Israel and Palestine

Debate between Jim Shannon and Richard Foord

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Sir Mark. From the outset, I am aware that this is a very sensitive issue and that we are talking of the loss of life, which is awful. At the beginning, I have to make a declaration so that it is very clear where I stand: I am a friend of Israel, and I have been all my life. I was a member of the Friends of Israel when I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont, and I am a friend of Israel speaking in Westminster Hall today. I recognise that many people around me may have a different opinion. I respect their point of view; I hope that Members will also respect my point of view when I put it over.

We are talking about the lives of women and children, and the loss not simply of their daily life but of their home and even their education. This affects communities on both sides of Israel’s border. Communities on the border of Israel have been displaced and homes have been destroyed, as well as in Gaza. This premise must underline everything that is said today: war is terrible, and the end of war is what any right-thinking person is hoping for. For those who are in a position to do so, it is what they are working for, I believe.

I am certain that, regardless of the result of this debate, Hamas terrorists—that is what they are—will continue this attack. Rockets will continue to fly from Hamas positions towards Israel’s positions—not military positions, but civilian positions; the murder of civilians is their intention—and the Israelis will continue their counter-attack and opposition. Over the past days, the war against Hamas has continued to focus on southern areas of the Gaza strip, and the Israel Defence Forces have sadly confirmed the deaths of a further seven Israeli soldiers since last Monday, who were defending and protecting their people.

The horror of Hamas and of their intention on 7 October has been outlined by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who spoke very graphically of it. I am aware of some of the videos. I have to say honestly that I could not watch them, because they were so horrible: the beheading of men, the rape of women, the murders of children. They are depraved people who carry that out. Hamas terrorists must be destroyed. They must be dismantled. They must find themselves in a position where they can no longer have any influence whatever in the middle east. That is exactly what I believe.

The bombs continue to rain down on Israel. Indeed, the IDF confirmed that an Israeli civilian had been killed by missile fire from Hezbollah.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

No, we are on a very strict time limit of five minutes. Everybody has to get in, and there are many other speakers.

The Israeli civilian had been killed by missile fire from Hezbollah in northern Israel, prompting Israeli responses against terror targets in southern Lebanon. This is an important consideration in this debate: the fact is that there are still numerous and sustained rockets being fired at Israel daily. In the time in which this debate has taken place, there have been more attacks on Israeli civilian places as well. People talk about the Iron Dome, but it must be remembered that it is not a power-up in a computer game—it is more than that. When the launcher is called into action, it saves lives, and that is very important.

The Iron Dome air defence system intercepts at least nine in every 10 munitions fired into Israel by Hamas terrorists. That means that rockets do land and do cause damage; again, we must recognise that. Israel has 11 Iron Dome batteries, and with the threat of a war breaking out on the northern border with Hezbollah, the US has reportedly pledged two more. I would very much like to see that happen. US help for Israel can and will make a difference, and it will save lives.

Brigadier General Doron Gavish, a former commander of Israel’s aerial defence force who worked on the Iron Dome when it became fully operational in 2011, has said:

“Unfortunately, Hamas is not shooting for the military installations, it’s directing all its rockets towards the cities and civilians. It is a system that is really designed to save people.”

As we sit in this warm building today, comfortable as we are, calling for a ceasefire, we must be certain about calling for the right thing. We must be helping to put in place sustainable solutions—long-term solutions. I believe in a two-state solution. I believe that when the war is over and Hamas are destroyed and dismantled, we can then have a peace that can last. Long-term solutions will allow hospitals and schools to be built in Gaza and people to return home to Israel and to health and safety. That is what this House should be calling for, should work for and should wave our unified flag for.

While Israel is suffering attacks, and while it continues to root out terrorists who are aiming at civilians in Israel, there are steps to be taken. Am I calling for a ceasefire? Yes, I am calling for a bilateral ceasefire. For those who do not understand that, it is very simple. Once Hamas are destroyed, they can no longer have an attitude towards Israel that means the destruction, annihilation and murder of all Israelis. That is what I am looking for, but under circumstances, when it comes to a ceasefire, that do not see more terrorism and a worse position in 10 days’ time yet again.

