Support for Children Entitled to Free School Meals

Debate between Rupa Huq and Siobhain McDonagh

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Patricia Gibson will be speaking at the end of the debate as one of the Front-Bench spokespersons, so I call Siobhain McDonagh.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I am sorry, Chair, but I wondered if I could be delayed slightly?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We have Jim Shannon, who has just made it over from the main Chamber. Are you ready, Jim?

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank my hon. Friend. So many people got involved in providing devices, such as football clubs like my own AFC Wimbledon, which has now donated more than 2,000 refurbished laptops. I thank all those charities that did such work. While it was brilliant work, however, it cannot be enough—the Government need to step in.

I hope that the Minister will consider the merits of my proposal to provide devices and an internet connection to all children on free school meals. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss how it could be rolled out in practice. It took the intervention of a premier league footballer for Ministers to agree that no child should go to bed hungry. What will it take before we all agree that no child should be left behind because of their internet connection?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

A good bit of lateral thinking in that speech, but it made it worth the wait. We now come to the three Front Benchers. We start with the SNP.

Child Poverty: London

Debate between Rupa Huq and Siobhain McDonagh

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and compelling speech. Her constituency is not dissimilar to mine. When we think of child poverty, we think of Dickensian cobbled streets and of it as some sort of inner-city malady, but we both represent suburban seats. In Ealing Central and Acton 7,179 children live in poverty, which is not a dissimilar figure to the one she quoted. We also hear about Victorian diseases such as tuberculosis making a comeback. Those places were built to fulfil the suburban dream to get away from the inner city, but the horrible scourge of child poverty is coming to our suburbs. Does she agree with me?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There are great similarities. Suburban London is not the suburban London that many of us think exists.

By the end of their lives, boys from poorer backgrounds have a life expectancy that is an astonishing 9.2 years shorter than that of their wealthier counterparts. Take my borough, Merton, where Wimbledon constituents have a life expectancy almost three years longer than those in Mitcham and Morden, despite a mere letter change in their postcode. The Government, I know, are extremely fiscally responsible so, if that is not enough to inspire the Minister to action, perhaps it is worth them considering that child poverty costs the UK economy a staggering £29 billion per year in services and wasted potential.

Letting Agent Fees (Tenants)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Siobhain McDonagh

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Owen, for calling me to speak and I also thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this important debate.

At one stage, the private rented sector was the stop-gap for people before they owned their own home. Now in the UK, one in four families with children privately rent, which is up from one in 10 just 10 years ago. In fact, the total number of households privately renting has increased by more than a third since 2010. The under-supply of new houses, particularly social homes and affordable homes, is forcing those households into the private rented sector and extortionate costs have left them trapped and unable to save for a home of their own.

Let us start with the letting fees. Every month, renters pay more than £13 million in unfair fees. On average, each tenant is expected to pay more than £200, with one in seven being charged more than £500. I have heard of tenancy agreements that are as high as £480 and referencing fees that are up to an eye-watering £550. Fees have risen faster than inflation and it is no wonder that, as a result, more than half of tenants have had financial problems. About 27% of tenants have had to borrow or use a loan to pay fees, while 17% cut down on heating and food to cover costs. Can anyone explain why a referencing could possibly necessitate such an extraordinary expense?

Let us take my constituent David as an example. He rents a small room in what was originally a three-bedroom house. There are now two further bedrooms in the loft and the two reception rooms on the ground floor are also used as bedrooms. There are currently 10 households in that house and David is charged £550 a month for his room. That is not the highest rent in my constituency, but it is still high enough, and he was further charged an astounding £1,250 in letting fees, as well as an additional £50 simply to get a letter that explained how much his deposit was and what he had paid for. How can anyone possibly justify such a disgraceful fee? Such fees are exploitative and the market is completely lacking in transparency, with fees being set and charged by individual agents.

I appreciate that I am coming at this issue very much from a London point of view, but the owner of the property that David lives in is taking in a rent of £3,850 per calendar month for an unregistered house in multiple occupation.

Despite the Consumer Rights Act 2015 making it mandatory for letting agents to publish their fees in full, 12% of them still do not do so. One in five tenants expect to have to pay an average of £80 to renew their tenancy, with letting agents preferring short tenancies, so that they can impose fresh extortionate fees on a new tenant. Since the proposed ban on letting fees, one agent has even introduced an additional fee, named a “legal document charge”, as compensation in the short term before the proposed ban hits. Capping those fees would not limit the number of different charges that a tenant might face and I agree with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that they should be banned once and for all.

However, a ban on letting fees will not solve the country’s housing crisis; it would not even solve the crisis in the private rented sector. Since 2010, the cost of private rents has risen by 22%, making tenants increasingly reliant on support from the state. In fact, the amount of housing benefit going to private tenants has more than doubled in the last 10 years, with a quarter of private renters now claiming it. Similarly, the average cost of a deposit in London is a staggering £1,760.30. A ban on letting fees will not solve those spiralling financial issues.

Renters are lost in our housing crisis. They are unable to afford their own home but are unlikely to qualify for social housing. They face paying rents that on average take 41% of their household income, compared with homeowners, who pay 19% of their income on mortgage payments. How can a private renter ever be expected to afford their own home? Extortionate costs have left almost two-thirds of private renters without savings or investment, them precariously close to homelessness if rents continue to rise. It is no wonder that private renters are now the biggest group being made homeless, with one in three homeless cases involving a tenant at the end of their tenancy.

I hold my advice surgery every Friday and the biggest group of people who come to me because they are threatened with homelessness are mature families with three or four children, and they have lived in their private rented home for 10 or 15 years and never miss their rent. They have done nothing; they come to me because of the fact that their landlords can receive higher rents by renting to people who are not even partially on housing benefit. When my mum and dad came to London, they regularly saw signs in the windows saying, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”. Today the equivalent signs say, “No one on housing benefit or universal credit”.

