liberal Democrats identified in our industrial strategy. Recognising and supporting that sector will help make food healthier, safer and more affordable. Agrifood tech is not a niche industry; it is about applying the same precision engineering we have for aerospace and pharmaceuticals to the sector that feeds our nation. It is disappointing that the Government have relegated it to a handful of mentions in the White Paper.
We cannot have this debate without discussing the issue that keeps specialist manufacturers awake at night: energy costs. Many other Members mentioned that we have some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world, and measures to bring them down will always be welcome news. When Nissan tells us that its Sunderland plant has the highest electricity cost of any of its plants worldwide, Britain’s competitiveness is obviously going to become an issue. That lack of competitiveness will harm our regional economies in the future.
Britain’s businesses are not only struggling in this sector. When it comes to regional economies and these specialist manufacturers, they do not just rely on affordable power for themselves and their factory floors; they also need it for the companies that supply them, such as local services and the businesses that form the ecosystem to allow them to be viable. It is also important for the hospitality sector and small and medium-sized enterprises, so the Government need to do more to ensure that small businesses across all those sectors have access to better energy deals. There cannot be a thriving specialist manufacturing area when broad business in the region is struggling.
Manufacturing is reliant on skills, and specialist manufacturing sites cannot be run without people with deep technical knowledge. When I speak to businesses across the country, they tell me that after energy bills and tax, skills comes out as their most pressing issue. Multinationals have the choice of where they put their facilities across the world, so we need to ensure that they are in Britain. That means that we need the talent pipeline, and not just the talent density, to ensure that that we are at the front of manufacturing in the future. The Liberal Democrats have set out a comprehensive approach to reforming skills that includes replacing the broken apprenticeship levy with broader flexibility in the skills training levy, guaranteed apprenticeships paid at least at the national minimum wage and lifelong skills grants so that adults can learn to use new technologies as they evolve.
I will briefly touch on two areas where specialist manufacturers are facing significant challenge, the first being trade. These are international sectors, and if the Government are serious about backing British business, they must show more ambition on trade with Europe. We would do that by negotiating a new UK-EU customs union, because our specialist manufacturers face red tape and friction when they trade with our largest and closest market neighbours. That makes them less competitive and increases costs. Secondly, there is the national insurance contributions—the jobs hike. The Government must scrap that damaging measure, because making it more expensive to employ people is counterproductive.
I conclude by pressing the Minister to work cross party to ensure that we get a fix for those issues and asking him about national exporting. We are hearing concerning news from the Department for Business and Trade about its plans to reduce its international export team by between 27% and 38%, and in particular reports about cuts to the Latin America trade support team of up to 54%. I would appreciate the Minister’s views on that, as that is an area we must focus on to ensure that Britain is competitive and is exporting. Given that we must support our small businesses to export, those reductions cannot be correct.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this critical debate, which is very timely, given the forthcoming Budget. I acknowledge the very pertinent point that he made about the importance of apprenticeships for the specialist sector more broadly.
The specialist manufacturing sector is one of those quiet national assets that rarely make front-page news but keep our economy alive. Its contribution to the UK is not abstract but is counted in highly skilled jobs, export strength and clusters of high-value industry. According to the latest figures, advanced manufacturing now accounts for more than 900,000 jobs across the UK and contributes more than £90 billion in gross value added to the economy. I am pleased that the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the reality of advanced manufacturing’s value, which is spread across the country. I welcome the emphasis that they are placing on specialist manufacturing, as it is clear that the industry offers Britain a comparative advantage in our trade with the rest of the world.
The sector gives our communities certainty. I see that in my constituency, where we host a range of high-value specialist manufacturers whose work speaks directly to the issues raised in this debate. One such firm is Respirex International, a world-leading manufacturer of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protective equipment, including gas-tight suits, respirators and chemically protective boots. Its products are not only exported worldwide, but used by emergency services and pharmaceutical and nuclear facilities across the UK, protecting lives in some of the most hazardous environments imaginable.
We are also home to Risbridger Ltd, established in 1922—an engineering company producing advanced components for aircraft servicing and petrochemical infrastructure. It contributes directly to aerospace and energy supply chains. That is exactly the kind of innovative, precision-focused industrial capability that we should champion as part of Britain’s economic future.
In Reigate and across our country, specialist manufacturing has always pulled in long-term capital because it deals in long-term capability. In 2025, the sector counted some 2,700 active companies, and the Government aim to increase annual business investment from £21 billion to £39 billion by 2035. That ambition matters, because regions such as the north-west already generate £14.4 billion in advanced manufacturing GVA. The west midlands generates £11.8 billion and the south-west generates £10.4 billion. Those are not marginal numbers; they are proof that British engineering remains globally competitive when it is backed properly.
Defence manufacturing is a genuine force multiplier. The Ministry of Defence estimates that the sector supports 200,000 jobs, with 70% of spending flowing to areas outside London and the south-east. Indeed, aerospace and defence manufacturing are particularly strong drivers of regional growth. Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland has grown more than four times faster than the UK average, while areas such as north Wales remain world renowned for aeroplane wing production. In Glasgow, specialist shipbuilding and satellite technology lead the charge.
Woven together in often complex supply chains, the specialist manufacturing sector demonstrates how fragile business ecosystems can be and why they need the Government’s support. But I must say, with deep regret, that the sector has received nothing of the kind, despite the Government’s lengthy blueprint earlier this year, which rightly identified eight key sectors as strategic priorities: advanced materials, agritech, aerospace, automotive, batteries, space, defence and maritime capabilities. But of course a strategy is only as good as its implementation, and manufacturers are seeing not policy support but punitive tax hikes, cost pressure and legislative risk.
As the hon. Member for Calder Valley and many others said, it would be fantastic if we used more British parts in the UK, but we do not because of the cost. To address that, we must bring energy prices and tax down; warm words in this Chamber will not do it. Since their very first Budget, the Government have inflicted a barrage of attacks on manufacturing businesses. The spiralling uncertainty pouring out under the door of No. 11 is damaging the confidence of every business, but especially the specialist manufacturing sector, and the warning lights are flashing.
Make UK reports that manufacturers’ operating costs have risen sharply, driven by energy prices, the Chancellor’s job tax and uncertainty around business taxation: 68% said that costs rose faster than expected, and more than half froze recruitment as a result. If specialist manufacturers are to keep delivering regional growth, energy competitiveness and a stable tax policy are not luxuries; they are prerequisites.
Let us consider the UK’s industrial electricity prices, which are now estimated to be 40% to 50% higher than the International Energy Agency median for comparable industrial nations. Make UK has gone as far as to call energy costs an “existential threat” to many specialist firms. The consequences are already here. UK steel and chemicals output has dropped 35% compared with 2021 levels, while imports of those same materials are rising. Just yesterday, we heard that ExxonMobil is closing its plastics refinery in Mossmorran. Four hundred jobs are now at risk because of what the company called the
“current economic and policy environment”.
I am confident that in a moment the Minister will rise to spin away any criticism, but this is indefensible.
The reality is that no Government that are serious about the future of advanced manufacturing in Britain would have imposed a jobs tax and changes to national insurance thresholds that hurt hardest those who employ the most. No Government who care about British advanced manufacturing firms and British workers would ignore energy costs that are four times higher than those of our competitors. No Government who believe in the future of our advanced manufacturing industry would introduce a 330-page unemployment rights Bill with job-destroying, hiring-freezing measures from cover to cover. No Prime Minister who wants to kick-start economic growth would look advanced manufacturing business in the eye and say that he has a done deal with the United States and then leave the industry in the dark as tariffs on items such as pharmaceuticals remain for months afterwards. And no Government who say they want to build skills would abolish level 7 apprenticeships.
Just as night follows day, the Government will talk big on business, but their actions show that much of it is merely empty rhetoric. Our specialist manufacturing sector deserves better; it deserves a Government who stand with them, and leadership that understands that when specialist manufacturing succeeds, Britain succeeds. We have in this country the expertise, the heritage and the industrial DNA to compete and excel, but the specialist manufacturing sector will not survive on pride alone. It needs certainty, cost stability and a Government who truly get what it means to make things. We urgently need to reclaim our status as the nation that builds, and the best way to start is by listening to those firms that still do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Carolyn. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing this debate, and for his opening remarks.
Hon. Members may have thought, when they heard that Stoke-on-Trent had been “moulded by ceramics”, that it was the worst joke they would hear in the Chamber today, but I will try my best. When I heard my hon. Friend refer to valve valley, I wondered, as a cornet player, whether it was a reference to the famous West Riding brass bands: the Brighouse and Rastrick brass band, the Elland Silver band and my personal favourite, the Friendly band of Sowerby Bridge. I am sure that they use their cornet valves to lower or raise the tone just as effectively as we did in this debate. Cornet valves, of course, respond well under pressure—I shall see how I do with that.
Maybe, after this debate, the particular expertise of the valve industry in Calder Valley will be better known to the country. It is not difficult to see the impact that manufacturing, and the valve industry in particular, has on Calder Valley. I have seen, as I am sure those watching will have, the pride and importance that hon. Members across this House recognise in the manufacturing industries in their particular areas. These companies are the heart of British manufacturing.
In the valve industry, we have companies such as Hopkinsons, established in Huddersfield in 1843, which continues, as part of Trillium Flow Technologies, to export valves globally. Its valves are used in applications ranging from boilers to power plants, in oil and gas, and in petrochemicals. In Fort Vale, founded in Calder Valley, we have a global manufacturing presence making valves for transportable tanks. Last year, Fort Vale received its fifth King’s award—formerly the Queen’s award—for international trade. Blackhall Engineering is another astonishing story of a link between our Victorian heritage and modern engineering. It supplies valves for the New York City water board, replacing originals installed by its predecessor company a century earlier.
We need to recognise the local pride in Calder Valley, and in all parts of the country with a strong manufacturing heritage, and recognise the economic opportunity of wages and real value that manufacturing brings to these communities. But there are, of course, significant challenges, including those that hon. Members raised in this debate. I wish to address the challenges in procurement, skills and energy costs, as well as the challenges that have been mentioned for small businesses.
The framework through which the Government are working with industry and manufacturing is, of course, our industrial strategy, which attempts to respond to those challenges and to deliver productivity and growth, and is unashamedly place-based in the regions that matter to manufacturing. Some 84% of manufacturing jobs are located outside London and the south-east. I want to mildly disagree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), because she mentioned deindustrialisation—a word that I do not particularly like to use in this sense. The UK is very much an industrial country; we have just chosen to locate our industry elsewhere, and part of my mission is to ensure that we regrow and restore that manufacturing here in the UK. I know that she would agree with that.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) spoke of regional growth, which is also vital. Our industrial strategy is about securing competitiveness not only for sectors, but for regional prosperity, and we recognise that manufacturing is key to the resilience of our national economy.
Gareth Snell
A lot of Members have talked about the importance of defence manufacturing; the Minister has talked about our economic resilience, but a big part of this is our sovereign capability and our national security resilience. I know that he has done work on that, so can he say more about how his work aligns with the work of the Ministry of Defence team to ensure that the manufacturing capability in the UK is about not just economic growth, but our national security and safety?
Chris McDonald
That point is well made. Of course, alongside our industrial strategy, we have our defence industrial strategy. When I come to talk about procurement, I may say more about that, and many hon. Members have talked about defence.
When we talk about our manufacturing sector, it is important to highlight some of the headline statistics. Manufacturing pays higher wages and has generally higher productivity in the areas where it is located and, when it comes to the balance of trade, although around 10% of our employment is in manufacturing, it accounts for around 50% of our exports. Those outputs, jobs and exports consist of thousands of specialist manufacturers, large and small, up and down the whole United Kingdom. Those exports are global and, as we have heard, we also export into space.
On procurement—I know that this area has been a major concern for many hon. Members, and particularly Government procurement—I have great sympathy for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I am happy to pursue the specific issues that he raised. I see it as vital to our manufacturing and industrial sectors that we ensure that the money that we as a Government, or our regulated sectors, spend is significant and is concentrated as effectively as possible in the UK, for both its economic and its social value. We need to raise awareness of the opportunities. We must ensure that those opportunities are open to UK manufacturers and that our UK companies are competitive enough to win those contracts. The industrial strategy plays a part in ensuring that those companies can do that.
To increase business investment, we must also ensure that we have a real market opportunity, both at home and overseas. Our clean energy strategy is introducing measures aimed at directly increasing UK beneficiaries in Government procurement. The clean industry bonus for offshore wind, for instance, is designed to encourage investment in Britain’s coastal industrial areas and supply chains. We also want to see robust local content targets. We are examining market demand guarantees to encourage UK scale-ups and introducing a clean energy supply chain fund to support UK-based clean energy manufacturing.
The defence industrial strategy, which I mentioned earlier—the defence industry is, of course, another user of valves—sets out a major reform agenda for procurement to grow our UK industrial base. We will be speeding up procurement processes and reducing bureaucracy, while ensuring greater visibility of defence procurement and taking steps to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises will have greater access to our supply chains. Our procurement and capital programmes are key to anchoring manufacturing here in the UK and then encouraging businesses to secure investment and export overseas.
UK manufacturing, however, ranks just 24th globally for robotics and automation. Here I move to the topic of productivity, which is of course a key element in profitability and competitiveness. That is an area where, as a nation, we need to work more. If we are not working digitally, we cannot adopt automation and move as fast as our competitors. Our Made Smarter adoption programme, with up to £99 million of additional funding, will help with this. It will support more manufacturing SMEs to take up new technologies and improve their digital capabilities. We have had reference today to the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, which I know from personal experience is a great supporter of improving competitiveness, robotics, automation and productivity in our supply chains.
Skills was also an important feature of today’s debate. They were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, with his inspiring story of Stuart Billingham —maybe we all need to see more Stuart Billinghams in our lives. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) also mentioned regional skills development. I know that persistent skills shortages and the availability of good applicants are a concern felt across our manufacturing sectors. That is certainly an area for Government and industry to work closely together on, to encourage talented people from across the UK to seek jobs in our manufacturing sector. Fort Vale in Calderdale has a strong tradition in apprenticeships, and I understand that it receives over 140 applications each year for the opportunities it provides. That experience of high numbers of applications for apprenticeships is something I see across the country. I applaud the work of the West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services charity and its partnership with Calderdale college on the Industry 4.0 hub, which addresses exactly those digital issues.
Rebecca Smith
I mentioned skills as a significant challenge in the defence sector and the additional manufacturing. We have five defence technical excellence colleges opening by the end of next year. How well connected is the Minister’s Department with the Department for Education? Does he have any knowledge of when those colleges will be announced? They are surely a key part of what the Government hope to achieve with defence skills, but they will also be important for regions such as the south-west.
Chris McDonald
I welcome those comments. The hon. Member is right to point out that skills is a cross-Government exercise, and that applies not only to defence skills colleges. Work is done across the two Departments I work in—the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—and skills itself resides in the Department for Work and Pensions, which is where it is co-ordinated. Moving skills into that area and having the co-ordination there is exactly right. I also meet Defence Ministers to discuss this issue; many of these skills are transferable across industries, and we want to ensure that people can transfer across from different industries. A couple of weeks ago I launched the clean energy jobs plan, which provides support for people to move out of the oil and gas sector, for instance, and into clean energy industries. I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue.
Our focus on skills includes a new engineering skills package, worth over £182 million, to fund technical excellence colleges in advanced manufacturing. More widely, through the post-16 education and skills strategy, we are introducing wider reforms, including new foundation apprenticeships for young people in target sectors. Our new V-levels will encourage young learners into vocational pathways, and I am sure that hon. Members will have heard the personal priority the Prime Minister placed on this during his speech at the Labour party conference.
Attracting young people into manufacturing is clearly a priority for the sector, and our advanced manufacturing sector plan sets out ways in which we can do that. Wages in the sector are 8% higher than the UK average, which can provide great opportunities for young people. We heard earlier that welders earn even more than that—something that my nephew, who is a welder, also tells me. My welding is terrible, so I was absolutely unable to pursue that as a career. We are also concerned about equalities, and we have a target of 35% representation of women in the sector by 2035.
Young people also value their employment rights, and I should say to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) that before I came to this place I ran a small business that had almost all of those employment rights. I understand that small business owners might be concerned, but I can assure them that it is perfectly—[Interruption.]
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. If the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) wishes to speak, I suggest that she ask for an intervention.
Chris McDonald
Small business owners might be concerned, but I know from personal experience that with the right level of support, it is perfectly possible to manage a business with these employment rights. I suggest support, rather than scaremongering, is the way to go. We heard from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) about the support a previous local industrialist gave to their community. Although I commend that, Labour Members think that good pay and conditions are a right rather than a gift.
Energy costs are clearly the major competitiveness issue for industry. I agree with the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), about the lack of competitiveness of UK energy costs—she cited a figure from the International Energy Agency showing they were 46% above European averages, and that is a figure I recognise. However, our clean power mission will ensure that we are weaned off the international gas markets, to which we were enslaved by the previous Government for such a long time. The shadow Minister mentioned Mossmorran, which is a good example of a business that sustained losses for years and was unable to justify investment as a result of the previous Government’s neglect of manufacturing and industry.
We recognise that, beyond our clean power mission, we must do more and act quickly to support sectors with high growth potential and significant exposure to high electricity costs. We are increasing the support available for energy-intensive companies through the British industry supercharger, and from 2027 we will introduce the new British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce electricity costs.
Gareth Snell
I make my regular plea to the Minister to consider extending the supercharger scheme to energy-intensive industries that are not currently covered, ahead of the introduction of the British industrial competitiveness scheme.
Chris McDonald
I would have been disappointed had I mentioned the supercharger from the Dispatch Box and my hon. Friend did not intervene—I shall write that into my speeches from now on. His point is well made and is heard by me. A consultation on the British industrial competitiveness scheme will open shortly. I encourage the valve manufacturing industry of Calder Valley to participate in the scheme, and all Members to publicise the scheme to small businesses in their areas.
Hon. Members did not particularly mention regulation, but I want to raise it. Of course, £1 off the costs of regulation is worth £1 off any other business cost. A lack of new funding or of access to finance or working capital can be a reason that businesses fail to grow. Small companies tell me that financial institutions often do not understand their businesses or the need for more patient returns. We are undertaking a programme with the British Business Bank to make available £4 billion for our industrial strategy growth capital in industrial strategy sectors, and the Office for Investment will focus on high-value investments, leveraging the National Wealth Fund’s £27.8 billion for industrial strategy sectors.
Although we hear very strong voices regarding international alignment on products and standards, we also hear about the complexity of business regulation and its impact on smaller businesses. We have set out an ambition to cut the administrative costs of regulation for business by 25%. I am pleased to say that we have released a business questionnaire seeking views on the impact of regulation on businesses. Again, I ask for help from hon. Members in encouraging all manufacturers in their areas to consider closely which regulations are enabling or hindering growth, and where compliance is creating an undue burden.
