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.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I start by paying tribute to the bereaved family members of those who died at Grenfell Tower, as well as the survivors and members of the local community. Nothing we can say in this Chamber can take away what they have been through. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which took the lives of 72 people, was a terrible moment in our country’s history. It was an avoidable tragedy, and it has had lasting consequences for bereaved families, for those who survived and for the local community and far beyond. We must ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. There is still much to do on justice, on reform and on making homes safe, but today’s Bill is about one clear part of our responsibility: how we remember Grenfell and how we keep our promise over time.

This is a simple Bill with a simple purpose: to ensure that the Grenfell Tower memorial is properly supported today and for the long term. It is for the bereaved, survivors and the community to take their decisions on what the memorial will look like. The Bill is here to fund that important work. Grenfell must not be about party politics. The previous Government promised to support bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial. This Government are keeping that promise.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the sombre and appropriate way he proposes the Bill. Although the memorial is important and should be tasteful and poignant, the best memorial is the lessons learned so that no other family has to suffer as these victims’ families have suffered, and the lives that will be saved by the changes that are implemented for safety. That is the real memorial those people wish to have.

[Steve Reed]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He describes it absolutely correctly. That is why it will be the local community, survivors, the bereaved and the next of kin who will take decisions about what the memorial will look like.

Rough Sleeping: Families with Children

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for leading the debate. She often brings important debates to the House, especially on issues such as this. I welcome her contribution. She showed passion and understanding from her constituency, and she expressed that incredibly well. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place again. She has been a frequent visitor to Westminster Hall in the past two days; it is always a pleasure to see her in her place. I wish the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), well too.

I have seen on social media awful revelations that in England children as young as three, holding on to their mummies—three years old; my goodness!—are being forced to sleep rough with their families. What an awful thing that is to think about and to experience, even if at that young age they may not exactly understand all that is happening. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree is right to raise this issue. It is our duty to ensure that no child—furthermore, no individual—is ever subject to sleeping rough with little or no support. The hon. Lady conveyed her revelations and personal experience very well through her words today. This should not be allowed to happen.

There are many charities in Northern Ireland and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that contribute and do well. I want to thank the church groups in my constituency that collectively and ecumenically come together to help families in need at the time that they need it. The good will and Christian faith that drive people and churches to do that are often underestimated; I thank them for that.

The Simon Community is very active in Northern Ireland. I have used its stats and information as evidence. In audits it carried out across Northern Ireland, the number of people observed sleeping rough has ranged from zero to 19 per night—it very much depends on the circumstances—with an average of six in certain monitored areas. To be fair, in Northern Ireland rough sleeping among families with children is relatively uncommon, because families are usually placed quickly in temporary accommodation. When there is a rush because circumstances overtake them and they have to leave their house—domestic abuse can be one of the reasons for that—the authorities quickly jump in to give temporary accommodation. Rough sleeping is not something that we see much of in Northern Ireland because of the methodology that the authorities use to ensure that families are housed.

I am ever mindful that this is a devolved matter, but my request of the Minister is that we learn together. That is an example of what we do. Maybe things are different in Northern Ireland and the temporary accommodation is a bit more abundant. Maybe the way we do things works. Again, I just want to be helpful in this conversation today.

As of November 2024, almost 5,400 children were living in temporary accommodation in Northern Ireland. That is the other side of the coin, which illustrates very clearly that there is much need. Temporary accommodation is often under the “homeless” category as properties are not permanent places of residence and are often, with respect, substandard and not always up to the standard they should be. The figures are increasing, showing that there is a real issue and that steps are not being taken to address it.

Loss of housing and domestic abuse are significant drivers of homelessness. Victims of domestic abuse might be forced to leave their homes suddenly to protect themselves and their children, often without time to secure alternative accommodation. Given the shocking stats in Northern Ireland in relation to domestic abuse and violence against women, I want to reiterate how important it is that we make those services available and known and that we continue to ensure they are fit for purpose to provide support for those who need it most.