Considering the extraordinary costs, it is unforgiveable that almost a third of private rented homes in England fail basic health and safety standards. In fact, a private landlord is more than twice as likely as a social landlord to be renting out a property containing a serious safety hazard. But tenants are petrified of voicing their concerns, with 820 renters per day in 2014 being threatened with eviction for highlighting poor conditions in their home. Councils have the power to fine failing landlords but are strapped for cash themselves and simply cannot afford to enforce the regulations. Next month, the Government’s register of rogue landlords will become active, but unless tenants can access the register it will be worthless to them.

After hearing these statistics, few will be surprised to hear that the level of home ownership in Britain is at its lowest since 1985. When I became an MP in 1997, homeowners could expect to pay just over three and a half times their annual earnings to buy a house; now, it is over nine times. Newly built houses are out of reach for 83% of working private renting families and the vast majority of those families are simply unable to afford a home of their own.

[Dr Huq]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that this problem is also an outer London problem? It used to be the kind of thing that was associated with inner cities. In my constituency of Ealing Central and Acton, 34.4% of people are in private rented properties, compared with 16% nationally. We have a landlord register, which is a good idea. Does she agree?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We both represent outer London constituencies and we are seeing rents that are completely unimaginable. I was looking for a home for a constituent who had to leave her previous home in shocking circumstances. We spoke to a very good local landlord, who told me that a one-bedroom flat in the street I was born and brought up in and where my 93-year-old mother still lives would cost £1,250 per calendar month. My constituent is a young woman who has a good job as a civil servant—she works very close to where we are now—but there is no prospect of her having access to such a home.

For those who cannot afford private rents, nearly 76,000 households are now in temporary accommodation, while not a single starter home has been built since the Government announced their flagship programme three years ago. Our housing market is broken. The lack of housing supply is at the heart of our housing problems, from homelessness to falling home ownership and soaring house prices.

Breast Cancer Drugs

Debate between Rupa Huq and Siobhain McDonagh

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he knows more about this process than I do. It clearly makes sense to consider these unique, unusual first-tier drugs in the light of that reconsideration.

I hope that we will hear the stories of the many women whose lives, having been affected by secondary breast cancer, have been enriched by Kadcyla. The drug Kadcyla matters so much to all these women for one simple reason: it works. It is effective. It has already been available on the NHS for more than two years and, compared with other treatments, its side effects are limited. Today, it is nothing short of a tragedy to know that countless women who thought that Kadcyla would be the next treatment they would receive for their breast cancer are having their lives shortened before their eyes.

I ask Members to imagine this: they are living with breast cancer; there is no cure, but there is something that could give them extra time with the people they love—the people who depend on them. It could be a year, five years or even longer. If they needed the drug today, the NHS would give it to them, but if they needed it in a few months’ time, they may have lost their chance.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. May I congratulate her on securing this debate, and say how proud I am to be a co-signatory? The phenomenon of there being drugs in the pipeline that would make a vital difference to patients, but which are being held up by conflict between NICE and pharmaceutical companies over pricing or value for money, applies not only to breast cancer but to other cancers, too. My constituent David Innes is one of 20,000 sufferers of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. He was diagnosed in 2009, when he was 39. He was in Parliament earlier this week, making the same argument, and saying that both parties need to end the logjam and come up with a deal to ensure the availability of these drugs. They need to put patients first. Life is too short not to do so.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I wish her constituent, David, all the best.

How can we withdraw a drug from the NHS that is working, especially when we are offering nothing in its place? It seems senseless to me, and it is truly devastating to those for whom it really matters. Of course, as my hon. Friend says, Kadcyla is just one drug that we need to look at. What will happen with other key breast cancer drugs now and in the future? I wish to consider just two more examples. Perjeta is currently available through the cancer drugs fund, but unlike Kadcyla it has not yet been re-appraised, although it will be soon. Perjeta is used for HER2 positive secondary breast cancer patients. In many ways it is even more effective than Kadcyla, as it enables women to live for an additional six months without their breast cancer progressing, and can extend life by an additional six months or more. However, because it is administered with two other drugs—Herceptin and Docetaxel—it would not be considered cost-effective under NICE standards even if the drug manufacturer gave it away for free.

The other drug is Palbociclib, which is used on women with hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative breast cancer. It is a new drug, which is being assessed for the first time by NICE. It is extremely effective and enables women to live for at least an additional 10 months without their breast cancer progressing. However, because women are living longer, robust overall survival data are not yet available. Perversely, that will count against it in the NICE appraisal. Overall survival data are given greater weight than progression-free survival in NICE appraisals, despite the fact that the outcome is the same—a longer, more enriched life.

We are seeing effective treatment after effective treatment being rejected or facing rejection by NICE. I want to know this: is it really right that we have a health service that plans to take away those lifelines? How is the decision to take away these life-extending drugs beneficial for people living with cancer, or for any of us who might one day need access to them? Who makes these decisions, and how can we be sure that they are the right ones?

We have a drug appraisal process, which is certainly valuable and necessary, but I question the factors that constitute that process. It is too easy to assume that the experts must automatically be right. The process is: numbers in, formula used, and then a yes or no answer. Let us not forget that we are talking about people’s lives. The lives of those affected and those for whom this decision is all too real are in the hands of a formula—the NICE appraisal process—and yet this life-changing formula has had little examination for many years. How many of us actually understand what factors are taken into account in these life-or-death decisions? The drug Palbociclib is proving so effective that, at present, it only has data on how long people are living without their breast cancer progressing.