Jim Shannon
I hope the Minister will forgive me if he is going to address my earlier request, which related to the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister back home. I know that he travels to Northern Ireland and has an interest in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we work together. Will he give the commitment I mentioned?
Chris McDonald
I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that earlier, and he is right that I have a strong interest in Northern Ireland and a great deal of respect for our advanced manufacturing there. I look forward to visiting the aerospace and shipbuilding industry there soon—I think it will be early in the new year—and I am absolutely committed to working with Northern Irish MPs and the local authorities to ensure that the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland thrives.
Our plan for small and medium-sized businesses, published this year, includes a number of additional measures aimed at assisting those businesses, including ending late payments, modernising the tax system, establishing the new business growth service, and considering how we can best support exporting businesses to increase their exporting activity.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
The Minister talks about SME exporting. Is he aware that, although UK Export Finance has unveiled what it believes is a fantastic and ambitious plan to support 1,000 SME exporters a year by 2029, there are 314,000 SME exporters in the UK at the moment? I would not have thought that 1,000 a year out of 314,000 is very ambitious.
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right that UK Export Finance’s plan is to encourage an additional 1,000 businesses, but that is not the limit of our ambition with regard to SME exporting. It is important that we increase not only the number of SMEs that are exporting but, as I said earlier, the competitiveness of SMEs, so that they can increase the percentage of their exports. The work we are doing on UK procurement will also help with that by giving a baseload of orders to UK businesses that will then increase their competitiveness and enable them to win more export orders.
Dr Gardner
In 1882, a ceramics company in my constituency exported 50% of its products to Europe and globally. Since Brexit its ability to export to Europe has dramatically reduced. It can export to the US in two days, but it can take months to get its exports to Italy. What can the Minister do to help us improve our trade to Europe?
Chris McDonald
This comes back exactly to my point about regulation. Through our work with the EU, we are endeavouring to ensure that we have maximum access to the market. Where regulatory burdens are restricting export activity, I am keen to hear about them. I encourage businesses to come forward and support the questionnaire we have released on business regulation.
The industrial strategy places an emphasis on growth and frontier industries, but it also gives a clear focus to city regions and clusters with the highest potential to support our growth sectors. It is important to us that we grow the manufacturing sector across the country and also businesses, small and large, in supply chains, as well as well-known household names. I reaffirm that the Government have an ongoing commitment to UK manufacturing. We can too easily think about manufacturing as being about household names and consumer products, but we have heard a lot today about manufacturing businesses in the supply chain that employ many more people and make a significant economic contribution, over and above the consumer products we can buy.
As I know myself, manufacturing is about local businesses that have an impact locally on communities and prosperity, as well as on the growth of the country. The Government have a high ambition for our manufacturing industry. By 2035, we want to be the best place in the world to start, grow and invest in advanced manufacturing. We want to double the annual business investment entering the UK manufacturing sector from £21 billion a year to nearly £40 billion a year. That requires bold action, and in many of the measures I have set out we are looking to do more. The steps we have taken in setting out the industrial strategy and various sector plans this year, and the reforms we are making to skills, finance, innovation and regulation, will have a positive and lasting impact, not only for valve manufacturers in Calder Valley but for other specialist manufacturers around the UK.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister for my elevation to Dame—it has a certain ring to it. I call Josh Fenton-Glynn to wind up the debate briefly.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I thank all Members for the tour we had of the UK, with a particular focus on Stoke-on-Trent. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) talked about specialist ceramics, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) talked about Bakewell tarts and the saucers on which they are placed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) talked about the clusters that really make a difference. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) about textiles, and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the huge role Northern Ireland plays. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) about things produced there that go to the bottom of the sea, and from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) about products that go into space. All of that leads us to understand the pride that people have when they produce things—when they make something in a factory in a town in the UK and it can go anywhere. That is why our manufacturing services are so important and why we need to make sure that we get the absolute most out of them.
I will resist talking more about brass bands, although the Minister tempted me to do so, but I will take him up on what he said about wanting to understand more about the valve industry. He is welcome to visit me in Calder Valley so that I can show him some of the things we do better than anywhere else in the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of the specialist manufacturing sector to regional economies.
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This debate comes at a timely juncture, as later today Huntingdonshire district council will vote for its preferred option for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of any Huntingdonshire district councillors watching this prior to casting their vote, my preference is for option E: a Huntingdonshire unitary authority. I have already stated my preference publicly, but today, ahead of that vote, I wish to reiterate the point and warn of the dangers of voting for anything else.
I am alarmed by reports that several councillors have opted to vote for option C, not because they passionately believe in the business case, but because they have apparently input option C and option E into ChatGPT and based their vote on the rationale it has provided, sharing it in WhatsApp groups with other councillors and influencing their decisions. If true, that is a hugely embarrassing way to decide on the future of Huntingdonshire.
Although option C is debatably the least worst other option, if Huntingdon district councillors are not prepared to vote for option E and back Huntingdonshire, why should the Government? By voting against a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, those councillors are voting against Huntingdonshire. If they vote against Huntingdonshire, they are effectively saying they are prepared to see it broken up, which is exactly what Labour wants to do.
Option D first surfaced supposedly as a proposal from two of Cambridgeshire’s Labour MPs. It was ostensibly pitched as their proposal, but we now know that it did not actually come from them. I have been reliably informed that option D emanated from the Labour east regional office and that Labour MPs were simply happy to put their names to it. Option D is clearly Labour’s attempt to pork-barrel the local government reorganisation of Cambridgeshire.
Last week, Peterborough city council, the council responsible for the appalling management of the local authority, voted for option D. Without any consultation with the people of Huntingdonshire, it voted, purely out of self-interest, to conduct a land grab of Huntingdonshire in order to shore up the council’s terrible financial position and have somewhere to build its houses.
I have read option D in detail, and nowhere does it articulate or explain what the benefit of splitting Huntingdonshire would be. I would be interested to see the engagement survey results and to know how many people across the whole of Huntingdonshire even knew that was a possibility. I suspect that the first that many people in my constituency will hear of it is when I post this speech on my social media.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to be helpful, as I always try to be. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on the debate. We had a local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, reducing councils from 26 to 11. The idea was to save money and make the system more accountable. It did not save any money and became more bureaucratic, and the people were the ultimate sufferers. If reorganisation is not done right at this stage, problems will occur down the line later.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on in detail to explain why the financial implications are so grave. I hope we would heed the warnings from those who have been through this process before, to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again.
Dr Shabina Qayyum, leader of Labour’s city council, was quoted by the BBC as saying that claims that option D was being pursued for political purposes were “insulting”. Given that she and her Labour group were whipped by Labour to vote for it, I suggest that the lady doth protest too much. It will be interesting to see how Labour members vote this evening.
Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and absence of lessons learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, already stronger than identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.
It makes no sense to place Huntingdon and Godmanchester, separated only by a narrow stretch of the River Great Ouse, into completely different unitaries. Brampton and Buckden will be split apart; Kimbolton and Great Staughton will be in different unitaries. Those village pairings currently sit within shared county divisions, upon which the wards of the new unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be based. To split them in two means that those divisions will need to be redrawn. The local government boundary commission for England can redraw them only once the unitary exists, and even then those divisions are unlikely to be at the top of the list for redesigning.
The option D business case states:
“Option D is grounded in a deep commitment to the unique identities, diversity and aspirations of each of the proposed unitaries.”
That simply is not true. There is no consensus anywhere in Huntingdonshire to suggest that splitting it in two is the preferred option for residents in my constituency. If Labour was not whipping its councillors to vote for it, it would not have any support at all.
Several of Huntingdonshire’s Labour councillors have either announced that they will not be standing or may not be here after next May. I ask those Labour councillors why they would wish for their legacy as a councillor to be that they voted to rip up Huntingdonshire. Defy the whip! The Labour apparatchiks whipping option D will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of being part of a failing authority that they voted for. With the best will in the world, they are not going to remove the whip from any Labour councillor in Huntingdonshire. Politically, they cannot afford to.
Fenland district councillors like option D because it gets them out of being lumped with Peterborough:
“Peterborough’s ability to expand is constrained by current boundaries. By aligning with north-west Huntingdonshire, the area opens up to the south and west, creating space for new communities, business investment and international companies”.
Tell me they are planning to use the north of Huntingdonshire as a dumping ground for their housing targets without telling me!
Be under no illusion, Mrs Harris: Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against the national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.
Looking at the debt analysis based on the modelled options, Greater Peterborough is the single worst option for debt financing cost as a percentage of funding; it sits at 11%, which is the only debt financing cost deemed to be high-risk, and we should bear it in mind that the other two unitaries in this option each come in at 4%.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has informed the relevant people that he is mentioning them today in the Chamber? Can I also ask him to keep his remarks to questions that the Minister can actually answer? A lot of this seems to be straying off into an area that the Minister has no power to influence or respond to.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I apologise, Ms Harris; this sets the context for my later questions and the benefits of option E. Of course, the title of the debate is “The impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire”, and that is the context I am trying to set.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Has the hon. Gentleman informed the people whom he mentioned that he would name them in Parliament?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I was not aware that we had to inform individuals who are not Members of Parliament.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I have to ensure that I ask you the question.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Thank you. Option D literally saddles half of Huntingdonshire with an enormous debt burden, while allowing the rest of Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire to ride off into the sunset. The net investment income and debt financing costs for Greater Peterborough are £38.3 million. Compare that with option E: Huntingdonshire unitary’s costs are just £10.5 million, the lowest of any unitary in any of the five options.
When looking at the reserves analysis, we see a similar story. Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%. On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority. In Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough is 8%, far and away the highest—it has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Moving to Greater Peterborough would immediately increase Huntingdonshire’s unemployment from 3.2% to 5%.
On improving children’s services, option D states:
“Authorities with higher prevalence of need (e.g. those containing Peterborough and Fenland) will face greater demand and cost pressures, potentially straining resources and impacting service delivery”.
On adult social care and healthcare, and the impact for frontline staff, it states:
“Teams currently set up on the geographical footprint of Huntingdonshire would need to be split leading to instability for front line and direct care workers”.
On special educational needs and disabilities, it states:
“The authority containing Peterborough is projected to see the highest growth in SEND demand, leading to disproportionate pressure on resources and budgets…Increased risk of uneven access to SEND support, with some authorities potentially struggling to meet rising demand or maintain quality”.
Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans and the greatest risk of SEND deficit escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire. This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse.
Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND costs and the highest percentage of homeless households, nearly double that of Greater Cambridge. It is akin to the Berlin wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough democratic republic, while the southern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the people’s republic of south Cambridgeshire.
I stress the words “slightly better”, because anybody involved in discussions about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is well aware of what Cambridge city actually wants. From the very start, Cambridge city has made it clear that it only wants an option that couples it with south Cambridgeshire. Option C would add Huntingdonshire into that mix and, although I am told that throuples are all the rage in the more liberal parts of Cambridgeshire, we would clearly be an awkward third wheel in such a relationship. Cambridge city has no interest in Huntingdonshire. To wilfully pursue an unrequited interest in being linked with it makes no sense for any Huntingdonshire district councillor. Do any of our councillors honestly think that Cambridge city is interested in investing in Sawtry, Warboys or Somersham?
Cambridgeshire county council voted for option A, but again that was a vote gerrymandered by the ruling party. The Liberal Democrats, who now control the county council, whipped their councillors to vote for option A—and we should bear in mind that that was not a vote in which councillors were given a choice of all five options; they were simply given the choice of voting for or against option A. In what way is that a truly representative vote?
The county council claims that its phase 2 engagement reinforces support for option A, showing:
“clear patterns of support for option A.”
Support from whom? The county council goes on to say:
“The lowest levels of support for this option were from Fenland (26%) and Huntingdonshire (20%)”.
How can there be “clear” levels of support for an option that 80% of people in Huntingdonshire do not want? The Liberal Democrats voted for option A without ever having seen a business case; indeed, one has never been written. How irresponsible is it to vote for such a huge change to local governance that has never been financially scrutinised?
Although I freely accept that St Neots and St Ives, with their direct bus route to the city of Cambridge, see themselves as pointing south-east rather than north-west to Peterborough, it is clear that Huntingdonshire would be the poor relation in any unitary authority that had it aligned to the exclusive Cambridge city.
One of the biggest fears about option A and option C is that in aligning with either Peterborough or Cambridge, Huntingdonshire will end up on the periphery, likely to be cast aside as a sleepy backwater and a place to dump housing targets. We all know that investment from either council will honeypot around the cities. What does that mean not only for our market towns, but for our villages? How much capital investment will be spent in Sawtry or Ramsey by a Cambridge city council focused on option C? How much interest does a Peterborough city-led council have in Kimbolton, Earith or Great Gransden?
Local government reorganisation is potentially one of the most important changes in our region in a generation. Huntingdonshire is uniquely placed as the delivery engine for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, aligning with the Government’s goal for growth. Option E clearly meets the Government’s six criteria. Indeed, when all the options are scored against the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for local government reorganisation, option E easily surpasses option D and inclusion in greater Peterborough, and it only narrowly loses out to options A and C—and that is before factoring in the practical aspects of being governed by a Peterborough-centric or Cambridge-centric council.
Place identity should not be overlooked. Huntingdonshire, more than any other part of Cambridgeshire, retains the distinct and proud identity of a historical county. Consequently, the prospect of Huntingdonshire going it alone has been warmly received by local residents when I have had conversations with them about it.
For those concerned that a Huntingdonshire unitary authority would lack the necessary population size, the 2040 population projection sees its population grow to approximately 300,000. A central unitary authority based around Huntingdonshire could form the key link between a north-eastern Peterborough-focused unitary authority aligned with the strategic plan of Homes England, and therefore with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s housing and infrastructure objectives, and a south-western-focused unitary authority aligned with the national industrial strategy priorities around life sciences, AI and food production.
A central unitary authority focused on Huntingdonshire could then be fully linked into the region by accommodating a boundary change to deliver about 40,000 homes just south of St Neots at Tempsford new town. That could plug Huntingdonshire directly into the Oxford-Cambridge arc via East West rail and turbocharge delivery. As things stand, Tempsford will be split between three local authorities. Moving it to Huntingdonshire to become, in effect, Greater St Neots would make logical sense, and I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal.
Huntingdonshire is set to benefit hugely from the north Huntingdonshire opportunity zone, with defence a key component of the zone’s potential growth. Defence features prominently in both the Huntingdonshire local plan and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s local growth plan, in addition to featuring, by name, as one of the 12 high growth potential frontier industry clusters in the Government’s recently published defence industrial strategy.
I have talked many times before about the defence opportunity that exists in Huntingdonshire. Project Fairfax is a potential game changer for the region, not only for defence-specific firms, but for dual-use civilian firms that have military applications for their projects. Both fields are illustrated by the existence of Cambridge Precision, a small arms component manufacturer, by the forthcoming move of Marshall Land Systems to the constituency and, from a civilian perspective, by a company such as Paragraph, which has grown from a small Cambridge University spin-out to a cutting-edge tech company whose graphene technology potentially has military applications.
The potential to create a defence technology cluster is already clearly understood and has already been recognised. The Ministry of Defence announced Project Fairfax only last month. That followed months of work, during which time the potential to deliver the project was recognised by everyone up to and including the Prime Minister, who on 26 June reassured my constituents that
“this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.” —[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1279.]
Arguably, Huntingdonshire is already the most important location for defence intelligence in western Europe, with the Ministry of Defence currently uplifting the capability at RAF Wyton, where the National Centre for Geospatial Intelligence is based, alongside the development of the proposed tech cluster, and the fact that only a few miles down the road the US Government are investing heavily in their own capability at RAF Molesworth with a new joint intelligence analytics centre, costing in excess of $556 million, for nearly 2,000 personnel. The joint intelligence analytics centre and joint intelligence command AFRICOM—the US Africa command—both sit at Molesworth, alongside the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre, providing the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Allied Command Operations with timely, relevant and accurate intelligence to support planning and execution of NATO operations. This is clearly a huge and permanent commitment.
In the current febrile geopolitical climate, Huntingdonshire is arguably—not to overstate it—the linchpin of how we meet hostile foreign threats head on. As a senior officer once described it to me, “World leaders make decisions on the information that comes out of these bases.” I therefore ask the Minister how confident she is, should option E not be selected, that a new unitary authority, be that Peterborough or Cambridge-based, will prioritise defence, given that neither appears to be fully aware of the responsibility that they will hold, let alone the opportunity, for a part of the region that sits firmly on the periphery of their geography and their thinking.
If the Government are serious about delivering on their defence priorities, and I assume that they are, given that they have greenlit such an ambitious project, they surely would not then risk its delivery by removing the key stakeholders responsible for driving its delivery, and handing such a crucial project to a newly formed local authority that has had no involvement in the genesis of the project and not even enough interest to mention it in its business cases. In going with an alternative option there is a significant and real danger that delivery of these projects stalls, goes into hiatus and loses the momentum crucial to their timely delivery. Huntingdonshire district council has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to deliver and move at pace and shown the necessary delivery expertise to get this across the line. Huntingdonshire is the location of a significant proportion of the region’s development and infrastructure pipeline projects.
Local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is balanced on a knife edge as far as Huntingdonshire is concerned. Although the Government will not make a decision on what the structure of unitaries in Cambridgeshire looks like until next July, Huntingdonshire district council will have its one and only opportunity to make its voice heard at the vote this evening. This is a unique, once-in-a generation opportunity to set Huntingdonshire up for success, or condemn it to a future over which it will have no control. The historic identity of Huntingdonshire is a strength. It is an identity that local people do not wish to lose through being split or absorbed. We know what incredible opportunities exist for the region and how much potential it has.
I would ask any Huntingdonshire district councillor, ahead of this vote, to ask themselves why they should vote for anything other than option E. Do they back Huntingdonshire or not? A vote for any other option this evening—in the hope that Cambridge might take note when it has made it clear that it has no interest in partnering with us, or in the hope that Peterborough might take note when it clearly wishes to do nothing more than split Huntingdonshire in two and effectively asset-strip the northern half—could be catastrophic for the region. To vote for anything other than option E is to vote against Huntingdonshire; it is to vote for it to be split or absorbed, but not for it to have control over its own future. That would be unforgivable, and the electorate will not forget in the local elections next May. I am sure that these councillors, whether they consider themselves to be a faithful or a traitor, would not wish their last action of note as a Huntingdonshire district councillor to be throwing Huntingdonshire under the guided bus.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
The matter that the hon. Member has raised is not in the domain of the Government. I have allowed him to continue, as it is something he obviously feels very passionate about, but I cannot expect the Minister to respond to issues that have nothing to do with her brief.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Thank you, Mrs Harris; I appreciate that. It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your experienced and knowledgeable chairship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing a debate that is clearly of great importance to his constituency. I think that he asked me two questions, about the place of St Neots and about whether the Government intend to deliver on their defence commitments.
Unfortunately, in relation to the specifics of the proposals, I am in the invidious position of not being able to comment. The hon. Gentleman will understand that while we are in an active process of consultation I must reserve my judgment, so that I am able to take a decision based on the facts as they will be presented to me.