Seaton Community Hospital

Debate between Jim Shannon and Richard Foord

Monday 13th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I would like to welcome the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), to her place.

I rise to raise the pressing situation facing the community hospital at Seaton in the part of east Devon that I represent. I am very grateful for the opportunity to outline why plans to strip away a whole wing of the hospital pose a serious risk to the long-term viability of the hospital, and how small actions by the Government can unlock this space and provide huge benefits for the local communities.

Seaton Hospital is one of 12 community hospitals that provide vital services in my corner of Devon which were given over to NHS Property Services in 2016. Seaton Hospital provides a range of services and clinics that enable people to be cared for closer to home in their own community. I would like to take a moment to give hon. and right hon. Members an idea of the range of services that the hospital currently provides. They include a dedicated Chime audiology service, aneurysm screening, bladder and bowel treatments, and child and adolescent mental health services—we heard a lot about that in today’s health debate—as well as access to a dietician, ear, nose and throat specialists, general medicine, orthoptists, support for those with Parkinson’s, physiotherapy, podiatry, retinal screening, speech and language therapy, and stoma treatments. I could go on.

The hospital also acts as a hub for the growing number of so-called at-home care services. We appreciate that community hospitals have been increasingly moving over to services provided in the community at home. That includes provision for those who are frail and need regular care, or are reaching the end of their life. Indeed, the Seaton & District Hospital League of Friends supports the hospice at home professionals, who provide care to people and their families in those most difficult times of a person’s life or in a family’s life.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. When someone evaluates what a community hospital does, they find that it is about much more than finance and making sure that the books balance. It is about all the things the hon. Gentleman has referred to. The community hospital in my constituency is where my three children were born some 30-plus years ago. It is where I took my youngest son when he broke his arm. It is where I took my other boy when he put his hand through a glass window and had to go to hospital for surgery. That is what a community hospital is about, and that feeling is replicated by every one of my constituents. When the hon. Gentleman speaks about his local community hospital, I am quite sure that he has the same passion, belief and commitment to that hospital, because it is part of the community, and that is how it is measured, not by finance.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. His anecdotes about what that hospital has done for his family and community are absolutely the same sort of thing as I hear from constituents every time I speak to them.

Seaton Hospital was built in 1988 to provide better local access to medical care and treatment for people across the Axe valley. It serves people not only in Seaton but in Colyton, Colyford, Beer, Axmouth and other villages dotted around the east Devon countryside. Originally, the plan was that people would not have to travel so far for their treatment. Given that the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital is perhaps 30 miles away—20 miles at least—people felt that acute provision was on their doorsteps, which is what they wanted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

I very much thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She is exactly right. I point to two specific conversations I have had with constituents recently. The first was with someone who lives in Seaton, who was close enough to the hospital that she could walk there. Her husband died in the hospital and she was able to go and see him in his final days. She welled up—more than that, tears rolled down her cheeks—as she told me about her husband, who she was able to see in his final days.

Now we have moved to a situation in which patients are cared for at home. Of course, that means that some of the staff previously based out of the community hospital are driving to people’s driveways and providing that care in their homes. That works for some individuals, but the other day I had a lady in my surgery who was almost shaking with nervousness because her husband, whom she loved dearly, had just been discharged from the acute hospital in Exeter and she was charged with looking after him but did not feel able to look after his needs, as he was overcoming his operation towards the end of his life. We are putting some of our constituents in a really difficult situation that they do not feel equipped for.

The reason for the beds being removed from the hospital in 2017 related to so-called workforce issues. There was a substantial consultation of local people in 2017 when beds were removed from local hospitals, but I fear that following that consultation, which showed the outrage and indignation of local people, the NHS does not want to get involved such a consultation exercise again, hence the desire for the ICB to get shot of the building as soon as possible.

