Park Home Owners

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for bringing to the Chamber this vital debate on a matter that strikes at the very heart of many of my constituents, and indeed of many people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as it concerns retirement and peace of mind. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. As always, I have asks of him, and will come to those in my conclusion.

In Ballyhalbert and Cloughey in my constituency, we have two park home sites. I have had a long working relationship with them and the group association over the years. The residents in my neck of the woods are decent, hard-working people, many of them elderly, who put every penny they have into their homes, but who often find themselves caught in a gap between the legislation we have here in Westminster and what is delivered back home in Northern Ireland. We must be very clear: a home is a home, whether it is built of bricks and mortar or a high-quality residential mobile home on a licensed site.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in many parts of Northern Ireland, but especially in my constituency, this is about striking a balance between those who own or rent their mobile homes and the site owners?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend sums up some of the issues. It is a question of getting that balance.

I am worried, as I often am, that our constituents in the Province are being left behind. We have seen the Mobile Homes Act bring protections to those in England and Wales by dealing with those rogue site owners who, frankly, are more concerned with profit than they are with people’s right to live in peace and contentment, but we in Northern Ireland are still waiting for the same robust approach. I know that the Minister is very responsive to the requests of us all. My ask of him is to engage with the Minister back home to ensure that what is happening here will happen for people in Northern Ireland as well.

I will not take the extra minute, Sir Alec, because I am conscious of other Members wanting to speak, but I will highlight three specific points that must be addressed. The first is the 10% commission fee. It is a hidden and heavy burden for an elderly person to face a 10% exit fee just to move into a care home or to be closer to family. We need parity across the United Kingdom in how those fees are regulated. That is my first request of the Minister.

My second request relates to energy costs. Many of my constituents are off-grid and rely on liquefied petroleum gas or supplied electricity. I thank the Government for the warm home discount, but it is often a struggle for those residents to access it. We need a system that is automatic, not one that requires a senior citizen to jump through digital hoops.

Thirdly, on site licensing and enforcement, we need to ensure that local councils in Northern Ireland have the teeth needed to deal with those few site owners who harass or bully residents. A fit and proper persons test must be as meaningful in Comber or Newtownards as it is in Cornwall.

I have highlighted the Northern Ireland question and the role that perhaps the Minister will kindly take on for us in relation to the Minister back home, Gordon Lyons. Will the Minister commit to a meeting or corresponding with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the legislative gaps are closed and that my constituents in Strangford can sleep easy knowing that their homes and rights are protected?

Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers]

I am sure that the hon. Lady would also recognise that the situation is getting worse, not better. Across the country, despite the fact that we are paying record levels of tax, our fire services are under pressure. We might want to talk about the history of it, but I want to talk about what will happen in my community in the coming months, as the Government make hay with this horrendous settlement that could see the number of firefighters in my community reduced. That is why I am here today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Just three weeks ago, there was a massive fire at Corries farm outside Newtownards. The response of fire service personnel was absolutely excellent, but the issue was access to water pressure, which there is always less of in rural communities. One solution is to have a water tanker in each district, but that means capital expenditure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a new look is needed at the response to fires in rural areas?

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Ensuring that we have the right capabilities and resources to respond in rural communities often requires technology and capital investment. It is important to put that into the mix as we see what the funding settlement will look like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I should have made this point earlier; I do not think it has been mentioned. Back home in Northern Ireland, we have an issue with gorse fires in the mountains. We had two massive fires just last weekend. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that with the summer and what we hope will be hot weather comes the threat of gorse fires and the loss of peatland and farmland? Should that not be motivating the Minister and the Government to respond positively?

[Matt Vickers]

Certainly there are the pressures of the summer and the consequences for rural communities. Fire authorities across the country are also having to make incredibly tough decisions about what they resource and the people they can employ. It is a pressure point that is moving at a hell of a pace and we need a quick response to the challenge.

I hope the Minister will be able to provide answers and reassurance on some of the points that people have raised. What are the Government planning to do to properly support Cleveland and Durham fire brigades and deal with their significant financial shortfalls? How will the Minister and the Government fix the fair funding formula to ensure that communities such as mine in Stockton and those across Teesside are treated fairly?