On defence, I am sure that, as the hon. Gentleman said, everyone in this country would expect the Government to do what we need to do to defend our country. Although that is not my specific responsibility in government, the defence of this country is a collective responsibility and I will work very closely with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, as I do week in and week out, to make sure that we are able to deliver on our commitments to keep this country safe.
Before I turn to the topics in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I will briefly set out why we are reorganising local government and why that process is important to the Government’s overall objectives. Nearly a third of our population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government services and functions split across county and district councils. That slows down economic decision making and delivery and leads to fragmentation in our public services.
Even in the short months in which I have been the Minister for Local Government, I have heard that from councillors directly. It is confusing—who does what and who is responsible? In our Department, several Ministers were leaders of councils themselves and so have practical experience of the issue. Through local government reorganisation, we are simplifying local government and establishing single-tier unitary councils everywhere.
We need stronger local councils equipped to make economic growth more likely, improve public services and empower communities. That is the point of reorganisation: so that we have councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than, in some cases, lines drawn on a map 50 years ago. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that our national growth story includes everyone, everywhere. Local government reorganisation can help to do that. With one council in charge of each area, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving and attract new investment.
There are also social and public services benefits. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture, spot problems early and, for example, support a family in need of housing and then support the children to stay in school. That often does not happen at the moment—we see families who are dealing with the worst type of homelessness being passed from pillar to post.
We have already announced two new unitary councils in Surrey, investing in residents’ futures and putting local authorities there on a sustainable footing. I am also pleased to announce further aspects of the process. This is just the start: we are working with a further 14 areas across England that will benefit from this once-in-a-generation reform, with their proposals due by 28 November.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On putting councils on a good financial footing, there are huge concerns across Cambridgeshire about being partnered with Peterborough city council, because its finances are in such a grave state. Peterborough is already a unitary council. Would the Government consider excluding it from the rest of Cambridgeshire, working out how to do the unitary authorities elsewhere and then taking action at a national level to shore up Peterborough’s dire financial position?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the fragility of council finances. Everything that we are doing needs to put local authorities on a much firmer footing. The past 15 years have seen town hall finances deteriorate. We are taking steps through the local government finance settlement to address that. More information on that will come shortly. Further local government reorganisation is an opportunity to streamline public services and get councils on a firmer footing.
Unfortunately, I am in the invidious position of not being able to comment on the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, but I assure him that all the actions we are taking in relation to local government change have finance stability at their heart. He mentioned the work of CIPFA; I take the opportunity to pay tribute to CIPFA and the excellent work it does in helping to support councils. We will take more steps shortly to get councils on a firmer footing.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Local authorities across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have been developing proposals for unitary local government. That follows the commitment made in the English devolution White Paper last December and the invitation letters sent to areas last February. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgments in the round, made with regard to the criteria he mentioned that are in the statutory guidance, the consultation responses received and all the relevant information.
The Government’s criteria for unitary local government set out that new unitary councils should enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment. We understand the importance of communities having their say on the future of their local public services, so we have been clear about the importance of councils engaging with local residents and organisations as they develop their proposals. I know that the hon. Gentleman led a Westminster Hall debate on these important issues before the summer recess and has been an active part of discussions on local government reorganisations in his area, as we have heard again today.
I am expecting to receive proposals from local authorities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough by 28 November, and we anticipate that we will publicly consult on final proposals in the new year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am in a challenging position and it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage or provide my view on the specifics that he mentioned, because it would pre-empt future decisions that I have to make under the statutory process. There are clearly strong views locally, which were reflected in his speech. When the time comes to launch the consultation, I am sure I will not need to encourage him and his constituents to make sure that they have their say and feed in their views on the future of local government in their area. The Government want to hear them, and I have absolutely no doubt that we will.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned local councillors several times. I am sorry to say that I think being a local councillor has become a bit of a thankless task, whichever party local councillors represent, and our politics has become more fractious. I reiterate what an important job they do in providing people with preventive public services, trying to build our economy and being there for members of the public when they most need it. I will finish by saying a massive thank you to all the local councillors in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, in my constituency and right across the country. They do a fantastic job.
Question put and agreed to.
Suicide: Reducing the Stigma
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of reducing the stigma associated with suicide.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, in this very important debate; I am grateful that time has been found for it. Suicide can be an extremely difficult topic for people to discuss, whether that means talking about suicidal thoughts, opening up about an intent to commit suicide, or for the families and friends of loved ones who have taken their own lives and who need someone to talk to. That is why I would like to dedicate my speech to my constituent Philip Pirie, who is sitting in the Gallery, and to his son Tom, who tragically lost his life to suicide just over five years ago. I cannot imagine the pain that Philip has been through, which makes his work on suicide prevention in the following years even more commendable.
Just this year, Philip co-chaired work on the NHS guidance “Staying safe from suicide”, which developed best practice for medical professionals to help identify and support those who may be considered at risk of suicide, and I am pleased that the Premier League will be promoting this work. The guidance sought to support those who are in contact with mental health services; however, nearly three quarters of people who take their life are not receiving professional help. Philip has since been engaging with Members of Parliament, mental health workers and charities to discuss his proposal for a national public health campaign to encourage people to talk about the topic. Tackling the stigma of talking about suicide is critical to ensuring that people do not suffer in silence, and it is vital that those who are struggling feel comfortable in reaching out for support.
Today marks International Men’s Day, and perhaps the greatest issue impacting men in today’s society is their mental wellbeing. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. Each death—of a son, a father, a brother or a friend to someone—is a tragedy. Members in this room will have experienced this close to home. We all know the shocking statistics associated with male suicide, but it is important to think about the individuals who lose their life, and the severe emotional impact that that will have on their loved ones, which cannot be quantified or understood by quoting statistics alone. Talking openly about suicide is the first step to reducing the stigma towards it, and I am so pleased to see MPs from all parties in attendance at, and wanting to speak in, this debate.
According to the charity Campaign Against Living Miserably, one in four people living in the UK will experience suicidal thoughts in their lives, while 200,000 people attempt to commit suicide each year. Suicide will impact almost everyone in this room, and across the country, in one way or another. We will all have been confronted with moments in our life when we know that a person close to us is struggling. But when we reached out to check on them, were we doing so just at surface level, or did we really try to tackle the thoughts that we suspected they might have been experiencing? With suicide such a prevalent issue in our society, why is it so difficult for us to talk about it frankly? Why do we try to dance around the issue, even when we know we should not?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
On 30 September, I had the privilege of participating in the Baton of Hope relay across Torbay, which is an initiative that propagates conversations around suicide. The impact that it had across our communities in Torbay was amazing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the more conversations we have about suicide, the more we will prevent it?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging example of how taking steps to reduce the stigma around suicide can have a positive impact, and how we need a community approach to help reach out to all those people who might be struggling.
Although talking about mental health is becoming more socially acceptable, to what extent are we asking the challenging questions? To what extent do we really want to know how other people are getting on, and to what extent do people who are suffering feel comfortable in talking honestly about how serious their struggles are? For those reasons, I want to echo my constituent Philip Pirie’s calls for the Government to launch a public health campaign to truly tackle the stigma associated with suicide.
As we have seen today, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has launched his men’s health strategy. He promised the Samaritans that
“mental health and suicide prevention”
would be at the “heart of it”. Everyone in the House will welcome these words and the recognition that the men’s mental health crisis needs serious attention. I would like the Secretary of State to go one step further and consider a public health campaign with posters and adverts on TV and radio, and to hold regular open discussions with the public on the topic of suicide.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, all too often I hear devastating stories of suicide in the farming community. Campaigns such as the Farm Safety Foundation’s Mind Your Head play an important role in encouraging frank and honest conversations. We know that 95% of young farmers say that mental health is the biggest hidden danger in the sector. I fully support my hon. Friend’s call for a national awareness campaign; does she also agree that cuts to the rural England prosperity fund should be reconsidered, given the vital support it provides to rural-focused services, including those for mental health?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend makes an important point about how specific groups and particular sectors can be impacted. Just under an hour ago I was having a conversation with my friend Diana Chrouch, who is the adviser to the APPG for ethnic minority business owners, of which I have been a co-chair for many years. She pointed out that there is a high risk of suicide for people working in the construction sector. I think it would be valuable to identify particular risk areas, and design a strategy that could reach out to them, but I also fully support my hon. Friend’s call on the subject of the rural England prosperity fund.
In the late 1980s, the UK launched a public health crisis to raise awareness of the AIDS epidemic. That was hugely successful: it not only raised awareness of safe sex practices, but served to reduce the stigma and falsehoods associated with the illness. At the peak of the AIDS epidemic in the UK in 1994, just over 1,500 people died from the illness. In the UK last year, more than 7,000 people died from suicide. That figure is growing, and the suicide rate for young women under 24 saw the steepest increase since records began.
As the Secretary of State identified in his men’s health strategy, underlying addictions, such as gambling and drug addiction, often cause or exacerbate mental health conditions. Those addictions can cause isolation and financial difficulties and destroy relationships. As the Government strategy identifies, 12% of participants in the gambling survey for Great Britain reported that they had thought about, or attempted, taking their own life. Many betting stores are positioned on high streets of deprived areas in the UK. We must acknowledge the link between gambling addiction, poverty and suicide.
The statutory levy imposed on gambling firms is a positive step, and I am pleased that the funds raised will be directly invested into gambling harm prevention, research and treatment, but what steps are the Government taking to engage those who treat, or provide support to, people with a gambling addiction to directly address the risk of suicide among their patients? What more can be done to integrate the identification of suicide risk into our approach to treating addictions of all sorts? What more can the gambling industry in particular do to mitigate the impact that its activities have on vulnerable people, particularly in the light of the enormous profits that it makes as a result?
Exercise can be a positive outlet for many people who are struggling with mental health difficulties, enabling them to set targets, grow their confidence and involve themselves in sociable activities. However, there can be a reductive narrative about the relationship between exercise and mental health, and that can be dangerous. Some influential, outspoken figures have dismissed the real and serious issues that people are struggling with by instructing people that going to the gym is the simple answer. For most people, a workout in the gym will encourage body positivity and self-confidence, but for some, the constant need to achieve a perfect body can lead to obsessions and eating disorders.
I support the Government’s recently announced work with the Premier League. Conversations about mental health also need to start in gyms and sports clubs, so I encourage the Government to target local sporting hubs to widen awareness of mental health, and to encourage those struggling to speak with friends, families or mental health professionals. Can the Minister tell me whether the engagement of sports bodies and mental health initiatives includes a specific recognition of suicide risk, and the ways in which sports clubs and coaches can assist in identifying and responding to suicidal intentions among the young men, in particular, with whom they work?
More also needs to be done to encourage support for employees in the workplace. Whether they are a new or experienced member of staff, reaching out to their line manager or boss to let them know about the difficulties they are facing, and to request additional consideration—whether that means an adjustment to working hours or time off to see a mental health professional, or just letting them know the stress that they are experiencing at work or in everyday life—can be daunting. I encourage the Minister to increase awareness of best practices to support employees’ mental health in the workplace, and ensure that those who are struggling receive the support that they need. What more can be done to assist employers with training on how to respond if they recognise that one of their employees is struggling with a mental health issue? How can workplaces support some of those difficult conversations that might make all the difference in saving a young life from suicide?
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Over the past 10 years in England and Wales, one student has died every four days as a result of suicide. Ben West, a young man from my former constituency, set up a project called Walk to Talk when he was 17 and still at school. He did this following the death to suicide of his 15-year-old brother Sam. Does the hon. Lady agree that talking and asking questions directly about suicide can help to remove the stigma around it and save lives?
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I am so sad to hear Sam’s story. It is very encouraging to hear about the steps that Ben has taken to raise awareness of the issue. The hon. Member makes an important point about academia at schools and universities; that is another big risk factor for young people. They feel the real pressure of academic studies and exam results, so schools and universities also have a role to play in reducing stigma and encouraging those conversations, which could be lifesaving.
We urgently need to tackle the stigma around suicide, and a public health campaign would be a significant step in the right direction. Many lives could be saved if more people understood the difference that the right conversation, at the right time, could have on the young people in their lives. We would not just save the lives of young people who are deterred from suicide, but save their friends and family from the burdensome legacy of grief, guilt and heartache that affects all of those who are affected by the suicide of a loved one.
In closing, I ask the Minister if he would meet me and my constituent Philip Pirie to discuss the details of a campaign such as that I have laid out today, as well as the impact that suicide can have, its increasing prevalence in our society, the impact it has on young men, in particular, and what this Government can do to take action.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to her constituent, who is in the Gallery to support this campaign.
It is important to reflect on the progress that has been made in this country to remove some of the stigma around suicide, but more progress still has to be made. The more we discuss this issue in this House and in our constituencies, the greater the impact we can have in removing the stigma completely.
This Government inherited a mental health crisis—there are nearly 1.8 million people on NHS waiting lists for mental health treatment. At the same time, after decades of decline, suicide rates have increased since 2007. Worryingly, the suicide rate is now higher than at any time in the 21st century. In my local area of Kent, although the suicide rate has been coming down in recent years, it is still higher than the national average.
As is the case in the rest of the UK, suicide rates in Kent are significantly higher among men than among women. Across the country, 100 men die by suicide each week and men account for approximately three quarters of all suicide deaths in the UK. This trend has been consistent since the mid-1990s. While men are more likely than women to die by suicide in all age groups, that difference is most pronounced among middle-aged men—suicide is the biggest killer of men aged under 50. I welcome initiatives such as Movember, Andy’s Man Club, the Campaign Against Living Miserably and other similar schemes for the work that they do to help men. I particularly welcome the fact that today the Government published the first ever men’s health strategy, as part of which they will be working with the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide initiative. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more about that, and about what will be done to remove the stigma around men’s mental health.
Suicide rates among young people are the lowest of all age groups, but over the past decade there has been a concerning 22% increase. A rise in the number of young people feeling disconnected and isolated after the pandemic lockdowns and an escalation in online bullying are reported to be contributing factors.
Another sector in which the silent tragedy of suicide is all too prevalent is the farming and agriculture industry, in which an average of three people die by suicide every week. Mental Health First Aid England reports that, between 2021 and 2023, suicide deaths among farmers increased year on year.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about young people and farming. Those two issues overlap in rural areas such as mine. Our child and adolescent mental health services are centralised in Dorchester, so someone living in the extremities of Lyme Regis, Beaminster or the surrounding villages could be looking at a 30-mile round trip to access them. Given that our part of the country is famous for its unreliable bus network, that is pretty difficult for a lot of young people and for those living in isolated communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improving access to things like CAMHS is vital if we are to protect young people in rural communities?
Sojan Joseph
As someone who worked in mental health services for 22 years, I absolutely agree. We need access to mental health services, and not just for young people; everyone is important. Getting help early is key to preventing suicide among young people.
The situation is worse among men working in the farming industry. The likelihood that a male farm worker will die by suicide is three times higher than the national average for men. Earlier this year, a Farm Safety Foundation report revealed that over 90% of farmers said that poor mental health is the biggest hidden problem in the industry.
What is contributing to that poor mental health and the increased risk of suicide among those working in the agricultural sector? It is driven by a combination of isolation—many work alone in remote areas—and financial pressure from market volatility, debt and rising costs. Long working hours, often exceeding 60 hours per week, lead to exhaustion and poor mental health. There is also a strong stigma around seeking help, which means that many farmers suffer in silence.
The connection between suicide and mental illness is well documented, but reducing the stigma of suicide should not be viewed solely as a mental health issue. Many individuals who die by suicide have never engaged with mental health services or displayed obvious symptoms, and not all have a diagnosed condition. People at risk often face a complex mix of personal, relational, community and societal factors. As the suicide prevention strategy highlights, common risk factors include physical illness, financial hardship, gambling, substance misuse, social isolation, loneliness and domestic abuse. Although mental health support is important, the strategy stresses that reducing stigma extends far beyond that. Focusing only on mental health risks overlooking those in acute distress who do not meet the diagnostic criteria. It also places the burden on mental health services, when in reality reducing the stigma of suicide requires a collective effort from local authorities, employers, schools, the justice system and society at large.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
One of my constituents, Steve, founded the Jordan Legacy after he lost his son to suicide. Its work involves outreach to schools, universities, employers and community groups. I echo the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he, like me, think that there should be more support for the fantastic work of such charities and organisations?
Sojan Joseph
I absolutely agree. Charities do a brilliant job. Youth groups in our communities used to be very good places for young people to go, and I would love to see them coming back into our communities.
Effective prevention means prioritising early intervention in schools, universities, workplaces and community settings, which are also important. Every suicide is a tragic event that has a devastating impact on the family and loved ones, and this impact can be felt across the community. That is why we must break the silence and dismantle the stigma around suicide. Every conversation matters. When people feel safe to speak, they are far more likely to seek help, and that can make all the difference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for setting the scene, as she so often does. I know that this issue is very close to her heart; indeed, it is very close to all of us. I will give a couple of examples from Northern Ireland. They are never easy stories to tell, but both of them are solution-based. I will tell them without mentioning any names or specific details, so we can consider what steps we are taking to address the issue.
It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place—I wish him well in his role—and, as always, to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). He and I seem to be tag-teaming all the time on health issues in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber.
When I thought about this issue, and I have given it a lot of thought because it is so real to all of us, I went back and forth in my mind about the title of this debate. The motion refers to “reducing the stigma associated with suicide”. I believe that we need to normalise talking about how we feel. I say that as a man, because men—myself included—seem to have some difficulty in understanding the issues that we face, especially the difficult aspects, relating them to others and acknowledging that we are not alone in having these thoughts. It is important that we recognise that, and that there is help for so many.
The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) is not here, but anyone who heard his Prime Minister’s question today will know that he lived the story that he told. We need to recognise what suicide truly is. He took us through his experience: he did us proud and did his family proud in how he dealt with the things he faced up to.
When I was first elected to this House back in 2010, the constituency of Strangford took in a new part, Ballynahinch. Around that time—in 2010, 2011 and certainly in 2012—there was a spate of suicides of young men in the area. It was horrendous. It was almost impossible to comprehend what was happening. However, a local Presbyterian minister, Rev. Mairisine Stanfield, galvanised the community in Ballynahinch to come together. What a lady she is! She organised all the churches and the individuals, who were all hurting and all wanted to know what to do. She was the prime mover: she created a hub in the area, which was a brand-new idea that gave young people and others a place to come together, talk about things, relate, socialise and have a chance. Alongside other things that were happening, the hub helped to reduce the suicides in that town, so I have never forgotten Rev. Mairisine. Indeed, I met her last Friday night at the mayor’s do over in Bangor. There she was, as bright as ever and with that wonderful smile. That lady motivated the people of the area, the community groups and others to come together and try to help, so I am always deeply indebted to her.