The ICB was talking about getting shot of it by the end of this calendar year, although that has gone to Devon County Council’s health scrutiny committee, so it may be pushed into next year. What we need tonight is an intervention from the Minister in relation to NHS Property Services, which is charging a clinical rate for a space that has not been used for acute medicine—it has not had clinical beds in it—since 2017. Organisations are coming forward with a desire to use it not for clinical use but as a care hub to provide other services.

I want to make hon. Members aware of how those clinical beds got removed in the first place. In 2017, there was deep concern that the removal of the beds was an arbitrary decision made following a last-minute intervention by the then right hon. Member for East Devon, Hugo, now Lord Swire. In fact, it is revealed in a book by his wife, Sasha, that Seaton Hospital was to be kept open, with its beds maintained, but, because of that last-minute intervention by Hugo Swire, the bed closures moved to Seaton and the Sidmouth Hospital beds remained.

As a result of that decision, there was no additional funding to set up extra services at Seaton. Instead, the ICB began charging this exceedingly high rent for an empty space. What we really need to do is reduce that rental fee from its clinical rate to one that acknowledges that there are community alternatives. The palliative care nursing team can operate out of this space, and organisations such as Restore and hospice at home carers can work out of it, too. The friends of Seaton and District Hospital are coming up with a strong business plan, but they do need more time to develop it and a concessionary rate—not the clinical rate—to operate from it. If no solution is found, the ward is most likely to be either sold off or demolished. Again—I cannot stress this enough—we need to do this for the people who feel that they paid for the hospital.

There is a precedent for it, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for letting me know that the hospital in Cornwall was saved from the jaws of NHS Property Services. However, there is a big difference between what I am proposing for Seaton and what happened at St Ives. St Ives hospital was paid for by a single philanthropist. As we have heard, Seaton Hospital was paid for with contributions—or subscriptions —from thousands of people.

[Jim Shannon]

The widow’s mite.

[Richard Foord]

Exactly.

Finally, when it comes to healthcare infrastructure in rural areas such as mine, it is so much harder to rebuild something once it has been removed than to maintain it. We saw in coastal and rural communities such as mine the damage that the closure of cottage hospitals caused, and the impact of removing beds from community hospitals. We must put a stop to that, before our rural healthcare centres are left empty skeletal shells of their former selves, where they were once hubs of love and care. I am looking forward to the Minister’s response and hope that she will agree to work constructively with me, as Seaton’s MP, to ensure a fair deal for local people and to protect our hospital for the people who bought and contributed to it.

Short-term Holiday Lets: Planning

Debate between Jim Shannon and Richard Foord

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[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.

Homes and Buildings: Levelling Up Health and Wellbeing

Debate between Jim Shannon and Richard Foord

Thursday 20th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of homes and buildings in levelling up health and wellbeing.

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is a very important issue. I understand from others that some other statements are being made at this moment in time, or thereabouts—well, people cannot always be in this Chamber when other things are perhaps more engaging.

We have not had a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall or, indeed, in Westminster for a year and a half, maybe even two. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on healthy homes and buildings and we wanted to refresh the House’s awareness of the issue, so Westminster Hall seemed the obvious place to come to do just that. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to my application and I am delighted to have secured a debate to discuss the very important role homes and buildings play in levelling up health and wellbeing.

I came into the House in 2010, when the independent Marmot review was taking place. Let me set the scene with a quote from a House of Commons Library paper:

“The causal link between poor housing conditions and poor health outcomes is long established. The independent Marmot Review (2010) said housing is a ‘social determinant of health’ meaning it can affect physical and mental health inequalities throughout life. The Marmot Review 10 Years On—Health Equity in England, recorded an expansion in research on the relationship between poor housing and health”.

We cannot divorce the two. Quite simply, wellbeing, health and housing are intertwined. Today’s debate is important because, as the Government move forward with their policies and strategies, we need a clear strategy that takes up the issue of housing and health. The 10-year review of Marmot said:

“Poor-quality housing harms health and evidence shows that exposure to poor housing conditions (including damp, cold, mould, noise) is strongly associated with poor health, both physical and mental. The longer the exposure to poor conditions, including cold, the greater the impact on mental and physical health. Specific physical effects are morbidity including respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease and communicable disease transmission, and increased mortality. In terms of mental health impacts, living in non-decent, cold or overcrowded housing and in unaffordable housing has been associated with increased stress and a reduction in a sense of empowerment and control over one’s life and with depression and anxiety. Children living in overcrowded homes are more likely to be stressed, anxious and depressed, have poorer physical health, attain less well at school and have a greater risk of behavioural problems than those in uncrowded homes.”

