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
Short-term Holiday Lets: Planning
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered short-term holiday lets and the planning system.
Let me start by thanking my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to schedule the debate and the Members from across the House who agreed to support my application. I also want to thank Parliament’s participation and digital teams, who helped to ensure that those who signed relevant petitions were aware of the debate and helped to gather evidence of the impact of the issue across the UK.
The issues with our housing supply do not have any simple resolution or magic bullet solution. Many factors need to be considered and approaches need to be taken, including reform of our planning system to ensure we can deliver a relentless focus on regenerating brownfield sites and our town centres. The subject of today’s debate—planning—would not on its own resolve the pressures on housing in coastal areas such as Torbay. I will not argue that we should use changes to the planning system to ban all new short-term holiday lets, yet changes in that specific area could make a real difference and the issue needs to be addressed, not least to give confidence to local authorities when granting planning permission for new housing in popular areas for tourism such as Devon and Cornwall. It would mean new homes would become available rather than new holiday accommodation.
The focus for today is on how we can create a planning system that gives local communities the ability to strike the right balance between opportunities to create different accommodation options for tourists and ensuring there is a supply of housing for the local community, which is vital in providing the staff and services to support the visitor economy without which the tourism short lets would not exist.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the work within the Department it is vital that the Treasury looks to rebalance the tax inequalities between long-term and short-term rental if we are to secure places for people to live in our beautiful constituencies?
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that. A range of factors go into the pressures that push some landlords from long-term residential lets to short-term holiday lets. Factors include the system of taxation and whatever wider regulation is in place for landlords. We might also consider what incentives we can provide for people to build to rent. If a company builds a property specifically to rent it as a home, they are likely to offer longer-term tenancies and the landlord is highly unlikely to want to move back into the property, which is one reason why a residential tenancy might come to an end. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the issue is part of a wider debate about how we ensure there is an adequate supply of housing in our constituencies so that organisations such as the NHS can recruit staff. We have reflected on that issue before. If people cannot find somewhere to live in the local area, clearly they will not take up jobs in that area. That goes to the heart of the debate.
To expand my argument I should define what I mean by a short-term holiday let. The term “short-term letting” is most commonly used to refer to the offering of residential accommodation to paying guests. It can include single rooms within a shared premises or the letting of an entire premises such as a house or flat. Short-term lettings are distinct from private residential tenancies because they do not require the occupier to treat the property or part of it as their principal home. They are also distinct from other forms of guest accommodation such as hotels or hostels as the lettings are in premises that could or would otherwise be used as a permanent residence—in essence, a home.
There is evidence that the number of short-term lettings in England has increased significantly in recent years, particularly because of the development and growth of the sharing economy and peer-to-peer accommodation services such as Airbnb. Those online platforms essentially provide marketplaces that connect people who want to rent out their properties or spare rooms with people seeking short-term accommodation.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making those points and for giving way. He will be aware that platforms such as Airbnb have been calling for a register of short-term lets for a long time. Does he agree that a register is precisely what the industry wants because that would allow it effectively to nick properties from other platforms? However, what communities need is their local planning authorities to have the powers to decide on the number of short-term lets and whether to renew licences when there has been antisocial behaviour.
Kevin Foster
First, I would gently point out that the debate is focusing on the planning system and giving local councils the ability to prevent overconcentration in particular areas, as well as having an eye to the wider housing situation when deciding whether a property should be converted.
On the allied issue of putting a registration system in place, my own tourism industry would like to see that, and having a register of properties being used for this purpose would make it easier to do certain compliance checks. If people were in breach of lease obligations, whereby they might not be allowed to sub-let a property by the freeholder, that would be highlighted.
A register needs to be seen as part of a range of measures, but it is worth noting that a wider regulatory system would be introduced once there was a register of such properties. Today, however, the focus is clearly on the planning system and how we could empower local authorities on behalf of their local communities to shape the housing market in this area to ensure that we do not see streets that should be providing residential homes becoming holiday parks.
Owing to the issues with registration, or the lack of registration, it is hard to get exact numbers for the properties involved. However, I note the report by Alma Economics commissioned by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to analyse the results of its recent consultation on developing a tourist accommodation registration scheme in England. The report concludes that although there is no single source of data on short-term lets in England “one plausible estimate” is 257,000 properties in 2022.
Another piece of analysis, which was undertaken by the charity CPRE—the Campaign to Protect Rural England—looked at property data collected by AirDNA on Airbnb and similar platforms, and estimated that 148,000 properties in England were being used for short-term lettings in September 2021. That analysis points to what makes this a core issue for those of us lucky enough to represent beautiful parts of our United Kingdom such as Torbay, where tourism is one of the main drivers of our economy owing to its concentration in the area.
Further analysis from CPRE confirms that some areas have seen a dramatic increase in short-term lettings in recent years. For example, in Cornwall, short-term listings increased by 661% in the five years to September 2021. While Airbnb is one of several providers of listings of short-term lets, it is the best known company operating in this area and is generally held to be leading the market, with its name becoming synonymous with such activity.
Kevin Foster
I am going to make progress because I want to give other Members the chance to speak.
Let me put a scale on the activity: analysis by financial services company Moore Stephens suggests that in 2018 Airbnb was about a third of the size of the hotel sector in London. Discussion on the growth of short-term lettings tends to focus on Airbnb, so there has been much analysis of its numbers in particular locations, but that still does not capture the whole picture. Hence the need for a registration scheme.
I welcome innovation in our tourism industry, and I recognise that Airbnb has met a demand for a different type of accommodation offer, which visitors are looking for. Previous generations developed new offers for visitors, such as holiday parks that could offer a package deal to workers who, between the wars, were able to take paid holiday leave for the first time. That followed the innovations of Victorian pioneers, who used the ability to travel created by the railways to build mass market tourism, which prompted the dramatic expansion of many coastal resorts, including Paignton and Torquay. The outcome of the debate should not be us concluding that we should seek to end such use; it must be that a balance needs to be struck, and that powers need to be created to achieve that balance in areas where large numbers of such properties already exist, and local housing supply is constrained.
We should not start by assuming that a property listed as a short-term holiday let would otherwise be a family home. Caravans, feature properties and specially built holiday accommodation centred around an owner’s residence, such as a block of small holiday cottages on a farm or hotel site, or in the grounds of another property, are unlikely to be available to rent more generally, but there are growing signs that property owners have moved to end the use as homes of properties that were built as and intended to be residential housing, in some cases evicting families to do so.
In my local surgeries, I have seen cases of that nature, and Torbay Council often has to try to find a solution at the public expense. I also note the examples highlighted as part of the survey conducted with the aid of the parliamentary engagement team, which saw 188 people get in touch. Many of the replies were from the south-west, including one from Martin, a constituent of mine. He stated:
“If you complete a search for short term holiday lets in Torbay, you now get 1,000+ returns. This is an increase of over 500 in just a 2-year period. This is a significant reduction in the availability of private rented accommodation in the Bay, causing rentals to jump in cost, and some residents to become homeless at the end of their tenancy.”
There is also Terry, who stated:
“Short-term holiday lets have had a catastrophic impact on housing availability...Post-covid the housing dynamic in my town changed as many private landlords sought to capitalise on a thriving holiday market and flipped their private rents to holiday lets. This meant a flurry of Section 21 notices with no alternative private tenancies available.”
Then there is Mark, who stated that he represents a local campaigning group:
“We are not against holiday lets; many of our members work within the industry. What we want is to give our local council the powers to balance the needs of the economics of tourism with the basic human need of local families to have a safe, affordable place to live”.
I appreciate that the practice brings greater reward for some property owners, but unchecked growth and overconcentration create a danger of undermining the very tourism sector that makes it possible.
There is not just a moral case for preventing families being made homeless to create new tourism accommodation, but a pressing economic one. Tourism relies on many key workers; without them, it cannot function. Similarly, tourism relies on a range of other services to support it, including health, retail and transport. If workers in those sectors cannot access a home in the area concerned at a price at which they can afford to rent or buy, it inevitably creates recruitment issues.
I accept the argument that a key part of tackling the problem is ensuring that a supply of new homes is created in the community concerned. I have spoken before about the poor record on delivering affordable housing of the Lib Dem-independent coalition that ran Torbay Council until the recent elections, and it will not be alone. Preventing more existing properties from being converted into short-term lets will not create the new ones needed, but that will take time while the impact of conversion is immediate. It is also not unprecedented to restrict types of uses in some locations. Houses in multiple occupation—HIMOs—are a useful part of our housing supply mix, yet we rightly allow councils to limit their numbers in specific locations to ensure that an excess concentration does not create serious issues for a specific community.
Many of the problems cited in areas where there are large numbers of short-term holiday lets sound similar to those with HIMOs. Impacts may include noise disturbance, antisocial behaviour, inappropriate disposal of food waste and general refuse, and reduced security. For example, the Greater London Authority reports that in the five London boroughs with the most Airbnb listings—Camden, Kensington and Chelsea, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Westminster—there have been numerous complaints related to short-term letting activity, with Westminster reporting 194 complaints regarding noise, waste and antisocial behaviour in one year.
There are also issues with health and safety, along with fire regulations. Bitter past experience, including deaths in hotel and guest house fires, has led to a system of protections being put in place, yet there are concerns that the type of protections at a small guest house may not be replicated at a large property being used as a short-term holiday let. Such matters could be dealt with through registration, which means that compliance inspections can be made, yet they could also be helped with by ensuring that planning permission is sought before conversion to such use. There are also tax and business rates issues, but those are matters for another debate; our focus today is on the planning system.
Given the impacts, I was pleased when the Government honoured the commitment they gave to those of us who signed an amendment calling for change during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill by launching a consultation on planning measures to give local authorities greater control over the number of short-term lettings in their area when that is an issue. The proposals include creating a new use class for short-term holiday lets to distinguish them from dwelling houses—a key point in dealing with the issue—and introducing permitted development rights for dwelling house to short-term holiday let conversions and vice versa so that planning permission would usually not be required for those changes. Crucially, they also include giving local planning authorities the option to revoke the permitted development rights in their area using an article 4 direction. I am aware that the consultation closes on 7 June, and I encourage all those with an interest in the matter to take part.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to pre-judge the consultation, but she will know that there is a danger that if there is a protracted period of time between the announcement of the Government’s intention to change the system and their actually doing so property owners could seek to beat the deadline, exacerbating the issue that we seek to control. First, can she assure me that if the Secretary of State concludes changes should be made, she has engaged with local authorities about how quickly they can be implemented? Secondly, what thought has she given to ensuring that the outcome is not a closing-down sale, with a rush to convert before the new rules apply? Thirdly, has she ensured a slot has been secured for any legislative change? Fourthly, although I appreciate the need for consistency in standards and the application of terms, will she ensure that councils can set a policy in all or part of their areas, depending on local circumstances?
An appropriate level of short-term lets can create choice and attract visitors, yet families being evicted from their homes to create holiday accommodation is unacceptable. Requiring planning permission would give local authorities an opportunity to decide the right balance in their area while protecting family homes and giving those deciding on planning permission confidence that new housing developments cannot become a new holiday park. The current position is not sustainable; key workers are being priced out, and the very industry the properties rely on—tourism—is being damaged. It is vital that change comes, and I hope it comes quickly.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that quite a few Members wish to speak. I will start to call Front-Bench spokespeople around 10.28 am. We are looking at a guideline of five minutes each. I will not impose it, but I prevail on Members to use their discretion in keeping to that time.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your tutelage and guidance, Dame Caroline. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing the debate and leading with a very thoughtful introduction. Without wasting time, I endorse all the wise procedural questions he asked the Minister, who can take them from me as well.
We are talking about the problem of short-term lets. Representing the lakes, dales and other beautiful parts of Cumbria, I want to say clearly that we value the tourism economy. It is of massive significance, with 20 million visitors a year and 60,000 jobs in the sector. It is not just about the economy; we believe we have a duty to steward that beautiful part of the world for others to visit.
We are a national park where people can visit the Brathay outdoor education centre on Sunday, or the Outward Bound Trust centre at Ullswater. We live in a place that we want people to visit. It is a privilege to do that and to look after them. We are not denying that holiday lets are an important part of the tourism economy. There needs to be visitor accommodation, and that includes Airbnb, which is a neutral platform. The rules within which it operates are the problem.
We have to accept that, in my part of the world and that of many others in the Chamber today, there is not just a housing crisis, but a catastrophe. There are three principal causes: a lack of genuinely affordable homes being built; excessive numbers of second homes gobbling up full-time residential accommodation; and a short-term rented sector that has gobbled up the long-term private rented sector.
The register looks like an important step in tackling issues to do with standards and quality but clearly, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Torbay, it is a potential window to creating a separate category of planning use, which is necessary if we are to allow authorities such as the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales and Westmorland and Furness local authority the opportunity to regulate and keep a high minimum of long-term properties available for local people to live in.
The pandemic saw lots of things change. One was the stamp duty holiday, introduced by the now Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, which saw a massive boost in the number of second homes. Of all house sales in that period, 80% went to the second-home market in my part of the world. We saw an enormous increase of long-term rented properties collapsing principally into Airbnb, largely because the Government did not scrap section 21 evictions at the time they said they would.
The consequences are huge and human. I think of the couple with two small children in Ambleside, she a teaching assistant and he a chef. They were evicted from their flat because the landlord wanted to go to Airbnb. They had literally nowhere else to go, so the children were out of school, a teaching assistant was lost to the local primary school and a chef lost to a local hotel. They had to move 25 miles away and out of the area.
In Sedbergh, a relatively small town in the dales at the end of my constituency, 25 households were evicted at the same time—all chasing zero homes available for long-term rent. I think of a mum and her 15-year-old son, who lived their entire lives in a village just outside Grange before they were evicted. Again, there was nowhere they could remain within the community. When people are evicted, there is nowhere else to go.
I have some quick figures. There are 232 long-term rental properties available in the whole of the county of Cumbria, and there are 8,384 short-term lets, of which 75% are Airbnbs. When someone is kicked out of their home because their landlord wants to turn it into a short-term let, there is literally nowhere they can go in their community. The consequences are vast: hollowed-out communities, schools with falling rolls—many really good schools have seen 20% to 30% of their rolls disappear in two or three years—and a national park that only very wealthy and privileged people can afford to visit and stay in. It is devastating for our economy, too: 83% of hospitality and tourism businesses in Cumbria report that they have difficulty in recruiting staff. Some 63% are operating below capacity and are unable to meet demand because they cannot recruit the staff. That is for the tourism economy, which is worth £3.5 billion a year in the lakes and the dales of Cumbria. We are under-meeting the demand that exists because of a lack of staffing, as there is nowhere for people to live.
It is not just the tourism economy that is affected, but the care sector and other professions. At one stage, earlier this year, 32% of hospital beds in Morecambe bay were blocked. Why? The bottom line is that we cannot get people out of hospital because there are not enough carers. Why? Because there is nowhere for them to live.
What the Government are proposing may be locking the stable door after the horses have bolted, but I am glad that at least they are thinking of doing that. I am optimistic about a better and fairer housing market in the lakes, the dales and elsewhere in Cumbria, but it will need ambitious regulation. Part of my frustration is that this catastrophe is avoidable and obviously fixable. Short-term lets need to be a separate category of planning use so that local authorities can ensure that there are enough homes, not just in national parks but in places such as Grange, Kendal and Appleby.
The Government also need to tackle the number of second homes, although they show no intention of doing so. Why is a separate category of planning use not being considered for second homes? It is good that the Government have allowed local authorities to double the council tax on second homes, and we in Westmorland and Furness are gladly doing that. We also need to tackle the issue of new homes being affordable, which does not mean £300,000 a year. It requires giving not just national parks, but authorities outside them, the ability to say, “The only things you can build here have got to be affordable and available for local people.”
The housing catastrophe can be overturned, but with the Government planning to think about tackling only one of its three causes, those of us in Cumbria and communities like ours will remain of the view that this Government do not understand much, do not care much either, and are rather taking us all for granted.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing this morning’s debate on short-term holiday lets and the planning system.
I represent a glorious part of the UK. It is understandable that many people want to visit East Devon year after year: we have the Jurassic coast, stunning food, rolling hills, country pubs, quaint bed and breakfasts, and historic attractions. Many jobs in our communities depend on visitors enjoying the variety and availability of accommodation options. Visitors, in turn, spend money locally year after year.
Homeowners benefit from the flexibility offered by short-term lets. For many, it is an important second income at a time of high inflation. However, the soaring numbers of short-term lets and second home ownership make it more difficult for so many local people to own a home of their own. I live in Sidmouth, where a glance at the estate agent’s window reveals the reality: local people are being priced out of the market. It is a similar story in Beer, Branscombe, Budleigh Salterton, Exmouth, Topsham and Seaton. Many local people find it increasingly difficult to get on the property ladder, given the high prices advertised. Homes are often being sold to cash buyers from elsewhere within days of being advertised.
I hope the key message of today’s debate will be that we need to get the balance right. Homes to buy and for long-term rent are out of reach for many people who grew up in Devon, like me, or who work locally or need the support of family to look after a loved one. Our country and our county need strong communities all year round, not places that are ghost towns half the year. What have the Government done, what will the Government do and where could the Government go further?
Simon Jupp
I have a short speech, so I will make some progress.
The Government have been listening to the concerns of colleagues, particularly those who represent tourist hotspots in Devon, Cornwall, Norfolk, the Lake district and Yorkshire. There have been welcome measures. The Government have already introduced higher rates of stamp duty for additional properties. They have closed business rate loopholes. They plan to let local authorities double council tax on second homes, as has been mentioned. That is a great start, but more action is needed, specifically on short-term lets. That is why I welcome the introduction of a registration scheme through an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which will bring short-term lets up to a higher standard and provide much-needed data on activity in local areas.
This debate is timely, because the consultation on how the registration scheme will be administered is still open; it closes in roughly a fortnight. There are also plans to restrict the ways in which homes can be flipped into short-term lets by bringing in new permitted development rights for a change in use from a C3 dwelling house to a C5 short-term let. Councils would then have the option to limit the use of those permitted development rights, such as in certain geographical areas with the highest number of short-term lets. Let me tell you: East Devon is definitely one of those.
The consultation is running in parallel to the one on registration schemes, which also closes soon. It is right to give local councils all the tools they need. Those powers should not be mandated by Whitehall officials. Decisions will be made by local people elected at the ballot box. I hope that East Devon District Council will use the tools given to it by this Conservative Government.
Finally, there are areas in which the Government can go further. As I have mentioned before in Parliament, one policy could be to allow councils to reserve a percentage of new builds for people with a local family or economic connection to an area. For example, the purchaser or tenant could have to meet one of the following conditions: that they currently live or work within 25 miles of the property, that they were born within 25 miles of the property, or that they can demonstrate a care network within 25 miles of the property. A covenant would permanently protect a percentage of any new housing stock from short-term let or second home ownership. We undoubtedly need to build new homes in East Devon, but we should aim to look after locals first. The Government can be creative and proactive in looking at all possible options. Only then will there be a better balance.