If we fail to fund our fire services properly, we put lives at risk. Firefighters in our communities have raised the alarm repeatedly and their concerns cannot be ignored. The service responsible for protecting us is being asked to do too much with too little. I urge the Minister to carefully consider the points that have been raised, and to work with colleagues to deliver a financial settlement that is fair, forward looking and reflective of the unique challenges faced by Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I urge her to listen to firefighters, fire chiefs and local residents in communities who are deeply concerned, to invest in our fire services and to keep us all safe.

Housing Needs: Young People

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for her contribution, and for her passion for helping the young people in her constituency and across the entire UK.

I do not know what everybody else does, but after a busy week at Westminster my heart longs for home. It longs to get home to enjoy my precious grandchildren, my dear wife and my bed, which, no matter what, fits me better than most. Home is a wonderful thing, and I put on record my thanks to my wife Sandra for giving me a home for 39 years.

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to find a home. For thousands of young people across Northern Ireland that foundation is crumbling. Members will not be aware of the 38,336 households across the Province currently in housing stress. That is not just a number; it is a record high that represents a 6% increase in just one year.

It is good to see the Minister in his place; he is, by his very nature, incredibly helpful. He always tries to be helpful in any debate and with any questions that I have. I am quite sure that the answers to our requests will be positive and constructive.

To give a Northern Ireland perspective, which the Minister will be glad to know he is not responsible for, in my own council area of Ards and North Down—a borough that is rightly celebrated for its beauty—there hides a growing struggle similar to that which the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire referred to and others will refer to as well. As of March 2024, there were some 3,300 applicants on our local social housing waiting list. Even more alarmingly, 81% of those applicants—more than 2,400—are officially in housing stress. They are living in conditions that are overcrowded, unsuitable and simply unsafe.

The crisis is stealing the childhoods of our youngest citizens. Across Northern Ireland, some 5,000 children are now living in temporary accommodation. That is a staggering 99% increase just five years, which gives everyone an idea of the problem in Northern Ireland. These children are not just waiting; they are spending an average of 38 weeks—nearly three quarters of a year—stuck in hostels or B&Bs. In Ards and North Down, we have the fifth highest social housing waiting list in the whole country.

For a young person starting out, the dream of independence is being replaced by the reality of hidden homelessness. For many it is simple—it is a brutal matter of affordability. In the last year alone, house prices in Ards and North Down in my Strangford constituency reached an average of £243,924—the highest average increase in all of Northern Ireland. We had the highest average increase across all the Province.

For a young person on a starting salary or a care leaver trying to find their footing, these prices are a wall, not a doorway. I have had two of my three sons, with their families, move in with me and Sandra at separate times, in a desperate attempt to save money for a home. We will always give them money to help them with a home, but the price of houses has become so much that the achievement of a mortgage is almost beyond all grasp. It is a near-impossible leap to get on to the first rung of the property ladder.

We know that 64% of care leavers in Northern Ireland present as homeless within just a few years of leaving the system—the hon. Member for Doncaster Central spoke about care leavers in particular. Without targeted support, we are setting our most vulnerable up to fail.

Statistics, by their very nature, can be cold, but the stories they tell us are urgent. When one young person in the UK becomes homeless every four minutes, we cannot afford to look away. We need more than just targets and goals. We need the 1,390 new social units projected for my borough alone to be built and allocated with urgency. I welcome the Government’s programme of house building. We need whatever houses are built. The Government’s original target of 1.5 million may not be achieved, but if 1 million were achieved over this term of government, that would be a fantastic success.

It is time we ensured that every young person in the UK has a place to truly call home. We have to help them or that will not happen. I know the Minister understands the situation only too well, but I ask him to help those most vulnerable to get on to the ladder and find an affordable place that they can call home. I would appreciate the Minister’s engagement with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland—he always does that, very helpfully. It is important that the policies that start here, driven by this Government, are the policies that we also adopt in Northern Ireland, to bring the same delivery.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am determined to switch on the improved leaseholder consumer rights provided for by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, including service charge standardisation and transparency measures, at the earliest possible opportunity so that people like Yvonne, and many hundreds of thousands more across the country who are dealing with exorbitant service charge increases, including in my constituency, will get the protection they need. When it comes to managing agents, we are committed to strengthening regulation, as my hon. Friend knows, but I will happily write to provide him with the full position and details of what measures we are considering.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answer and the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for raising these issues. We have similar problems in my constituency, and I know that the Minister is keen to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom can take advantage of the legislative change that the Government have proposed here. Will the Minister talk with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the proposals put forward by the UK Government to address these issues can help my constituents in Northern Ireland too?