I am working on the assumption that my speech will be about five minutes, to make sure that everybody else can get in. Although families with children sleeping rough are often hidden from official stats, the reality is stark: this is real. In England alone, over 140,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, and the problem is not confined to one region—it affects communities in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland alike. Things do not stop at the Irish sea and at borders. We must do more on a UK-wide basis to prevent families from reaching crisis point and to expand access to safe and affordable housing.

I congratulate the Government on removing the two-child benefit cap. That made sure that almost 60,000 children in Northern Ireland from 13,000 families were lifted out of poverty. I have put that on the record in the main Chamber and I say it again in this one. Some of the work that the Government are doing is to be welcomed and encouraged, but we need to ensure that every child has a secure home. I look to the Minister to commit to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate. She has been dedicated to tackling homelessness for many years, including in her work as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. Rough sleeping and homelessness are issues that scarred our city region for many years, and I know that everybody at home is very proud of her and the work she does.

As many hon. Members from a number of parties have mentioned, we do not want to be here talking about this issue, but it is so serious that we must. Like all hon. Members, I was extremely concerned about recent reports of families with children sleeping rough. To be absolutely clear, because there ought to be no ambiguity, this should never, ever happen.

Let me say, for clarity, that a household with a child has a priority need for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996. That means that if a household with a child is homeless and is eligible for homelessness assistance, the household must be provided with temporary accommodation until suitable settled accommodation is secured. Where households do not meet the criteria for homelessness assistance, local authorities have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need, including by providing them with accommodation where necessary. Let me say, for absolute clarity, that that applies irrespective of the child’s immigration status.

The law is absolutely clear that where a local authority believes that a household does not have a local connection to the district, it remains under a duty to accommodate until a referral to another district has been accepted. It is only when a referral has been accepted that the receiving authority must fulfil any duties to accommodate. There should never be any reason for families to be refused accommodation while there is a dispute about which authority owes that household a duty. There is no grey area here: families with children should never be left without accommodation.

[Jim Shannon]

That is very clear for everyone, and I thank the Minister for it. One example from Northern Ireland that I did not get a chance to mention in my speech was the case of a mother with two children who were sleeping rough in the square. The reason they could not get temporary accommodation was that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive had none at the time. However, because of its duty of care, which the Minister outlined, it made accommodation available in a local hotel until such time as temporary accommodation became available. Is that something that the Minister advocates?

[Alison McGovern]

I am not quite sure that I caught all the details of the case that the hon. Member raised, but if he sends me them I will happily respond to him. He will know that we do not want children to be in B&B accommodation. That is one of the main planks of our strategy, which I will come to later.

As has been mentioned, I wrote to local authority leaders and chief executives last month to remind them of their duties and to ask that they take personal responsibility for making sure that no child in their area is ever left to sleep on the street, in a car or in any other location not designed for living in. I am conscious of the case raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). I am sure that he has made every effort to sort that out with Kirklees, but if he has further problems, or Kirklees has specific issues that it wants to raise with me, I trust that he will write to me directly.

We must support councils to meet their obligations, and my Department has been in contact with the councils mentioned in the report to understand how this was able to happen and to ensure that it will not happen again. More broadly, hon. Members will be aware that we recently completed the local authority finance settlement for the next three years, reconnecting council funding with deprivation. That should aid the councils that are more likely to face these issues to deal with them.

The Government are providing more than £2.4 billion this spending review period in support of the Families First Partnership programme, which is introducing reforms to children’s social care. It will ensure children and families can access timely support so that they can get ahead of this problem, as many Members have suggested. Local authorities should use that ringfenced funding to meet their duties under the Children Act. It has been great to speak to many Members and their local authority leaders about how they will do that.