Obviously there are two sides to this debate, and I do acknowledge that short-term holiday lets bring visitors to the places we love. Visitors contribute a great deal to our communities in East Devon, but their stay is often enjoyable only because of local workers behind the bar of a pub, in the kitchen of a restaurant or tapping on the till of a local high street shop. Those workers need somewhere to live, too. Our economy in East Devon would grind to a halt without them. We need a much better balance for our communities in East Devon for local people, now and for generations to come.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
We are here again talking about Airbnbs and second homes. On a cross-party basis, we are all still demanding action from Ministers. Some demand it louder and some demand it more politely, but the basic premise is that the Government are clearly not listening to the needs of rural and coastal communities because the level of action that is required is not being implemented. Time and again, in debates like this, we have heard that just tweaking this little bit here or that little bit there will make a difference. It will not.
We need to be honest about the scale of the housing crisis in rural and coastal communities, be honest that the pandemic turbocharged that housing crisis, and be honest about what needs to be done to change it. That is really important. There are too many people in rural and coastal communities, such as those I represent in Plymouth, who are being turfed out of their homes and seeing those homes being flipped immediately into Airbnbs with astronomical rates. The promise that section 21 evictions would be banned was given to families like the ones being turfed out. It needs to be delivered, but it has not been. That is a political choice. I encourage the Minister to bring forward the ban on section 21 evictions and make it proper.
We need more homes. The south-west has enough houses; we just do not have enough homes for people to live in. In Cornwall, there are 23,500 households on the housing waiting list and there are approximately 25,000 second and holiday homes. The solution is not to convert one to the other straightaway, but to recognise that if we want to address the housing crisis, we have to build more to protect people in long-term rentals and ensure that housing is affordable for everyone.
Working with Councillor Jayne Kirkham, the leader of the Labour group on Cornwall Council, and Perran Moon, our candidate in Camborne and Redruth, we put together our First Homes Not Second Homes manifesto. I presented it 18 months ago—pretty much standing in the same spot in the same debate—and I am glad that some of it has started to gain political traction.
I want councils to have more power, and not just to double council tax—we originally proposed quadrupling it. I think the Government could go faster in allowing councils to do that. I note that Cornwall Council, a Tory-controlled authority, has just written to the Government asking for the power to triple council tax, raising an extra £50 million a year. In a county such as Cornwall, that would be a really important part of this.
I want a licensing scheme to be introduced, but it is not enough just to have a licensing scheme. We need a very clear cap and floor so that local communities can decide how many second homes and Airbnbs are suitable in a community, to prevent it from being hollowed out. That is a really important part of a licensing scheme. It is not enough just to have a list; we need a floor and a cap to ensure that it works properly.
Then we need to build more—we need to build, build, build. In the words of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities,
“there simply aren’t enough homes in this country.”
We need to ensure that we have enough homes, not just enough houses. Scrapping the housing targets may have been good politics for the Prime Minister in keeping his own Back Benchers happy, but it is not dealing with the housing crisis in places such as the south-west. We need builders, not blockers, we need first homes, not second homes, and we need long-term lets, not just short-term lets. We also need to consider the profound consequences, one of which is the hollowing out of community infrastructure that comes from having too many Airbnbs and second homes in a community.
That is why we also propose a “last shop in the village” fund, created through a levy on empty second homes, that would help to support the last shop in a village, the last pharmacy, the last post office, the last pub or the last bus route. When those facilities go, communities are hollowed out. The community infrastructure that gels a community together and brings people together is lost and cannot be easily replaced.
Finally, we have argued—I still think this is needed—that we need to lock in a discount for local people. I like the idea of covenants: protected, stronger covenants for local people who work in certain industries. That is a really important part of recognising that we need a mixed economy in a community, but we need to do more of it and it needs to go further.
The reality is that second homes, Airbnbs and the planning system, which were once a niche issue, are now a regular issue in this place. We—nearly every single one of the characters due to speak today—will be back here in a few months’ time, repeating the same debate, because we are not seeing the level of action that is required. If we are speaking honestly, the Government are the blocker on this one. The Government could go further if they chose to do so. I encourage the Minister to take this message back to the decision makers in power: we need to see action on second homes, Airbnbs and the lack of affordable housing in rural and coastal communities before we truly hollow out those communities at an irreparable rate.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing the debate and ensuring that a Minister from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will respond. My hon. Friend has comprehensively set out why this debate is needed. Tourism is vital for my constituency, as it is for his. I have discussed the impact of holiday lets with the Tourism Minister, but although tourism sits with culture, media and sport, the effect of holiday lets needs to be addressed as part of the planning system, as we have heard. Holiday lets have grown by 661% in Cornwall in five years, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England. That means that there is less property available for homes. I can assure the House that house building has not grown at the same rate, so the inevitable has occurred: families have lost their homes and the insatiable demand for housing goes on.
The consequence of this gold rush for short-term holiday lets, particularly because people have discovered through various TV programmes and the G7 that Cornwall is a great place to visit, is that prices are driven out of reach for local residents and for people who could become local residents. Like other Cornish MPs who are here today, I speak to NHS managers who are unable to persuade carers, nurses or dentists to relocate to west Cornwall, and to Cornwall generally, because they cannot afford to live there. I speak to businesses that want to expand, but that have the same difficulty with attracting staff. By taking action on holiday lets, we will not just level up on housing; we will also level up on health disparities and economic disparities.
The planning system exists to protect amenity in the public interest, but a disproportionate number of holiday lets hit amenity more than most developments, making schools, shops, churches and clubs unsustainable. Local authorities need the ability to protect their communities—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. The Government are rightly consulting on a new use class for holiday lets, but we need a joined-up approach across Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) correctly pointed out, there are incentives for landlords to switch from long-term rentals to short-term holiday lets, and landlords have followed the incentives. One in 10 holiday let companies were previously registered as buy-to-let businesses. I know we want to stick to planning, but this issue needs to be addressed across Government. Some of these incentives come from the Treasury, such as when it stopped buy-to-let businesses claiming their mortgage costs against tax. Those incentives will only get stronger as interest rates continue to drive up landlords’ mortgage rates. Will the Minister talk to Treasury colleagues so that both Departments are working in the same direction?
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has still not clarified whether it will act on its proposals to require rental properties to have an energy performance certificate rating of C or above. That means that landlords are already switching to holiday lets, which are not subject to the same minimum energy efficiency standards. Last July, the Government announced a review of the methodology used for EPC ratings. We all recognise that the current system is not fit for purpose and delivers wrong outcomes for the people living in the property. An update on the review would be welcome.
There is a lack of clarity about properties that will never be able to reach a C rating. The art deco flat owned by my constituent has curved windows that cannot be double-glazed and curved walls that cannot be insulated. It is not listed, so it may not be exempt; the only option then would be to use it as a holiday let. Will the Minister work with her colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to provide certainty and clarity on EPC standards for long lets and on the review of EPCs?
Finally, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is increasing protection for renters, but the legislation must balance that with the rights of landlords. I hear the passion of Opposition Members about section 21, but landlords are already worried about what that will mean for them. People who have properties or were left properties and were thinking about providing long lets are considering turning them into holiday lets. One landlord put it to me that the Department has assumed that all landlords are Rachmans, and he was tempted to throw in the towel and switch to holiday lets. Will the Minister assure my constituent that private landlords are a valuable part of the solution to the housing crisis and that the Government will ensure that they are not replaced by holiday let businesses?
I suspect that there are constituencies that do not present the same pull factor for people planning their holidays, but in areas such as west Cornwall and Torbay, urgent action is needed to address the squeeze on housing for people who live and work in those beautiful parts of the nation. We love our tourism, but local homes are needed to ensure that strong local communities survive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for setting the scene. He and I are good friends; we are always in debates together, and it is a pleasure to be in a debate that he has initiated. I acknowledge the massive difference in planning and procedure between Northern Ireland and his constituency, but the need is the same and the case must therefore be made for UK-wide reform.
I say this unashamedly: I am privileged to represent the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom, Strangford. No matter what other hon. Members may believe, that is an indisputable fact. With that knowledge comes a belief in what could be achieved if we utilise that potential through tourism. Tourism is a key economic driver for my constituency and we try to promote it wherever we can. We have everything you would need for a short or long break: matchless views, superior dining and coffee houses, outdoor activities, beautiful spas—the possibilities are endless. Indeed, I know that the Minister was suitably impressed when she and her husband visited last year for just a taste of what we have to offer. I know she cannot wait to get back once again and enjoy the wonderful times that she had there. I am not sure if the weather was good for her, but hopefully it was.
One of the results of covid and the escalating price of travel has been that people have remembered the beauty of staying and holidaying within their own nation. With that has come an increasing need for accommodation: many people are eschewing traditional hotels and choosing Airbnb lets where they can take pets and children and enjoy the experience of different surroundings, but put their children to bed and watch a film together in the evening, or leave the dog in the house and go for a walk.
It has become clear that demand for short-term lets far outstrips what is available. That is why I support the ability to build small lets in their beautiful country gardens, so that they can gain additional income and bring tourism to the area. I will give an example. I know of one such request, on the beautiful Portaferry Road in Newtownards, which is the most incredible stretch of road in the entire area. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty. I am privileged to live on the edge of Strangford lough, which is one of the UK’s largest sea loughs and one of the most important wildlife habitats anywhere in Europe. Strangford lough—one of only three marine nature reserves in the UK—is a water wildlife paradise. If people are lucky, they may spot seals, basking sharks or short-beaked common dolphins there—that is some of the marine biology we have there.
It is little wonder that one canny local realised that there was untapped potential for short-stay lets at Strangford lough. He drew up the plans, he made the business case and he put in the application. The planners turned down the application, saying that it was not a permitted development, and gave no thought to the tourism potential, which would have allowed the council to meet its tourism aims. I am thankful that good sense prevailed, and a wonderful councillor on the planning committee, Alderman Stephen McIlveen, was able to skilfully highlight the wrong decision, using the planning policy. The decision was overturned, and we now have a lovely Airbnb, which is in high demand, bringing money to the local economy. We need a UK-wide change of policy, so that weight must be given in decision making to the needs of the tourism industry. It should not simply be that permission can be given if the officer agrees.
Richard Foord
Is the hon. Member familiar with the concept of the digital nomad, and would he want them in his constituency? The digital nomad is somebody who has a first home, but can work elsewhere, in a second home. Unlike the traditional nomad, who moves seasonally, those people often have more than one home. Would he agree that local authorities ought to have regard to the concept of the digital nomad?
Jim Shannon
I agree. The thrust of the debate so far has been that councils should have a say on what happens. We all understand the need to protect beautiful areas in our countryside, but protecting does not mean abandoning. Tasteful, small accommodation can breathe life into villages and coffee shops; that must be taken into consideration, but in Northern Ireland, it is not the standard position, so there are some things we must change.
Although not every application enhances tourism potential, it is time for the House to make it clear that there should at least be consideration of the legislative aspect of this issue. I ask the Minister to ensure that devolved bodies throughout the United Kingdom follow that trajectory. We have the capacity to make the most of international city breaks and local holidays, but to achieve that we must sow into our facilities. A change to the law is necessary to do that. I know that the Minister understands the issues and will reply to everyone’s requests in a sympathetic way, thus getting the ball rolling in the House today.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to support my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Across south Devon, we have been dealing with this issue for a long time. The debate comes down to a point of balance. If we are implementing measures to try to improve housing stock, then we are doing the wrong thing. Over the last three years, we have successfully worked together across the House to try to change the law around short-term lets. We changed the business rate loophole, so that there is an actual number of days that houses have to be let for. We changed council tax rates to 200% on empty and second homes. We are looking at how neighbourhood plans can take into account the amount of second homes when new houses are built. There is also the consultation, which has been mentioned time and again. A large body of legislation has not just being promised, but has already been delivered, and there is legislation currently in the House of Lords. It is not correct to say that nothing has been done, and that two years on, nothing has changed. A great deal has changed. The question, however, is: what is the intent? What are we trying to do? If we are asking for more houses, then we need to build more houses, and changing the rules around short-term lets will not deliver them. We must have that in mind in this debate.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) correctly mentioned how important tourism is to his local economy; it is the same across Devon and Cornwall, as he well knows, and of course across Strangford, too. In my area, 3% of the economy is based around tourism and hospitality, and we all understand the need to attract people to our area, and to find the employees to work in the visitor economy.
In Devon, there are 13,363 second homes. That is up by 11% from last year. In my constituency of Totnes in south Devon, there are 3,454 Airbnb lets. Madam Chair, if you were to take out your phone right now and look at Rightmove for a long-term rental property in my area, you would find only 34 properties, and they are unaffordable. The challenge for my constituency is in both being a welcoming area for second homes, and being a place where people can live and work. Day in, day out, my inbox is filled with correspondence from teachers, doctors, lawyers, nurses and others who want to live and work in the area, but who struggle to get into the housing market, either by buying or renting. We must consider measures to encourage more people to offer up housing for the long-term rental market.
It is interesting that we are having a conversation around section 21, because there is a debate this afternoon on that very subject and what we do about leaseholder reforms. We must have measures to encourage people to make their properties available for long-term renting, because across our constituencies—I would imagine that we are all in tourist destinations—not many of the houses put up for rent are in that long-term market. How we achieve that must be at the forefront of our mind when legislation is next brought forward.
We should start by thinking about unintended consequences. We are sent to this place to think about how we can improve situations. I suspect that that is exactly what George Osborne thought he was doing in 2015 when he changed the tax relief on mortgage interest payments. However, that change has completely disincentivised the long-term rental market and completely favours the short-term rental market. If people can receive three, four, or in some cases five times more rent from Airbnb than from the long-term rental market, what is the point of their going into the long-term rental market?
We have to think about what we are doing, today and in forthcoming legislation. I give the Minister due warning that a great many of us will want to shape that legislation, so that we can find a balance. We need to support the rights of tenants and landlords, and encourage a fair system that allows both sides proper representation in the law. That matters, because if we get this wrong, it will be incredibly difficult for us to support either the short-term letting market, which is so important to our visitor economy, or the long-term market, which is needed if we are to encourage digital nomads or others to live and work in different parts of the country.
There has been a lot of conversation around farming and diversification. As we are no longer in the common agricultural policy, our farmers have been asked, through the environmental land management scheme, to consider how they can diversify. However, time and again, they are hampered from changing the use of their properties. We must make it easier for them to do so. It is no good taking away their subsidies, and then changing the system and saying, “It is this difficult to apply for planning permission.” Time and again, farmers and rural businesses face huge costs from organisations such as Natural England, with the result that they cannot diversify.
If we want to improve housing stock; encourage landlords to let long-term rental properties; encourage primary residency building, as is envisaged in the neighbourhood plans; and encourage an ability to diversify in rural landscapes, we must act. If we get that right, we can achieve the perfect balance between short-term lets, long-term lets and affordable properties, because in the end, the issue all boils down to supply.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I am thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who brought it forward. As everybody has said, this matter dominates our postbags in every constituency around the country; it has been incredibly important in North Norfolk ever since I was elected. It is pertinent for me, because I was born and raised in North Norfolk and I have seen what has happened over the last 10 or so years; the property market has been turbocharged.
We have all said nice things about our constituencies. Mine is coastal, rural, beautiful and idyllic, just like pretty much everybody else’s here. However, there are unique and very difficult issues for tourism hotpots, which all suffer from the same phenomenon. People probably do not know that North Norfolk has the second highest number of second homes and holiday lets outside of London and Westminster. We talk a lot about how the issue affects the Lake district, the Peak district and the south-west, but 9.8% of all homes in North Norfolk are second homes or holiday lets. That is nearly 5,500 out of our 55,000 homes. Of course, we have a huge leisure and tourism offering, as do other areas, but with that offering comes nearly 3,000 holiday lets. That number has been totally turbocharged since the pandemic.
To put those figures into context, in Wells-next-the-Sea, which is one of the primary areas that I represent—I am sure many colleagues have holidayed there—40% of all homes are now second homes or holiday lets. In the villages around my constituency that are often coined “Chelsea-on-sea”, such as Morston, Salthouse, and Blakeney, where every new build house now goes for £1 million, over 50% of the homes are holiday homes or holiday lets. Some 2,700 families and households are on the North Norfolk District Council housing list. That cannot go on.
I may be a Conservative, but sometimes the Government are right to intervene in the market to try to help people. I am pleased that when the Minister speaks, we will hear that the Government are doing something about this issue. We have to recognise what the Government have achieved in just the last few years. I am pleased to see that the planning system is being considered. That comes on top of the doubling of council tax for second homes that are not used. Those are sensible, proportionate and measured ways in which we can improve the situation.
We must remember that all our local economies are supported by tourism. In North Norfolk, it generates £529 million. However, that is absolutely no good if the local restaurant, hotel, care home or shop cannot employ anybody in the vicinity. Communities do not want to be ghost towns in the winter. We have tried different things. We tried placing local restrictions; for example, we had residents-only referendums in St Ives, which did nothing but turbocharge the market. They did not work appropriately. We have tried placing restrictions in house builders’ sale documents, to say that homes are primary residences. However, those documents quickly become not worth the paper they are written on, and stag and hen parties turn up to those estates. People retire to those places to live in comfort, only to have that taken away from them.
It is right that local authorities, which know the areas better than anybody else, be given the planning tools to help. When we double council tax on second homes, we should think about district councils. Mine receives only 8p in the pound to help the areas that receive that double taxation. Those local authorities should be able to take that money back. I know the Treasury does not like hypothecated revenue, but we should help those local authorities by giving them that money—it is worth £8.2 million in North Norfolk—to build more affordable homes to rent and to buy, so that they can help the communities affected. This is about a range of tools, not one, but the measures I have mentioned are proportionate and will help.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for bringing forward this important debate. I do not want to go over old ground when my colleagues have already been so articulate about the issues we have in Cornwall and other parts of the country. However, I want to address a couple of points, particularly on buildings.
I was elected in 2019, and covid hit three months later. I had my first village surgery in August 2020, and 15 families came within two hours. Every single one of them in St Agnes was being evicted because the property was being flipped from a long-term letting to a short-term holiday let. That problem had already been bubbling up, but it was made more acute by covid, people wanting to move to Cornwall, and people wanting to flip their properties to holiday lets. When I came back to this place, there was an accusation that Cornwall was not building enough, but that is not true.
I pay tribute to Councillor Linda Taylor, the leader of our council, and Olly Monk, the housing and planning lead. Cornwall Council, working with partners, is starting to produce more than 1,000 homes a year. More than 700 homes built in the last two years are affordable. That is more than Leeds and Manchester, so Cornwall is definitely doing its bit to build homes. Cornwall has also been in the top two authorities for building affordable homes in the last 10 years, and has been at the forefront of asking the Government to launch consultations on registering second homes and changing the planning rules around short-term holiday lets. That is because we have a Conservative council, six Conservative Cornish MPs, and a Conservative Government, who are all working together behind the scenes to make the changes to achieve the balance that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) mentioned.
Short-term holiday lets also have a knock-on effect on services in Cornwall. We have an influx of people in the summer. I have asked for fairer funding for our NHS and police. With the sharp rise in short-term holiday lets, issues become more acute, because we get more and more people coming in, beyond those who come to our hotels and B&Bs, and that puts extra pressure on our hospitals and police—a point the Minister might want to take back to the Department.