Local Government Reorganisation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

As I have said to other Members, local authority debt is a serious concern for the Government. We will work through the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions in the transition process, and I am happy to provide him with more technical detail on that. The overall picture of local authority debt is not a happy one. It arises from policy failure emanating from this place, and we have a collective responsibility to put it right.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, this will be a very interesting connection! I didn’t realise Strangford was up for reorganisation.

[Jim Shannon]

We slogged through 10 years of reorganisation and restructuring in Northern Ireland, and not a penny was saved. Indeed, if anything, prices and rates have gone up—this year, the rise in rates has been exceptional. I say gently to the Minister that perhaps it is time to consider and learn from what Northern Ireland has done and where it has gone wrong, so that we can do better here.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure whether you are being dragged into a devolved matter, Minister, but go ahead if you are happy to answer.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are recommendations in the review about precisely that, and we will come forward with our detailed response. I have accepted the review in general terms, but we will bring forward detailed responses to the individual recommendations and then amendments to the legislation so that we can put in place the necessary protections to ensure that it is the British people who take the decisions about who governs them, not people sitting in the Kremlin or in seats of government in other countries.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement and for the clear direction from the Government. Some four or five weeks ago, I asked him a question about Sinn Féin moneys. At that time, he said that he would come back to me, but he did not—this is not a criticism, by the way—and I now understand that the reason he did not was that this statement was coming today.

In the light of the statement, can I ask for some clarification? Accountability and transparency are tenets that have to go hand in hand with elections, and those ideals must become realities. Given that Sinn Féin has historically received millions in US-placed donations and maintains a unique cross-border structure, will the Minister ensure that the Rycroft review specifically examines the adequacy of safeguards against political funding originating from the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America, to ensure a level playing field for all parties within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his deep interest in this entire matter. Our intention is to ensure that the safeguards we put in place are robust enough to ensure that no dirty or dark money can enter British politics in any way or from any source. I am always more than happy to continue to engage with him about any specific concerns he may have.

Proposed Visitor Levy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for leading the debate.

Tourist infrastructure is an incredibly important issue in my constituency; I know the motion is about the visitor levy in England, but I want to reflect my constituency and the concerns there. I think the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have set the scene incredibly well. I may have a slightly different opinion from others in the Chamber—I apologise for not always thinking alike—but I have to reflect the opinions of my constituents.

I hear the concerns in relation to tourism levies, which could harm areas that rely on tourism and burden them with additional charges. For context, I represent a beautiful constituency, which is as equally coastal as it is rural. I am aware of numerous Airbnbs along our peninsula, which hundreds of people come to stay in each year. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that to keep our tourism sites alive we must keep the price down. What is being proposed will have a clear impact on the tourism opportunities on the mainland. For us back home, it sends a cloud over tourism that a levy may, at some point, come our way.

I, like everybody else, understand that the value of money in my hand is important. I am, after all, an Ulster Scot and for us, every pound is a prisoner. That is a fact of life, and I always want to see value for money. I am also inclined to go for what I would refer to as affordable options. I believe that, in today’s age, many people are like me and the price of staycations and holidays is already, in some cases, extortionate. It may be a small fee, but people do not want to be asked to pay more just to stay in a certain area.

There is an even bigger issue back home when we look at the comparison between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because any levies would have an impact on both sides of the border. Adding a levy back home would make Northern Ireland relatively more expensive and push visitors to stay in the south. The potential impact of a levy on us in Northern Ireland would be the same as what the right hon. Gentleman has referred to here.

If something of this nature were ever to be introduced, clarity would be needed about where the money would be used. That question has been raised in almost every contribution. Local councils and authorities must provide clear road maps, and if people staying are asked to pay an additional fee, it should go towards the tourism sector in that specific area, not to other council services that do not benefit the industry.

The levy would not impact large chain hotels, but I worry about the family B&Bs. The right hon. Gentleman, when he set the scene, specifically pushed that issue hard. Nobody can deny that the levy would have a detrimental effect. Those B&Bs might not want to pass the additional fee on to their consumer, but they might find that they cannot sustain their business because people do not want to stay somewhere where they have to pay more.