I remember that when I was younger—this goes back to the title of the debate—a stiff upper lip was expected. That was the demand of the day, but that approach is not helpful attitude to take to mental health. If we look at the cultural climate across most western countries, attitudes were shaped by fear, silence and, in some cases, religious views. This was not spoken about.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend will know that in Northern Ireland there are somewhere in the region of 200 suicides per year, which is deeply troubling and terrible for each family walking that difficult pathway. Online platforms and social media now play a huge part in some of those suicides. Does he agree that this Government need to go further in regard to platforms that are sharing information on how to commit suicide, and that we all need to play a role? Our mental health champion in Northern Ireland has said that by asking someone how they are, we are not likely to make the situation worse. There is a challenge for us all to reach out and ask people how they are, so that we can be more in tune with them and help them through difficult situations.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for her words of wisdom. I know that she has tried, before and during her time in this place, to address the issue of online access to information about how to commit suicide. I cannot conceive how that can be available; maybe I am from a different generation, but the availability today is scary. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I know that he will give us some ideas on how to tackle that.
People did not talk about mental health in the past. There was no awareness, and psychological conversations were not had day by day in the way they are today. We had a spate of suicides of young men in Newtownards a few years ago, and it was so tragic. There was a wee group of young boys who ran about together. One committed suicide, and unfortunately the other four or five all did the same. It is really difficult, sometimes, to deal with things.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) spoke about the suicide rate among farmers. This is not about pointing fingers—I do not want to do that—but I can say from the family farms that I know in Northern Ireland that the pressure on farmers today due to the family inheritance tax is incredibly worrying. I will leave it at that.
While any suicide is devastating, I would like to focus on the stats surrounding male mental health and suicide in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency revealed that there were 171 male suicides registered in Northern Ireland in 2023, which accounted for some 77.4% of all suicides. My goodness me! We men—that includes me and every one of us—need to have a look at how we deal with these things. Males in Northern Ireland are consistently three to four times more likely to die by suicide. It also noted that for males aged 15 to 49, such as those I referred to in Ballynahinch and Newtownards, suicide was the leading cause of death in 2023, followed by drug-related deaths.
Male suicide in Northern Ireland has been a painful and persistent issue for years, and the stigma around it can make things even harder for those who are struggling. The harsh reality is that men do not talk. We tend to be private about our health issues. There is a very strong cultural script back home that we just get on with it; we do not want to come across as weak or unable to cope, which is how we fear it would be perceived. Furthermore, for many men and their families, the pattern is passed down from our parents. To give a Northern Ireland perspective, our dads and grandads who suffered during the troubles were told to be silent at that time and swallow their feelings. Some of them had PTSD—we never knew what that was until the last few years, by the way. That has had a knock-on effect on how we deal with issues now.
We must do more to ensure that talking about mental health is as normal as talking about the weather or the news. That is how we will reduce the stigma. Transparency and openness is the way forward. First and foremost, we must ensure that help is accessible and available in this country. That is our responsibility.
Our mental health services are not where they need to be. More should be done to provide counselling services, as opposed to going to the GP and walking out with a prescription for anti-depressants. With great respect, they are not always the answer. I urge the Minister to tell us how the Government will do more to ensure that those services are properly funded so that we can help more people stop making that final decision, which some feel is the only way forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. If we stick to about seven minutes each, everybody can get in.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
Today’s debate on reducing the stigma associated with suicide is of grave importance to my constituents, particularly those in Ollerton, which has one of the highest suicide rates in the country. We know that the suicide rate is three times higher for men than for women, and although there are many contributing factors to that, one of the most significant is the stigma associated with asking for help and speaking up about mental health. There are so many societal pressures saying what men should be and how they should act. Often that involves appearing strong and as if they can face any problem head-on and by themselves. This starts very early. As a mother to a boy, I know that the attitude towards boys is often that they have to be strong, be tough and face things head on, and that crying is a weakness. It is ingrained by society in boys at a very young age. As a mother, I am consistently having to battle with those things.
The stigma of suicide affects not only the person struggling, but the people around them. Often loved ones do not know that someone is struggling and are left feeling confused and heartbroken. There is a ricochet effect to suicide, especially on the family and friends left behind. I know that because our family lost someone to suicide. The act of suicide leaves you grieving for a life gone too soon. It leaves questions, anguish and guilt and a space that will never be filled again. Mark was a son, a brother and a friend. I therefore welcome the Government’s landmark new health strategy, which will help to tackle men’s mental health challenges.
I want to take this opportunity to highlight the incredible work of a Nottingham organisation: In Sam’s Name. After the death of Sam Fisher, Sam’s friend Richard McHugh wanted to create a safe place for males to break the stigma of talking about their mental health and help them realise that they are not alone. Their peer support group helps members find strength from men who have previous experience, or are also suffering with mental health issues themselves. Through the power of conversation, friendship and support, men in Nottinghamshire are saving lives. I will never fail to be astonished at the ability of people who have experienced unimaginable pain to use that in pursuit of making the world a better place for others. The organisation runs several groups in Nottinghamshire communities, including in Ambleside community centre in Ollerton, and has a partnership with our fantastic local football team, Ollerton Town football club. It is vital that we take this conversation directly to men where they spend their time, and that—especially in my constituency—is at the football.
We must also ensure that our communities are equipped with the necessary infrastructure to give help and support when it is needed. Access to healthcare in Ollerton is poor. Given its rural nature and high levels of deprivation, it is no stranger to the struggle to access basic services. Deprivation is a huge factor in suicide: rates in areas of high deprivation are almost double those in areas of low deprivation. If we are to reduce the stigma around mental health and suicide, people, no matter where they are born in the country, need access to healthcare and support. For Ollerton, that must include a super health centre where people can walk in off the street and access the healthcare they need. Working in collaboration with Ollerton Town football club, we want to transform lives, and that could work in combination with a healthcare centre.
I hope that the Minister will join me in recognising the importance of access to health services and support in showing men that there are places to help and people willing to listen. Nowhere is that more important than in Ollerton, where there is such a high rate of male suicide. Perhaps he would like to get on a train to sunny Ollerton, visit the football club and meet In Sam’s Name—
Michelle Welsh
The shadow Minister has obviously been to Ollerton before.
The Minister should go to see the fantastic work In Sam’s Name does, because it could be replicated across the country and have a huge impact. It would also allow him to see an area with fantastic people who support one another, but which is suffering because it does not have the services or infrastructure to combat suicide, and that is what we need to save young lives.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on International Men’s Day. I also pay tribute to her constituent, Philip Pirie; no one can imagine the loss of a child, and it is a testament to him that in the pits of his despair, he has reached out to others.
If ever I am asked when someone is struggling, I always say, “Just talk—help is available.” That would be my attitude today. If someone needs support, they should reach out and find it. Just six months ago, I might not have chosen to speak in this debate at all. Then, in the summer, two events taught me a harsh lesson; they made me realise that reaching out and receiving support is not so easy and, in many cases, not done.
On 13 August, I was driving to work on a normal day. I had been away for a long weekend with the family and had just dropped my kids at the sports camp. I was trying to work out what time I had to leave work to pick them up. As I said, it was an ordinary day. Then the phone rang and everything changed. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who was then a Government Whip, telling me that Hefin David, MS for Caerphilly, had died suddenly.
To talk about Hefin in the past tense is surreal. He was someone so full of life—so passionate, so dedicated to his job and to the people of Caerphilly. He had a wide circle of friends. He was someone who knew help was available and would have told anyone else that, but now he was gone.
I think back to our last conversation in July and how normal it was: I was going to Greece and he was going to Benidorm. We both talked about how much we were looking forward to the break. We ended the conversation by saying we would speak when we were back. Surely, I thought, the news that he was gone was not true. But that is the grim reality that all his family and those who loved him have to face on a day-to-day basis.
Then, a month later, on 14 September, while I was settling down for Sunday lunch, a news alert flashed up on my phone telling me and the world that Ricky Hatton, the beloved Manchester boxer and world champion, had been found dead. I had only met Ricky on a few occasions at boxing events, but I was always struck by how polite and down to earth he was—a man who dedicated his post-boxing career to men’s mental health and talked candidly about his suicidal thoughts. He brought joy and excitement to so many people and had seemingly put his problems behind him, but he was found alone at home.
In different ways, both Hefin and Ricky were warriors. One fought passionately in the Senedd for those on the margins of society, and one demonstrated untold bravery in the ring. In the end, outside appearances can, and often do, mask the struggles that men face.
The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. With the rate of male suicide in Wales having risen by 56% in the last 40 years, it has become the joint highest killer of men under 50, with those aged 45 to 49 facing the highest risk. At that stage of life, men are burdened with societal expectations that mandate how they should think and behave. Those expectations are passed down from generation to generation, derived from traditional notions of masculinity that promote strength, self-reliance and emotional restraint.
Acknowledging poor mental health can feel like a confession and lies at odds with this supposed ideal. Rather than being seen as a sign of humanity, it is viewed as a weakness or failure to live up to what a man should be, as opposed to men being seen for what they are: simply human beings. Men are just as likely to experience emotional difficulty in life as anyone else, so why are they expected not to talk about it? As a result, many men are reluctant to seek help and tend to downplay symptoms for fear of appearing weak or vulnerable.
It is important to acknowledge that there are people in society doing important work to address this problem, undo stigma and, more importantly, start a conversation. The Jolly Brew Crew in my constituency is a free men’s mental health group focusing on peer support, reducing stigma and having more meaningful conversations. It provides a place for men of all ages to go, speak openly about their problems and feel supported. It has fostered a sense of community, combating social isolation and loneliness, proving that problems can be solved.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and moving speech. Does he agree that organisations such as the one he mentioned mirror the work of Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, a support group in my constituency who literally go out on walks together? They also run a podcast, which I was on this week. It is all about getting men together so that they can talk about the way they feel. In my view, that is one of the best ways to avoid terrible mental health problems. Boys and young men should always be encouraged to speak to friends and family, and to seek the help of charities and, when they need it, professional help. We can then break the stigma and prevent far more of these terrible cases of suicide.
Chris Evans
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the group he mentioned. Anything that can be done to reduce the stigma of suicide must be done. We must realise how important this is. One family losing one life to suicide is one family too many. It is time to end the silly stigma about “real men” being this, that or the other. Real men talk about their feelings. We are human and we have got to get away from this stigma.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, groups are incredibly important but they cannot bear the sole responsibility for starting the conversation and providing support. Government must provide more education, support and treatment for mental health. I support the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park about health awareness campaigns, which are vital. There are posters of Davina McCall referring to breast cancer to ensure that it is diagnosed earlier than ever. We should take the same approach to suicide.
Suicide is the joint highest killer, alongside accidental poisoning, of men under 50 in Wales. It is ironic that there is so little conversation about such a big killer. That must change and can start with local groups, but should be led by the Government. If the mental health strategy launched today is to work, it must not only address men’s health issues, which have long been ignored, but seek to undo the deep stereotypes that impact men’s likeliness to reach out for help.
Undoing those stereotypes will make it more acceptable for men to receive support in any area of their lives, proving that their struggles can be addressed. There is no stigma or embarrassment in that, only strength. The impact that Government action can have on the stigma surrounding men’s mental health and suicide must not be overlooked. Healthcare systems must better hear and respond to the epidemic of male suicide. I hope the Welsh Government introduce a similar strategy to address those problems.
At a meeting I had with the Men and Boys Coalition charity last week, it revealed the necessity for a men’s health strategy in Wales. I want to echo that message. My constituency has the seventh highest suicide rate in Wales. Figures like that prove the necessity and urgency of a mental health strategy. I know the Minister well and we are friends. As a fellow Welsh MP, I hope he can use his influence to ensure that the Senedd adopts the strategy we have launched today in England.
More importantly, I call for the rhetoric around male suicide to change: compassion, understanding and kindness must be at the heart of whatever we do next. We must use the lessons we have learned from the deaths of others. The solution may involve some uncomfortable, unfamiliar and new conversations, but those conversations could save someone’s life.
I want to end by talking about Ricky Hatton. He fought battles in the ring and fought wars, but the one battle he could not face, against himself, he lost. Let us hope that there are fewer people who feel like that. I urge the Government to take action.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate, and I thank hon. Members for their powerful speeches and interventions.
I start by wishing everybody a happy International Men’s Day. It is a great opportunity to reflect on the contributions made by men and boys, and a chance to talk seriously about men’s mental health and wellbeing. All of which, I hope we will continue to do tomorrow in the Backbench Business debate on International Men’s Day, which I have the honour of leading this year. I hope all hon. Members who are able to will join us.
One issue we cannot shy away from is suicide. As we have heard, it remains one of the leading causes of death for men under 50, which is a heartbreaking and unacceptable reality. This morning, as I scrolled through Instagram, I came across a video of Clarke Carlisle speaking to the Health Secretary. He said something that struck me deeply:
“There is no situation that is irretrievable other than a completed suicide.”
That is a powerful reminder that every moment before crisis is a moment when a life can still be saved.
That is something I can relate to personally, as I have suffered throughout my life with mental ill health and probably always will. In the past, I have felt that the world would be a better place without me. I will be honest and say that has been the case even in the past 12 months. I have not said that out loud to many people, but in debates like this, I think we should be as open as possible in the hope that it helps others and shows that mental ill health and suicide can touch all of us, no matter what position we are in or what walk of life we come from.
As always, our NHS is there to care for us in our most desperate moments and to help us recover, but for so many, that is sadly not the reality when it comes to mental health. That is why I am proud that today the Government have published the first ever mental health strategy. I wholeheartedly welcome it and think we should be very proud of it. In particular, I welcome the commitment of £3.6 million over three years for suicide prevention projects that are focused on middle-aged men, particularly those in the most deprived communities where the risks are highest; the partnership with the Premier League and the Samaritans, through the Together Against Suicide initiative, which will embed mental health messaging directly into the matchday experience, where many men already feel at home; and the expansion of mental health teams in schools, so that nearly 1 million more young people will have access to early support by 2026.
I particularly commend the Government’s approach of involving the Premier League, because we must do everything we can to reach out to men who have previously felt isolated from discussions around mental health. Let us face it: those discussions can sometimes feel too full of expectation and pressure or can be too medicalised, rather than meeting men where they are by using language and settings with which they already feel comfortable and familiar. The reality is that, for many, it is hard to be a man in today’s society. Many men feel overwhelmed by stress, financial pressures and expectations of being a provider, a protector and a pillar of strength. They feel as though they are failing in those roles, not because they are failing as men but because the structures around them have stopped giving them support.
This morning, I went to a briefing from More in Common, which has produced a fantastic report on how men across the country are feeling. It told us that nine in 10 disillusioned men feel that politicians do not care about places like theirs; seven in 10 believe that no matter how hard they work, they will never be able to improve their circumstances; some feel that they no longer have any good friends to rely on; and many do not feel proud of their community. Many men feel that debates about masculinity and gender cast them as the problem, never just as people trying to get by in life and partners in building a better society.
That matters for suicide prevention because a man who feels he has no control over his life, who feels isolated and that he is failing the people he loves, is a man who is more vulnerable to crisis. The path to suicide often begins not with one traumatic moment but with a long erosion of purpose, belonging and hope. That is why we must continue to promote male-focused approaches to building positive attitudes towards mental health to help to restore a sense of a man’s role in society and to create spaces and conversations about wellbeing that genuinely work for men.
That is one of the many reasons why initiatives such as men’s sheds, Andy’s Man Club and Stand By Me, which is a local group in my constituency, have been so effective. In the world of farming, the Farm Safety Foundation does incredible work through its Yellow Wellies campaign. I only wish that our farmers did not have the dark cloud of the proposed changes to inheritance tax hanging over them.
Many men describe support groups as feeling like a family and a community where they can be honest and hear someone say, “It’s not just you,” and “You’re not alone.” If we want to reduce the stigma associated with suicide, we must recognise that mental health is not isolated from everything else in a man’s life. Financial security matters, sense of belonging matters, community matters and conversation matters. Men need spaces where they feel safe to talk long before they reach a crisis point.
Strength is not found in silence, and courage is not found in pretending that everything is fine. I hope that we can continue this conversation and make today’s International Men’s Day the start of a really positive set of actions, so that men do not reach that irreversible point of crisis.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for bringing this really important debate to the House, and I join other Members in paying a massive tribute to her constituent Philip for the incredibly positive work he has done in the wake of an unspeakably devastating event. I thank him so much.
I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in the debate. I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) that the world is a much, much better place because he is part of it, but I know how mental health works, and I want to say that if he ever feels that it is not and wants someone to speak to, he can come and speak to me. However, it works both ways, and I would also appreciate that.
According to the 2024 health and wellbeing report commissioned by Harlow council, the suicide rate in Harlow is 16.3 people per 100,000, which is higher than the Essex average of 12.6. Suicide is a significant issue for my constituents, and I am aware that Harlow Mill station in my constituency is one of the biggest blackspots for suicide in Essex, as I have previously discussed with Greater Anglia staff.
I join the hon. Member for Richmond Park in calling for a national campaign to tackle the stigma of mental health, specifically by talking about suicide. I also join the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who spoke about his personal experiences of mental health in PMQs today. That is so important.
As many Members on both sides of the House have said, it is important that people do not suffer in silence and feel confident to talk about their struggles with others. It is also important for their friends and family to have the confidence to ask the question, “Are you all right?”, sometimes several times—we must feel that we can check on each other. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate from my opening remarks that they can always ask me that if I look like I need to be asked.
This seems a strange point to make, but I want to talk about 28 November 2011—I am glad there are two Welsh MPs in the Chamber today. I woke up to the news that one of my footballing heroes, Gary Speed, had taken his own life, and it really shocked me. I was shocked again this morning when I read that he was the same age as me when he took his own life: 42 years old. Gary Speed was a hero to me, and I think he was the greatest Welsh footballer who ever lived—although I am sure some would argue with that—so when I talked about mental health to a class of mine, I spoke about him.
What was particularly shocking about the news was the fact that the very morning that Gary took his own life, he was on television as a pundit talking about a football match. Anyone watching that had no idea that he was suffering from mental health issues or that he was going to take his own life. It is important to recognise that people suffering from mental health issues or potentially suicidal thoughts do not have a badge that tells other people that. It is not necessarily obvious; in fact, there may well be no external sign that that is the case.
I realised this morning when I was writing this speech that it is a year this month since a friend of mine, Matt Parsons, took his own life. He was one of the many people I used to talk to at Harlow Town football games. He had an encyclopaedic knowledge about “Doctor Who” and “Neighbours”, which is why we got on so well. It came as a huge shock when Matt took his own life. Every life lost to suicide is one life too many, and I often reflect on what I could have done, or whether there is anything that I or others could have said, to prevent that happening. I wanted to reflect on that, pay tribute to Matt and mention him in this place.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who is no longer in her place, mentioned social media. It is fair to say that social media has its part to play, and it is important to reflect on some of its dangers. Only recently, I spoke about the dangers of the glorification of drug taking on social media. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the terrible videos about how to take your own life, which is absolutely awful—I am as shocked as he is about that. There is also a place for social media to be part of the solution, and I hope the Government will consider that when we look at a public health campaign on the stigma of suicide and talking about suicide.