Covid brought out how fantastic our communities are in Cornwall. I often say to our parish councils and community leaders that if I could bottle that and send it to the rest of the country, I would. When covid hit, the vast majority of our communities knew where our elderly and vulnerable people lived and were able to help straight away. We are Conservatives, so we should want to do everything we can to conserve that. One of the villages just down the road from where I live is over 70% second homes already; we have to do what we can to halt that. We live in a pretty place. We want to look after our elderly and vulnerable people and ensure that young families can afford to live there, too.
I will not go on, because colleagues have articulated the point brilliantly, but I have one plea to my constituents and everybody in Cornwall: please feed into the Government’s consultation, which closes on 7 June. I make that plea to everybody: short-term holiday let owners, hoteliers, the police, the hospitals, everybody who is looking for staff in Cornwall, and residents. Only by getting a vast array of opinions and arguments in favour and against can the Government get this right. Working together, we will get this right, and get the finances for our communities.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
Thank you, everybody, for keeping so beautifully to time. I will now call the Front-Bench spokespeople, starting with Joanna Cherry.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Caroline. I commend the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing this debate.
As a Member of Parliament representing an Edinburgh constituency, I am well aware of the impact that the explosion in short-term let properties has on local housing markets in tourist hotspots. The debate was prompted at least in part by the UK Government’s recently opened consultation on a registration scheme for short-term rental properties in England. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government have been quicker to act on these issues. They have implemented legislation, and our scheme is now up and running in Scotland. That is but one example of a policy area where, despite limited powers of devolution, tangible measures to tackle the cost of living crisis and the cost of housing are being implemented in Scotland.
Joanna Cherry
I want to develop my point. Licensing and planning rules have already been introduced by the Scottish Government for the city of Edinburgh, and owners of short-term lets have until October to comply with the changes. Edinburgh became the first let control area in July 2022, and a smaller control area is being planned in the highlands. The First Minister also recently proposed allowing councils to double the council tax paid on empty and second homes.
The supply of housing and the impact on rents for local people has been well articulated during this debate. Housing matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but as a Westminster MP, I often get requests from constituents who are struggling to afford rented property. It is not just in tourist cities such as Edinburgh that these problems are acute; rural Scotland also faces housing shortages as a result of the growth in the short-term rental sector. As in rural areas of England, that has an acute impact on the provision of local services, particularly health services; nurses and carers struggle to find accommodation in many of Scotland’s rural communities, and in many areas of the highlands and islands.
The shortage of affordable rental properties also impacts directly on the tourism sector, as many workers simply cannot find anywhere affordable to live. In the islands of Scotland, there are reported cases of many of those important tourism sector workers being forced to sofa surf. In some cases, they have been advised to wait until after 6 o’clock to try to book last-minute accommodation on platforms such as Airbnb—the very platforms that are preventing them from accessing housing in the first place.
Many communities are at risk of being hollowed out by an oversaturation of short-term lets, which not only drive up rent and squeeze out long-term renters by reducing the supply of housing, but cause problems for neighbours and put additional strain on council services. I know from my own casework that a problem that originally affected only Edinburgh’s medieval old town has spread across the entire city, and it is not just about soaring rents and the scarcity of properties for rent. Long-term residents face living with constantly changing groups of tourists, who put pressure on the building or street’s communal waste bins, hold regular and noisy parties, or simply check out early or very late for flights, banging their suitcases down common stairwells at all times of the day and night. In some buildings in the old town of Edinburgh, almost all the flats are now Airbnbs, while the last few remaining residents feel squeezed out and endure constant noise, so the provisions introduced by the Scottish Government and City of Edinburgh Council will be extremely important.
The removal of a large number of properties from long-term rent has an impact on the wider economy, and a city like Edinburgh cannot grow without homes for workers. Living, breathing communities are what make tourist destinations attractive. Four years ago, when the Scottish Government concluded their first consultation on short-term lets, CNN cited the city of Edinburgh, the Taj Mahal, Machu Picchu, Dubrovnik and Iceland as famous destinations that
“can no longer cope with their own popularity”.
That is why City of Edinburgh Council has produced a new tourism strategy, which notes that:
“One of Edinburgh’s most distinctive features is that established residential communities are to be found right across the city, including in the city centre.”
Our council strategy goes on to say:
“The quality of life for residents and the attractiveness of Edinburgh as a destination are inextricably linked. The one cannot suffer at the expends of the other.”
Anthony Mangnall
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member’s speech. I congratulate her enormously on the proposals that have been put forward in Edinburgh; there is a great deal that we can learn across the country. I just wonder whether there are any forecasts out there of how these proposals are likely to affect the long-term letting market. I know it is a bit early, but it would be helpful to understand whether the measures being introduced in Edinburgh could be replicated elsewhere.
Joanna Cherry
I know that City of Edinburgh Council and the Scottish Government are monitoring what happens in Edinburgh, because we hope that the scheme will be rolled out across the country. I am sure that information will be available in due course. The scheme has also been welcomed by the chair of the Edinburgh Hotels Association, which represents 54 hotels covering nearly 9,000 bedrooms across the city. He said that
“the increase of short-term lets in sensitive urban and rural locations does nothing to enhance the visitor experience. A licensing scheme can help balance this, ensuring that our city and country continues to enjoy the benefits of tourism”.
As hon. Members have mentioned, licensing can also deal with safety issues.
The whole of the city of Edinburgh has now been designated as a let control area, and others are planned for the Scottish highlands. The Scottish Government will also go further by giving councils powers to ensure that tourism works for communities by introducing a transient visitor levy, which will give councils discretionary powers to apply a levy on visitors so that they can respond to local circumstances more effectively and develop, support or sustain the visitor economy.
A huge part of our current cost of living crisis across the United Kingdom is that people on low incomes—key workers, and also students, who are our future—face an acute housing crisis. I welcome this debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I urge the Conservative Government to follow the Scottish Government’s and put in place bold measures to try to protect ordinary households from profiteering in the housing market. The action needed to tackle the impact of soaring numbers of short-term holiday lets on the housing crisis is now overdue. I am proud to say that, certainly in this policy area, the Scottish Government and the City of Edinburgh Council have a very good story to tell.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing this important debate and commend him for the focused and thoughtful remarks he made in opening it. I also thank all other hon. Members who have participated in the debate. In particular, I praise the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Both have long called for bold action in this area, and both brought home the need for urgency in taking the measures still required to tackle it.
It is not in dispute that holiday homes and self-catering apartments have an important role to play in catering to the needs of tourists, as well as those who require short-term accommodation for work or other purposes. All hon. Members who have spoken clearly recognise the contribution of short-term holiday lets, and the visitor economy more generally, to the prosperity of individual homeowners and local economies in their constituencies. When we respond to the issue, it is absolutely right, as the hon. Members for East Devon (Simon Jupp) and for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) mentioned, that we should get the balance right.
As we have heard repeatedly throughout the debate, the issue is that the surge in the numbers of homes marketed for short-term holiday lets over recent years has generated a number of significant challenges for communities across the country. Those challenges range from the immediate impact on residents, neighbourhoods and local services of high visitor turnover, particularly when short-term lets are abused by the minority of antisocial or disruptive guests, to the longer-term negative impact on entire communities with respect to the affordability and availability of homes for local people—and, indeed, those who work in the visitor economy—to both buy and rent.
As noted several times in the debate, those challenges are obviously most acute in areas of the country, be they rural, coastal or urban, where the concentration of short-term holiday lets is extremely high. It is worth noting that they are also particularly evident in London, owing to the fact that the Cameron Government decided, by means of the Deregulation Act 2015, to loosen requirements on short-term letting in the capital, allowing properties to be let for a maximum of 90 days a year without requiring planning permission. The Government were warned at the time about the harmful consequences that would flow from the relevant provisions in that Act, not least given that few, if any, London boroughs have the means to monitor and enforce the 90-day limit, but those warnings went unheeded, and short-term let abuse is now rife in many parts of the capital as a result. I feel duty bound, as the only London MP in the debate, to mention that particular problem.
It has been abundantly clear for some time that the deregulated nature of the short-term letting sector is deeply problematic. There is a pressing need to overhaul the sector’s regulatory framework to account for the significant changes that have taken place over the past 10 to 15 years, but also, we would argue, a watertight case for giving local authorities that are struggling to cope with high concentrations of short-term holiday lets the powers they need to protect the sustainability and cohesion of their communities. It is true, as the hon. Member for Totnes mentioned, that measures have been enacted on the business rates loophole and neighbourhood plans to try to tackle the problem, but we argue that they are clearly insufficient, not least because we would not be debating the issue today if they went a long way to solving the problem.
Having opposed for years the very notion that robust regulatory intervention was required to address the negative impact of short-term holiday lets on communities and local housing markets, the Government were finally forced to act in June 2021.
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Member has criticised the Government for introducing policies, but I wonder what Labour’s position is on what the correct level of short-term lets in communities is.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Member gives me the opportunity, I will go on to make clear where we differ from the Government, in what they have and have not proposed.
As I was saying, when the Government finally acted in June 2021, they did so only in the most limited fashion, agreeing to have the Department for Culture, Media and Sport consult on a tourism accommodation registration scheme in England. After consistently resisting various attempts to amend the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in Committee, so that it might provide local communities with more effective means of redress, the Government were forced to go further late last year. The concession they made on Report, on 13 December, was to agree only in principle to introduce a discretionary registration scheme in England, and only by means of legislation that might come into force as late as autumn next year.
Subsequently urged to go further still by the Opposition—as well as, it must be said, many Government Members—Ministers have now committed, as we have heard, to consult on the introduction of a new planning use class for short-term lets. Let me be clear—here I address the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes—that the package currently on offer from the Government still falls short of the comprehensive suite of measures that we would like to see enacted at pace to tackle this problem. The Government remain opposed to, for example, the introduction of a discretionary licensing scheme of the kind we have proposed on numerous occasions, which we think would be the solution in many parts of the country dealing with particularly high concentrations.
None the less, we welcome the consultation on the new planning use class, just as we welcome the commitment to introduce a new discretionary registration scheme. However, as so often with this Government, where they propose to give with one hand, they plan to take away with the other. Because that new consultation, as the hon. Member mentioned at the outset, also invites views on introducing new permitted development rights that would make it easier to convert dwelling houses into short-term lets, with proposed article 4 direction protections applicable, according to the consultation, only in
“the smallest geographical area possible”.
I encourage hon. Members to go and see what investors are saying about that part of the consultation. They say they are happy with the consultation overall, because the inclusion of that provision makes it light touch, and will make it incredibly attractive and easy for investors to convert properties into short-term lets. I caution the Government about going down that route, not least because the consultation makes clear that what they propose in that expansion of permitted development rights would not be subject to any limitations or conditions, and would apply in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I want to put on record the Opposition’s serious concerns about the implications of expanding permitted development rights in that way and our intention to scrutinise extremely carefully any measures that the Government might ultimately decide to bring forward in this area.
The more fundamental issue is the frankly glacial pace of the Government’s overall response to the challenges posed to communities across the country by the surge in short-term holiday lets. For many English communities, particularly those with extremely high concentrations of such lets, it is not hyperbole to argue that those challenges are existential, entailing as they do the loss of a significant proportion of the permanent population, as a result of local people simply being unable to find affordable local homes in which to live, and diminished local services and amenities, whether that be local schools, transport links or local small businesses, for those who manage to hang on.
It is not good enough for Ministers to tell those communities that they may be able to establish a registration scheme to gather information about short-term lets at some point next year, if and when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill receives Royal Assent, or that they may be able to control the numbers of such properties by means of a new planning use class, at some point in the coming years, if appropriate regulations emerge from the current consultation. Those communities need a response commensurate with the scale of the challenge they face, and they need it urgently.
We urge the Government, not only to rethink the potential further expansion of permitted development rights, as set out in the consultation now under way, but to accelerate the introduction of the discretionary registration scheme, to which they are committed, to legislate for the introduction of a new planning use class for short-term lets without delay, and to give serious consideration to other measures, whether on taxation or licensing, that will almost certainly still be required, so that the communities we have been discussing today will finally have the prospect of securing the full suite of planning and non-planning tools that they need to appropriately regulate the numbers of short-term holiday lets in their areas and manage their day-to-day impact. That is what a Labour Government would do, and it is what we need this Government to do.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for introducing this vital debate. It is a credit to him that so many Members from across our wonderful United Kingdom are here to speak on the issues he has highlighted, and I will turn to all the contributions that colleagues have made before I conclude my remarks.
However, I want first to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend, whose efforts on behalf of his constituents have recently been recognised in the local elections. It is no surprise to me to hear that there has been a win for the Conservatives in his local council area, no doubt thanks to his assiduous work on behalf of his constituents and his communities, and I commend him and his colleagues in Torbay for that incredible effort.
My hon. Friend’s speech has done an extremely good job of reflecting the concerns involved and the issues that matter to his community. He has highlighted the importance of homes for people to live in, which enable them to take jobs in the local economy, and his desire to prevent streets that should contain homes for families from turning into holiday parks. He has called for a balance to be struck, and I hope colleagues will see that my aim is to reflect that in my remarks—indeed, it is what all hon. Members have said—but we agree with him that we must tackle the issue of constrained housing supply.
My hon. Friend is right to challenge me on how quickly such measures could be enacted, and I will definitely turn to that in the body of my speech, but let me first say that I want to be clear that we recognise the value of tourism to our country.
I feel as though I went on a wonderful virtual holiday while colleagues were contributing to the debate, reflecting on many family holidays in different parts of the UK. I think I have been to almost every constituency represented in the Chamber. I have four children, and we had a limited holiday budget when the children were little, so we often had wonderful holidays in this country. I have been to the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and had lovely walks there. The hon. Gentleman mentioned sharks. We have plenty of sharks here in Westminster, so I do not need to go far to see them. It was certainly very sunny when I went to the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), as it was in Norfolk, Cornwall, Devon and elsewhere.
Tourism is an economic, social and cultural asset that plays a vital role in supporting our institutions and attractions across the country. It is a major contributor to UK jobs and growth, employing 1.7 million people and contributing nearly £74 billion a year pre-pandemic. I am not going to repeat everything that colleagues have said, but we all understand why we need to introduce these reforms. That is why we are in the Chamber for the debate.
Every Member from every party has highlighted the issue of the hollowing out of communities, the impact of that on schools and other services, and the fact that the growth of short-term letting might in itself be having an impact on local businesses that serve the tourism industry, such as restaurants and cafés. That is why we are consulting on changes that will provide local areas, where there is a concentration of such usage, with the necessary tools to help them to strike the right balance between supporting tourism and providing housing for local communities.
Briefly, there are two separate strands to our proposals. The first is the introduction of a new use class for short-term lets and associated PDRs. The C5 short-term let use class will capture those properties that are not someone’s main or sole home, and which are used for the purpose of providing short-term lets. When the use class comes into force, subject to consultation, all dwelling houses will be reclassified. When they meet the definition, they will fall into the C5 use class. There is no planning process attached to that, which means there is no burden on existing short-term lets.
However, short-term lets are not an issue everywhere, which is why we are introducing national permitted development rights that will allow for the change of use from dwelling house to C5 short-term let and vice versa. That will return the position to the status quo ante. Therefore, many people who live in areas where there is no local issue will see no change. Where there is a local issue, the local authority may remove that right by making an article 4 direction. That addresses the point made from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). A planning application will then be required with respect to any future material change of use, allowing for local consideration of where additional short-term lets would or would not be acceptable. In that way, local areas would be able to retain more homes for local people to rent or buy. Many colleagues have been calling for this change, and we expect that they will want to make that article 4 direction and will have the supporting evidence to do so.
Our second proposal relates to where people let out their main or sole home. We know that many people do so and that that helps them to manage the rising costs of living and to benefit from the sharing economy. However, there is no defined limit on how many nights someone can let out their own home, which can lead to uncertainty. We are therefore proposing some changes that will provide homeowners with confidence on how many nights in a calendar year they can let out their home—whether that is 30, 60 or 90. If, in future, homeowners wanted to let out their own main or sole home for more than that specified number of nights, planning permission would be required where there is a material change of use.
As many colleagues have said, and I hope anyone listening will note, the consultation closes on 7 June. It is generating a fair amount of interest, and we welcome this timely engagement with hon. Members on this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has challenged the Government, as I fully expected he would do, on when changes can be enacted and brought forward. I reassure him that, subject to the consultation, measures can be brought forward through secondary legislation, but we need to consider fully all the issues raised, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere, in past debates and in the consultation. It is right that we consider all the issues carefully so as to avoid unintended consequences, as many colleagues have said.
Separately, the Government are also introducing a register of short-term lets through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. That will provide a valuable tool for local authorities; it will be a stronger evidence base of short-term let activity in their area, which could help those local authorities better manage the supply of short-term lets. That could also improve consistency and help local authorities apply health and safety regulations across the guest sector. It also gives international visitors visible assurance that we have a high-quality and safe guest accommodation offer.
My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are consulting separately on how the register would work in practice. We are of course working very closely with that Department and others to ensure that officials are looking across the piece at different Government measures, to make sure they are proportionate and complementary.
Those are not the only changes we are making on short-term lets. We have legislated to require from April 2023 evidence of actual letting activity, in response to very sensible concerns from colleagues. The property must have been let for at least 70 days in the previous year before it can be assessed for business rates and therefore qualify for 100% relief. That ensures that more properties contribute to local services through business rates, council tax or income tax regime changes.
Through the new Renters (Reform) Bill, introduced by the Secretary of State to Parliament just last week, we are removing no-fault evictions and will ensure that landlords will not be able to evict tenants simply to turn the property into a holiday let.
Our ambition remains to deliver the housing that communities need. We delivered 232,000 additional homes—a 10% increase on the previous year. I will not take any lectures from the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on the Opposition Front Bench. I agreed with many of his comments, but on affordable housing, we delivered over 632 affordable houses. They oversaw the worst record of housebuilding since the second world war in their time in government. In Labour-run Wales, which they often point to, they built no council houses between 2014 and 2017, and only 12 in 2019. Let us look at what they actually do, rather than what they say.
Rachel Maclean
I cannot give way; I am sorry. I need to give colleagues a fair hearing.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I note his support for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and for the Renters (Reform) Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), who highlighted the importance of these measures being in the control of locally elected councils, which they will be. That is what the changes we will introduce will seek to deliver.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) challenged us, and said we were not doing enough. I completely disagree with that and reject it. As I have set out, we are acting. The changes to section 21 had their First Reading in Parliament just last week.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) challenged me to work closely with other Departments, including the Treasury. We work very closely with the Treasury and also the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, on some of the measures with energy performance certificates. He was right to raise that issue, and concerns have been raised with me.
As ever, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford. It is very important that we all work together across our United Kingdom, even though these issues are devolved, and that we learn lessons and make policy that affects everybody.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who was right to highlight the considerable work going on across Government. I reassure him and any other colleagues with concerns about the Renters (Reform) Bill; we are working closely with him and others to ensure we shape the legislation, as we always do, by listening to different views. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) made a good point about district councils. He has spoken to me about that on many occasions, and we look forward to working with him to understand those issues, and how district councils as well as higher-tier authorities can reap the benefits of the rise in council tax for second homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) gave a fantastic speech. She highlighted how acute the problem is in Cornwall, and how much it affects her constituents not only in St Agnes but elsewhere. I thank her in particular for championing what her local council, under Conservative control, is achieving.