I recognise the potential benefits that a visitor levy could bring in supporting local services and infrastructure, but we must proceed with caution. We need caution, we need a review and we need understanding before we go anywhere.

Women’s Safety in Rural Areas

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine]

Certainly. That sounds excellent and I will come to lots of nerdy points about design guidance in due course.

My constituency of Frome and East Somerset is, by any measure, a beautiful part of England. It is also a place where the challenges I am describing are felt with particular intensity. Inspired by Holly, last autumn I launched a survey to hear directly from women in my constituency about how safe they feel. Their responses were sobering. Women wrote about being followed on dark country lanes that had no street lighting; about waiting for buses on isolated roads with no shelter, no CCTV and no way of summoning help; about giving up running and cycling all together, not because they lacked the inclination but because they simply did not feel safe doing so; and about the constant, exhausting vigilance required just to get home.

Coincidentally, earlier this year I was contacted separately by a brilliant urban designer called Natasha, who drew my attention to the fact that the Government have set out an excellent strategy to combat violence against women and girls, and a national planning policy framework, but at the moment the two things make no reference to each other, which is a shocking oversight.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. In rural constituencies such as mine and the hon. Lady’s, large stretches of unlit roads, pathways and open land, often bordered by dark fields, can create a real sense of vulnerability. Does the hon. Lady agree that future developments or planning proposals in such areas must take into account safe, well-lit corridors, especially when it comes to transport links, to ensure that women feel safe commuting to where they need to be in areas that are historically dark and isolated?

[Anna Sabine]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I will talk about lighting in due course.

In her book “Invisible Women”, Caroline Criado-Perez documents how the built environment has historically been designed around a default that is male, and how data on street use, transport planning and public space has been gathered without disaggregating by sex. The result is infrastructure that works reasonably well for men and imposes a hidden cost of time, money, anxiety and constrained freedom on women. That cost is not inevitable. It is a design choice, and it can be designed out.

Women are four times more likely to experience sexual assault than men, and more than twice as likely to experience stalking. Many such offences happen not in the home but in public spaces—on paths, at bus stops, in car parks and on the routes between places. They happen disproportionately in spaces that are poorly lit, poorly overlooked and poorly served by transport.

The consequences extend far beyond the incidents themselves. Girls’ loss of freedom in public space is directly and measurably linked to poor mental health. Women who feel unsafe curtail their physical activity, social lives and working patterns. Violence against women and girls costs hundreds of lives a year, alongside widespread and serious harm that ripples outwards into health services, the economy and the fabric of communities.

To circle back to my opening point, we know what works, but the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government seems determined not to implement it. On 16 December 2025, the Government published the revised national planning policy framework, and just two days later they published their violence against women and girls strategy, rightly declaring VAWG a national emergency and committing to a whole-of-society approach to prevention. Those two documents should have been in conversation with each other, but they were not.

The revised NPPF contains no reference whatsoever to women, girls, gendered safety or violence against women in the built environment—not one. Chapter 8, on promoting healthy and safe communities, discusses safety, health and crime, but does so in entirely gender-blind terms, despite overwhelming evidence that safety is not experienced equally by all people in all spaces. A chapter about healthy and safe communities which does not acknowledge that safety is not experienced equally is not, with respect, a chapter about healthy and safe communities. It is a chapter about healthy and safe communities for some people.

In January I wrote to both the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Safeguarding to raise the issue directly. I have yet to receive a substantive response from either of them, but when The Guardian asked MHCLG for comment, the response received was frankly jaw-dropping. MHCLG said:

“The NPPF is a planning document. It sets out guidelines for housebuilding and planning in England. The VAWG strategy is about protecting women and girls from violence and misogyny.”

The Department said it was

“unclear as to why anyone would expect the two things to be combined”.

That tells us that, alarmingly, the people responsible for designing our spaces and places apparently do not understand, despite huge bodies of evidence, why planning with women in mind might be relevant or useful. That raises serious concerns not just about the policy position but about the Department’s basic understanding of the relationship between planning and women’s lives.

What makes that omission particularly hard to defend is that it was not an accident. The previous Government explicitly raised this issue in the 2022 NPPF consultation, asking whether greater emphasis should be placed on making women and girls feel safe in public places. Responses were received, but nothing changed in the December 2025 revision, under the current Government. I want to be precise about that means: MHCLG was asked whether it should do better on this issue, received evidence it should and chose not to act. That is not an oversight; it is a decision.