I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on respiratory health—I am wearing my two chairs’ hats. Furthermore, of the many all-party parliamentary groups on which we all serve, I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease. Again, these issues are key. That is why the debate is so important.

Let me spend some time on the hazards. Across England, Yorkshire and the Humber are the regions with the highest proportion of homes with category 1 hazards, at 15%. The east had pretty damning figures as well. The figure for Northern Ireland, which concerned me greatly, was that 9% of homes had a problem. The midlands was at 13%, the north-west 12% and the south-east and London had the lowest proportion. I find that hard to believe, considering some of the information I am aware of. I see that the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is present to speak on behalf of the Labour party, and some figures from others’ constituencies may contradict what is being said. An estimated 18% of homes in Wales had a category 1 hazard. Given the busy job that I do in my office as an elected MP, I know that mould growth in houses—be they Housing Executive houses back home, housing associations or private rentals—affects people’s health.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) asked how the Government’s levelling-up policy planned to tackle

“illnesses directly linked to living in cold, damp and dangerous conditions.”

The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), replied that it was an important issue and that a

“decent home can promote good health and protect from illness and harm.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 12.]

All those things set the scene for where we are today and why it is so important that we move forward in a constructive and positive fashion. Most of us spend over 90% of our time indoors, so the nation’s homes and buildings should positively contribute to our physical and mental health and wellbeing, and not in any way diminish it.

The covid-19 pandemic highlighted prevailing health inequalities in our society. The most vulnerable are more likely to live in unhealthy homes that are damp, energy-inefficient, noisy, poorly ventilated and crowded. The inextricable link between our health and wellbeing, and the homes and buildings where we work, rest and play, is clear—never more so than during the pandemic. There were a great many negatives to the pandemic, and it emphasised some of the areas where improvement can take place. Having to spend more time in our homes, with many more people working remotely, emphasised the impact that our homes and buildings have on our health. Unhealthy housing impacts on economic growth, business performance, educational attainment, life chances, climate change and our nation’s health and wellbeing. Therefore, it makes sense to join up policy thinking, frameworks and standards and to ensure that all future housing, net zero and health policies do not contribute to, cause or exacerbate poor health and wellbeing.

The current energy and cost of living crises will only increase the problems caused by unhealthy homes and buildings. It is like a double whammy, because as the energy crisis hits and prices increase, that puts pressure on landlords, tenants and families from sides that they were perhaps not expecting. Many charities and other bodies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland predict—I hope they are wrong—a record number of excess winter deaths this year linked to thermal inefficiency in the housing stock. We must try to prevent deaths and ensure that they do not become a critical issue, although all the pointers seem to indicate that that will happen. There is strong evidence to support the idea that poor-quality and unhealthy homes cause or exacerbate poor health, thereby placing more pressure on our NHS.

Like others in this Chamber, I believe that if we can have early diagnosis and stop things happening in homes, we can improve further down the line when we do not have the major health problems that come off the back of poor housing. The Building Research Establishment, or BRE, estimated that in 2010 poor housing cost the NHS £2.5 billion in first-year treatment costs—it is a big figure. Again, that indicates exactly where the issues are and why it is so important that every step is taken to address them. Building design, the retrofitting of buildings and the renovation of the current housing stock should adopt a holistic approach.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I agree with him that the places we call home can have a huge impact on our health and wellbeing, particularly given the amount of time that we spend in them. In rural areas such as my part of Devon, that is even more pronounced, as buildings tend to be older, which means that they are often less energy-efficient and lack modern insulation. Does the hon. Member agree that the key to protecting people’s health and wellbeing is to ensure that buildings, and particularly our homes, are properly insulated?