The SNP spokesperson, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, highlighted the fact that the planning system is an issue across the United Kingdom. She will know that there is close working at official level to understand the implications of policies and look at evidence. It is right that we do that. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, challenged me, but he said that he supports what we are doing on balance. I thank him for that, and, of course, we will continue to be scrutinised in these debates and elsewhere. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing.
Rachel Maclean
I do not believe I have time to give way, because I must allow my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay time to wind up. Unless the Opposition spokesperson can do it in 20 seconds—that may work.
Matthew Pennycook
I take that as a challenge. The Minister mentioned affordable housing, which I did not mention. Is she concerned that the Government are failing on their derisory target for affordable homes in rural areas?
Rachel Maclean
We need much more time to debate that issue, but I reject the hon. Gentleman’s contention. I suggest that he looks to his own party’s record in office in Wales, as I have already said. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay for securing today’s debate.
Kevin Foster
It has been a very worthwhile and enjoyable debate, with colleagues from across Devon and Cornwall making points. Cornish colleagues may not know the right way to do a scone, but they do know the right way to argue in this debate. It would be remiss of me to take all the credit for the recent local election result, given that I work very closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), part of whose patch covers the Torbay unitary authority area where we were pleased to say goodbye to some independents who were not very independent.
Members have rightly highlighted the challenges around short-term lets and the impact the issue is having on communities. While I hear the Minister say that we do not want unintended consequences, there is already a model north of the border that can be looked at, as highlighted by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). That allows us to see what can happen and what the early and emerging issues are with implementation. There is something already in operation within the United Kingdom that I urge the Government to look closely at, which gives some precedent to how a system would operate across England if applied following the consultation.
It has been a welcome debate, but there is an urgent need to take action. My call to the Government is that, while I appreciate that things need to be considered, when I was a Minister I learned how due consideration can become a slightly too lengthy process. It is something that needs to be thought through when it is implemented, but let us ensure that we are thinking clearly about how the length of time that this takes will have an impact. We must avoid a closing down sale effect if we do not get on with implementing what has been proposed. I am grateful to Members for their contributions, and for their support for the arguments made.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered short-term holiday lets and the planning system.
Healthcare Services: Carshalton and Wallington
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
I will call Elliot Colburn to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered healthcare services in Carshalton and Wallington constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I am grateful to the Speaker’s Office for granting the debate to talk about the important issues facing the NHS and patients living in my constituency. This is an opportunity not only to raise the good work being done by our local NHS staff but to focus on three or four particular issues. I thank the Minister and the Department of Health and Social Care for their continued engagement with me over the course of the past few years. They must be getting sick of my name coming up on their phones, but they have been gracious with their time and I am grateful to them for that.
One of the most pressing issues facing our local healthcare in Carshalton and Wallington concerns our local hospital St Helier. I will not dwell too long on what it means to me, as I have said this before in other contributions, but it was the hospital that I and most of my family were born in. It saved a number of my family members’ lives and not too long ago it saved my life as well, so I have a great sense of personal loyalty to this hospital. The staff do an absolutely incredible job, and they are doing it under very difficult circumstances because the hospital is incredibly old. It is older than the NHS itself, and that is starting to show.
The hospital suffers from more than just outdated aesthetics; the state of disrepair is showing, and that is evident to anyone who has to visit St Helier. It has been the subject of numerous news articles and television exposés in recent months. The BBC, ITV and The Observer have all covered the state of disrepair at St Helier. There is a litany of problems including the sinking foundations, the faulty lifts—they are so old that the parts to repair them are no longer readily available—and the leaking roofs causing wards to be closed. My inbox regularly features emails from patients who have had to deal with the fallout and repercussions of these issues when visiting the hospital or waiting for treatment, alongside stories and reports from staff working at the hospital.
As I say, the staff are doing an incredibly good job in difficult circumstances, which is why I am pleased that the Government have recognised the good work that the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust do, agreeing to a several hundred million pound investment to upgrade St Helier and build a new second hospital in the London Borough of Sutton. However, it is no secret that we have been waiting on the next stage for some time, so I would be grateful to hear from the Minister when we can expect an update on the next stages of the new hospital programme. I invite him and members of the Department of Health and Social Care team to come down to St Helier to see some of these issues for themselves.
To go into some more detail about what the new funding will provide, as well as improving St Helier and bringing it into the 21st century to provide modern medical care, it will provide a second hospital working in partnership with the Royal Marsden in Sutton to provide specialist emergency care for the sickest patients living in the borough. It will develop a partnership with the cancer hospital next door so that more cancer treatments can be provided in the London Borough of Sutton and patients do not have to be transferred to the Chelsea site, which can be difficult considering that the connectivity between my part of London and Chelsea is not fantastic.
So, this news is really exciting and the trust is raring to go; it really wants to get on with this work. I think that is why it has been so keen to highlight these issues in the press in the past couple of weeks. As I say, it is very keen to get going.
The pandemic has caused a delay to the timetable for this work; I completely understand that. However, we are still waiting for that all-important decision. I know I have secured assurances before that the plan is in development, but I hope today to relay the sense of anxiety felt by the staff and my constituents, who want to see progress made on the new hospital. It is the single biggest issue relating to local healthcare provision and it comes up time and time again locally. Having worked in the NHS locally myself, I know full well how much this development is needed, not just to ease demand on St Helier but to improve patient outcomes and to allow more specialist services and treatments to be carried out locally. That includes protecting services that were threatened under previous iterations of healthcare planning in our local area, which ranged from reducing services to closing St Helier all together.
This is the first time that the NHS has been able to come forward to the Government of the day and secure agreement to fully fund a plan that will not only protect services in the borough but improve them. And that includes making sure that accident and emergency services, critical care, acute medicine, emergency surgery, in-patient paediatrics and maternity services are all protected within the London Borough of Sutton and not transferred elsewhere. That is incredibly welcome news, but again we need to see progress.
What I like in particular about this plan is that it is not a Government reorganisation. This is not about bureaucrats sitting in the Department of Health and Social Care; this is about the Department agreeing to listen to what the NHS has said it needs to provide good-quality healthcare in the London Borough of Sutton. That is fantastic, but—again—we need to see the next steps.
In the time that I have left today, I will touch on a couple of other issues facing healthcare provision in Carshalton and Wallington, particularly access to local GPs and dentistry provision. We have some fantastic GP surgeries, made up of incredibly hard-working teams from the GPs themselves all the way through to the advisers, triage nurses, reception staff and administration staff. However, I am hearing from constituents that they are often struggling to get an in-person appointment. In particular, I hear from older constituents who struggle to navigate some of the new technology. I completely appreciate the need for that technology, but I would welcome anything that the Minister can say about encouraging GP surgeries to make it easier for those who find the digital world difficult to make an in-person appointment when they need one. I say that because many people have come to me and said that they had to take themselves off to the emergency department because they simply could not navigate the new online booking system that many GP surgeries now have.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is not what we want to see, because it puts an incredible strain on the healthcare system and especially emergency medicine, which is already under immense strain. Of course, primary care was one of the hardest hit sectors during the pandemic, and it is clear that there remains a backlog, both in terms of people with existing conditions and because people put off seeking help during the pandemic.
However, it was heartening, and the Government should be congratulated for this, to hear the recent announcement of £240 million specifically aimed at GP practices and getting patients appointments, so as to avoid the so-called “8 am scramble”. Nevertheless, the “8 am scramble” is still very much a thing for many of my constituents; it is still something that I hear about far too often. So, while I welcome the recent announcement, I would also welcome any update that the Minister can give me today about where he believes we are on recruiting new GPs and retaining those already in the sector and how we will deliver on the promises to our constituents that they can access a GP whenever they need to.
May I make a suggestion to help with that process? I was really pleased to hear the Prime Minister talking up the importance of community pharmacists and the role that they can play in the field by providing a range of services. It is incredibly welcome to see that recognition of pharmacies, as many think they went unthanked during the pandemic when their doors were left open while GPs were largely not seeing patients face to face. Pharmacists are doing an incredible job. I do not have time to go into all the issues now, but the Minister will know from our previous conversations about their immense struggles with how the reimbursement scheme for drugs is set up, and the fact that they cannot balance their treatment and advice for minor ailments with the time they have to dispense drugs, which is where the money is. I would welcome any update from the Minister, or a commitment to look in more depth at what role community pharmacies can play in supporting our local healthcare system.
Finally, I want to touch on dentistry. I spoke about it in a Westminster Hall debate not that long ago, but I want to reiterate a few key points. I am still getting horror stories from people who are turning to DIY solutions because they are struggling to access an NHS dentist. I have met local dentists in my consistency; they are clear that the way in which units of dental activity are set up in the dental contract, and the way in which they get reimbursed for their work, disincentivises them from doing more. Many say that it will be simply impossible to meet the targets this year to avoid money being clawed back, and they are worried about what effect that will have at the end of the financial year. I welcome the fact that £15 million has been put into dentistry to deal with the backlog, but there are long-standing, system-led issues. They span multiple decades and multiple Governments, but the pandemic has brought it all to a head. I would welcome any update from the Minister about what the Department is doing to reform the way in which the dental sector is set up, so that people can assess NHS dentists a lot more simply.
There is no magic wand that we can wave to solve everything overnight, but we can certainly do some things to get us there in the meantime. I hope that the Department will be able to let us know the next steps for the new hospital programme very soon, as that would be incredibly welcome. In addition, what assurances can the Minister give that existing maintenance problems will not be impacted by the new hospital programme, and that funding can be accessed to deal with some of those problems? Finally, what work is the Department doing to ensure access to GPs and NHS dentists? That will help us to improve on the most important thing that we all want to see—including the Government and the NHS—which is a better experience and outcomes for patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O'Brien)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to him for his incredible campaigning work over the years. He has been relentless, like an unstoppable force. I hope that we will reach an announcement in the near future, so that all the Ministers’ phones can recover and all my hon. Friend’s hard work in campaigning for the hospital he was born in will pay off. I know how important the issue is to him on many different levels.
Today’s debate is well timed in one sense, and badly timed in another, in so far as we are hopefully coming towards a decision and an announcement in the very near future. It might be slightly frustrating for my hon. Friend that I cannot say more today, but I will set the scene on where we are with the new hospital programme. As he knows, we are working closely with the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust on its plans for a new specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton. Acute services are to remain at the current Epsom and St Helier Hospitals, which is a key point that my hon. Friend has called for.
The plan is part of our wider programme to build 40 new hospitals. All the schemes within that programme are being grouped into cohorts, based on their readiness to progress and the extent to which they can realise the benefits of the national programme approach. The Epsom and St Helier scheme is a cohort 3 pathfinder scheme, which means it will be one of the very first of the larger and more complex schemes to be taken forward in line with the national programme approach.
The programme has developed an integrated systems approach known as Hospital 2.0, which spans the whole hospital lifecycle from business case and design through to construction, commission and handover. The use of Hospital 2.0 is the vehicle through which the national programme approach can ensure that we get the maximum value for taxpayers’ money and deliver more efficient and effective designs for hospitals. Our Hospital 2.0 process will drive efficiencies of about 25% when compared with traditional means of delivering infrastructure. The trust is at the outline business case stage, and we are working very closely with it to incorporate that national, standardised approach.
To date, the trust has received £20.5 million in public dividend capital to progress its scheme. That includes fees for design works and a contribution towards the costs of a new electronic patient record system. Further allocations for the scheme, including the total individual allocation, will be decided through the proper business case process. That will ensure that it is deliverable, is aligned with the national programme and delivers value for money for taxpayers in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
We are planning a range of events and communication about the decisions that we will make on this matter in the near future. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to engage with us on those. It is perhaps frustrating that I cannot say more today, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s incredible work in making the case and, in fairness, helping his local NHS to make the case for the investment that he is calling for.
My hon. Friend touched on general practice, and I absolutely recognise the pressures that on general practice during and after the pandemic. That is why, on 9 May, we launched our primary care recovery plan. It is designed to tackle, as my hon. Friend said, the “8 am rush” for appointments, which is not good enough. Just this week, we delivered, ahead of schedule, on our manifesto commitment to put 26,000 additional staff into general practice. We said that we would get 26,000 by next March; in fact, we have now delivered 29,000—well ahead of schedule. Of course, as well as those extra clinicians, such as physiotherapists, pharmacists and paramedics—all those extra people in the wider team that we now have in general practice—we are taking action to retain our invaluable experienced GPs. That is why we have made significant reforms to GPs’ pensions, lifting 8,900 GPs out of annual tax charges and helping to retain invaluable GPs.
As part of the primary care recovery plan, and as my hon. Friend noted, we are investing £240 million in new technologies for general practice—both up-to-date phones, so that no one ever calls and gets an engaged tone, and good, high-quality online systems, so that people, particularly those who are older or who find it more difficult to use the internet, can always navigate their way through it simply. What we find when the systems have been deployed well is that a very large number of people start to use them—they are very convenient and well designed—and that takes the pressure off the phones so that it is much easier, for those who do want to use the phone, to get through. That is another significant investment.
Of course, on top of that, we are investing £645 million over the next two years in the new NHS service, Pharmacy First, which will also take pressure off GPs, because it will enable people to go to their community pharmacy—often, in a very convenient place on the high street or in people’s neighbourhoods—to get treatment for a range of common conditions. For the first time, a pharmacist will be able to supply a range of antibiotics and directly take pressure off GPs by enabling people to get the treatment that they need in a convenient way.
My hon. Friend also touched on dentistry, where we have started to take action but we know we have to do more. Our dentistry plan will follow, I hope, hot on the heels of the primary care recovery plan. We have already started to reform the problematic 2006 contract that the last Labour Government put in. We have allowed dentists to go to 110% of their normal delivery, so that those who want to do more NHS work can. We have started to make NHS work more attractive by better matching the payments that dentists get to the costs of the work that they are doing. We have brought in minimum UDA rates, minimum rates of payment to support dentists where their rates, historically set, have been very low. That is starting to have an effect. In the year to March, dentists saw about a fifth more NHS patients than they had in the year before, but we know that we have to go further—it is not good enough at the moment—and we will produce a radical dentistry plan in the very near future.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington for bringing all these issues to my attention and to the attention of every other Minister in the DHSC. I hope that he will feel that his hard work over a very long period on behalf of his local NHS and the hospital that he was born in will be rewarded, and I hope that we will be able to say more about that very shortly.
Question put and agreed to.
Cost of Living: Healthy Start Scheme
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Healthy Start scheme and increases in the cost of living.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I am pleased I have been successful in securing a debate on this issue at such a timely and critical moment.
Hon. Members will be aware of the shocking revelations from Sky News last week that parents are being forced to steal baby formula to feed their infant children. Other parents revealed that they are watering down formula or mixing it with other ingredients, such as flour, in a desperate attempt to make it last longer. One parent in that situation, who was quoted in Sky’s report, talked about his baby’s “hungry scream” and how he has heard it so often that he knows it now.
It has also been reported that an unregulated black market has sprung up with second-hand baby formula, which is often less safe than formula found in supermarkets, being sold online at a cheaper price, to which parents are now turning in their panic. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service has warned that parents being forced to make such decisions is putting the UK on the brink of a public health crisis.
Let me be clear from the start: the fact that parents are in such a situation in 21st century Britain is utterly shameful. Although I do not want the debate to turn into a political slanging match, last week’s reporting from Sky should make the Government reflect on their record on the cost of living crisis. Not just baby formula is proving out of reach for struggling young families. Food banks are reporting steep increases in the number of parents with infant children coming to them for support. When asked what his Government were doing in the face of this cost of living catastrophe, the Prime Minister said:
“We have particular support for young families, something called Healthy Start vouchers, which provide money to young families”
to help
“with the costs of fresh food.”
I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister is living in a different world if he thinks the current rate of Healthy Start, which has been frozen by Conservative Governments in each of the past two years, is sufficient for struggling families who are living through the worst cost of living crisis on record. That is the reason I have secured the debate today. Healthy Start is simply not living up to its stated purpose. It does not cover the cost of healthy food, it does not cover the cost of baby formula and it is no longer acting as the nutritional safety net for families that it was originally intended to be.
Although many much-needed reforms could be made to Healthy Start to make it more effective, including auto-enrolment, on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) is doing great work, fundamentally, as is so often the case, this is a question of money. The money being provided by Healthy Start is simply not enough for struggling parents. The solution must, therefore, be to uplift the value of Healthy Start so that payments reflect inflation and so that children, regardless of background, are given the best possible nutritional start in life. That is what I am calling for today.
To set out the context: Healthy Start was introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2006. It provides payments to people who qualify to help buy milk, baby formula, fresh fruit and vegetables, and pulses. Eligible families receive £4.25 a week from the 10th week of pregnancy, then £8.50 a week while the baby is from nought to one year old and £4.25 per week thereafter, until the child is four. As of April 2023, there were 336,468 beneficiaries of Healthy Start payments, although my understanding is that there is a lack of transparency on the number of Healthy Start recipients as data is published only on the number of beneficiaries, as opposed to the number of actual children the claims relate to. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out why that data is not published, and commit to sharing that information as soon as possible, given the seriousness of the issue.
Healthy Start payments have been uplifted only once under the Conservative Government—once in 13 years. That was in April 2021 and was in response to a recommendation from the National Food Strategy. That date is important because, since the last increase, inflation has torn into the budgets of the poorest families hardest. The cumulative change in UK consumer prices from April 2021 to March 2023 was 17%. Looked at in isolation, food inflation was much higher than that and was running at 17.2% in the last year alone.
New data from First Steps Nutrition Trust shows that the cost of the cheapest brand of formula milk has risen by 45% in the past two years. Other brands have risen by between 17% and 31% in the same period. Currently, Healthy Start payments do not cover the full cost of any baby formula on the market in the UK. What might have been affordable when the last increase was announced is now out of reach for many of those in most need.
The Government talk about halving inflation, but I am sure that even the Minister would agree with me that that cannot be achieved overnight. In the meantime, families have to make ends meet, but at the moment they simply cannot. Increasing Healthy Start payments to reflect the 17% rise in costs that families have endured in the last two years would make a real difference. That is being called for by the national charities working in this area, as well as my local Labour-run Trafford Council, which I must credit with first raising this matter with me and highlighting the impact that freezing the allowance is having on families in my constituency and across Trafford.
I understand that money is tight, and 17% might sound like a big increase, but we are talking in real terms about less than £1 per child per week for those on the lower rate of Healthy Start, which is the vast majority of recipients. If the £4.25 voucher were uprated to reflect inflation, it would rise to around £4.97—72p more than current levels. For context, the Best Start Foods scheme in Scotland is currently £4.95 per child aged between one and three years old, so the uplift would effectively bring parity. I do not believe that in 21st century Britain, which, despite all our many issues, remains one of the wealthiest countries in the world, a 72p increase to help the poorest children is beyond us. Not only is there a strong moral case for it; there is also a compelling economic case. We know the impact that child poverty and the poor nutrition that comes with it have on a child’s health and wellbeing, with a knock-on effect on their future life chances.