International best practice in gender-responsive planning is really well established: clear sight lines and natural surveillance; active street frontages that keep eyes on the street; thoughtful lighting design—not simply more but better lights, placed in the right locations; and safe, well-connected public transport routes that do not leave women stranded after dark.

Make Space for Girls, the UK campaign that has done forensic and compelling work on how public space is designed for teenagers, has shown that the spaces we build for young people—the parks, play areas and recreational spaces—are overwhelmingly designed with boys in mind. The default is a multi-use games area: a hard, caged, male-dominated space that girls report, in study after study, feeling excluded from and unsafe in. Girls do not lack interest in outdoor space; they lack outdoor spaces that were designed with them in mind. The consequence is that girls retreat indoors earlier, exercise less and lose the freedom of movement that is so fundamental to adolescent development and mental health. This is not a minor amenity issue; it is a public health issue—and it starts with planning.

The principles are well established, but without explicit inclusion in national policy, they remain optional. As a result, women’s safety in public space is a postcode lottery—and nowhere is that lottery more consequential than in rural areas where the baseline is already so much lower.

The omission also creates a tension with the Government’s international commitments. UK infrastructure policy is explicitly aligned with the UN’s sustainable development goals, including SDG 5.2, on eliminating violence against women and girls, and SDG 11.7, on safe and inclusive public spaces explicitly for women and girls. The NPPF discusses the safety and design quality of green space at length, but does not mention either of those commitments.

A further tension is emerging that I do not think has received sufficient attention—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to it. Nature recovery and biodiversity policies are rightly being pursued with increasing ambition, with green corridors, rewilded verges and, in some cases, reduced lighting to support wildlife. Those are good objectives, but in some instances they are pursued without adequate consideration of what they mean for women’s safety. A dark, overgrown footpath may be an excellent habitat, but it may also be a route that women no longer feel able to use. We should not have to choose between environmental policy and women’s safety. Without gender-responsive planning guidance, that tension will not be managed; it will simply produce worse outcomes by default. The NPPF is not a neutral document; it is a statement of priorities, and right now it does not include women’s safety among them.

Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water supply and housing targets in west Kent.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John—not for the first time or, I certainly hope, the last. What is less pleasurable is having no water coming out of your taps. Sadly, that could be the reality for more than 13,000 new homes in Tonbridge and Malling if the Government get their way. Planning decisions in the community are, I think we would all agree, best left to local councillors. After all, it is right that those elected at the most local level have responsibility for shaping the place they live in and represent. However, this Government’s planning policies are taking us away from that principle.

Since the general election, we have seen mandatory housing targets reintroduced and increased enormously. They are up by 34% in Tonbridge and Malling and by 63% in Sevenoaks district. Then, of course, there is the grey-belt policy. I have been getting used to Green party and Labour MPs going through the voting Lobbies and making things easier for development to merge towns and villages and create one single, homogeneous, blended whole and for development on previously protected grey-belt land. However, water seems not to have been considered. There are many aspects of water locally that I could focus on, including the excellent work done in Edenbridge on water quality by NEDRA—the New Edenbridge District Residents’ Association—but in the interests of time, I will focus my comments today on water supply only.

This is now a very salient issue for those of us in west Kent. Although Tunbridge Wells has been the worst affected, towns and villages such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and across the north downs have lost water supply this winter and last winter. Why is that? It is because there is not enough water in the system to supply houses in our area. I am aware that the Water Industry Act 1991 in effect places a legal requirement on water suppliers to ensure that running water appears when the tap is turned on. Although South East Water is not very good at doing that right now, we also need to focus on the future. That means asking fundamental questions. Where is the water—now and in the future? Do housing targets accurately reflect the water infrastructure in west Kent?

I will focus on two authorities in the area that I represent: Tonbridge and Malling borough council and Sevenoaks district council. I emphasise to the Minister that they are two of the very best run councils in the whole country and have been for a number of years. We are very lucky to have brilliant people at both councils, and both are trying to do the right thing for future development and adopt a local plan. In both cases, however, that has been delayed from 2024 because of the Government changing planning policy. It is not the fault of either council that they do not have an adopted local plan; that is because of tinkering and meddling by the Government and, historically, the Planning Inspectorate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue; he is absolutely right. He outlines a case in his own constituency, which is very pertinent to him. Unfortunately, what he describes is the case across the whole of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, I have the very same problem. Northern Ireland Water seems to be discouraging planned housing, as it cannot meet the need. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must step in with direct action and fund the deficit while enforcing the obligations on water companies to hold up their end of the deal?