I also pay tribute to groups in my constituency. We have talked a lot about farming, so I want to pay tribute to YANA—You Are Not Alone—which is a farming charity that offers mental health support and is based partly in my constituency. I pay tribute to Harlow men’s shed, Hatfield Heath men’s shed, Mind in West Essex and the Young Concern Trust, which provides counselling for young people. I declare an interest because I am one of the trustees there. I also pay tribute to Butterfly Effect Wellbeing, Roots to Wellbeing and many more. There are so many good people in my constituency and across other constituencies who want to support people suffering from mental ill health. I pay tribute to what they do. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, it is incredibly powerful when people who have suffered such devastation —we have one such person in the audience today—turn that into a force for good, so I thank them for that.
The Labour Government have committed to recruiting 8,500 extra mental health professionals, improved infrastructure and improved training. Will the Minister talk more about that and about the substantive point, which is ending the stigma of talking about suicide and potential suicide thoughts? Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park again for securing this important debate. I hope the honesty with which Members on both sides of the House have spoken will help to challenge that stigma, and I hope we can continue to do more.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this hugely important debate. I thank all the Members who have spoken today, especially the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who was vulnerable and honest, which can be difficult in a public forum. His example will help a lot of people to understand that no matter what job we do and how much support we have around us, people still have these kinds of thoughts.
Many people know that I was involved in a mental health charity that offers support to the veterinary profession. Vets have a suicide rate about four times the national average. It is a tiny profession, so everyone knows everyone, and everyone has lost friends and colleagues to suicide. Vets have challenges similar to farmers, another demographic who we know struggle quite a lot.
I pay tribute to Mr Pirie for being here today. The most difficult and emotional conversations that I have had since becoming an MP have been with parents who have lost children to suicide and wives who have lost husbands. Amid the frustration and anger that they all experience, they feel that if they had just known how much someone was struggling they could have done more to support them. Even worse are the cases where someone was actively trying to access support, but did not get the right type of support at the right time and so fell through the net.
I think about my own friends, Sarah Brown and David Bartram, two vets who were also trustees of a veterinary mental health charity. When we lose people, it is important that the memory of their life is not defined by how they died. Sarah was one of the funniest people I have ever met. She never missed a night out. David was an ultramarathon runner and one of the best speakers I have ever seen giving lectures. He was a hugely engaging person. It is a real shame that people get remembered for the way they died and not the positive contribution and the fun and happiness that they brought when they were here.
As a mental health spokesperson, I get really concerned when I hear people from other political parties, specifically Reform, belittling mental health issues and saying that it is the new back problem, it is over-diagnosed or people should man up. Are they seriously saying that farmers, who are some of the toughest people we could ever meet, working all hours in all weathers and earning a living in the hardest way possible, and veterans, who have experienced situations that most of us can only ever imagine, are a bunch of snowflakes who need to man up and toughen up? Mental health is a real problem that can affect even the hardest people on the planet, and no one is immune to those sorts of challenge.
Other Members have talked about 2023 having the highest rate of suicide for 25 years. That rate, thankfully, is slightly declining. It is interesting that the World Health Organisation states that depression is the No. 1 global disease. It affects people in all countries; it is a very prevalent issue. We are much better than we used to be at talking about depression and mental health issues, but suicide is the one aspect of such issues that still carries a lot of stigma. People still do not want to talk about suicidal thoughts, or sometimes there is shame in having a relative who died from suicide. It is not talked about as openly as it could be.
I thank the Minister for his diligent work over the last year on the Mental Health Bill. We have all worked closely on that, including the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). It is fantastic work and I know the Minister cares very much about this issue. I also welcome the £3.6 million over three years provided under the men’s health strategy specifically for suicide prevention, although I am concerned that it is very much less than the previous £10 million-a-year suicide prevention grant fund for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. How will the £3.6 million be targeted? Will there be scope to support in other ways the many organisations and charities, such as the Samaritans, that have contacted me to say that the grant is a significant part of their funding to deliver their services to help prevent suicide?
There are so many amazing community groups all over the country. I meet some quite regularly. The Farming Community Network, the Bishop’s Waltham men’s breakfast, the men’s sheds that are everywhere—we have one in Alresford and one in Hambledon—and Winchester Youth Counselling do brilliant work bringing people together. We must do everything we can to keep those organisations viable, running and thriving. It is so much more economic if people are prevented from heading down the route of depression, with a good social network and a lot of community support, than if they end up needing to engage with clinical services.
I also thank all those on the frontline: the clinical staff, the nurses, the counsellors and the carers caring for people who are struggling with mental health issues. The mental health of carers is another huge issue.
Dr Chambers
I will—the hon. Gentleman caught me two seconds before I finished.
Chris Vince
I apologise for that; it happens to me a lot as well. The hon. Gentleman mentioned carers. That is particularly important because tomorrow is Carers Rights Day. I worked for a charity that supports young carers and we have seen an increase in the number of young carers supporting people with mental health issues. There should be recognition of carers, including young carers, so I thank him for mentioning them.
Dr Chambers
I thank the hon. Member for intervening just in time. I reiterate how pleased we were that the Minister looked at the amendments to identify children of mental health patients. Sometimes those children are essentially carers as well, and it is really important that we know they exist and that they get the support they need.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I want to start by finishing where I left off in the main Chamber in the debate during Suicide Prevention Month. I talked about a TikTok meme that was going around about where men go, and who they turn to, when they are at their lowest. The answers in that video are all “no one”: “No one cares”; “There’s no one”; “It’ll be used against me.” I want to speak to the people in that video, because after I mentioned it, I received literally hundreds of messages, first to thank me for raising it, secondly to thank me for raging, because people are not listening, and thirdly to say, “Well, people don’t care.” Actually, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the Members from across the parties in the Chamber today do care.
This is an ongoing conversation that we are having, and action has been taken by previous Governments and is being taken by this Government. We must get out the message that things are happening and that people are talking about it and are interested in it. This is being looked at and discussed at the highest possible level to bring in changes to make the world a little bit better. It is thanks to the pressure that we apply in this place that such changes are made, and I think it is important to get that on the record.
When it comes to men’s health, I am very keen to point out that this is not an “or” issue—it is not about women or men, but about women and men. That is particularly the case for mental health and mental wellbeing because woman partners often spot the issue first. Women are the advocates we all need when we are having this discussion, and it is important to make sure that is on the record too. The last Government brought forward the women’s health strategy, and we now have an allied men’s health strategy. They are not in competition, but work in conjunction, which I think is important.
I followed up September’s debate on suicide prevention with a letter to the Ministers to raise a few points, and I think it would be prudent for me to use my time to press them home a bit further. The first point was about the £10 million suicide prevention grant fund, which was brought in to deliver specific support for 79 organisations between August 2023 and March 2025. The fund has now run out, and after that was raised, the Minister for Care responded in answer to a written question:
“There are currently no plans to run another grant fund.”
However, in April he followed up by saying:
“We will be evaluating the impact of the fund, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. Learning from this evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”
In my letter, I asked whether we could have
“some details on the basis behind this decision”
as well as
“what alternate provision…is being provided”
and when we would hear about the evaluation. I was lucky enough to get a response on 13 November from the Minister in the other place who has responsibility for mental health. She addressed that point, but she simply said:
“As previously stated, the Department is evaluating the impact of the Suicide Prevention Grant Fund from 2023 to 2025, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. The evaluation will be completed in due course and learnings from that evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”
That is welcome news, but we have now gone from April to November, and I would like to understand when the evaluation will come, because it will be imperative in deciding how we take forward these services.
In that light, I welcome the men’s health strategy, particularly its emphasis on suicide. However, as my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), pointed out, the £10 million over two years seems to dwarf the £3.6 million across three years. That is a concern for the Opposition, especially when we look at how it is likely to be delivered, which is through the charity sector, as the national insurance changes have already taken a massive toll. For example, Mind has said that that tax increase will cost it £250,000, so its £1 million across a year suddenly starts to be whittled away. I am keen to understand how the Government will square that circle.
That leads me to my last point, which we have raised in the House before—I have certainly raised it both with the last Government and now with this one—on the issue of representation for men and boys. Before the election, the last Government were looking at having a men’s health ambassador. In my letter, I asked whether any consideration was being given to bringing in such an ambassador or about having a Minister for men and boys. I am open to suggestions about how that could work or would not work, but it strikes me that in the current climate, we have a Minister for Women, but not one for men and boys.
That leads me full circle back to where I started, which is that this is not an “or” issue, but an “and” issue. If we believe that women consult differently on their health, by definition men must do so too, so we need different pathways. The strategy is a good stepping stone from the Government, and I welcome it, but I just hope they use it as a springboard, rather than simply as a plank across a river.
We have talked a lot about the stigma, which is probably the most important thing, and heard a lot about how it is important to talk, but if we think about what the people in that TikTok video are really saying when they talk about how they feel there is no one, we as a society and this House have to not only listen, but show that we care, we have to make people believe that we care, and we have to follow that up with actions to allow people, in particular men, to get the help they need to help themselves. That is really important.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on such a vital topic. I pay tribute to her constituent Philip Pirie, who has been such a strong advocate on this issue. His campaigning and advocacy has absolutely helped us to shape where we are today.
I am also very grateful to other hon. Members for their valuable and profoundly moving and honest contributions. We heard many examples, some very high profile and in many cases household names, such as Ricky Hatton and Gary Speed, and others heroes from people’s local communities. Their heroic families have done so much to reach out and campaign on these issues. I knew Hefin David very well. The tragedy of Hefin is impossible to put into words, but my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) really did pay a fitting tribute to him. and I am sure his family greatly appreciate that.
Every suicide is a profound tragedy, leaving families, friends and communities devastated. As we work to improve prevention and support, we must also confront the stigma that too often stops people seeking help, speaking openly or being met with understanding. That is why we are committed to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England, which aims to address the risk factors contributing to suicide and ensure fewer lives are lost to suicide, as well as working across Government to improve support for those who have self-harmed or who are bereaved by suicide.
Our manifesto committed to a renewed focus on preventing suicides, as one of the biggest killers in this country. Poor mental health is one of the strongest risk factors for suicide, but we know that suicide is complex and that there are a range of other influencing factors outside the mental health system that we also need to address, including those identified in our suicide prevention strategy: financial difficulty and economic adversity, substance misuse, harmful gambling, domestic abuse, physical illness, and social isolation and loneliness. These are complex pressures, and we are working across Government and beyond to better understand them and deliver on our commitment to tackle them.
Beyond the risk factors and priority groups, one of the key visions of the suicide prevention strategy is to reduce the stigma surrounding suicide and mental health, so that people feel able to seek help, including through the routes that work best for them. That includes raising awareness that suicide is not inevitable. Around a quarter of people who take their own life are in contact with mental health services. Through the delivery of the 10-year health plan, we will transform the mental health system to ensure that people are accessing the right support at the right time.
Nearly three quarters of people who take their own life are not in contact with NHS mental health services, but many are in contact with wider services. We will ensure that our delivery of the 10-year health plan, which focuses on intervening early so that people can access high quality and compassionate support at an earlier stage, also considers how we can support those at risk of suicide when they are not in contact with those services. Our cross-Government approach to suicide prevention will help us to make the most of key interaction points both within and outside public services and address risk factors for suicide for everyone, not just those in contact with the NHS.
Steady progress has been made through joint working with our colleagues in the NHS, the voluntary sector and academia and with a wide range of other partners, all of whom play a key, crucial and valuable role in prevention, early intervention and support.
John Slinger
On the point about the various organisations, governmental or otherwise, that are involved, will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of Rugby borough council, which has partnered with the charity I mentioned earlier, Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, to put plaques on benches across the council’s parks? These support plaques state:
“There’s no need to sit alone.”
They also encourage local businesses to sponsor them, which is a really good example of how the private sector, local government and the charitable sector can work together to make sure more men can gain access to support—not necessarily by calling a phone line, but just when they are in the park.
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Rugby borough council. That sounds like an excellent initiative that we should explore in other parts of the country, if that is suitable. He is right that there is almost an ecosystem of different groups now. In my constituency we have the Men’s Shed and a fantastic walking group for men called Mal’s Marauders, which does fantastic work. That is great to see, and I am a huge fan and supporter of what it does and stands for.
A lot of this is about having that organic development at the grassroots, because that is where it is best placed; it is not always for the Government or the authorities to come in—in some ways, that might not be appropriate. We should do whatever we can to encourage these things, and our £3.6 million programme and our £3 million programme are absolutely about being co-designed with these groups; they are not a top-down process at all, but something that should be organic and from the bottom up.
It is important to highlight the fact that this debate falls on Wednesday 19 November, which is both International Men’s Day and the day when we are launching the first ever men’s health strategy for England. Despite huge progress over the past century, men still live too much of their lives in poor health and die too young. Our vision for the strategy is simple yet ambitious: to improve the health of all men and boys in England. The strategy includes tangible actions to improve access to healthcare; provide the right support to enable men to make healthier choices; develop healthy living and working conditions; foster strong social, community and family networks; address societal norms; and tackle health challenges and conditions. By addressing the broader barriers that prevent men from accessing support, including the stigma surrounding mental health and suicide, we can take meaningful steps towards reducing avoidable deaths and ensuring that every man feels able to seek help when he needs it most.
Today, through the men’s health strategy, we are launching a groundbreaking partnership with the Premier League to tackle male suicide and improve health literacy, building on the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide campaign.
Chris Evans
Like me, the Minister represents a rugby stronghold and he will know of instances of ex-sports players committing suicide. We have already spoken about some high-profile cases, including Gary Speed and Ricky Hatton, but there are others who stop playing at lower levels and then develop feelings of isolation and lack of identity. When the Minister speaks to the Premier League and other sporting institutions, will he ensure that ex-sportsmen have the necessary support once they retire from the game?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right. I do not know whether there is a connection, but it is possible that some of the perhaps more macho attitudes in some sporting environments are connected to the difficulties that some men—particularly men in those environments—have in reaching out, talking and being honest and open about their feelings. There may well be a connection. However, I hope that other sporting federations—the Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union or whichever sporting association it might be—will look at what the Premier League is doing, and that we will perhaps see a blossoming of these initiatives across other sports and sporting disciplines.
The Premier League’s reach is unmatched. The partnership will engage men who are less likely to seek help and more likely to suffer in silence, meeting them in spaces that they trust, rather than waiting for them to access traditional health services.
Dr Luke Evans
It is great to hear about the Together Against Suicide partnership with the Premier League, but will the Minister explain how it works? Having looked at the details, it appears to be run in conjunction with the Samaritans. Is extra funding coming from the Premier League or from the Government to run the scheme? If the Samaritans provide the signposting, how are they being supported? In essence, it looks like an area to people together. Is that correct?
Stephen Kinnock
There are 11 premier league clubs that have signed up so far. The most visual way in which the partnership will manifest itself is through the advertising hoardings, which will be given over for periods of the game to advertise our Every Mind Matters campaign. That will offer talking therapies and an online mental health tool that we have developed. Anybody in the stadium—often there are 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 spectators—can see that information flashing up. In some stadiums, there will also be mental health experts—wearing visible materials to show who they are and what they do—who people can come and talk to. The scheme is quite devolved, so each club will do things in a slightly different way. The Premier League is covering all the costs, so this is an entirely Premier League-funded partnership, with us providing the content, the steering and the opportunity to engage with the programmes, and the clubs are looking after the rest.
Chris Vince
That is a really exciting initiative. Is there scope for it to be extended beyond premier league clubs to lower-league clubs, down to Harlow Town? If it is successful, will the Minister talk to the English Football Association about lower-league clubs taking part?
Stephen Kinnock
Absolutely—we believe the sky is the limit. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, we are clear that we see this as the first step. Clearly, premier league clubs are high profile, so hopefully people will look at the partnership, learn from it and say, “Yes, that is something that we can do.” Fingers crossed that it takes off.
As part of the men’s health strategy launch, we also announced the suicide prevention support pathfinders programme for middle-aged men. The programme will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide. It will support new ways of embedding effective, tailored support for middle-aged men and create clearer, more joined-up pathways into existing local suicide prevention systems. For over a decade, middle-aged men have faced the highest suicide rates of any age group. They account for around a quarter of all deaths by suicide in England. That is a shocking statistic, and it is why middle-aged men are identified as a priority group in the suicide prevention strategy for England.
It is important that we do not simplify the picture. The national confidential inquiry into suicide and safety in mental health found that of men aged 40 to 54 who died by suicide, 67% had been in contact with health and partner agencies in the three months before they took their own life, and 43% had been in contact with primary care services in the three months before they died. That tells us something vital: a significant proportion of men do reach out, presenting an opportunity to make the most of every interaction with men who may be at risk of suicide. Our responsibility as a Government is to ensure that when men take that step, the services they encounter are accessible, joined up and genuinely equipped to meet their needs. That is what the pathfinders programme will do.
By improving engagement with healthcare and improving access to the right support, we can begin to dismantle the stigma that continues to cost too many men their lives. In April this year, NHS England published its “Staying safe from suicide” guidance, which strengthens the approach to suicide prevention across mental health settings. It promotes a holistic, person-centred approach, rather than using stratification tools to determine risk. The guidance directly aligns with the aim of our suicide prevention strategy and reflects our commitment to continually improving mental health services, particularly by identifying risk assessment as an area where we must go further.
The implementation of the guidance has been supported by a new NHS England e-learning module, which launched in September, to help ensure that staff across services are confident and equipped to apply the guidance in practice. The NHS medium-term planning framework, published last month, states that in 2026-27, integrated care boards must
“ensure that mental health practitioners across all providers”
undertake the e-learning
“and deliver care in line with the Staying safe from suicide guidance.”
The Minister with responsibility for women’s health and mental health, who sits in the other place, wrote directly to crucial stakeholders across the sector—including the chief coroner, the Charity Commission, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, and the British Psychological Society—to promote the guidance and the e-learning module, and I am pleased to say that the response has been overwhelmingly positive. By way of example, the Charity Commission circulated information about the e-learning to around 5,000 charities involved in suicide prevention or mental health support—an encouraging demonstration of the sector’s commitment to improving safety and support for those at risk.
More widely, we are improving mental health services so that people are met with the right support. We recognise that expanding and equipping the workforce will take time, but I am pleased to say that we have hired almost 7,000 extra mental health workers since July 2024. Mental health remains a core priority for the NHS. That is why we are investing £688 million to transform services, including £26 million to support people in mental health crisis.
As part of the 10-year health plan’s commitment to transforming how the whole health and care system works, we are introducing neighbourhood mental health care for adults, which will bring community, crisis and in-patient care together in a single, seamless offer. Six neighbourhood mental health centres are already operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, offering open-access support to anyone who needs it. Co-delivered with primary care, the voluntary and faith sectors, and local specialist services, the centres make it easier for people to seek help in their own communities, without judgment or barriers.