Loughborough University has estimated that the costs of child poverty on future lost earnings retained by individuals were £11.6 billion in 2021. Not only is that terrible for the individual, but it represents billions in lost tax revenue for the Treasury. That is before we get to the fact that people on the lowest incomes are more than twice as likely to say that they have poor health than people on the highest incomes, meaning that they are more likely to be reliant on an NHS that is now at breaking point.
I am pleased that yesterday the Labour party put prevention at the heart of our mission for the national health service. I am sure that when the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), responds—[Interruption.] He says “Hear, hear” from a sedentary position, but he might not when I finish. I hope that he will agree on the importance of tackling health inequalities and on why it is such an important issue. An improved Healthy Start scheme can be a part of the journey, given we know that it is effective in improving childhood nutrition and leads to greater consumption of healthy foods.
I will not pretend that increasing the value of Healthy Start is a silver bullet. The increases that I am calling for are modest, but they must form part of a much wider national effort to tackle child poverty, which has now reached such a level that more than 4,000 children in my constituency of Stretford and Urmston are growing up under the yoke of poverty. Labour has a record to be proud of here: the last Labour Government lifted more than a million children out of poverty, largely through fairly redistributing the proceeds of sustained economic growth, which this Government is failing to achieve. Alongside that, they prioritised tackling child poverty and implementing the measures in the Child Poverty Act 2010. Those measures were scrapped by this Government several years ago, leaving us in the mire we now find ourselves in.
The debate is about calling on the Government to take action now. They are the ones with the power to make a difference. A modest increase to Healthy Start could have a significant impact on the poorest families. When considering the issue, I urge the Minister to think of last week’s reports, the indignity that poverty brings and the stigma, shame and anxiety felt by families who are forced to steal or risk their child’s health. Think of what it must be like to feel helpless, hearing again your child’s hungry scream, which many parents now know so well. With all that in mind, if the Minister does not support uplifting the value of Healthy Start in the face of such powerful testimony, I ask him, why not?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We had a similar debate yesterday about poverty, the cost of living and disabled people. It was a heartfelt debate because everyone brought examples from their constituents. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) on bringing forward today’s debate. It is always a pleasure to add a contribution in support of the hon. Gentleman, but I also support the thrust of what he has asked for.
I always like to give credit where credit is due. The Government and the Minister have genuinely made many efforts to address this issue. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston is asking for more consideration. I reiterate that, and do what I always try to do, which is to provide a Northern Ireland perspective. Yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on the impact of the cost of living on disabled people across the UK was important, but it is also good to discuss the detrimental impact of the cost of living on families. The hon. Gentleman outlined some examples from his own constituents and the people he meets every day. I would like to do the same.
In the UK, we are very fortunate to have the Healthy Start scheme. I can very seldom stand here as a Northern Irish MP and talk about a scheme that applies to the whole United Kingdom, but that one does. It provides huge help to many lower-income families, especially at the peak of the cost of living crisis. The Healthy Start scheme, for which the Minister has responsibility and which the Government have made available, provides a pre-paid card for eligible applicants that allows them to purchase frozen fruit and veg, liquid cow’s milk, vitamins or infant milk-based formula. Some 13,500 households in Northern Ireland avail themselves of the scheme and it has been a Godsend—I use that word on purpose—for those families. It has been instrumental for many people in providing the key nutrition they need at the time they need it. I put my thanks for that on record. The scheme is not only for young children, but for expectant mothers and for new mothers who are breastfeeding.
I want to commend the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who has been a great leader on this issue through the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities. I am a member of that group because I support what the hon. Lady is trying to put forward. It is a very active APPG. I have spoken at a number of events in Northern Ireland and the hon. Lady has always ensured that breastfeeding is central to the debate. I have no doubt that when she speaks shortly that she will add some of the thoughts that she has expressed in APPG meetings.
In Northern Ireland, the scheme has been good for expectant mothers and new mothers who are breastfeeding. I would like to say how important it is to receive the right support at the right time. In Northern Ireland, eligibility for free school meals does not start until primary 1, the equivalent of year 1 here in England, so before children start primary school, the responsibility to provide them with nutrition is solely on mothers and families. I did not see the story on the news about people hearing their children crying for food, but the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston told it well. I am well past the baby stage now, but I had my grandchildren at our house at the weekend. Whenever they want to be fed, they want to be fed right then, so when the hon. Gentleman tells a story about a child crying because they are hungry, I understand how important it is that we can respond.
Unfortunately, some people struggle to afford food, and the additional pressure of the cost of living has made things considerably harder for mothers and families, which highlights the importance of the wonderful Healthy Start scheme and why it is so crucial for so many parents across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland statistics show that 330,000 people in Northern Ireland live in poverty. That is a massive figure out of a population of 1.95 million—almost one in five people. Sadly, it includes 110,000 children, which means that the poverty rate is highest among children. This is an issue that I deal with every day in my office, and—the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston referred to food banks—my staff try to help people through the food bank in Newtownards, which has been used 50% more than it was last year. That gives Members an idea of what is happening. Food banks have a role to play, and they bring good people together. They bring together churches, charities and people in order to reach out and help, and they do that with a kindness and generosity that always amazes me.
The figure of 110,000 equates to one child in four—24%—living in poverty. I ask the Minister to consider extending the eligibility criteria for the Health Start scheme so that more people are included. If I had one request to the Minister, that is what I would ask for. I know the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston referred to the issue, and I think we are all united on that. So many working individuals are already on the breadline and are unable to support their families because of the cost of living, which is something that we deal with every day in our offices and advice centres. Working families who are struggling to cope should be able, at least temporarily, to avail themselves of the perks of the Healthy Start scheme while the rise in the cost of living is proving so prevalent.
There are so many factors that sew into why so many people and their families are struggling. We are not blaming anybody, because there are circumstances beyond our control. The Ukraine war is one example, as is the cost of energy. They are the fault of nobody in this room, but they are among the factors. What we get from our Government and the Minister is compassion and understanding, and increasing or reviewing the eligibility for the Healthy Start scheme would be a massive step in the right direction. Other factors include the cost of living, the removal of the uplift in universal credit, and the basic rates of maternity and paternity pay for certain forms of employment.
My benefit adviser, who works from both of my offices in Strangford, in Newtownards and Ballynahinch, is a very busy lady and spends five days a week doing nothing but benefits, which are complex. The wonderful thing about her—I say this to her face, so I am not saying anything that I have not said before—is that she understands the benefit system. It can be complex for people to take on board, but she understands it and can offer help through it to address the cost of living, which is impacting on all sorts of people from all kinds of communities.
I have spoken numerous times in the House about the increase in food bank referrals from my office. The food bank in my town is run by the Trussell Trust and was the first one in Northern Ireland. It tells me that my office refers the most people for food bank packages. I probably see more than most people what it means to be desperate, with some being too embarrassed to ask for the help they need. I have also spoken before about the need for universal free school meals. I am not sure whether it is the Minister’s responsibility, but perhaps he could indicate whether it is possible to provide support for children, who are the future—we must not let them down. I love children; we all do. We have our own families, children and grandchildren, and we want to see them do well. However, we also see the children of people who come to see us, and the desperation in their eyes as they try to reach out and seek help. That is what we desperately want as well—to be able to respond in a positive fashion.
I ask the same for the Healthy Start scheme; we should do more to assist expectant mothers and children up to four, who also need help. It should not depend on what parents earn or how much they are struggling, there should be an acceptance that this is a hard time for everyone. We can do more to provide that extra bit of support. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has asked for that. I endorse it; I support it, and I know others will as well. I also encourage greater discussion between the devolved Administrations to keep a constant eye on the situation, and to assess what more we can do in this place to support people who are struggling daily to make ends meet.
I look forward to hearing from the two shadow Ministers—the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). The three of us are always together in the same debates, and more often than not with the same Minister to respond. I look forward to hearing from him as well.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, I have worked on this issue for many years. The cost of formula is not a new problem; it is a continual problem, and one that the UK Government have completely ignored for many years.
A number of years ago, the all-party group did some research on the cost of formula. Even at that time, it was already a struggle for many families. Despite all the evidence, the Government did nothing about it. I have asked questions about inflation and the cost of infant formula, and the Government have said that they are monitoring it. Monitoring is one thing, but actually doing something about it is quite another.
I was glad to see the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston introduce the debate. I am also grateful to Sky News, which has done stellar work in exposing the many, multifaceted impacts that the cost of infant formula is having on families up and down these islands. Sky News has been out there listening to people’s heartbreaking stories, and telling them. In 2023, we should not have people foraging on Facebook or stealing from shops to feed their babies. It is absolutely desperate.
As hon. Members have said, there is nothing more distressing than a hungry baby. The Minister needs to be dealing with this issue as a matter of urgency. Quite frankly, the Prime Minister is living in a different world if he suggests that the Healthy Start vouchers are sufficient to meet the needs of families. Not enough people are eligible, not enough people are claiming and the vouchers do not meet the cost of a tub of infant formula. Suggesting that people should somehow fall back on discretionary payments from local councils is not much help to a family with a screaming baby at 3 o’clock in the morning. The Prime Minister does not have a clue.
This issue is vital to the development of babies. Babies’ brain development is crucial to their future health and wellbeing, and not being fed properly at this very young stage can have a significant impact on their development. Families are watering down formula beyond the composition it is supposed to be. If they are adding things to formula, such as flour, rusk or other things, children are not getting the nutrition that they need. If people are buying it on the black market, or buying half tubs off Facebook or from friends, the quality of the milk is not guaranteed. Formula in itself is not sterile and it has to be made up properly. If it has been lying open for a while, it could be unsafe for the baby and cause them health problems.
In addition to that, people are struggling to pay their electricity bills. I am grateful to Mumsnet for providing a briefing for this debate. A person on that website said:
“I used to have a client family, a young couple with a newborn, who were really struggling financially...The poor mum just couldn’t breastfeed her newborn, despite the health visitor’s best efforts...The cost of formula was crippling, even with the healthy start vouchers. To make matters worse, they were being really ripped off for electricity through a coin meter and it cost them about 20p to boil a kettle to make up the formula.”
Families are being hit at all angles.
There is also a risk with bottles of formula that are made up. They should be discarded after a period because they do not remain safe and sterile, but if a family cannot afford the next bottle, they will just keep it and feed it to the baby regardless. In those circumstances, parents will likely feel that some formula is better than no formula at all, despite the risk to the child’s health.
Food price inflation is at 19.2% and general inflation is at 10.4%. I pay tribute to First Steps Nutrition Trust for its long-standing research that tracks the price of formula. It has found that the cheapest own brand, and the only own brand of formula on the market in the UK, has gone up by 45% in the last two years. Other formulas went up by between 17% and 31% in the same period. The market is out of control, and the Government have done nothing to address it.
First Steps Nutrition Trust has pointed out that the situation is much the same for other items people may buy with Healthy Start vouchers, such as fruit, fresh vegetables, bread or milk. The trust says that in 2006 someone could get seven pints of milk with Healthy Start vouchers, whereas in 2023 they can get only 4.7 pints. The money is being stretched in all kinds of ways—not just for babies but for older children too.
Part of the issue is the unregulated nature of the formula market in the UK. According to recent research in The Lancet, formula companies bring in £55 billion annually. They spend £3 billion at least on marketing. That amount adds to the price people pay when they buy a tub at the till. The companies are also spending significant money on developing new products, apparently for specialist needs, but these products can be bought over the counter uniquely in the UK. In many cases, they are not necessarily products the Government have failed to regulate, but desperate families are choosing them as an option.
There are also follow-on milks, which are completely unnecessary. I would say to any families out there spending their precious money on follow-on formulas: do not spend that money. They are simply a tool to market formula. They are not required for children. First-stage formula is perfectly adequate for the first year. Do not waste money. If all first-stage formulas are exactly the same—which they are by regulation—why does one cost £9.39 when a different tub costs £19? The Government have very little curiosity about why there is a variation in these prices if all compositions are essentially the same.
The Government should do an awful lot more to interrogate this industry and make sure there is provision for parents out there. It could be like something of the past—perhaps a plain-labelled Government-branded formula that is accessible to people. The Government should be looking at what they can do. It is very clear that the market left to itself is not able to control the prices. The Government should be stepping in to regulate the price of formula. Formula is unique. Unlike all other food products, it is required by babies; they cannot get nourishment any other way. It is a very different type of food product to everything else.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned breastfeeding. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, I am a massive supporter of breastfeeding. It is the best way to feed a baby. For many families, breastfeeding can be very challenging and formula is necessary—if, for instance, the mother has an HIV diagnosis and breastfeeding is contraindicated, they require infant formula. In other families, children may be adopted or there may be childcare issues, so breastfeeding can be difficult. I would always encourage the Government to invest more in infant feeding support, because inconsistency in support, alongside a very rapacious infant formula industry, is undermining breastfeeding in this country. I would like to see full implementation of the international code of marketing of breastmilk substitutes, because that would also help to support families.
I also want to talk about the holes within the system. The Healthy Start vouchers are not keeping up with the pace of things. Families cannot simply rely on food banks or baby banks to provide something as a fall-back option, because, as I have said, infant formula is incredibly expensive and if food banks are trying to feed the most people they can, do they buy a whole load of tins of beans or do they buy one can of infant formula? That is a very difficult position to put food banks in and they should not be the emergency service to make up for where the Government have failed.
I will finish with a point of contrast. As has been mentioned, the Best Start Foods scheme in Scotland, which is a devolved benefit that the Scottish Government have set up, is—importantly—more generous than the Healthy Start scheme. It stands at £9.90 per week in the first year. The Scottish Government have increased that, with inflation, and the UK Government should do likewise with their schemes.
In addition, in Scotland there is the Scottish Child Payment of £25 a week, which makes a massive difference to families; whether they have babies or older children, that is £25 per child per week. And from speaking to people at food banks in my constituency, I know that that is making the difference between families coming in desperate for food or not. That £25 payment is paid up to the age of 16. As I say, it makes a massive difference for families in Scotland and provides a clear contrast with what the UK Government are providing.
In Scotland, we have also looked at increasing the eligibility for that benefit. We are trying to make sure that those who have no recourse to public funds and who would not be eligible ordinarily for Healthy Start vouchers can get the Best Start grant in some circumstances. Of course, if the UK Government would abolish no recourse to public funds, we could give the Best Start grant out to far more people and make sure that all babies are fed, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
In Scotland, there is also a range of other grants, in addition to Best Start Foods. So, there is a Best Start Pregnancy Payment of £707.25 for someone’s first child and of £353.65 for subsequent children, with no limit on the number of children, unlike the two-child limit for some other schemes. There is also the Best Start Grant Early Learning Payment between the ages of two and three and a half, and a School Age Payment for when a child is old enough to start school.
Those grants are incredibly important in the landscape of benefits available to parents, because families are pressed from all different directions at the moment, whether that is buying school uniforms or putting food on the table. The Scottish Government are making a real difference in this way, by making sure that children are fed and that families are not on the absolute brink of survival. I believe that it is up to the UK Government to meet that challenge, to regulate the infant formula sector and to uprate the payments under the Healthy Start scheme to match—or exceed if possible, which would be nice—what is available in Scotland, because we are doing everything we can.
I thank First Steps Nutrition Trust, Leicester Mammas, Feed UK, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and the Food Foundation for their work, and I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for securing this debate today. There is a lot of work going on and the Government need to meet the challenge that they have been set.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure, Mr Twigg, to serve under your chairmanship.
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for securing this debate and for the fantastic work that he is doing in raising awareness of this issue.
It has been a small but perfectly formed debate, with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) contributing to it. He always comes to Westminster Hall full of knowledge and willing to share the Northern Ireland perspective. We are always grateful for that, because we can learn a lot from different parts of the United Kingdom and it is really important that voices from different parts of the United Kingdom are raised in these debates, even though primarily these debates, when they relate to health, relate to health issues in England only. Nevertheless, we are the United Kingdom Parliament and it is really important to know what is happening in other parts of the country where there are devolved Governments.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) speaks so well on these issues. She obviously has her role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, and with the work that she does with that APPG she has got really stuck into the matters that we are considering today in real depth and detail. But she also brings a fresh perspective to these debates, as does the hon. Member for Strangford. We learn more from her about what is happening within Scotland through the Scottish Government, and it is important that across the United Kingdom Parliament we hear such examples and that we learn from best practice in different parts of the United Kingdom, so as to make better policy here in Westminster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston was absolutely right to raise the issues that he did in this debate, because Healthy Start is an essential scheme that ensures that there is a nutritional safety net for pregnant women, parents and children under the age of four in low-income families. It allows parents—in theory —to buy healthy foods such as fruit and milk, as well as to access free vitamins. However, in the context of the cost of living crisis—so eloquently set out by my hon. Friend—families are undoubtedly finding it increasingly difficult to get what they need. Analysis from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service shows that, although the benefit itself has not changed since 2021, the price of infant formula—as we have heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston—has increased substantially since then. The cheapest brands have increased in price by a phenomenal 22%, which is just unfathomable, in that short space of time.
As we have also heard, huge concerns have been raised about the uptake of the vouchers themselves, particularly following the switch from paper vouchers to a prepaid card system. Healthy Start scheme data for January 2023 shows that up to 37% of eligible families with young children are currently missing out on the scheme. That cannot be acceptable, either. A huge proportion of the people who desperately need that support—or they would not be eligible for it—are missing out.
In an answer on 13 February to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, the Minister responded:
“While there are no current plans to increase the value of Healthy Start, this is kept under continuous review.”
With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on whether there have been any recent discussions regarding the value of the scheme and whether it is still his Department’s position that no increase in value is forthcoming. If that is the case, can the Minister set out what assessment his Department has made of the impact of inflationary price rises on low-income households, and what reassurances he can provide to all Members here today that families are not being priced out of essential goods on this Government’s watch?
Similarly, I will press the Minister on the uptake of the scheme. The Government’s target for uptake is 75%, but as I mentioned earlier, we are currently sitting at about 63%. A quick trawl of written questions shows that the Minister has been responding to concerns raised by Members on this issue with a boilerplate response—namely, that the NHS Business Services Authority promotes the Healthy Start scheme through its digital channels and has created free tools to help stakeholders to promote the scheme locally. That answer suggests to me that the Government are not particularly concerned about missing their own target. That is not acceptable. I remind the Minister that there is very little point in setting a target if they are not going to do their utmost to meet it. We all know that the NHSBSA promotes this scheme, but something is clearly not working if uptake is as low as it is. What additional action is the Minister planning to take to increase uptake so that all families who are eligible are not just able to access the scheme but do access it?
It would be remiss of me if I did not raise the problem of child health inequalities, which are widening at an alarming rate. At our mission launch on Monday, Labour committed to a children’s health plan that would give every child a healthy start in life. That includes our pledge to establish fully-funded healthy breakfast clubs across England and restrict adverts for foods high in fat, sugar and salt. We would oversee the retrofitting of 19 million homes in England, to keep families warm. We would reform universal credit. And we would pass a clean air Act, to protect our children from the serious respiratory illnesses caused by pollution. It is an ambitious agenda that would proactively tackle child poverty and ensure families could afford to feed their children and keep them well. Over the last 13 years, the UK’s progress on infant and child mortality has stalled, and we now have much worse rates compared with other developed countries. We must see a concerted effort from the Minister to tackle that. More of the same will just not cut it. What exactly is the Government’s plan to meet the scale of the crisis in child poverty and ill health?