[Tom Tugendhat]

It is no surprise to me that this issue applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

One thing that the Government have not changed, but ought to change, is the position of water companies in planning. Somewhat strangely, water companies are statutory consultees on the local plan process, but not on planning applications. I invite the Minister in her response to explain whether she agrees that this is peculiar.

There are four water supply companies across Sevenoaks district. Two cover the area that I am privileged to represent: SES Water in and around Edenbridge, and South East Water elsewhere. In advance of this debate, I asked the new leader of Sevenoaks district council, Kevin Maskell, to outline what engagement on local plan and infrastructure delivery matters the council has received from water companies. The answer was that only two of the four water companies had even replied, and the replies received were very limited. Indeed, the experience from Sevenoaks is that water companies see their role as not being a priority.

There is no detailed modelling for housing projections against water resources management plans, especially for site allocations. All infrastructure planning is deferred to the planning application stage, where the water companies are not even a statutory consultee. That makes it impossible to plan for the cumulative impact of developments on the water network. How is that good for planning? Well, it isn’t.

If the situation with water suppliers is a problem in Sevenoaks district, however, it is critically urgent and potentially disastrous in Tonbridge and Malling. For the benefit of the Minister, I will explain what has happened in recent months. Tonbridge and Malling borough council agreed to its regulation 18 local plan consultation in the autumn. It received unanimous cross-party support, which was a huge vote of confidence in the leadership of Matt Boughton and the work of Mike Taylor, the cabinet member for planning. Both of them have contributed enormously to the life of our community.

The TMBC cabinet member for infrastructure, Adem Mehmet, approached infrastructure providers for consultation responses, including South East Water, which is the drinking water supplier for almost all of the borough—and the whole of the part that I am lucky enough to represent. I have a copy of the response here, dated 17 December 2025. In it, South East Water tells Tonbridge and Malling borough council that the maximum number of additional homes it can supply between now and 2042 is 6,318. The Government housing target for the council is 19,620.

What is Tonbridge and Malling borough council expected to do? Is it supposed to allocate sites for 13,302 new homes, despite having been told that there is no infrastructure for water to be supplied to those properties? I am sure that the Minister agrees that this would not be appropriate or wise. Having received the response, and being the excellent councillor he is, Adem Mehmet wrote to South East Water on 15 January this year, which happened to be in the middle of the water outages we were facing. South East Water responded on 3 February.

Three simple questions were put to South East Water. First, does South East Water agree that it cannot provide sufficient water to cope with a significant increase in housing targets? South East Water agrees that it cannot. Secondly, do the current targets mean that there will be more water shortages? Again, South East Water agrees that the probability of water outages is higher. Thirdly, would the planned increases identified in the water resources management plan allow South East Water to cope with the Government housing targets for Tonbridge and Malling? South East Water says that the increases will not be sufficient to meet the Government housing targets.

Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate; he is making a name for himself in the House for raising issues that affect his constituency, and I congratulate him on that. There are lessons here for all parts of the United Kingdom, so I thank him for raising this topic. Given that manufacturing alone supports almost one in 10 jobs in Northern Ireland, does the hon. Gentleman agree that strengthening regional productivity—whether in the east midlands, Northern Ireland or anywhere in the UK—depends on supporting advanced manufacturing, skills and supply chains across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Always better together—let that be our motto.

[James Naish]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: there are fantastic advanced manufacturing capabilities across the country, including in the east midlands, and the supply chain and the skills chain are key to making them thrive. I will come on to skills in the east midlands in a moment.

Ahead of the comprehensive spending review last year, the all-party parliamentary group for the east midlands launched an inquiry into regional priorities. We received 34 written submissions and held an oral evidence session here in Westminster, with contributions from local government, business, infrastructure, skills and other sectors. This work was about trying to distil, from the people who know our region the best, what the most serious barriers to boosting economic growth and productivity are, and about determining what practical steps the Government should take to address them.