[Jim Shannon]

I fully support that. I am probably of a greater age than nearly everybody in this Chamber, and I remember when we had not heard of insulation. We know about it today, and it is clearly part of having healthy homes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which sets the scene for what we need to do. I look to the Minister for a positive response.

Energy efficiency, indoor air quality, ventilation, lighting and acoustics are all clearly big issues, and the health, comfort and wellbeing of residents should be placed at the heart of good building and infrastructure planning. I understand that the Government have a policy to ensure that new builds adhere to those conditions to ensure the betterment that we want to see, but we must also address the question of homes that do not have those things, which brings me to insulation. There must be a plan of action. Will the Minister give us some indication of what the Government are doing to help buildings that do not come up to that standard?

I am very pleased to see the shadow Minister in her place, and I look forward to her contribution. I also look forward to the Minister’s contribution, and I wish him well in his new role.

UK Green Building Council research found that 75% of new developments have poor thermal quality and performance—the very issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. To level up and reduce health inequalities, the Government must commit to deliver higher standards, and performance must be measured rather than just designed. It is very easy—I say this respectfully—to have a plan of action, but we also need the action. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

We need to futureproof the built environment. New building and planning law must be designed and reformed to be fit for our long-term future. Some 85% of our homes will still exist in 2050. It is a sobering thought that the homes that are built today are there for a long time, so let us make sure energy efficiency, wellbeing and health implications are all part of an intricate system.

To level up, we need a national retrofitting strategy focused on delivering health and wellbeing. The Building Research Establishment estimates that poor housing in England costs £18.6 billion per annum. That affects the health of thousands of people. Again, that is really worrying.

The subject of the debate is critical for people’s health. Health and wellbeing must now be placed at the heart of Government housing, environment, skills, planning and energy policy in order to level up and reduce the UK’s health inequalities. There is a collateral burden on our healthcare, education and public services.

I thank the Library staff for their background notes, which greatly enhance my knowledge of the subject and add to the debate. They refer to a number of things, including housing and covid-19, which we all, as elected representatives, know about. We must also look at housing and dementia. I am sure it is no different for other Members, but I have more constituents than ever being diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer’s. The population is living longer. That does not always mean that people with Alzheimer’s or dementia are of a certain age, of course, but the fact is that most of them are. There are some things that we need to do about housing and dementia. I have also never seen so many people with mental health issues. Covid-19, dementia and mental health are three things that need to be correlated with housing and health.

The all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings is calling on the Government and the Minister to take forward its recommendations in its “Building our Future: Laying the Foundations for Healthy Homes and Buildings” white paper, to adopt a more holistic and joined-up approach to tackle the problem of unhealthy homes and buildings in Britain, and to adopt Lord Crisp’s Healthy Homes Bill. I am sure that the Minister is very aware of that. He might wish to comment now. The white paper sets a clear direction and has a clear focus, which is helpful. I always make my comments in a constructive fashion; I am in the business, as we all are, of solutions, not negativity. If we highlight the issues, we can highlight the solutions.

Lord Crisp has called for a joined-up, holistic approach to healthy homes, health and wellbeing in the context of the Government’s levelling-up agenda—which I know the Government are committed to and which I welcome—the Government’s heat and buildings strategy, the decent homes standard review, the Building Safety Act 2022 and updated planning reforms. Those are five things into which the Government have a direct input.

We must also recognise the cost benefits of improving and levelling up our homes and communities, to remove health inequalities and positively contribute to the climate agenda. We cannot ignore climate change; it is a reality. When we build our homes, we must recognise that we need more energy efficiency. We want to meet the Government’s net zero 2050 target, to which this United Kingdom is committed.

We also want to commit to introduce legislation that addresses the growing health problems caused or exacerbated by the UK’s unhealthy homes and buildings. I watched a news story on flats in London. I just could not believe that anybody could ever live healthily in some of those properties, with the decay and mould growth. The danger to people was quite real.