All children deserve to lead long, happy and healthy lives, irrespective of where they grow up and which part of the United Kingdom they live in. That means ensuring that in England the Healthy Start scheme works, and that we do everything we can to tackle child poverty across the country. I strongly urge the Minister to better engage with campaigners on the issue and work proactively with Members on all sides of the House to ensure that the Healthy Start scheme is fit for purpose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O'Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for securing this debate and to the other Members who have participated. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a typically compassionate speech.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a global impact. We have seen a rise in inflation, with increased food costs and higher energy prices, and that has impacted on the cost of living. The challenge of the increase in the cost of living is felt by everyone across the country. The Government understand and recognise the challenges that many face as a result of the huge increase in inflation.
The Government have taken, and will continue to take, decisive action to support people with the cost of living. In response to higher food costs, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to work with food retailers and producers on ways to ensure the availability of affordable food—for example, by maintaining value ranges, price matching and price freezing measures.
In response to higher energy prices, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy put in place the energy price guarantee to shield households from the unprecedented rises in energy prices. The guarantee will run until April 2024, and the Government are working with consumer groups and industry to explore the best approach to consumer protections from April 2024 onwards, as part of wider retail market reforms. As set out in the energy security plan, we intend to consult on those options this summer.
In response to the higher cost of living more generally, the Department for Work and Pensions is providing up to £900 in three lump sums for households on eligible means-tested benefits, a separate £300 payment for pensioner households and a £150 payment for individuals in receipt of eligible disability benefits. From this April, the Government have uprated benefit rates and state pensions by 10.1%. In order to increase the number of households who can benefit from those uprating decisions, the benefit cap levels were also increased by the same amount.
Also from this April, the national living wage that this Government introduced increased by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour for workers aged 23 and over. That is the largest ever cash increase for the national living wage. For those who require extra support, the Government are providing an additional £1 billion of funding, including Barnett impact, to enable the extension of the household support fund in England this financial year. That is on top of what we have provided since October 2021, bringing the total funding up to £2.6 billion. This is used by local authorities to help households with the cost of essentials.
Alison Thewliss
It is interesting to hear about all the things that were uprated with inflation. Will the Minister explain why Healthy Start was excluded from that?
Neil O'Brien
If I can just complete the thought, the total cost of living support that the Government have provided is worth more than £94 billion across 2022-23 and 2023-24. That is, on average, more than £3,300 per UK household. It is one of the most generous support packages for the cost of living anywhere in Europe.
I turn to the critical role that the Healthy Start scheme plays in supporting hundreds of thousands of lower-income families across the country. Eating a healthy, balanced diet, in line with “The Eatwell Guide”, can help to prevent diet-related disease. It ensures that we get the right energy and nutrients needed for good health and to maintain a healthy weight throughout life. The Healthy Start scheme is one way that the Government continue to target nutritional support at the families who need it most, which is increasingly important in view of the cost of living.
Healthy Start is a passported benefit, one of a range of additional sources of help and support that the Government provide to families on benefits and tax credits. It is a statutory scheme that helps to encourage a healthy diet for pregnant women, babies and young children under four from lower-income households. Women who are at least 10 weeks pregnant and families with a child under four years old are eligible for the scheme if they claim: income support; income-based jobseeker’s allowance; child tax credit, if they have an annual family income of £16,190 or less; universal credit, if they have a family take-home pay of £408 or less a month; or pension credit. Pregnant women on income-related employment and support allowance are also eligible for the scheme.
Anyone under 18 who is pregnant is eligible for Healthy Start, regardless of whether they receive benefits. Following the birth of their child, they must meet the benefit criteria to continue receiving Healthy Start. The scheme offers financial support towards buying fresh, frozen or tinned fruit and vegetables, fresh, dried and tinned pulses, plain cow’s milk and infant formula. Beneficiaries are also eligible for free Healthy Start vitamins.
In April 2021, as has been mentioned, we increased the value of Healthy Start by 37%, from £3.10 per week to £4.25 per week. Unlike the Scottish Government’s scheme, which is for the under-threes, Healthy Start is for the under-fours. Pregnant women and children aged over one and under four each receive £4.25 a week, and children aged under one each receive £8.50 a week—twice as much. For a family with a six-month-old and a three-year-old, that is £12.75 a week to help towards buying nutritious foods. That comes on top of the benefits and all the other measures, such as the increase in the national living wage, that I mentioned.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the Minister for rattling off the sums. To go back to the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made about the Healthy Start grant and why the Government chose not to uprate it, will he share with the House what the cost to the Exchequer would have been to uprate it? That must have been part of their deliberations as to why not to do it. What is the cost?
Neil O'Brien
We have chosen to spend over £3,300 per UK household, on average, on the cost of living support. Putting that into the schemes that are available and targeted at people with low incomes, and indeed at the entire population, is the choice that we have made. To reiterate my earlier point, and since the hon. Member says that I am rattling off the figures, it is worth stressing that we have invested £3,300 per household—a colossal sum of money. That is unprecedented. There has never been a cost of living intervention anywhere of that magnitude, so that must be an important part of the discussion about Healthy Start.
Neil O'Brien
I will continue with my points and perhaps come back to the hon. Lady in a moment.
Healthy Start is delivered by the NHS Business Services Authority on behalf of the Department. Following user research and testing by the Department and NHSBSA, the scheme, as various Members have mentioned, was switched from being paper-based to a digitised service to increase uptake and usability. We have introduced an online application to replace the previous paper-based application form and a prepaid card to replace paper vouchers. The digitised scheme opened to the public for the first time in September 2021. The online application provides an instant decision for many families. The prepaid card can be used in any retailer that sells Healthy Start foods and accepts Mastercard.
I am pleased to see that the number of new families joining the scheme continues to grow following the introduction of the prepaid card. Since September 2021, there have been more than 500,000 successful applications, with 48% coming from new families. The scheme now supports more than 375,000 families on lower incomes, and that continues to grow month on month. The current uptake is 64.6%, which is higher than the paper scheme, which had a 59.9% uptake in August 2021.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked whether we published the figures on eligibility. Yes, the total number of eligible and entitled beneficiaries are published on the NHS Healthy Start website and are broken down by local authority.
Alison Thewliss
The Minister is making an interesting point about the uptake, but can he account for why things are so much better in Scotland, where the uptake of Best Start Foods sits at 88%?
Neil O'Brien
The schemes are not completely comparable because the Healthy Start scheme covers a wider base of people, as I mentioned. It goes up to age four rather than age three, so it has a wider field of benefit than the Scottish scheme. That may be part of the story, but there could be other reasons, and there may be important things that we can learn from the Scottish scheme. I am always keen to have those discussions.
To increase take-up, NHSBSA actively promotes Healthy Start through its digital channels and has created free toolkits to support stakeholders to do so. NHSBSA uses a range of communications activities to engage parents, pregnant women and healthcare professionals to help to raise awareness of the scheme. NHSBSA has attended Maternity & Midwifery Forum events and placed advertisements in the Bounty packs, which many people receive when they have children, and the “You and your pregnancy” magazine, which is given to pregnant women in the first trimester.
We constantly review the materials produced for the Healthy Start scheme to ensure that communications reach those who need support the most. That is why, following user research by NHSBSA, promotional material was translated into the top five languages spoken by Healthy Start families, to reach a wider demographic. NHSBSA continues to engage with national and local stakeholders to improve the delivery of the scheme and increase the uptake.
Healthy Start is an important part of the support provided by the Government, but it is only one aspect of the support available for families. We are funding 75 English local authorities with high levels of deprivation to ensure that parents and carers can access Start for Life services locally. The healthy child programme is a universal offer across all 150 local authority areas—led by health visitors and school nurses—that supports families from the antenatal period up to school entry. The nursery milk scheme provides reimbursement to childcare providers for a daily third of a pint portion of milk to children and babies. The school fruit and vegetable scheme provides around 2.2 million children in key stage 1 with a portion of fresh fruit or vegetables each day at school, and 419 million pieces of fruit and vegetables were distributed to children in 2022-23.
The Government have extended free school meals eligibility several times and to more groups of children than any other Government over the past half a century, including the introduction of universal infant free school meals and further education free meals. Under the benefits-based criteria, 1.9 million of the most disadvantaged pupils are eligible for and are claiming a free school meal. That saves families around £400 per year. To make it easier for families to find support, the Government also created an online resource so that families can easily check what help is available to them.
At a time when families need support, and with the cost of living increasing, the Government are committed to helping as many families as possible to access the Healthy Start scheme, as well as all those other schemes, to help those most in need.
Andrew Western
I thank everybody who has taken the time to participate in the debate. This matter is incredibly important to me, my constituents and so many people up and down the country in the midst of this cost of living crisis.
I will comment on some contributions from hon. Members, beginning with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am very grateful for his support for uprating the Healthy Start allowance. He is right to highlight the scheme’s importance to the people of Northern Ireland; it is also important to people across the whole UK, as he rightly said. He was also right to mention free school meals, because that is a major problem with the scheme as it stands. The Healthy Start allowance finishes on a child’s fourth birthday, after which the children of some of the very poorest families do not receive that support. We are talking about children and the food they eat, rather than about the families. At a crucial time in any child’s development, those children do not receive that support until they are at school and in receipt of free school meals. I thank him for making that point.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the potential extension of eligibility. I very deliberately sought to put forward a reasonable ask of Government today. Based on the Minister’s response, I need not have bothered to do so; I could have asked for all the issues with the scheme to be addressed. I made a minimal request in the hope that there might be a positive offer in response. The extension of the eligibility criteria would be particularly welcome not just to those with children over the age of four, but to everybody in receipt of universal credit. The current level of eligibility is set at any family earning up to £408 a week from employment, which is not a significant sum when there are little mouths to feed.
I very much associate myself with the comments from the hon. Member for Strangford about the complexity of the application process. I hear what the Minister said about the move online and the digitisation of the scheme, but there have been significant problems, not least with the availability of reporting and data as a result of the shift to digitisation. The hon. Member for Strangford made a point about his dear friend who spends so much time advising on benefits that it is a full-time job. He is absolutely right: it would need to be, because the scheme is so complex that many families are simply not taking it up. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), pointed out that we are missing the Government’s target, and I will return to that serious issue momentarily.
I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), whose expertise in this matter—not least that garnered as chair of the all-party group on infant feeding and inequalities—is second to none. I stress that I am not here speaking specifically about baby formula. She says that that is not a new issue, and I absolutely appreciate that. However, on this issue, we have an acute and current problem that is relatively new across the piece, because Healthy Start is used for things other than baby formula, including milk, pulses, fruit and vegetables, and so on. I know she understands that, but I am trying to continue making the case for why this is important in and of itself. There is a broader remit up to the age of four, and it is incredibly important to note that, but I endorse everything that she says about milk formula, and the challenges for the lowest-income families as a result of the current system and the current pricing regime.
The hon. Lady’s comments about the value of the voucher, in terms of the loss of milk, are really pertinent. For the value of the voucher to be down by the cost of more than two pints of milk over a relatively short period shows the impact on families. I am incredibly fortunate to do this job. I do not know what it is like to have to sit there and work out, “Can I buy an additional pint or two of milk this week?” For families in that situation, it must be absolutely devastating when they have a hungry child crying for food as they make that calculation.
I also associate myself with the hon. Lady’s comments about individuals with no recourse to public funds. That is really important, and I firmly agree that that should not be a barrier to receiving the Healthy Start allowance. In particular, the Government have moved on that specifically in relation to free school meals. When one considers a child’s journey through the early years and on to education, I can see no difference that would excuse these two alternating and contradictory positions. If nothing else, I hope that the Minister will take that away and endeavour to look at it.
The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, made some really important points about uptake, building on the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford. We have up to 200,000 beneficiaries of the allowance not currently taking it up. We have a Government target of 75% against a national average of 64%, so that is a significant failing. Having said that I would restrict my requests to one particular area, I place on record that I support the Food Foundation’s request for a £5 million investment campaign spent on promoting the scheme to drive up the uptake.
My hon. Friend’s broader list of points, in setting out Labour’s agenda, shows the breadth and scale of change that is needed to genuinely tackle the cost of living crisis. I said in my opening speech that this change alone would not be a silver bullet. It is one of myriad interventions that are needed, given the scale of the crisis that young families and people up and down the country face, whether they have young children or not. That sort of visionary and transformational agenda will be required to tackle child poverty. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that the last Labour Government did that, and I hope that the day when we can do so again comes very soon.
To turn to the Minister’s contribution, it has probably come across that I am relatively disappointed by the response. He refused to say, and presumably has not even looked at, what the cost of this intervention would be. He mentioned that the data—which I pointed out was troublesome—made this complicated. I am happy to give way if he wants to provide clarification on this point. There is an awful lot of talk about “beneficiaries”—he used that term—but that does not make it clear to me whether we are talking about one parent in a family, two parents in a family, one family, one child or two children in the same family. It is not clear, so I have had to make these calculations based on 336,000 current recipients of Healthy Start, assuming that around 30% of those fall into the category of children between nought and one. An inflation-level uplift of 72p a week for those on the lower rate and therefore £1.44 for those on the higher rate would add up to a whopping £16.3 million. That is nothing when one considers the grotesque scale of waste that the Government incur through failing to intervene early enough in children’s lives, before they face deeper problems further down the line. That is nothing against what I set out in my opening speech in relation to the lost revenue to the Treasury when one considers the lost potential over the course of a lifetime.
These are tiny sums in reality, but they would make an enormous difference to people on the lowest salaries and incomes. When the Minister lists the litany of interventions from the Government and says, for instance, that the living wage has been increased to £10.42, it is important to recognise that that can be a problem for previous recipients of Healthy Start, because not uprating the Healthy Start allowance means that some people may roll off it and be worse off. There is no taper and no support for those just over the limit. Forgive me, I had not considered this in advance, or I would have made this point in my opening speech: I think I am correct in saying that the decision not to uprate Healthy Start will lead to fewer people being eligible. That is shameful, given the crisis that we face in this country, and given that we have families stealing to feed their babies. It terrifies me that the Minister hides behind an increase in the national living wage, when that leaves people potentially worse off in this instance.
We have to be honest: this invest-to-save measure would have been particularly cheap for the Government to enact. The greatest impact that we can have on anybody’s development is in those first few years. That is why we have policies such as Sure Start and why we have the Government’s albeit limited family hubs policy. No child can reach their potential if they grow up without the food and nutrition that we all need, particularly in our youngest years.
There are many issues. As I said, I began in a rather restrained way, but we received such a disappointing response from the Minister. He did not even consider this proposal and pointed to broader lists, seemingly not having looked at what the negligible costs would be, so I will briefly set those issues out. I would have liked to say more about auto-enrolment and take-up; expansion of the scheme to all children under free school meals age; and widening the eligibility criteria to all families on universal credit and those with no recourse to public funds, who can now get free school meals.
Fundamentally, however, I came here with a reasonable ask today, at a time when we know that families are so desperate that they are stealing to feed their children and are listening to hungry cries because of the empty bellies of the very youngest people in our society. We are talking necessarily about the most vulnerable young people in our society, in families on the lowest incomes. This proposal would have cost next to nothing, but I fear that the price for those individuals will be grave indeed. I am grateful to everybody who has participated today, but I have to say, I remain deeply disappointed by the Minister’s response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Healthy Start scheme and increases in the cost of living.
Sub-postmasters and Sub-postmistresses: Remuneration
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered remuneration for Post Office sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. The House has spent a fair amount of time in recent months considering the question of the Post Office and dealings with postmasters and postmistresses, but most of that has been in relation to the very long tail of the Horizon scandal. I make absolutely no complaint about that.
I have had debates in here and in the main Chamber where I have said that, in my view, the basic reason that whole scandal was allowed to happen was the culture that existed within the senior management of the Post Office. Basically, the people at the top just did not trust those at the sharp end of the businesses. As I have dealt with constituency cases relating to Horizon and seen some of the more recent advents, such as the bonus payment paid to Nick Read, the chief executive of the Post Office—in an act of utter tone-deafness—my concern is that the culture remains unchanged. If it has changed, it has not changed to the extent or at the speed that we would like.
A recent poll on the question of confidence in the board of the Post Office on the Facebook group Voice of the Postmaster attracted no fewer than 367 votes, and it was a 100% vote for no confidence. I mention Voice of the Postmaster because that is, as it were, the provisional wing of the organisation representing sub-postmasters. I have always worked very well with the National Federation of SubPostmasters over the years, but I increasingly hear concerns from sub-postmasters that the way in which the federation is constituted makes it difficult for it to represent sub-postmasters in the way they would want to be represented. I do not know the truth of that. It is not my job, or even the Minister’s, to reach a final decision on that at the moment, but I think we have to be aware and respectful of concerns when we hear them. There is clearly a job of work for Ministers and Post Office management to be done in that regard.
Figures provided by the Post Office recently in a conference call to postmasters and postmistresses show that it had a revenue and income last year of £915 million, while its total capital and spend on historic matters, which excludes compensation, was £85 million, and the compensation schemes cost £63 million. The Post Office employed 3,500 people, with a people cost—I assume that is a wages bill—of £180 million. A fairly crude arithmetic would suggest an average salary in the region of £48,000.
I would contrast that with what I and, I suspect, many of us around the country hear when we speak to the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in our communities. My interest was really caught by one of the sub-postmasters in Shetland, Brian Smith, who runs the Freefield sub-post office in Lerwick, which is one of the bigger sub-post offices in Shetland. He came to me, showed me the figures and said quite simply, “How do I make a living from this?”
I went back to see my constituent last week and he showed me his remuneration note. He is open for 51 hours per week, with two people serving. He pays above minimum wage, but at minimum wage that would be £1,071 per week, which would be £4,641 per calendar month for wages only—before even turning on a light switch or heater. His income from the post office in that month was £4,153.56. I can find no better illustration of the mismatch between what sub-postmasters need by way of remuneration and what they actually receive.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend is laying bare the facts. In my constituency of North East Fife, we have lost a number of post offices since I was elected because a franchisee pulled out, as it simply does not make any money. It is easier to have a Costa Coffee machine than a Post Office counter for making money. People are not coming forward to reopen post offices, so remote communities are subject to being served by a Post Office van, when it is in operation. Does he agree that we need to do something?
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely agree. I see this process happening and it has not happened suddenly; it has been happening for years. People retire, give up or for whatever reason decide they do not want to continue and nobody comes forward, so the post office remains nominally open, but in fact there is no service in the community—there might be some from another branch or wherever, but frankly the core of what the sub-post office is about is lost.
I think of the example of the post office in the village where I live. It is in the village shop. It was bought recently by somebody who had given up a career—of 51 years, he tells me—in IT, so he was not doing this to increase his income. He has transformed the shop. He has taken what was a good Orkney country shop and brought in a whole range of different fresh foods—Orkney fish, Orkney beef, everything. The quality of what we can get in that shop now is phenomenal, but he tells me it costs him to have a sub-post office counter in the business. It should not be costing somebody like that. That should be something that adds value, but we are seeing the determination and commitment of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses around the country being taken advantage of.
Mr Carmichael
Oh my goodness! I am spoilt for choice. I give way to all three Members, but very quickly.