Stephen Kinnock
I am very tight on time, but I will give way briefly before wrapping up.
Sojan Joseph
A recent study shows that many people are reaching out to artificial intelligence chatbots to seek mental health support. The Government are putting so many new initiatives in place; does the Minister agree that we need to publicise them more, so that people do not seek incorrect information from AI chatbots?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree. This is a human challenge, and humans need to take it on. That is what we will do. There is nothing more human that going to a premier league football match, so I hope that that will be a good way of raising awareness, just as my hon. Friend says.
As we reflect on the lives lost and the families forever changed, we reaffirm our commitment to tackling stigma, improving support and ensuring that everyone feels able to speak up, ask for help and be heard. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park again for raising this crucial issue.
Sarah Olney
May I say what a privilege it has been to have this debate today, not least because it has given me an opportunity to highlight the work of my friend and constituent Philip Pirie? It has been a wonderful tribute both to his hard work and to the memory of his son, Tom.
It has also been a privilege to hear the contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber. I particularly want to thank the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for sharing their personal experiences, which provided a moving context to the debate.
It was great to hear about various initiatives from the Minister, not least because Mr Pirie has directly contributed to some of them, but I reiterate my call for a public health campaign. Particular groups are at risk. The farming community has been mentioned a number of times, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Horsham (John Milne). The hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) mentioned young people in schools and universities, and other hon. Members mentioned gambling and drug addiction. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned social media, and we know that veterans and carers are also at risk. Many hon. Members made the point that so many people are not in touch with mental health services when they commit suicide. That is why we need a public health campaign to reach much more widely.
I thank all the hon. Members who contributed today with examples of successful community initiatives, which the Minister might want to look to when he is planning a public health campaign. My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Steve Darling) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and the hon. Members for Maidstone and Malling, for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), for Caerphilly, for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Harlow all talked about amazing things going on in their communities.
Finally, I want quickly to mention the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), among other hon. Members. MPs are such great advocates for mental health in their communities, and we should all take that forward.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Access to Healthcare: Bracknell Forest
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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 Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to healthcare in Bracknell Forest.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for her engagement on this important issue.
As local MPs, we all hear on the doorstep and at our coffee mornings about the importance of the ability to access timely, good-quality and local healthcare, and the impact not just on individuals, but on our communities more broadly, when the standard is not met. What those who work in our health and social care system do day in, day out touches all our lives and families. I thank those in Bracknell Forest and across the country who work in our NHS and wider health and care system for everything they do. I must declare an interest: my brother and sister-in-law are both NHS doctors.
These are challenging times for the NHS. Chronic under-resourcing after 14 years of Conservative austerity has left too many unable to access the care they need and has prevented the system from evolving to reflect the needs of today’s Britain. But although the NHS may be down, it is not out. While other parties threaten the very principle of the NHS—that care should be available to everyone and free at the point of use—the Government are investing in the NHS and putting in place the reforms we need. We have already seen those efforts bearing fruit, with the first cuts to waiting lists in 15 years, the recruitment of 2,500 more GPs and the creation of 5 million extra appointments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to underline the issue of GPs. Does he agree that access to healthcare must begin with access to the local GP surgery, and that the Government must prioritise training and retraining GPs to ensure that people can access their GP and do not head straight to emergency care at the local hospital when it is not necessary? GPs first—then, everybody else can do better.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member predicts where I am going with my speech. I am sure that the issues in Bracknell Forest are similar to those in Northern Ireland. As I will say, it is important that we have seen changes in the way GPs operate in England.
The 10-year health plan for England represents a once-in-a-generation chance to reform and rebuild the health system. It is underpinned by the three radical shifts of hospital to community, analogue to digital and sickness to prevention. In Bracknell Forest, we have already seen the Government’s commitment to moving healthcare to the community through the announcement of funding for the Frimley Park hospital rebuild, which was promised under the last Government but never funded, despite unsafe reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete making up about 65% of the current building. The funding will go directly to help to deliver a hospital that is safe, modern and equipped to deal with the demands facing our healthcare system today.
I thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday, and on many other occasions, to discuss the rebuild, and for all the work that has gone into progressing the project behind the scenes, but as she knows I remain concerned that Frimley Health NHS foundation trust is still not in a position to announce the location of the new hospital, despite several deadlines already having been set and missed. I urge the trust to make that announcement as soon as practically possible, so that constituents can have the visibility and transparency they need on the delivery of those plans.
Bracknell Forest residents are determined that the new hospital addresses the existing issues with access to Frimley Park hospital, including insufficient parking, and that it should be as close as possible to the current site. Better access by public transport also needs to be baked into the design. Constituents also have concerns about the ongoing need to rebuild the Royal Berkshire hospital. I take this opportunity to reassure them that I am as keen as they are to see that delivered as soon as possible, and I will continue to push for it in this place.
As the 10-year plan sets out, the future of our NHS cannot be delivered just through hospitals. Care needs to be embedded in our communities, so I am delighted that Skimped Hill health centre—or Bracknell Forest centre for health, as I believe it will officially be known—is now in the final build stages. Once completed, the centre will bring together in one place several services in the centre of Bracknell, including two GP practices, maternity services and children’s services, rooting healthcare in the community and breaking down the bureaucratic barriers to access both for patients and for service providers.
A key element of the shift from hospital to community is ensuring that all health spaces are used to their full potential. Brants Bridge in Bracknell spans both Frimley and Berkshire healthcare trusts and offers a range of services, including X-rays, urgent care, dialysis and chemotherapy. However, constituents regularly tell me that they struggle to access the space, or are turned away and directed to A&E for arbitrary reasons. The centre is a resource with huge potential, but I fear we are not utilising it to its fullest. I would therefore welcome a review of the services offered by Brants Bridge, as well as of its accessibility, to better support the Government’s ambitions for community care.
As we build the homes of the future, it is important that we match them with the health infrastructure needed to support them. It is fantastic to see that with the new Skimped Hill health centre and, although it is not in my constituency, I will also mention the new Binfield health and community centre. But Bracknell Forest has a shortage of GPs, with 1,874 patients for every GP, so it is important that we keep developing primary healthcare provision to serve our growing population. We also have a mismatch between pharmacy need and provision, with some areas with the greatest need, such as Bullbrook, relying on just one pharmacy.
I recently met with both Forest Health primary care network and Health Triangle PCN, which includes Ringmead, to discuss patient access, the 10-year plan and the implementation of the new GP contracts. I was pleased to hear thar Ringmead has implemented a new booking system and, although not all patients have felt the benefits of that yet, it has been great to hear from many constituents that it has gone a long way to make accessing their local GP much easier. I stress, however, that we still have a way to go when it comes to ensuring that patients can access the right choice of appointment for their needs. For many, online appointments offer flexibility and convenience, but others want the reassurance of seeing their GP face to face.
In a local authority like Bracknell Forest it is also important to match healthcare provision to where people live, so that people are not forced to travel long distances to access their appointments. I have heard many residents share their frustrations at getting an appointment in Bracknell when they live in Sandhurst, and vice versa. Although I appreciate that that is sometimes unavoidable or about ensuring that healthcare can be accessed as quickly as possible, I would like more local appointments to be prioritised.
The aim in the 10-year plan to end the 8 am appointment rush resonates with many constituents who have, too many times, faced the stress of scrambling for an appointment while unwell and in need of treatment. I am pleased to see the Government delivering on that key ambition, but I am aware that the shift has come with operational challenges for primary healthcare providers when managing patients who book close to closing time. I know that healthcare professionals would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the teething issues can be addressed, so that the system works as well as possible for both patients and providers.
The Government’s ambition is rightly to raise the healthiest generation of children ever, and early intervention and community-focused care will play a crucial role in delivering that. As many colleagues know, I often speak about special educational needs and disabilities issues in this House, and with my constituents. SEND is not just an educational issue. Among many other things, it is a social issue, an equalities issue and, of course, a health issue. Across the country, children and adults wait far too long to access attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism assessments. The number of children waiting for an autism assessment is acknowledged to be high across all six Berkshire local authorities. In June 2025, there were 682 children aged between five and 18 in Bracknell Forest waiting for an assessment, and a further 241 adults were also waiting.
Berkshire healthcare NHS foundation trust has been overhauling its system to improve waiting times and deliver a better performance, and has recently been recognised as one of the top performing trusts in the country, but it will take time for the efforts of those reforms to be felt on the ground. The long waits involved mean that many are turning to private diagnosis, which risks creating a two-tier system in which those who can afford it receive a diagnosis and the support that follows and those who cannot are left to struggle. I fundamentally believe that young people should not need a diagnosis to access essential support. When parent carers, classroom teachers and the young person themselves can all see that there is need for more support, it should be made available, and the diagnosis can be worried about later.
As the Government develop their reforms to our broken SEND system, I want to see a shift away from a system that too often feels diagnosis-led, and towards one that is genuinely needs-led. Prioritising early intervention will enable quicker support and treatment and will improve young people’s quality of life and outcomes.
I recently hosted a series of roundtables with parent carers and practitioners to hear directly from my constituents what they want to see in a reformed SEND system, and I produced a report on their local concerns and perspectives. Many of those who contributed highlighted a need for joined-up, holistic working across agencies and service providers. Nationally, there is a chronic shortage of trained speech and language therapists and occupational therapists in our schools. That has deep and long-lasting consequences, locking young people out of fully accessing their education and preventing them from reaching their full potential. I urge the Government to recognise the importance of increasing recruitment and retention in those critical roles.
I also heard that it too often felt like health services were walking off the pitch and leaving everything to schools and the local authority. Although I recognise the importance of an education-led approach to reforms, local health services, including integrated health boards, need to be held accountable for the parts of the system they are responsible for.
I was delighted to welcome the SEND Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), to Bracknell last week to discuss these issues further and to share the voices of the parents, carers, professionals and young people whose experiences informed my report. Again, I thank those who contributed. I am pleased to have the chance to raise the issue in this health debate too.
I recently attended a dementia forum, hosted by Bracknell Forest council, which brought together dementia patients, their families and carers, healthcare professionals and social workers. It was fantastic to hear how a joined-up approach to offering health and social care was having a positive effect on outcomes for those living with dementia and their loved ones. I was also delighted recently to meet our local Admiral nurse, who works with patients experiencing early onset dementia and is supported by Dementia UK. I heard how important it is for the whole team of support around a person with early onset dementia to have access to their health record, enabling a more holistic approach to care. That is a fantastic example of best practice, and it has had a profound impact on patients and their families across Bracknell Forest.
Such community provision is essential if we are to meet our goal of developing a genuinely neighbourhood-led health service. There is much that the voluntary sector can contribute. For example, local mental health services are profoundly stretched, and young people face long waits for support through child and adolescent mental health services. In Bracknell, I am proud that we have excellent local organisations such as Youthline, which was just awarded a King’s award, and Create Hope, which works closely with schools to deliver counselling for young people. I would like them to be supported more by the health system, including through commissioning. Young people across the country face unprecedented challenges, and community organisations play a vital role in advancing a preventive approach to the development of longer-term mental health problems and providing the support on the ground that young people desperately need.
A healthcare system fit for the future must embrace the technological age we live in, and the Government’s ambition to shift the NHS from analogue to digital is commendable. The lack of reliable information-sharing across services is a familiar barrier for both patients and professionals in accessing and delivering the best healthcare, so I am strongly in favour of the Government’s work on the single patient record, which is currently in a test phase. It will play a key role in our 10-year health plan.
The single patient record will lower barriers to access by ensuring that healthcare professionals have a clear, unified view of patient health records, thereby enabling a safer, faster and more co-ordinated approach across services and ensuring that both patients and healthcare providers can access the information they need as seamlessly as possible. That is particularly important in an area like Bracknell, which benefits from services delivered by both the Frimley and the Royal Berkshire NHS trusts—we get the best of both systems.
When patients walk into a health centre, GP clinic or hospital, they do not want to have to think about which ICB or trust is providing the service and whether their data can be shared with the other parts of the health system that they access. They just want to be treated, and to know that every part of the system will understand the treatment they have received. Instead, I often hear residents in Bracknell Forest complaining that their blood test at the local hospital has not been shared with their local GP, or that the care provided by Bracknell Forest council does not speak to the care they access through the NHS. Will the Minister provide an update on the progress towards a single patient record, and set out what it will mean for my constituents in Bracknell who rely on overlapping health systems?
Building a health system fit for today’s needs is a challenge, but one that I know the Government are determined to embrace. I recognise and welcome the progress that has already been made, and I urge the Minister to continue in the spirit of innovation and ambition to drive forward critical changes. We must ensure that flexibility, early intervention and a community-first approach are placed at the heart of our reforms, and that barriers to access are considered carefully so that no community is left behind. I hope the Minister can take these concerns back to the Department to ensure that they are fed into the Government’s plans to rebuild our health system, and that Bracknell Forest’s voice is heard loudly as the ambitious work continues to build an NHS fit for the future.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) on securing this important debate. He has made absolutely sure that the voice of Bracknell Forest is heard loud and clear, both here and at the Department of Health and Social Care. We know that the NHS faces pressure all over the country, including in Bracknell Forest and the south-east of England. I also thank his brother and sister-in-law for their work to ensure that people get a good service.
Our 10-year health plan is a plan to fix the issues, with the three shifts improving access to healthcare for everyone, no matter where they live or how much they earn. We are seeing improvements, with 5 million more elective appointments, 135,000 more cancer diagnoses within the 28-day target, and waiting lists cut by more than 230,000 since we came into office. Ambulance response times are down, including in Bracknell Forest, which has seen significant improvements in category 2 response times compared with last year. Twelve-hour waits in A&E are also down nationally and there are 2,500 more GPs. Over 100 community diagnostic centres have been opened at weekends and evenings, and new surgical hubs are helping to tackle the backlog.
Let me turn to the important local issues that my hon. Friend raised. First, on RAAC, the safety of our patients and staff will always come first, which is why we continue working to eradicate RAAC across the NHS estate, backed by £440 million this year. It is because of that investment that we can continue to invest in crucial RAAC mitigation safety work at Frimley Park hospital. However, our investment in local hospitals goes significantly further, with a new Frimley Park hospital being planned. Since he became a Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend has been very assiduous and active in meeting me and those in the Government talk about this issue. I know he has been working closely with local leaders as well; I was able to meet them in advance of this debate, to understand their position.
I am pleased to say that that work is progressing and remains on track against the timeline set out in the new hospital programme plan for implementation, with construction expected to commence between 2028 and 2029. I also assure my hon. Friend, other local Members and the public that we are working closely with the Frimley Park trust on the location of the new hospital. I know that he appreciates that we are currently in a commercially sensitive phase of the process, but the trust expects to be able to provide further updates soon. My hon. Friend’s constituents will also have an interest in the Royal Berkshire hospital, so let me be clear that we remain firmly committed to its delivery in wave 3 of the programme.
My hon. Friend raised special educational needs, and I know from my constituency that this affects Members across the House. I acknowledge the concerns about SEND support in Bracknell Forest, and I welcome the urgent local plans that are in place to address the issue in the region. It is right that my hon. Friend met the SEND Minister. At the national level, the Government are determined to deliver meaningful reform that stands the test of time, rebuilds the confidence of families with lived experience and puts partnerships at the heart of our solutions.
Furthermore, our 10-year health plan sets out the core principle of early intervention and support—including without the need for diagnosis—for children and young people with SEND. We are also accelerating the roll-out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges to reach full national coverage by the end of this Parliament. Going further, the first 50 young futures hubs will bring together services to support children and young people with early access advice and wellbeing intervention.
The Government recognise the pressures on elective care. That is why we are delivering millions of additional appointments and reducing waiting lists up and down the country, and the local picture is promising. I am pleased to report that, since July 2024, Frimley’s acute trust has lowered its referral-to-treatment waiting lists by over 17,000 and more than halved the number of patients waiting for over a year. Local people will welcome that, but there is much more to be done. It is a vital first step in improving those services.
Community health services also play a critical role in reducing pressures across the system; my hon. Friend made that point and paid tribute to the Admiral nurse and the role of Dementia UK in his constituency. We are working closely with NHS England to improve access to community health services, including in Bracknell Forest, helping to deliver our shift from the hospital to the community. That is important work with the voluntary and community sector, and those third sector organisations are crucial to that. We are seeing tangible results. My hon. Friend talked about the multimillion-pound Skimped Hill development in the town centre, opening in February 2026. That will see new community health services, including maternity services and a new GP practice serving the people of Bracknell Forest. It is a real trailblazer for the sorts of thing that we expect in neighbourhood health services, so well done to all those making that happen for local people.
My hon. Friend mentioned pharmacies, which are an absolutely integral part of the community. That is why in 2025 and 2026 we have increased funding for the core community pharmacy contractual framework to more than £3 billion, representing the largest uplift in funding of any part of the NHS at that time.
Improvements to primary care do not stop there. I am pleased to report that we are investing over £1 billion extra into GP services, including in the primary care workforce and funding for infrastructure improvements, ensuring that places such as Bracknell Forest get the resources and GPs they need. The local picture relating to access to GPs is strong, with more than 90% of people in Bracknell seeing a GP within 14 days of requesting an appointment. That figure is reinforced by the positive feedback that practices are receiving from their patients. The opportunity to request appointments online, which has been available since 1 October, is also helping with that 8 am scramble; I was able to take advantage of that myself in my own patch. That online access is a real benefit for local people. If there are any particular local issues—as I know there are—it is the role of the ICB to work with local practices to make sure that those are resolved, which is what local people expect.
As a result of these broad national and local efforts, over 10 million more appointments have been delivered in England this year compared with last year. Dentistry is an issue across all our constituencies and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. We are recruiting more dentists in the areas that need them most to improve the oral health of children and to deliver additional dental appointments in places such as Bracknell Forest, where I am pleased to report that an additional 3,300 appointments have been commissioned across 2025 and 2026. All of that will deliver better dental care for everyone in England, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
I welcome and share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the single patient record. A key thing that came out of our consultation on the 10-year plan was the desire of patients not to have continually to repeat their story and the desire of clinicians to be able to see more of the patient’s record. If staff providing care can see a single, accurate and up-to-date record that draws together the key information from different services, wherever that is needed, that will deliver significant benefits not just for my hon. Friend’s constituents, but for everyone in England, not least in the time and effort saved and the greater accuracy and appropriateness of treatment. We are currently building three proofs of concept to test the different technical ways that we might deliver the single patient record and to prove a clear pathway to taking that forward. I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend on that.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to Parliament on behalf of his constituents. It is hard to cover everything that affects local people, but I think we have done a pretty good job. I hope that my response shows that the Government are seriously committed to addressing the important issues that he raised on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that we are embracing that challenge. We are determined to deliver innovation, and we have the ambition to make the health service fit for the future. That is the manifesto commitment that he and I were elected on, and that is what the Government are absolutely determined to do. I look forward to working further on making these services better for the people of Bracknell Forest.