We must also act to reduce health inequalities right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I am ever mindful that the Minister is directly responsible only for England—and ensure that Britain’s homes and buildings do not cause or exacerbate poor health and wellbeing. The cost to society and the NHS is far too vast, and it is the poorest in our society who are particularly affected; it always is. I have a duty—we all do—to help those who need help most, and those are often the poorest in our society.

We must also enshrine a clear definition of health and wellbeing in future legislation. The healthy homes and buildings APPG white paper referenced the World Health Organisation’s definition of health as

“a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being”.

A healthy home is a safe home. However, at present, many homes are unsafe. I have some information from a group that I work with back home, Electrical Safety First, which gave me some stats for England. In England alone, there are five fires every week caused by electrical installations in homes. Electricity causes the majority of house fires, accounting for 53.4% of all accidental dwelling fires. I have also worked with a good friend, a fella called Michael Hilland, who was an electrical contractor. He no longer has his business, but he advises. I thank him and his organisation for the information.

Electrical Safety First believes that house fires can be reduced by mandating periodic electrical safety checks in homes across the United Kingdom. That is already the case for the private rented sector, and it should be for all housing associations, and indeed for the Housing Executive, which we have back home. However, enforcement measures do not go far enough. In the social rented sector, tenants will soon be protected. However, clarity is needed about whether electrical safety checks will cover installations and appliances, and also whether landlords will be given statutory powers to undertake electrical safety checks. I look to the Minister for some direction on that.

In the owner-occupier sector, there are currently no electrical safety protections. That is concerning, given that owner-occupied housing is likely to have the most dated electrical wiring, and houses a greater proportion of the elderly population, who are more vulnerable to electrical safety risks. The fact is, our mobility decreases as we get older. If we are living in a house that may be outdated or, indeed, where it takes time to get up and down the stairs or time to get out of the house, then, when it comes to electrical safety, more action needs to be taken.

The issue is particularly concerning because the owner-occupier sector makes up the largest housing tenure, accounting for some 65% of all households in England. As a result, the majority of households have no statutory protections from electrical safety risks. Again, I ask the Minister: what can be done? I know he will be positive in his response, and I appreciate that in advance, but I need to have the assurance in Hansard that the Government will take on board the things we are outlining. In total, across England, that means that some 15 million households have no statutory protection from electrical safety risks. That is a concerning figure. Data from the London Fire Brigade found that a greater number of owner-occupiers had experienced a fire than social and private renters combined. Again, that indicates a greater onus to try to sort out owner-occupiers and give them some guidance over what can be done to ensure they are safe and in no danger.

Separately, while there are provisions for vulnerable customers to receive free gas safety checks, no analogous provisions exist for electrical safety checks. I suggest that it is time to put electrical safety checks on the same level as gas safety checks for the simple reason of the number of fires and the dangers that are caused. I believe this must all be taken into consideration.

Health and housing are and always have been linked. That is why this debate is important. If we are to move forward and improve the health of our nation—which, as my party’s health spokesperson, I am happy to promote—housing must be an integral part of that. I do not think we can divorce the two issues; they come intertwined, hand in hand, together. If one defines a person’s basic needs, the right to a healthy home is surely fundamental.

Healthy homes and buildings are not simply those where there is a lack of ill health; a healthy home should mean homes and buildings that maximise the occupants’ physical, mental and social wellbeing. In a nation where mental health, anxiety, covid and advancing diseases have all grown in number, the focus of future housing policy must now shift to health creation. That is why this is an important debate. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance. We must not look at ill health prevention alone. Ill health prevention must become part of the strategy.

Delivering healthy homes and places is vital to levelling up our communities, towns and cities. This must be integrated together. Health and Housing—the two Departments must work constructively together in a positive fashion. Healthy homes and buildings will make Britain healthier, save money and contribute to increased educational attainment and wealth creation.

In conclusion, I urge the Minister to support the White Paper and the recommendations put forward by the APPG on healthy homes and buildings, and to place healthy housing at the heart of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. I know that the Minister will have had a chance to look at the recommendations made back in 2018; they are as relevant today as they were then. Those recommendations show a strategy and a way forward. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North, and others contributing.