Christine Jardine
I agree completely with my right hon. Friend: remote areas have been hit hard by the declining number of post offices, but we are also seeing that in cities. One of the problems it brings is that post offices were meant to replace the counter services of many bank branches that have closed, so we have many elderly pensioners who are not online and now have even fewer options for getting their pension or going to the bank.
Jim Shannon
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the debate forward. He is absolutely right, and the same thing applies in my Strangford constituency. The wages and remuneration have to reflect—they do not at this point—the hours committed, the staff employed, the contribution to the local community and the social engagement for people of a senior generation. Those things are critical, and they must be reflected accordingly in the money for wages.
Jamie Stone
In the north-west of my constituency, Mr and Mrs Mackay run a general store in the village of Durness in Sutherland. It is a fact that supermarket deliveries and mail order are threatening the store’s viability. That is something we should guard against.
Mr Carmichael
Absolutely. With your indulgence, Mr Twigg, I took those interventions together because we had three different communities all telling us the same story. It is a story of commitment from sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses that is not being met through their remuneration. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) should be emphasised, because isolation is not something that affects only those in rural communities. There are people who live in isolation in cities and towns. For them, a post office and access to a post office is an important service, and they stand to lose out as a consequence of the constant salami slicing that we see.
Another postmistress in my constituency from Orkney spoke about the different changes that she has to work with. She told me:
“A lot of mail and packages are left with us for collection. Every item has to be accounted for, processed in and processed out. We are quite often having to produce a proof of postage for mail that is paid for online. This takes some time checking that the correct postage has been paid. The changes to customs requirements have added on much more time to the process than what they claim”
—that is the Post Office—
“This is particularly true for Drop and Go accounts where we have to input the senders details for every package. This information could be pre populated…The Post Office do not provide all the items that may be required to meet their standards—for example, a shredder.”
The list of things that are done for communities by people running sub-post offices was shared by my constituent Juliet Bellis, who runs the sub-post office in Fetlar, an island community in Shetland with 68 residents. She makes the point that elderly and infirm residents there rely on the post office to charge up their electricity keys. She says:
“I am contracted to open for 8 hours per week but I have trained up everyone who works in the shop so that, if the shop is open, the post office is available. That means in the summer you can get access to the post office 7 days a week, from 11am to 4pm; in the winter, we only open for five days a week—from 11am to 2pm.
The post office is therefore getting 35 hours from me in the summer and 15 hours a week in the winter. For this I get paid £390.90 per month…slightly above the current minimum wage if I opened for 8 hours per week.”
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Member for bringing such an important matter to the House. I was a postmaster, and I have often said in the House that I am the only serving MP to have been in that role. Indeed, it is wonderful to see Calum Greenhow, the chief executive of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, in the Public Gallery.
Despite the Post Office’s commercial revenues increasing by about £100 million over the last few years, the actual revenue that sub-postmasters have earned in that time has fallen substantially, by 12% in just the last three years. As the right hon. Member said, of the 11,700 post offices that operate around the country, only 9,500 are full-time services, simply because of the lack of viability. Does this not show that we must give this great British institution the power to pay people properly for running post offices?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I do not think we are going to have much contention in this debate. The same point was made to me by Valerie Johnson, who is the sub-postmistress at Baltasound, Unst. She pointed out that holiday pay is contracted to cover roughly £5 per hour, but there has been no update since 2016. That is probably the sort of thing that produces the outcome to which the hon. Gentleman just referred.
The final point I want to deal with relates to bank charges. As we know, we are pushing more and more banks into using the Post Office, and the figures that have been put to me show massive disparities between the amounts that can be paid in on a daily or annual basis. For Barclays, the limit is £3,000 per transaction but only £10,000 per year. For Danske Bank, it is £1,000 per day and £5,000 every 180 days. Ironically, the Post Office instant saver account has a limit of £1,000 per day or £10,000 per year, as does the Post Office reward saver. Brian Smith told me just last week that when people hand over their takings and pay money into bank accounts through the post office, it does not know whether that person is anywhere near the account cap. If the post office staff spend time counting out the money, only to find that they cannot take it because the customer has exceeded the cap, that is a source of enormous and legitimate frustration for them.
Mr Twigg, you may think that I have just about vented my spleen and exhausted everything that I have to say, but today it has been brought to my attention that negotiations between the Post Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are reaching a crisis point. At present, 6 million DVLA transactions, worth something in the region of £3.2 million, are made through post offices every year. I am told by the Post Office that the likeliest outcome is that it will get a 12-month extension to the agreement, which would take it to 31 March 2024, but that the DVLA is not committing beyond that point.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Member agree that the Government’s pledge—made many years ago and never kept—that local post offices would be the “front office of Government” is really beginning to sound more and more hollow, and that they are likely to be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and indeed their own policy on access to cash and social inclusion, if this change goes ahead?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices.
The point that really stands to be made about the Post Office and the DVLA is that these are two public bodies. Negotiating a deal between two public bodies is about access to a public service. I confess that I was always sceptical about post offices being the “front office of Government”, because it is difficult for a Government to say that they use the Post Office as their “front office”, when at the same time they are telling everybody else that everything is digital by default. There is a somewhat mixed message between those two options, and we will have to decide which it will be, because if we try to do both, we will never succeed in either regard.
The concern that we might now be reaching the point of losing the contract has to be taken seriously. It is clear that the Post Office is taking it seriously, and it is incumbent upon those carrying out the negotiation to understand that they are the people negotiating on behalf of post offices and those who issue licences. They are behaving as if they are in some hardball negotiation between Gordon Gekko and The Wolf of Wall Street. They are losing sight of the fact that they are there for a specific purpose, and they should focus on that.
We have an army of public servants, the length and breadth of this country, who provide a tremendous service for our communities. We have heard a small part of it service represented here today, and if I take nothing else from this debate, it is that we need to find another opportunity to go over this ground in more detail. That army, like all armies, needs leadership, and that is where we are losing the opportunity at the moment. They need leadership; they need respect for the work they do; and above all else they need fair pay for the work that they do for our communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this very important debate. I agree with many of the sentiments that he expressed in his speech.
When I was growing up as a young boy in my local town of Easingwold, we had Mr Taylor, the bank manager —he managed the Barclays bank—and Mr Clark, the baker; Mr Thornton, our butcher; Mr Hollinrake, who was our milkman; and Mr Hodgson, our postmaster. The only equivalent personality who I would be able to identify now in our community of Easingwold would be Pritpal, who is our postmaster. Sadly, all those other pillars of the community have gone, so we absolutely know that our postmasters are the pillars and beating hearts of our communities. It is therefore paramount that we secure the right future for our post office network, which is one of the largest retail networks in the country, with 11,500 branches. We know from the recent report by London Economics that post offices bring a huge amount to our whole economy—£4.7 billion in 2021-22.
I spoke in glowing terms about the network being the pillars of our communities at the annual conference of the National Federation of SubPostmasters only last week. It is good to see Calum Greenhow, who represents that organisation, here in the Public Gallery today; indeed, he is on his annual holiday, but has still turned up to this debate. Quite simply, there is no Post Office without postmasters.
The subject of this debate is crucial, because if we are to run a sustainable network of post offices, we clearly need to ensure that those businesses are sustainable too. Post Office is a commercial business; it operates at arm’s length from the Government. Postmaster remuneration will ultimately be an operational matter for the Post Office, but I totally agree that we need to get the situation on a sustainable footing.
There were some improvements to remuneration in April, as I think has been acknowledged, including increasing payments for outreach services by 9.5% and payments for banking deposit transactions by 20%, although I know that their cash impact is very limited; that point was raised at the conference last week.
I understand the issue that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised about deposits. The money is counted and, because of unknown deposit limits, that money sometimes has to be counted back, which is unfair. I am working closely with the Financial Conduct Authority and various banks on those deposit limits, which seem to be arbitrary and have damaging effects on the business community as a whole in our towns and villages, not just on the post offices themselves. I am determined to find a solution to that problem, alongside my colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
The improvements made in April 2023 were made following previous improvements in August 2022, and postmasters benefiting from Royal Mail tariff increases was announced in March 2023. However, I appreciate that the measures have not gone as far as postmasters would have liked. We have the issue under review and we discuss it often at our meetings with the Post Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) raised an important point about the amount of revenue that is passed on to sub-postmasters. Something that results from that, which I have discussed with the Post Office at our meetings, is the need to control and reduce central costs to ensure that there is more money to go around the network, rather than held in the centre. Postmasters are the most important part of the post office network, and I agree that they need to be able to make a decent living for that network to be sustainable for the future.
Clearly, we need the Post Office to look for opportunities to drive footfall into branches. A point was raised about the DVLA. I am aware of those negotiations. Again, those matters are between the Post Office and postmasters, but we are keen to see a resolution and we hope that one will be obtained. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) does fine work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. As she said, we see the Post Office very much as the front office of Government. Having said that, we cannot dictate to people how they decide to access services. We all benefit from access to the internet and the digital world, and applying for different things on our phones and computers.
Marion Fellows
Digital applications should not exclude cash for people who are digitally excluded, and there are many of those people in our communities. As the Minister said, post offices are at the heart of our communities. Everyone needs to be able to use them and access Government services.
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I gave her the wrong impression. I am not saying that it should be either/or, but we should leave it to customers to decide how they want to access services.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is absolutely right. We cannot dictate to people how they do things. But surely with the example of the cash limits on bank deposits, that is exactly what we are doing. If we say, “You’ve had your limit; you can’t pay in any more money here,” then we have taken away the option for them to use the post office. Let us not forget that they are probably using that option as a sop to the Government here, because they were making all sorts of promises about it being the last bank in town.
Kevin Hollinrake
I understand that cash deposit limits are a crucial issue, and we are determined to find a resolution. It is not about something imposed by the Government or even the Post Office; it is about money laundering concerns. The FCA was concerned about the post network being used for money laundering purposes. The right hon. Gentleman and I have both spoken about the need to tackle economic crime, so that is the reason behind it. My concern is whether those measures are proportionate and appropriate. I think there should be ways round that. Some banks are interpreting the advice differently.
I will turn to some other issues that the post office network is facing. One is the disruption to business caused by the dispute between Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union. Hopefully, that has nearly come to its end. Letter volumes are on a long-term decline, with a 50% reduction in the last 10 years. Foreign currency exchange is another important revenue stream, which was obviously challenged between 2020 and 2022. Again, that should be returning to normal.
There is no silver bullet to solve those problems, but, nevertheless, there are some opportunities for the future. We see that the Post Office needs to adapt to today’s economic environment. There are initiatives under way, such as post offices becoming parcel hubs—not only for Royal Mail; there are now new partnerships with Amazon, DPD UK, Evri and DHL, and that is a benefit to consumers and potentially postmasters.
Positive steps to diversify the business are critical. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland highlighted what a tremendous job his post office is doing in terms of fresh produce and fish. Diversification is very important for any business; when a part of a business is struggling to make ends meet, it should add further businesses to that outlet. There has been significant investment in the replacement for the Horizon system. The new system should make transactions easier and more efficient, which should help sub-postmasters with the amount of time it takes to do their work.
The Government have stepped in for the short term, with things such as business rates support worth £13.6 billion, and the £23 billion over an 18-month period to help with energy costs. We are keen to help all businesses through a difficult time, not least the post office network, which has received £2.5 billion of central Government funding over the last 10 years, and will receive £335 million over the next three, including the £50 million a year subsidy to safeguard services in uncommercial parts of the network.
I take the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland’s point on the Post Office’s senior management bonus situation—a matter that we took very seriously. The Post Office itself is doing its own inquiry into the circumstances around that and we have committed to undertaking an independent review of the issue. It is important that we wait for the outcome of the review before we make a judgment on that situation, but it is something that we are taking seriously.
I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. It is encouraging that we are all on the same page on this issue; we all want to ensure we have a sustainable network, and we need to have a grown-up conversation about how we do that.
Kevin Hollinrake
To conclude, we will continue to work with the Post Office to deal with the challenges that the network faces and lay the foundations for a sustainable network in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Autonomous Last-mile Delivery
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the societal impacts of autonomous last-mile delivery.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Many of my colleagues from across the House have heard me speak at length on the thriving tech sector in Milton Keynes, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so once again. This time, I will be highlighting the wonderful role that Starship robots play in our city and the fantastic technology of automated last-mile delivery. I will cover some of the benefits that those cute little robots bring for the environment, accessibility, convenience and productivity, but I will start with the social side, particularly acceptance.
If we roll forward 20, 30 or 40 years, autonomous delivery robots will be all over. They will be in our homes, in our streets, online and so on—robots everywhere, in all aspects of our lives. Looking at how integration works, and at the Milton Keynes use case for robots, will give us real lessons for the future. I have talked extensively to my friends at Starship—the humans, not the robots—and it is clear that the process of social acceptance is at the heart of their success. What is social acceptance, and why is it important when it comes to integrating delivery robots in a complex urban environment?
Milton Keynes has an historical association with welcoming technological innovation, and with the technology sector. In fact, that was built into our city’s DNA in the 1960s. People have started families and built their lives here in MK because they have wanted to become part of a new way of urban and suburban living.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Like Milton Keynes, Havant constituency is already home to several last-mile delivery facilities that sustain hundreds of local jobs. I hope that we will become a centre for autonomous delivery as the UK develops its leadership role in the fourth industrial revolution. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to maximise social impact and utility, the companies involved should work with local councils and communities to ensure that the technologies work for everybody?
Ben Everitt
I am grateful for the intervention. I absolutely agree. Culture works at every level. There is the culture of acceptance from people, and institutional culture. Integrated working by companies, councils and the wider community is fundamental to the success of any technological integration. We need to build a culture in which people, businesses and institutions look at innovation with excitement, pride and genuine curiosity. That kind of culture is not necessarily unique to Milton Keynes—I am sure it exists in other places—but cultivating it, so that we can build a process of innovation, is fundamental.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. I sought his opinion beforehand on what I am about to say. Does he agree that while autonomous delivery vehicles may provide a solution to carrying goods from local stores and restaurants and meeting the ongoing demand for last-mile delivery services, the need to secure local jobs for local people without complete reliance on technology is also vital? We should embrace new technologies, as they can help the environment, but we must also be able to function without a high-speed internet connection. In other words, people must see the benefits, and I am not sure that everyone will.
Ben Everitt
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, and for the tip-off about the crux of it. For me, innovation breeds productivity, but it does not necessarily come at the expense of jobs. In fact, increased productivity leads to further jobs, such as servicing the robots, and additional work for the companies that produce the groceries that are delivered. On his second point about internet connection, I absolutely agree. The whole thing relies on secure access to data and connectivity, which relates to both cyber-security and getting a good signal. That is not necessarily a problem in Milton Keynes, though we all have our notspots, but as we roll the technology out further around the country, it must be a real consideration.
I see Milton Keynes as the blueprint for how we roll out such advances. It should be a case study in how to implement new technologies in cities. As we do this kind of thing at a Government level, in a top-down way, we need to look at the places where innovation is already happening and successful. That will help us to navigate our way through the introduction of legislation. We can design perfect laws in this place, but if they do not work on the ground, we will find ourselves coming unstuck.
Recently I was pleased to be able to organise, with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), a competition with Starship on Christmas designs for the delivery robots. We had hundreds of entries. It really brought home how enthusiastic and happy people are to be involved with the robots in Milton Keynes. I am fortunate enough to live in Milton Keynes and understand and be part of the culture. I know other Members have also seen the joy of these little robots roaming around the streets, and they will soon be hitting constituencies across the country. It adds to the character of communities and always makes me smile.
Robots can navigate themselves around objects and people using their cameras, and they carry food or parcels securely and safely. Travelling at around 4 mph, which is basically walking speed, they are inherently safe. It is necessary to highlight that point, because as we scale up the technology and roll it out around the country, it is vital that we bring local communities along with us, and give them the confidence they deserve. Without local support, we would not be able to move forward.
Further, there are economic, social and environmental impacts from autonomous delivery. That is clear to see. From a road efficiency perspective, more of these robots help to reduce traffic and congestion, particularly with Milton Keynes being a fast-growing city. These robots help to reduce costs for businesses and therefore for their customers. That will help businesses invest in jobs, growth and productivity. Simple solutions can make cities work better, and this is certainly one such solution.
Robots can also help us to achieve environmental goals. I am passionate about reducing carbon emissions, and Milton Keynes has always been rightly unapologetic in driving towards being a green city. We have taken huge steps towards achieving that, particularly in making Milton Keynes electric car friendly. I thank the Minister, while he is in his place, for the additional £1.6 million awarded to Milton Keynes City Council for better electric car charging infrastructure.
The robots and their autonomous last-mile delivery systems can help us to reduce road traffic. Less fuel is used, so there are fewer carbon emissions, and the robots are 32 times more energy efficient than normal 3-tonne delivery trucks. The technology can help us to make significant strides towards the goal set out in the Government’s net zero strategy if we can deploy the robots across the country.
However, despite the range of benefits I have outlined, I fear the UK may be in danger of lagging behind on effective legislative frameworks to foster the growth of this kind of transport technology. There is no legislation to support companies such as Starship Technologies in the change they are trying to bring about. Legislation from 1835—nearly 200 years ago—is acting as a barrier to new tech innovation and investment. I hope that the Minister shares my desire to see this legislation updated, so that it is fit for the 21st century.
Ben Everitt
The country that springs to mind is Finland. The Finnish Government have introduced a proper legislative framework for autonomous delivery systems. Starship Technologies has signed a national partnership with the largest retailer in Finland, S Group, which is part of their growth strategy. Ultimately, that has been made possible because Finland introduced vehicle certification and regulations to govern robots. Its most recent piece of legislation covered robots. It has acted and got in front, and we must ensure that we keep step. Companies want to innovate and be part of the UK’s innovation culture. I want to keep them here.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I should admit that I was the leader of Trafford Council who signed off the current trial, although the trial is not taking place in my constituency now. The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the importance of innovation. He is right that companies want to innovate, but local authorities do, too. I must say that it is rare to hear a Conservative Member praise a Labour-run council as fully as he has praised Milton Keynes City Council. Pete Marland and others in Milton Keynes will be delighted to hear such glowing praise for their forward thinking and their work. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that asking the Minister to unlock artificial intelligence’s potential in such a way that local authorities can embrace it will speed up roll-out considerably, and will allow all local authorities to get onboard with this technology, so that people across the country, and not only residents of boroughs such as mine, can enjoy it?
Ben Everitt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that cheeky intervention. Of course, he will know as well as everybody else that Milton Keynes has not always had a Labour-led council. To answer the point he is making, yes, co-operation is key, but, quite simply, time is of the essence. We must continue to drive investment in policies that create real incentives to start and scale tech businesses, particularly in with the connected and automated mobility sector.
Clarity, consistency and certainty are what the sector needs. That is why we need to ensure we remain at the forefront of technological innovation. I know my colleagues from across the political spectrum, including in Milton Keynes, will agree that tech innovation has always been the hallmark of this great country. We must continue that great legacy, and ensure we give the tech industry the confidence it needs to invest in the UK and not in our rivals.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. First, I congratulate my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), on securing this important debate. I echo the points he made about the value that Starship Technologies robots have for communities in my constituency as well as his.