Question put and agreed to.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. Myalgic encephalomyelitis is a complex, chronic condition affecting multiple body systems. There is currently no cure or established treatment. The symptoms of ME go far beyond chronic fatigue or being very tired; the sickest patients lie alone in darkened rooms, sometimes unable to move or to speak—or, in the very worst cases, to swallow or to digest food. Even at the mildest end of this condition, people with ME who once had lives, hopes and dreams for the future live a shadow of their former lives.
More than five years on from the start of the covid pandemic, it is timely to note how the numbers affected have increased. Approximately half of those with long covid go on to meet the diagnostic criteria for ME, so it is now estimated that 1.35 million people live with ME or ME-like symptoms. That includes healthcare workers, teachers and other key workers who kept our country running at the height of the pandemic. Add in carers, and even more are directly affected.
Importantly, there is a gendered dimension, with women five times more likely than men to develop ME. Despite the devastating toll of the condition, people with ME have endured decades of substandard and sometimes downright unsafe healthcare, with pitifully little funding for research. In spite of the lack of robust evidence to this effect, ME is treated as though the condition is psychiatric.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for securing this important debate. According to at least one survey, about 66% of sufferers require some form of social care and, as is the case for some of my constituents, it is their own families who put their life on hold to provide that care. Will my hon. Friend join me in stating that this is just one example of how the Government must address social care if they are going to get health and social care right?
Tessa Munt
I could not agree more. For far too long, patients have been dismissed, and that care element is incredibly important, because it affects so many people.
In July, the Department of Health and Social Care published the final delivery plan for ME, a cross-Government strategy aiming to improve attitudes, bolster research and better lives. It included some positive steps: new small grants for research into repurposed medications, and the development of a new service specification for mild and moderate ME. However, overall, the consensus of the charities and patient advocates I have spoken to is clear: the delivery plan falls far short of what was needed.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about plans in England, because in my constituency we were privileged to have an incredible ME specialist nurse, Keith Anderson, who helped countless people. Sadly, he passed away two years ago, and since then there has been no specialist support in Fife—indeed, there is no specialist ME doctor or nurse in the whole of Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things any plan needs to consider is training, so that, no matter where someone is in the country, they can get access to a specialist?
Tessa Munt
I agree. In fact, we do not just need specialists; we also need training for GPs and other healthcare workers.
I will highlight four areas in which we need to see much more from the Government going forward. Given the gravity of the situation, I would appreciate it if the Minister could arrange for written responses to a number of my points.
The first area is funding. If the delivery plan felt threadbare, that is because no substantive new funding was attached to it. Before the plan was published, all 72 Lib Dem MPs signed a letter expressing our concerns about the anticipated lack of funding, which of course came to pass. To put it bluntly, what patients need is transformed NHS care and a step change in research. Neither is likely to happen without investing some money.
The case for investment is clear. I urge the Minister to see this not as a sunk cost, but as an investment in a group of people who are desperate to contribute to society. We know that one in five working-age adults are out of the workforce, many because of health problems, yet remarkably there was no modelling of the demography of those living with ME for the delivery plan exercise, and neither the Department of Health and Social Care nor the Department for Work and Pensions has an estimate of what the neglect of people with ME is costing our economy.
I would like to look at some of the figures. The most recent estimate of the economic impact of ME was for 2014-15—10 years ago—and was carried out by 20/20health. The cost was then calculated at £3.3 billion annually, based on only 260,000 people living with ME. With many more affected following the pandemic and a decade of inflation, that cost will now be much higher. Even the most conservative estimate of current numbers living with ME, excluding cases linked to long covid, puts them at 404,000 patients. Does the Minister accept, using that conservative estimate and adjusting for inflation, the annual economic impact of ME today is likely to be at least £7 billion? If those living with ME-like symptoms following covid are included, we could be approaching an annual cost of £20 billion. Surely it is time for the Government properly to cost the impact of a condition that affects so many, rather than brush it under the carpet, and to invest accordingly.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong case. She will be aware that there is still significant uncertainty among many clinicians as to whether this should be treated a medical rather than a psychological condition. Does she agree that, because of the gravity and extent of cases around the country, it is important that medical services are supported to deal with those patients and their symptoms?
Tessa Munt
I accept my hon. Friend’s point. Most people I speak to say that ME has nothing to do with psychiatry. We now have evidence from Edinburgh, which I will go on to in a moment, to explain exactly why that is the case.
Our counterparts in Germany have grasped the importance and scale of the challenge. Just last week, the German Government announced a national decade against post-infectious diseases, with a particular focus on ME and long covid. In Germany, an estimated 1.5 million people are living with ME or long covid. The German Government have rightly recognised post-infectious diseases such as ME as one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. Last week, they committed €500 million—around £440 million—over the next decade into research to understand the causes of post-infectious diseases and to develop treatments.
Will the Minister confirm whether Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have discussed that recent funding announcement and the logic behind it? I would love nothing more than to see the UK Government come up with a comparable level of commitment—or will the Government wait a decade for the German Government’s conclusions before taking action?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward. In Northern Ireland, the figures for ME have unfortunately risen from 7,500 to 12,500 in the past few years. We have no clinical lead, no specialist services and no commission care pathways. We need research. Queen’s University Belfast is really good with research partnerships. Does the hon. Lady agree we should spend the money on research and find the cure? It has been said that the cure for cancer will come in 10 years’ time. The cure for ME could come too if research money were put into it.
Tessa Munt
I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman. The second area where I would urge the Government to go further is support for people with severe and very severe ME. It is estimated that around one in four people with ME are severely affected. ME is perhaps the only condition where the sicker someone becomes, the less care they receive from the NHS. The recent prevention of future deaths report focused on the tragic case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill, describing NHS care for severe ME as “non-existent”.
In my work on this issue, I have collaborated closely with #ThereForME, a campaign founded by two women, Karen and Emma, who are carers to partners with very severe ME. It can be difficult to comprehend the depth of suffering that ME can bring in its most extreme forms. With his permission, Karen has shared details with me about of her husband James’s day-to-day life.
Before developing ME, James, in his 30s, lived a full life and was a civil servant. Today he is completely bed-bound and spends 99% of his day alone in a dark room, unable to tolerate any noise, light or stimulation. He is hardly able to communicate and is so sensitive to touch that, despite his suffering, his wife Karen is unable to give him a hug or hold his hand. Despite an acute level of need, James is receiving next to no care from the NHS. Karen tells me that her biggest fear is that he deteriorates to the point of needing lifesaving care. She cannot feel confident that the NHS will provide it.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an incredibly powerful speech. One of my constituents, an NHS nurse, suffers with ME. He cannot play with his children, walk his dog or undertake basic activities. When he went to the NHS, he got a referral, but was told that it would be nine months before he got an appointment, which forced him to consider private options. An NHS nurse is having to use private healthcare to get results—this situation is untenable, is it not?
Tessa Munt
It is not only untenable, but completely absurd. In September 2024, on World Patient Safety Day, over 200 healthcare workers were so concerned about NHS care for ME, and particularly care for severe and very severe ME, that they wrote a letter to the Health Secretary calling for immediate action to save lives. That letter was sent 14 months ago. I am sorry to say that very little has changed since, and they did not receive a response.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to quickly mention one of those 25% of people with ME who are severely affected: my constituent Alice. She cannot leave her room, and is scared to call for treatment in case she has to go into hospital: she has been into hospital twice, but people there are not sure how to treat her and they make it worse. I simply want to empathise on behalf of my constituents, one of whom is one of the very severe cases the hon. Lady is talking about.
Tessa Munt
Probably most of us have constituents in exactly the same situation. In just over a year, two prevention of future deaths reports have been issued related to severe ME. I have already referred to one of them, regarding the case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill; the other was on the case of Sarah Lewis. Neither report has yet resulted in satisfactory action. The risk of death, specifically from malnutrition, is real and ongoing.
Earlier today I spoke with Dr Binita Kane, a private sector clinician with a special interest in ME and long covid. She told me about the case of a 25-year-old woman, a medical student, who developed severe ME after a viral infection in 2018. The young woman has been in an acute NHS hospital for 17 months with nutritional failure and has deteriorated to the point that palliative care is being instituted. Her family is being prepared for the worst—it is dreadful. She has been disadvantaged not because of the individual clinical decisions, but because she suffers from a condition for which there is no safe or established service model. There have been multiple missed opportunities to prevent her condition progressing to this stage.
Sadly, that young woman is not alone. I have heard of many other cases today, and before today. What is being done to help patients like her? In the foreword to the final delivery plan, the Minister stated that
“tragically avoidable deaths of people with ME/CFS, in England…must become never events.”
However, the plan does not clearly set out what actions the Department will take to guarantee patient safety. No one is being held to account. The plan committed the DHSC and NHS England to
“explore whether a specialised service should be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health for very severe ME/CFS”.
I hope that the Secretary of State will do the right thing and commission that service, but it is frankly astonishing that the option of leaving this group of patients without specialist NHS care, as they are now, is even on the table.
I ask the Minister to clarify what progress has been made in commissioning such a service. That is not to mention that developing a new service from the ground up is, at best, a medium-term solution. It may take years. It is astonishing that no interim solution has been proposed to ensure that patients with very severe ME, whose lives are at risk right now across the country, do not become tomorrow’s mortality statistics. How many more preventable deaths will it take? I ask the Minister to commit to work with groups such as #ThereForME to rectify the situation immediately, for example by convening a national advisory group to advise in these cases and by undertaking a full review of the lessons learned from ME deaths. Will the Minister clarify what data is being collected to better understand the number of those with ME who are affected by life-threatening complications?
The third area on which I would like to see the Government do much more is accelerating ME research. I spoke earlier about the need for investment in research and improving healthcare. For many patients, biomedical research represents their best hope of regaining their former life, yet the condition has historically received very low levels of research funding from the UK Government.
Based on parliamentary answers and official announcements, I estimate that around £10 million has been invested in ME research over the past 12 years. To put that figure into context, on the current numbers that is about 60p per person living with ME per year. Four times as much was spent on a helicopter for the former Prime Minister as has been spent on ME. We spent £125 million—12 times as much—on a bat tunnel for HS2. We spent £10 billion—about 1,000 times as much—on personal protective equipment that turned out to be unusable. Money talks, and the record of the past decade makes it clear to people with ME that their collective futures have been valued by successive Governments at astonishingly little.
Tessa Munt
Forgive me, but I am going to carry on.
The final delivery plan rightly points to the need to build capacity in ME research, given the small UK research community and very few funded research projects. The University of Edinburgh’s DecodeME project has been a notable exception, recently reporting groundbreaking findings that revealed distinct genetic signals in people living with ME—medical, not psychological. This gives us a solid and compelling foundation for future research. Can the Minister explain what plans are in place for future funding to capitalise on this research? Again, the delivery plan is light on actions to build UK capacity in any research. A consensus recommendation for a post-infectious disease research hub was not funded.
A joint showcase event was held earlier this month by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council, with the goal of stimulating research, yet it is not clear whether this will yield tangible results or how its outcomes will be monitored. Again, I ask the Minister what the plan is if, as seems possible, it is not a lack of information holding back capacity, but secure long-term finance to encourage researchers to build a career in the field.
The final delivery plan gestured to HERITAGE and PRIME, which were effectively pre-existing funding announcements. The only genuinely new funding announced through the plan from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research into repurposed therapies was capped to grants of £200,000. The Government’s response on this issue, including in the letter sent in response to concerns raised by the 72 Lib Dem MPs, tends to be that it is not usual practice to ringfence funds for specific conditions, and that researchers can apply for funding in open competition. Yet historical funding imbalances mean that it is not realistic to expect ME researchers to compete with researchers of diseases that benefit from more advanced research and much stronger institutional capacity.
The UK Government do, in fact, set aside funding for specific conditions when they are considered a strategic priority. Just this June, £50 million of funding was announced for cardiovascular disease research to be awarded through open competition. In 2021, £50 million was committed to research into motor neurone disease. If we can award ringfenced funding through open competition for those conditions, why not ME? To echo a question asked at a recent research showcase event, why is ME not considered a strategic research priority? Can the Minister clarify that?
The fourth and final point on which I would like the Government to go further is support from wider Departments, particularly the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions. Children and young people are uniquely affected by ME. The condition disrupts and can derail key life stages and developmental milestones. Among educational professions, poor understanding of ME contributes to a lack of adjustments, limiting access to education and increasing school absences. The final delivery plan acknowledges the need for access to education and improved life chances among children and young people with ME, but while this is in theory a cross-Government plan, engagement from the Department for Education seems to have been extremely limited. Can the Minister outline what engagement has taken place so far and commit to speaking with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that they will engage with the delivery plan moving forward and ensure that children and young people with ME receive appropriate accommodations?
Meanwhile, welfare benefits are the most common issue that constituents with ME raise with me. Many have struggled for years to access the benefits they are entitled to, feeling that they are fighting a system that works against them. Like most people living with disabilities, my constituents are terrified at the prospect of future welfare reforms and losing the support that they have and rely on to meet their basic needs.
Looking at the current situation, I am indebted to a benefits adviser focusing on ME for her summary.
“People with ME face intersectional and compounding barriers when interacting with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). These include structural flaws in benefit design, widespread misunderstanding of their conditions, systemic disbelief, inaccessible systems, poor-quality assessment practices, and the cumulative harm of being required to repeatedly prove their illness. The current benefit system and emerging reform agenda both fail to reflect the fluctuating, energy-limiting multisystemic nature of these conditions.
And then, the Universal Credit Act 2025, together with the proposed abolition of the Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) and on-going threats to PIP eligibility, signals a fundamental shift in how disabled people meet entitlement to financial support.”
I am particularly concerned about the proposals to replace the new-style employment and support allowance with a time-limited unemployment insurance and to abolish the work capability assessment. Replacing the new-style ESA would disproportionately harm individuals who are not eligible for means-tested support, for example because their partner works. Among other harms, that would increase the risk of domestic abuse while heightening financial dependence—a particularly pressing concern, given that ME is considerably more prevalent in women.
Abolishing the work capability assessment removes critical safeguards in regulations 29 and 35 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 for those whose health would be seriously harmed by work or work-related activity. Those protections are vital for people with ME, who are at particular risk of harm and long-term health consequences if they push beyond their energy limits.
Time prevents me from providing more detail, but I will conclude my observations by saying that, on the whole, what people with ME want most is to recover their capacity to contribute to their families, their community and wider society. They hate being ill. An appropriate benefits system must acknowledge that and treat them with dignity and fairness. The way to get people with ME and those caring for them back into work is not to take away crucial support, but to invest in helping them to get better.
Many will be watching this debate from home, desperately hoping that we are doing everything we can to build them a better future. They deserve the assurance that the Government are committed to a clear, ambitious and, crucially, properly funded vision for change across healthcare, research and all forms of Government support. I ask the Minister for a meeting to discuss myalgic encephalomyelitis and the way forward for the 1.35 million people affected. I very much hope that today’s debate represents a big step forward in delivering that for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. It is clear that we need a three-minute time limit if we are to get everybody in, but I cannot guarantee that we will.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I declare my interest as chair of both the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis and the all-party parliamentary group on long covid. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for bringing this important debate to the House; we work together on the APPG on ME.
ME and related conditions such as long covid are among the most devastating illnesses of our time, yet they remain some of the most poorly understood and most neglected. Unless we confront this misunderstanding head on, we will never deliver the change that patients so desperately need.
This issue is personal to me. In 2020, I contracted long covid. The infection was mild, but the aftermath was devastating, and it changed my life forever. With long covid, I developed ME, so I know the exhaustion, isolation and gaslighting that patients face. I cannot know for sure why I improved, but I believe that one reason was early recognition. I give a big shout-out to my friend Shelley Guest, who saw that my symptoms mirrored her own. She gave me books; she shouted at me, and told me to pace myself. I am forever grateful to her.
That raises a critical question: if diagnosed and supported early enough, could ME’s symptoms be managed to the point of recovery or partial recovery? My journey is not over yet. That is why research and recognition are not optional; they are essential.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her work chairing the two all-party groups. My constituent Janet contacted me about her son Richard, who was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome six months ago. He is still waiting for a proper referral. Does my hon. Friend agree that an early pathway is vital, and would she encourage the Minister to outline what form that might take?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I hear from so many constituents that, out of those suffering from any condition, people suffering from ME have the lowest quality of life. Is it not also the case that people simply do not understand what ME is?
Jo Platt
I completely agree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned, there is confusion about what chronic fatigue is and what ME is; there needs to be differentiation and clarification on those conditions. We all understand chronic fatigue, but ME is different. It is not just tiredness; they are complex issues. Many of those who are severely affected cannot even sit upright. They are confined to darkened rooms, often tube-fed, cut off from the world and too often ignored by the very health system that is meant to protect them.
Long covid has only added to that burden. Millions are affected, half of whom meet the criteria for ME. Next Tuesday, Parliament will host the first drop-in session of the Overlapping Illness Alliance, which will raise awareness of ME, long covid and related conditions, and I urge colleagues from across the House to attend.
The Government’s ME delivery plan is a welcome step. NHS e-learning service specifications and small research grants are progress, but they are not enough, particularly for severe ME. The scale of the challenge demands ambition, accountability and strategic investment. We need specialised NHS services for ME, we need urgent support for children whose education is disrupted, and we need co-ordinated action across health, social care, education and employment.
Research is central to progress. DecodeME has shown the brilliance of UK science, but funding remains far too limited. Germany has pledged €500 million to research with the aim of curing ME by the next decade. We need to be just as ambitious, but we must also confront the misinformation and bias on ME that has plagued us for decades. Patients are dying from nutritional failure because there is no commissioned service for severe ME. Some spend hundreds of pounds in hospital on private care without a proper pathway. Lives are at risk now and we cannot wait for long-term provision while patients suffer.
That is why, alongside the APPG, I am calling for the commissioning of specialised NHS services for severe and very severe ME with expertise in nutritional failure, and I would welcome the chance to meet the Government to discuss immediate solutions that can save lives today. Will the Minister commit to improving data collection so that we can better understand risks and create the foundations for effective care? The Government have taken steps in the right direction, but more must be done. As chair of both APPGs, I will continue to work with the community and the Government to do that.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for calling this debate.
I would like to use my short time to tell the story of a young man who made me understand the tragedy of ME six years ago. He was a very promising first-year student at Durham University called Tom. He was on track to get a first in maths. He was a big hockey player, but in his second year, he started struggling, first to walk upstairs and to climb hills, and eventually he found that he could not wash himself, eat by himself or even read. Then, to his enormous frustration, he dropped out in his third year. When all his friends were starting a new life with their first job, he had to stay at home and go through the nightmare of first trying to get a diagnosis and get someone to agree that he had a problem, and then trying to get treatment for it.
Tom felt that he was going in circles: doctors were not really persuaded and he was not getting any answers. He was very lucky because he had two remarkable parents, Alex and Denise, who could afford to go to America. In fact, they moved to America and they got him enrolled on clinical trials. This story has a positive ending, because six years on, he is doing incredibly well. He is actually thriving; he has a job and a partner, and his life is back on track—except, sadly, in America rather than here.