Autonomous last-mile delivery is an important subject. I am Chair of the Transport Committee, and we are holding an inquiry on not just last-mile delivery robots but self-driving vehicles more widely. The Minister was kind enough to give oral evidence to the Committee last week.
I will focus on three points: first, on the contribution that delivery robots can make to carbon savings; secondly, on social acceptance; and, thirdly, on regulation. Transport is now the single biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in this country. There is no single solution to that, but electrically powered, autonomous delivery vehicles can make an important contribution. I echo the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North made, and would urge people to look at how last-mile deliveries fit into the wider freight logistics industry. We cannot look at each part of it in splendid isolation. There is enormous potential for linking last-mile delivery robots to the wider supply chain, helping to decarbonise it as a whole.
The point about social acceptance is also critical, and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North articulated it well. The robots we have in Milton Keyes are a good indicator of how the public can be won over to autonomous technology. There are two contrasting examples at the moment. One example that has not worked is smart motorways, which still arouse great public fear, and scepticism that the technology can work and make smart motorways safe. The public in Milton Keynes, however, do accept delivery robots. The robots are cautious; they go at walking speed. I do not believe I have had a single bit of correspondence in my constituency from people objecting to them. They are part of the streetscape; I even saw a golden retriever sitting outside a local shop surrounded by them, and it was quite comfortable.
It is interesting that when people come to Milton Keynes who have not seen them, they usually say, “What are these funny things running around?”. For local people, they are just part of the streetscape. We cannot just bring in the new technology. It is important that the robots are given proper publicity, that the mapping is done and that we are cautious. I think Starship Technologies have done that in the right way.
The third point I will make is on regulation. The law is still a very grey area, particularly when it comes to the robots going on the pavements. There is a need to update that. In addition to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North, I would say this: there is a risk that if we do not update our regulations, potential investment in this country will go elsewhere. There is a finite pot of investment money, and we want it in the UK. Another important aspect of regulation is attaining the right balance between a national framework and local flexibility, because what works in Milton Keynes might not work in Trafford, or in a cathedral city with much narrower streets and pavements. As well as a national framework, there has to be the ability to flex the regulations locally.
Robots have enormous potential for our society. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North referred to the Christmas competition launched last year to have a festive design for the robots. Members may not be aware that when the Starship robots arrive, they play a little tune. People can select which one they like—they include “Happy Birthday” and “Baby Shark”. Perhaps the Minister could launch a competition to find the most appropriate delivery tune for the robots to play when they arrive. He has already given me a couple of suggestions privately, but my challenge to him is to come up with the defining standard to celebrate these wonderful machines.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on securing the debate. He comprehensively set out all the advantages of last-mile autonomous vehicles. He started by asking us to imagine a future 30 or 40 years down the line. I do not know about you, Mr Twigg, but with the current state of politics, particularly in this building, I struggle to look three or four weeks down the line, let alone 30 or 40 years, but I take his point. I am aware of Starship—I have been to a parliamentary reception for it—and I will come on to a sighting of its robots in the wild just last week. The hon. Member mentioned that they are good for reducing traffic and congestion, thereby improving air quality.
The hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) brought up the fourth industrial revolution, which is most unlike him, but it was a pertinent point. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I call him the hon. Member for Westminster Hall East—is no longer in his place, but he was right to mention fears about the impact of automation on jobs, because we sometimes hear about that from the public. He also mentioned the issue of network signals and connections. Last week, as I travelled through much of rural Buckinghamshire, I was unable to check in for a flight for over an hour, owing to the signal in that part of the world.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) made an excellent point but also used the opportunity to make a nice political jibe about the local council, which I very much enjoyed. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who chairs the Transport Committee, of which I am a member, supported many of the points made by his colleague the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North in setting out the advantages of autonomous robots, but he also made a couple of good points linking them to the wider supply chain and the decarbonisation of the whole sector. He used them as a case in point, whereby the public were won over to the advantages of autonomous or smart tech, which is completely the opposite of the experience with smart motorways.
I referred to my trip—our trip, I should say, because the Chair is present—with the Transport Committee to Buckinghamshire to hear more about local issues with High Speed 2. It ended with a visit to Buckinghamshire Railway Centre to hear evidence from the Minister and HS2 Ltd, but the trip took me through Milton Keynes and past a couple of autonomous robots plying their trade on the streets by delivering shopping and drinks to households across a large part of Milton Keynes. It was somewhat of a change of scene to be surrounded, just hours later, by steam locomotives and carriages from railway history—artefacts from the past, when “autonomous delivery” meant letting the horse pull the cart by itself.
I have seen the Starship robots before, and they are impressive in action. They appear to be fairly popular with a lot of the residents of Milton Keynes. I can certainly see the appeal in being greeted with my messages and a song when I collect my purchase, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South said, although having had two young kids when I was elected, I draw the line at yet more “Baby Shark”. If the Minister could take the hon. Gentleman up on the suggestion to supply a new song, that would be fantastic.
The robots serve a purpose in Milton Keynes, but by definition their coverage is limited. They would not fare well delivering to the average three-storey tenement in Glasgow, for example, and it is hard to see how high-rise flats would be covered without a robotic finger for the lift. Starship itself told the Transport Committee fairly recently that the challenge of rolling out its service to more rural areas is big compared with the challenge of rolling it out in a modern, planned new town such as Milton Keynes.
There is also a real question of where exactly the machines themselves would fit into the legislative landscape. The operators of the Starship scheme admitted to the Committee that they were
“operating in a grey area”
at the moment. As with bikes and e-scooters, it is unclear whether it is legal for the robots to be on the pavements rather than the road. We are still grappling with the legal framework for electric scooters, and the mood music about a future transport Bill suggests that their regulation, or otherwise, will have to wait until after the general election.
If autonomous deliveries are to become the norm—that may or may not be the case—they will need a clear regulatory and legislative footing that ensures that they are subject to clear restrictions and licensing. The delay to the transport Bill gives the Government the opportunity to get ahead of the curve and to draft appropriately. We are still in the early stages of the technology’s deployment, and getting regulations on the statute book now will allow us to avoid the problems that we have with e-scooters. We are still waiting for e-scooters to be regulated, yet a million of the devices are out on streets and pavements. The continued lack of regulation means that, for example, most train companies will not allow them on board because of fears that the batteries are a fire risk. This is not a case of regulating just for the sake of it.
We also have to be wary of those peddling only good news and good outcomes from this technology. The potential for misuse must be balanced with the potential benefits of autonomous deliveries. It is not hard to foresee the same technology and hardware being used, whether by individuals or by bigger fish—potentially even state actors—to deliver goods that are a lot less legitimate than a carton of milk and half a dozen eggs. It is also not hard to imagine someone illegally accessing the network and operating system on which the vehicles rely and creating havoc.
The robots currently in operation might have a lower speed, but they still present potential obstacles for pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities or visual impairments. Given the limited geographic areas covered by Starship and the like, there may be little conflict now, but if Starship’s service expands and other operators follow in its wake in the same area, there may be fleets of competing robots trundling up and down pavements in towns and cities across the country.
I have painted a fairly negative picture. I view the technology positively, but regulation is required. With the best will, programming and AI in the world, it will become harder to marry up the needs of autonomous deliveries with the needs of pedestrians and pavement users. That is where regulation is required. The example of e-scooters shows the problems inherent in allowing a regulatory grey area to grow to a point where regulation is urgently required.
How we as a society use a product of scientific progress is up to us to determine. Just because a technology is there does not mean that it is a good idea. There is much to commend in the move to autonomous delivery at local level, given the efficiencies and reductions in the resources used to keep households going. Removing the need for shorter car and van deliveries, and therefore reducing road use, will help to reduce congestion, particularly in urban areas, and carbon emissions. There will inevitably be teething problems as services are rolled out—that is the nature of installing and operating something novel and untested in a real-world environment —but that should not clash with the need for regulation that reflects the balancing act required between innovation and the rights of others. Like with most technologies, it is at the times when it fails that autonomous delivery will need to be properly considered.
Although I would have wanted a transport Bill to be in the pipeline—it is not as if there is a lack of content for a transport Bill—the delay in its introduction means that the Government have a chance to do the in-depth work needed to create a regulatory framework that will work for autonomous deliveries, not just in the short term but further down the line. I hope that the Minister will take that message back to his colleagues and ensure that whenever the Bill drops, it can be taken forward with a package of measures that fully deals with autonomous deliveries.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on securing this important debate and I thank the other Members who have made eloquent speeches and interventions. I just want to put it on the record that, although I am from Yorkshire, I spent a lot of my teenage years in Milton Keynes, as my aunt lived just off the Buckingham Road, although in those days the area was called Bletchley. I fully appreciate the comments that the hon. Member made about coming from Sheffield, with its hills, and being in Milton Keynes, which is somewhat flatter. That was a good point, which we should all consider.
The decline in the number of physical shops, an ever-increasing internet-connected population, and the growing use of smartphones have combined to make online shopping quicker and more convenient than ever. That has led to the number of packages being delivered in the UK skyrocketing. Between 2019 and 2020, the last year before covid, approximately 2.8 billion parcels were shipped to households across the UK. But in 2020 and 2021, as physical stores shut and people stayed at home, that number exploded to 4.1 billion. These trends are unlikely to reverse and consumers have come to expect next-day delivery, or even same-day delivery, as standard.
The transport sector already contributes almost a quarter of our total emissions as a country. If we have thousands of new delivery vehicles congesting our streets to cope with the increased demand for e-commerce, I fear that our emissions will only continue to rise. That is why we must be forward-thinking and support new technologies that have the potential to support our decarbonisation efforts.
I have seen some of this innovation at first hand. Earlier this year, I visited the ServCity autonomous mobility research project in Woolwich and travelled along public roads in a self-driving car. Just before Christmas last year, I attended an event in this place where I was able to see a Starship autonomous delivery robot in action. Such autonomous delivery robots could have an important part to play in our obligation to achieve net zero.
The “last mile” of the supply chain is one of the most carbon-intensive parts of a delivery. By utilising smaller, low-emission robots on our streets, we can be a world leader in this new low-carbon industry, helping shops to connect with consumers and supporting the local economy.
Labour stands ready to support the industry and the jobs that it creates. We all know about the importance of science, technology, engineering and maths in schools. What better way is there to engage and inspire students than by making science tangible through robotics? Starship is already putting that into action with schemes all over the country.
Unfortunately, continued chaos in this Government has left a whole fleet of emerging industries in limbo. There have already been three rounds of consultations in this area. Just how many times does that process need to be repeated before the next steps are taken?
I have met countless companies, from global automotive manufacturers to small British mobility start-ups, and they all ask the same question: “When will the legislation keep up with the change of pace that is occurring on our roads?” The legislation that those businesses have been told to operate under dates back to 1835. It beggars belief that state-of-the-art 21st-century technology is operating under legislation passed four decades before the invention of the lightbulb.
Businesses are crying out for clarity and regulatory guidance, but their pleas remain ignored. The Government have left manufacturers of emerging technologies, including autonomous delivery robots, in the dark. That has led to British companies losing investment opportunities as, without a proper regulatory framework, the UK is seen as a risky prospect; my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) has already discussed that issue in some detail. Businesses are crying out for certainty, so that they can operate in an environment of regulatory security. Will the Minister finally provide that certainty by announcing the timetable for regulation?
Britain has the potential to be a world leader in this exciting sector, but, as we have seen all too often, dither and delay from the Government is stalling progress. Labour stands ready to support our science and technology sector and to create high-quality jobs, all while tackling the climate crisis.
I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to introduce a transport Bill. As the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), outlined, there are many other things that need regulating, not least e-scooters, where there have been battery issues and fatalities. There is also the debate about smart motorways, which are very unpopular with the public, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said. At the weekend, a friend of mine witnessed a very unpleasant near miss on the M1, which has put him off driving on that motorway again. I urge the Minister to take a long look at where we are now and how we can better protect our industries, as well as the public.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am absolutely delighted to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt); I thank him for securing this debate on the social impact of autonomous last-mile delivery. How right he is to raise it as an important issue and I am grateful to all Members who have spoken in the debate.
Only last week, I spoke to the Transport Committee about self-driving vehicles. The sector is potentially very large, and last-mile autonomous delivery will be just one part of it, and part of what we think of as the connected and automated mobility sector, which, if fully realised, could, it is estimated, have a potential market value of some £42 billion by 2035 and create 38,000 new skilled jobs.
To support the sector, the Government’s Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles has helped to secure £600 million in funding since 2015. In sharp contrast to the dismal description given by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson a few moments ago, this is a thoroughly thriving, technology-driven sector, in which the UK is a European and in many respects a global leader—but we need to continue to make it so. The point raised about legislation is absolutely right. As colleagues will recall from my testimony in front of the Transport Committee, I was as strong on that point there as I am today.
There are tremendous benefits to be had, and not merely economic ones; it is good to focus on the social benefits, which hon. Members have touched on. They potentially include connecting our rural communities, reducing isolation, providing better access to education and making it easier for people to see friends and family. Of course, autonomous last-mile delivery can help to deliver goods and services to people’s doors. All are attractive benefits of the realisation of the potential in the sector. If I may, I will touch on some of the benefits and then on some of the potential drawbacks that the Government are wrestling with.
The first of these benefits is safety. Almost 90% of all recorded road accidents involve human error as a contributory factor. The most recent provisional figures, for the year ending June 2022, show that on average almost five people died on our roads every day. We must bring that number down. Self-driving vehicles have the potential to reduce driver error and thereby improve road safety, which has plateaued over the last few years.
Members will be aware that the Government recently consulted on establishing a safety ambition for self-driving vehicles to be equivalent to the driving of a competent and careful driver. In real terms, the effect of that would be that the self-driving vehicle would not drive stressed, aggressively or in a way that reflects fatigue on the part of the driver. It would not seek to take illegal shortcuts. It would not be inebriated at the wheel.
Ben Everitt
Perhaps the Minister would like to come up to Milton Keynes and see for himself how non-stressed our delivery robots are.
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation. I would be delighted to come up to Milton Keynes to see the fabulous autonomous last-mile delivery vehicles in operation. They represent a very interesting technology, and we are very interested in that. I am pleased to say that my predecessor was able to visit last year, and I will certainly aim to do so.
Let me touch on a couple of other aspects that are useful to reflect on. One is the importance of using vehicles that are appropriately sized and designed for a specific task, thereby reducing the effects of collision from vehicles that are potentially overly large for what is required. These small autonomous vehicles are an example of that. It is right to focus on the safety case, but it is also right to look at the issue of emissions and net zero, where there is significant potential for autonomous last-mile delivery vehicles to make an impact. That could be through being modern vehicles that have zero tailpipe emissions by 2030, in line with the Government’s policy. It could come through the use of more efficient and better optimised routes between the starting point and the destination, as well as more efficient automated driving styles. It could come through the right sizing of vehicles, as I have touched on. The development of custom-made vehicles can help increase vehicle utilisation, and that should reduce the impact on carbon emissions overall because it creates greater productivity and use from an existing trip. Finally, we have the positive impact that comes from improving the access people have to receiving goods at their home or business. That, too, is an important further advantage of this technology.
However, we should also focus—the Government are under an obligation to do so—on some of the potential limitations. One has already been touched on, which is that there should be a proper measure of social consent with the introduction of this technology. It should be done in as careful a way as possible, but also in a way that is affordable, equitable, accessible and safe. All those are metrics that could lose public support if they were breached. It is therefore important to adhere to and respect each of those important values. When we think about the safety of vehicles, we know that that will play a key role in acceptability because, as we have discussed, the public likes nothing less than the introduction of, or way of using, a technology that has potentially prejudicial safety effects. Of course, that means not just the vehicles, but any changes to infrastructure that may be required to make them work effectively.
If we look more widely, there are concerns about cyber security with all autonomous vehicles, and small ones are no exception. The Department for Transport works closely with the National Cyber Security Centre to address that. We, as a nation, chair the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and that has developed two new international regulations that focus on cyber security and software updates. Finally, the Department is engaged with the question of cyber skills and works, as part of the national cyber strategy, with other Departments to ensure we have a proper cadre of cyber professionals in and alongside Government, as well as in the private sector. This technology has tremendous implications for cyber security. It is important to mention that it will potentially positively or negatively affect employment. Of course, there can be a threat to existing jobs from any new technology, but it has been projected that as many as 38,000 jobs could come from implementing this technology. That is a mixed blessing.
In terms of remote driving, this is a slightly different technology. It is distinct from self-driving and automation, but it is a technology that potentially sits alongside self-driving technologies. Again, that needs to be conducted with road safety as a key consideration. We therefore need to factor in both sides—the gains and the potential drawbacks—and proceed in a careful, consistent and carefully thought-through way, and that is what the Department is doing. Let me reassure Members that the need for legislation is well understood, but it is also important to ensure that it is a legislative framework set up to accommodate all these concerns as well as to maximise the potential benefit.
I could not end this speech without referring to the brilliant idea from the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), that there should be a further national competition, which I hope the Transport Committee will organise, for suitable tunes to be played. I think we can go one step further. I would like to suggest that the Rolling Stones be nominated as the band for the autonomous local transport sector because they brilliantly, in their work, cover both the strengths and the drawbacks of this technology. If successful, the technology is one that could make us happy. It can use these marvellous vehicles as a beast of burden. It allows them to operate at any time and therefore they can be midnight ramblers. Tragically, of course, you can’t always get what you want. Sometimes you are waiting on a friend. Indeed, it may be that you can’t hear these little machines knocking. Above all, we want to avoid being turned by them into a street fighting man, let alone suffering a 19th nervous breakdown. With that, let me take my seat. Thank you, Mr Twigg.
Ben Everitt
I am very grateful to all the colleagues who have contributed in such good humour to this debate. It is, though, on a very serious subject that could be game changing for our economy. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), mentioned, when talking about STEM, making science tangible with robots. I think that that is a very good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) mentioned lining up with wider freight and logistics work, which is particularly relevant for us in Milton Keynes.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) mentioned the juxtaposition, on his recent trip to Quainton, of rural north Bucks versus Milton Keynes. I can assure him that my constituency is both rural and urban. Perhaps the use case for last-mile delivery—or last few miles, if people are in a rural area—is pretty similar. It is all about scale. It underlines the need for regulation in this area, to allow the sector to grow and resolve these problems. The hon. Gentleman also made points about the dark use of this technology by nefarious groups and state actors. Again, that underlines the need for regulation and I am sure that the relevant people will have heard his request for a robot finger in the lifts in Glasgow.
We talked about how important this technology is, and I am grateful to the Minister. He can clearly see that there is a huge opportunity, and it is good to see that the Department is taking a balanced view, but we can take a global leadership role in this respect. I want to emphasise how necessary it is that any future Bill for micromobility and these autonomous robots is considered and addressed to the same degree as self-driving vehicles. It is essentially the same subject. Indeed, the Minister referred to the social contract, and the same is very true for self-driving vehicles.
Innovation is a pedal we cannot take our foot from. The moment we take our foot off the gas is the moment we fall behind. Integrating autonomous last-mile delivery systems into our cities and towns should form part of a tranche of transport solutions with which we can level up transport and connectivity. With this step, we can make a modern city a far more efficient and cost-effective place to live and thrive.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the societal impacts of autonomous last-mile delivery.