As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, there are 400,000 people with ME or with long covid symptoms that are like severe ME. For some of them, it is already too late. Maeve Boothby O’Neill and Sarah Lewis tragically lost their lives, and coroners issued prevention of future deaths notices.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Sarah Lewis was my constituent. I have here the prevention of future deaths report that was issued after the inquest. She took her own life, but was severely ill with ME. One thing that comes through very strongly is that she did not feel she was believed or taken seriously, or that her symptoms were recognised by the medical profession. It is so important that we challenge the medical profession to take this more seriously.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for talking about that very sad case. I actually think that the NHS is better than it was because of long covid.
The real cause for hope is Edinburgh University’s DecodeME study, which the chief executive of Action for ME, Sonya Chowdhury, described to me as being like a treasure hunt map with eight crosses where there is a genetic code that matches ME, but where we then have to go and dig up that treasure. That is what is now waiting to happen, and why funding is so important.
Ultimately, with the quality of research in this country, there should be no need for anyone to have to go to the United States or Germany for their treatment. During the pandemic, more lives were saved through treatments and vaccines discovered in this country than any other country in the world. We have amazing research happening here.
My plea to the Government is this: the last Government started the process by ignoring some of the scepticism in the medical community about whether ME was really a serious condition. It would be fantastic, and it would give so much hope, if this Government could now finish the job and invest in research that will transform the lives of so many people like Tom.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. A constituent recently wrote to me:
“ME has taken almost everything from me. I can no longer work, I am mainly confined to my chair or bed and, on the rare occasion that I leave the house for medical appointments, I need to use a wheelchair or walker and it often results in PEM”,
or post-exertional malaise. This was the sentence that really stayed with me: “ME has taken almost everything from me.” That seems to sum up the decimating effects of ME for the 25% of sufferers who experience the most severe symptoms. ME takes and then it takes some more, until in too many tragic cases the patient dies.
The fate of patients with severe ME has been brought home to me through my involvement with my constituent Debbie Seymour, once a working mother of two but now into her third year of being bedbound in a dark room and principally cared for by her incredible mum Sylvia, who is in her 80s. Although nurses are offering practical support, there remains a lack of knowledge about severe ME among healthcare providers and allied professions—particularly about the nature of the key diagnostic symptom of the disease, PEM.
Too often, sufferers of severe ME are required to fit into NHS pathways and procedures that suit the system but take little account of the human being at the centre of them. I welcome the Government’s delivery plan on ME. One of the stated aims is for the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to explore whether there should be a specialised service for very severe ME. NHS England is in the process of being dismantled, so could the Minister confirm in her summing up that that exploration will still go ahead? The desperate experiences of so many people highlight a lack of research into the disease. Perhaps the Minister can reassure my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby that there is a future in which the ringfenced funding granted for research into other illnesses can be extended to ME.
In conclusion, I have felt helpless when it comes to supporting my constituents who suffer from severe ME, and their families and carers. I am putting my faith in this Labour Government to drive forward the research to find a cure for this devastating disease and to improve specialist care for seriously ill ME patients such as Debbie, before it is too late.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this vital debate and for her campaigning on this issue. In the brief time I have today, I will share the story of Iona, who was finally diagnosed with ME in 2019 after being unwell since 2014. Her ME comes with a range of horrible symptoms from physical and mental fatigue to muscle weakness. She was housebound for four years and cannot do anything independently. However, she told me that the biggest barrier to support is other people’s limited or incorrect knowledge of ME, which is damaging. She says:
“As a chronically ill young woman…I am constantly looked down on and dismissed, while at the same time expected to act as if I am not disabled”.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
One of my constituents, Nick, has ME and has described feeling as though he is stuck in a well without anyone to pull him out. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more action from Government, the NHS, businesses, schools and colleges to counter the misunderstanding and neglect that ME sufferers receive?
Adam Dance
I agree. It is really important that the Government provide more support for ME, because it affects the lives of a lot of people.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, from one Adam to another. I want to give a shout out to ME Group Staffordshire, which does wonderful work in supporting my constituents and people in the surrounding areas, and does so much to challenge the stigma that many people living with ME face on a daily basis, as the hon. Gentleman talked about. As the Minister looks to provide the support that we are all calling for today, I hope that she will consider extending it to those groups and communities that support people with ME, including some of my constituents.
Adam Dance
I agree that we need lots more support groups across the country. It is really good that the hon. Member has one in his constituency.
Iona’s school offered her no help; indeed, it told her that she would fail all her GCSEs. She went to her GP and other doctors many times but was told that she was “anxious and did not know it”, that she “did not want to go to school”, that she “was depressed” or even that “nothing was wrong” with her at all. Anyone who knew Iona knew that that was ridiculous. She is a positive, determined, intelligent and hard-working person, and it is only because of her determination that she finally received support—she got it only because she and her family kept pushing for it. People should not have to be medics or administrative experts to get the support that they need.
Even after Iona received some support, limited knowledge meant that she was told to do graded exercise therapy, which did her more harm than good. Eventually, the Somerset ME service provided helpful advice and medical letters that unlocked support in education and from the council. However, that service is a short-term service that cannot provide medical care, and Iona has often found that GPs do not understand the nature of the service. Today, she still receives little or no medical help.
It is great that the NHS has rolled out training on ME, but people such as Iona who have ME and who have lost trust in the health system need to know how we can monitor the uptake of that training to change attitudes and reduce stigma among the medical profession. That is so important, yet more broadly the ME delivery plan lacks clear accountability structures, has no proper way to measure impact and has no clear deadline to meet. I hope that the Minister can respond to those concerns today.
Greater funding and support for research are also vital. Germany has pledged €500 million to research ME and find a cure for it. It is time that this country also stepped up and showed the same ambition. We owe Iona and all those with ME at least that much. In fact, Iona herself wants to contribute to such research and is now at university, studying hard after achieving fantastic results at school. People with ME are not asking for much; they just want to be believed and to receive the support they deserve. It is about time they got that support.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
With apologies to other Members who wished to speak, I now call the Lib Dem spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this vital debate on such an important issue as myalgic encephalomyelitis. This chronic condition completely changes people’s lives, as we have heard today.
My constituent, who loved her job as a nurse, was diagnosed with ME in 2019. She has been left unable to work, relies on a mobility scooter to get around and is often confined to her bed for days on end. Since her official diagnosis, she has experienced constant muscle pain all over and severe headaches that frequently prevent her from sleeping. Despite her battle with myriad health challenges, one GP asked her, “What do you expect me to do about it?” Reading that stopped me in my tracks but—even worse—that reaction is not isolated. I contacted the local NHS trust on behalf of my constituent, and its locally commissioned NHS chronic fatigue services, which include ME, have been suspended as they cannot cope with the number of referrals.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent mirrors that of my constituent Emily in Edinburgh. Even though health is devolved, we face the same situation. Does the hon. Lady agree that even though Edinburgh is leading the way in research—as the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) said—we need to look into people’s experience of dealing with health services?
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I should say that interventions on the spokespeople will not lead to them having any additional time.
Helen Maguire
My constituent’s experience builds into the bigger picture of a healthcare system that is simply not set up to support those with the most complex and devastating conditions. People with ME who rightly rely on health professionals for advice, support and solutions cannot be abandoned just because their diagnosis does not fit into a one-size-fits-all treatment plan.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
We have heard just how little money is being spent on research, comparatively speaking. As has already been mentioned, the DecodeME study is identifying genetic signals linked to immune and neurological pathways, offering real clues to the biological mechanisms of this disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must finally adopt a strategic and properly funded research programme?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Although I welcome the Government’s final delivery plan for ME and chronic fatigue syndrome, and I recognise the contribution of the ME community in shaping it, I remain deeply concerned that the plan falls short of delivering the meaningful change that is urgently needed by people living with those conditions. I therefore reaffirm the calls rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. In particular, the plan fails to set out dedicated funding to encourage early career researchers to specialise in ME research, or strategies to keep established researchers in the field. Those things are vital to develop new pathways that enable people to better cope with their diagnosis and, most importantly, improve their quality of life.
Funding is also needed to step up education and training to improve understanding of the condition across the public sector and to pilot new approaches that strengthen the quality of care. Recent figures estimate that over 400,000 people in the UK have ME, and around 50% of the 1.9 million people in the UK with long covid are thought to have symptoms that are similar to ME. Those figures make it clear that there is a desperate need for research to develop better treatment options and training for doctors, carers and wider healthcare workers.
We cannot ignore the fact that making those changes is a big task. Under the previous Conservative Government, cuts only made supporting people harder—from slashing health services to letting wait times pile up and overseeing a horrifying breakdown of community services—so it is no wonder that more people are suffering without support. That is why I urge this Government to make sure that the final delivery plan delivers real change for people living with ME and invests properly in research to change the course of diagnosis and treatment for good. For my constituent and for people living with ME across the country, we must take serious action to ensure that their experience with the healthcare system is rooted in dignity and care.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I try to take a positive outlook. The one thing the pandemic did was shine a spotlight on the likes of long covid and ME, and I know from my medical career how difficult that can be. I would like to thank Sajid Javid, who in 2022 announced the plan for ME, and I congratulate the Minister because she brought it to fruition on 22 July 2025. There are some similarities between the NHS 10-year plan and the ME plan: the ME delivery plan is fantastic, and a lot of people agree with it, but, importantly, there has been a lack of delivery. Action for ME has said:
“The Plan also lacks clear accountability structures with no mechanisms to measure impact or deadlines to hit. We are concerned that despite this well-meaning Plan being published, it will have no material impact on the historically stigmatised and ignored ME community. Action for ME wants to work with MPs, Ministers and Officials to improve its implementation.”
It went on to say that the delivery plan on ME/CFS fails to include a “strategic approach” to ME research. However, that was not the only group to say so; the ME Association said:
“There is no clear ambition or strategy to drive consistent implementation of the NICE guideline recommendations”
across ICBs. It went on to say:
“Severe and very severe ME receives minimal attention, despite known risks during hospital admissions”.
It also said:
“Several of the Plan’s own deadlines have already passed, and it is unclear what progress has been made.”
In the short time that I have, I want to focus my questions on two areas: action and accountability. The first concerns the questions that those living with ME will have, particularly when it comes to the changes around the Department for Work and Pensions and what that will look like in the light of the imminent Timms review. I would be grateful to understand what plans the Government have for both Departments to discuss what this will look like, given the scale of the problems facing the 400,000-plus people with ME/CFS in this country.
Secondly, turning to the actual plan, we need to look at what actions will be delivered. I am keen to look at the section called “After publication of the FDP”, because it goes on to say that
“we will monitor the actions included in it. The DHSC secretariat will continue to engage with the Task and Finish Group in an appropriate form as required”.
Given the debate today, is that required, and what form will it take?
The document also goes on to say that a
“sub-group will be created to focus on improving care for those with ME/CFS.”
Has that group been created, and how many times has it met? It further states:
“We recognise the needs of those with ME/CFS and we remain dedicated to developing our approach as new research emerges and as we seek further engagement.”
Could I press the Minister on what that engagement is? Who is it with, and what does it look like? At the end of the day, there is a plan here and we do agree with it, but it is the actions and accountability within it that are truly going to make a difference.
ME may challenge the body, but it never diminishes a person’s worth or their hope that they carry. That is critical. When we have such a great plan, it is the action that is going to take it forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this debate, and pay tribute to her for her continued advocacy on behalf of people living with myalgic encephalomyelitis. Her work has ensured that the voices of those affected are heard at the highest levels of Government, and I am happy to accept her invitation to meet her and stakeholders, and the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), the chair of the APPG.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today, and I particularly acknowledge all the constituents they have referred to. They all deserve the very best care from our NHS. I will endeavour to respond to as many of the issues raised as I possibly can. If I have not covered something, my officials will take notes and follow up in writing.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really grateful to the Minister. We know that, at the heart of this, we need to ensure that all clinicians have a basis of training, and that is certainly missing at the moment. We see misdiagnosis, and we see some provision, including fatigue clinics, providing the wrong interventions. Will she ensure that there is a strategy around training clinicians and making it mandatory?
Ashley Dalton
I will come later in my remarks to the training that is being rolled out as part of the delivery plan.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis—better known as ME—and chronic fatigue syndrome, which I will refer to from now on as ME/CFS, is a condition that affects an estimated 390,000 people in the UK. Its symptoms can be profoundly debilitating, impacting every aspect of daily life, from work and education to family and social life. For those with severe or very severe ME/CFS, even basic tasks such as sitting up, eating or speaking can become impossible. We recognise the devastating impact this condition has on individuals and families. For too long, people with ME/CFS have faced stigma, misunderstanding, disbelief and inconsistent care.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Minister is a passionate advocate for women’s health. Does she agree that the reason for this disease often being overlooked and for the stigma she has talked about is that women are five times more likely than men to get it? Will she support clear funding, accountability and deadlines within the welcome plan that has been delivered, and a service for very severe ME for all ICBs?
Ashley Dalton
I recognise my hon. Friend’s points, and I will cover some of them in my remarks. She will be aware that the women’s health strategy is currently being refreshed, so we hope to dovetail wherever possible.
I want to set out the steps that this Government are taking to change the misunderstanding, stigma and inconsistent care that patients have experienced. Through our ME/CFS final delivery plan, we will deliver better care, boost research and ensure that every person living with ME/CFS is treated with dignity and compassion.
First, let us acknowledge the reality. ME/CFS is a complex multi-system condition. Its fluctuating nature makes diagnosis and management challenging. Historically, services have been extremely varied, and in some cases patients have felt dismissed or rejected by the healthcare system. That is unacceptable. We have heard those concerns loud and clear through our extensive consultation on the interim delivery plan and through ongoing engagement with patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and charities. Last year’s prevention of future deaths report following the tragic death of Maeve Boothby O’Neill further highlighted the urgent need for reform, pointing to a lack of specialist beds and inadequate training for clinicians. We cannot and will not allow such failings to continue.
In July, we published the ME/CFS final delivery plan, marking a significant milestone in our commitment to improving lives. The plan is built around three core themes: boosting research, improving attitudes and education, and enhancing care and support. With a clear commitment to ensure that people with ME/CFS can live as independently as possible and see their overall quality of life enhanced, that plan will help us to take an important step towards achieving that, but we acknowledge that there is more to do. We will continue to build on the foundation of those actions well beyond the publication of the plan. It is the springboard—the beginning, not the end.
Although the final delivery plan does not include every suggestion received through the consultation responses or through the task and finish group, it does not mean that those proposals will not be considered in the future, subject to resource and funding. We look forward to continuing those conversations.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister attended the task and finish group, as did I. Will it meet again to consider that?
Ashley Dalton
I will come to the task and finish group in my remarks.
Research is the key to unlocking better treatments and improving quality of life. As has been mentioned, we have seen progress through projects such as DecodeME, the world’s largest genetic study of ME/CFS, which is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Preliminary findings from the study indicate genetic differences in eight areas linked to the immune and nervous systems in people with ME/CFS. That discovery of specific genetic signals may help us to understand the biological pathways involved in ME/CFS in the future.
However, we need to go further. That is why the plan includes a funding offer and a commitment to continue working with researchers, industry and patient groups. New awards announced this year include funding for repurposed treatments and £845,000 for a large infrastructure project called PRIME, or, to give it its full name, Building Infrastructure for Patients, Researchers and Industry for ME/CFS.
Together with the MRC, we are actively exploring next steps in ME/CFS research. For example, earlier this month we co-hosted the research showcase event for post-acute infection conditions, including ME/CFS. It brought together people with lived experience, researchers, clinicians and funders to help to stimulate further research in this field. We are now considering the discussions that took place at the showcase to explore the next steps to stimulate further research. The output of that event will be circulated as soon as possible.
The final delivery plan also sets out actions to improve access to specialist services—to provide better support for children and young people, and their families, and to address employment challenges. It aligns with our 10-year health plan, which includes the roll-out of neighbourhood health services, bringing care closer to home and ensuring that multidisciplinary teams can support people with complex conditions such as ME/CFS.
Provision varies across the country and we are determined to reduce those inequalities. The final delivery plan includes actions to improve service mapping and workforce training so that every patient, regardless of postcode, can access the care they need. NHS England is working closely with the Department to support ICBs in commissioning equitable evidence-based services. Two of the most important actions in the plan are focused on NHS services. NHS England has already started its work on co-designing resources for systems to improve services for mild and moderate ME/CFS.
Ashley Dalton
While NHSE is in the process of being dismantled, all its functions continue, and the new Department of Health and Social Care will continue all its work. None of that is being got rid of; it is simply being brought together into a more efficient, new Department of Health and Social Care. The Department will continue to meet a group of key stakeholders to move the work forward on mild and moderate ME/CFS in the coming weeks. Additionally, I confirm that the DHSC has already started conversations with NHS England to explore a specialised service prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for severe ME/CFS. That work will continue.
Changing attitudes is as important as changing services to many people with ME/CFS who have faced disbelief or stigma. As outlined in the plan, we will address that by launching a public awareness initiative to improve understanding of the condition and the support available. We will work with schools, employers and social care providers to ensure that children and adults with ME/CFS receive the information and support that they need.
Ashley Dalton
I will not, as time is short.
To support healthcare professionals in diagnosis, as set out in the final delivery plan, the Department has worked with NHS England to develop an e-learning programme on ME/CFS for all healthcare professionals. The aim is to support staff so that they can provide better care and improve patient outcomes.
The plan was not developed in isolation. It reflects thousands of consultation responses and the input of the cross-sector task and finish groups. We repurposed the task and finish groups into a new post-publication stakeholder engagement group, and we look forward to working closely with it during the all-important implementation phase.
I recognise that some stakeholders feel that the plan does not go far enough, but let me be clear: this is not the end of the journey; this is simply the foundations. Our work does not stand alone; it stands on the broader ambition to transform the NHS from a sickness service into a health service. We are working with the DWP and the Department for Education to ensure that all the issues raised are considered, in particular during the Timms review.
ME/CFS has been overlooked for far too long. We are determined to change that. To everyone living with ME/CFS and to your families and carers, I say this: we hear you; we value you; we believe you; and we are committed to making the system work better for you and with you. Together, we can build a future where everyone receives the care, respect and support that they deserve.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Tessa Munt, you have one minute to wind up the debate.
Tessa Munt
Thank you, Mr Mundell, but I have little to say. I am delighted to hear what the Minister had to say, and I will be holding her feet to the fire. I wish to continue this campaign, and I will work with others on it. One of the things I omitted to say at the beginning was that I am a member of the APPG on ME. I should have declared that, so I seek your forgiveness for not having said so.
I am delighted by a number of the things that the Minister has been able to say. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate—I should probably have asked for a two or three-hour debate. In particular, I point to a phrase of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), about digging for treasure, I think. It is so moving to have heard so many important stories of people who are suffering. We really have to do something about this.