We are providing record levels of investment in homelessness and rough sleeping support, including more than £3.6 billion over the three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a funding boost of more than £1 billion compared with the previous Government’s commitment, and I pay tribute to the Chancellor for taking that decision. It is right that we are investing that much, because we inherited a homelessness crisis. Members have set out just how bad things have got.

Our long-term vision is to end homelessness and rough sleeping and ensure everyone has access to a safe and decent home. The statistics that we have heard today show that, for far too many people, that is not yet the case. We published our national plan to end homelessness last December to shift the system from crisis response to prevention and to get back on track to ending homelessness.

Our plan is backed by clear national targets to increase the proportion of households who are supported to stay in their own home or helped to find alternative accommodation when they approach their local council for support. That is the prevention goal, and it should underpin everything we do. For reasons that have been mentioned—not least the experience shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher)—we must prevent first. Homelessness is too big of a trauma; nobody should experience it.

By the end of this Parliament, we want to eliminate the use of B&B accommodation for families, except in absolute, dire emergencies, and halve rough sleeping. Of course, we want everyone to have a roof over their head, but some of the problems that we are facing and the experiences of rough sleepers go deep, so we have to go to the toughest of problems.

Our plan is backed by £3.6 billion of funding, including £2.2 billion that councils are free to use to design effective, locally tailored services to deliver better outcomes and reduce reliance on emergency interventions. A number of Members asked about ringfencing. There is tension between allowing local innovation, for which ringfences are unhelpful, and putting clear ringfences around funds to ensure that all councils can tackle homelessness. It is a balance, and that is the way we have taken the decision about the funding.

Our plan sets out how we will tackle the root causes of homelessness by building 1.5 million new homes, including more social and affordable housing than has been built for years. We are also lifting 550,000 children out of poverty through the measures in our child poverty strategy, including by lifting the two-child limit.

Public institutions should lead the way in preventing homelessness. Our plan sets a long-term ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness, and we have cross-Government targets to start that change and reduce homelessness from prisons, care and hospitals.

A number of Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), were kind enough to say that they believed in my will to get this done but expressed scepticism about other Departments. I hope I can reassure them that they do not need to be sceptical. My experience of working with Ministers in other Departments has been positive.

Local Government Reorganisation: South-east

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation in the South East.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who will be contributing to this debate.

Local government is the tier of government that is most closely woven into people’s everyday lives. It is where national decisions become local realities: the roads we drive on, the services that support vulnerable families, the planning decisions that shape our towns and the community spaces that bring people together. It is for that reason that I support the principle of devolution. Decisions should, wherever possible, be taken by those closest to the communities they directly affect. But as is so often the case in public policy, the difficulty is not the principle, it is the implementation.

In Surrey, implementation is already raising serious concerns about scale, financial sustainability and a process that has moved forward with a troubling democratic deficit. This debate concerns the south-east of England more generally, but colleagues from across the region will speak about how reorganisation is affecting their own counties and communities. My perspective naturally comes from Surrey, where those concerns are already becoming clear. Size, remoteness and financial fragility are among them, and we must add to that mix the glaring democratic deficit.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand, so he knows what I am going to say. I want to support him—that is the reason why I am here—and I want to give an example that happened in my constituency and which is similar to what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Two councils, Ards and North Down, were merged together, and one issue that was put forward as a “must do” was the financial and administrative savings with two councils being able to do the job of one, but that did not work out. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while efforts to streamline governance should be welcomed, more action must be taken to provide adequate financial support to cover one-off reorganisation costs without compromising the delivery of services such as, for example, waste services?

[Dr Pinkerton]

As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful, sagacious intervention. He will discover, if he is able to stay for the rest of my speech, that I will cover those fundamental topics: the funding of the transitional moment, and the certainty that joining two authorities together does produce long-term savings and the modelling that those assumptions rely on.

In late 2024, Surrey was placed on a fast-tracked path towards local government reorganisation. That process was triggered when the leadership of Surrey county council requested that the Government cancel the local elections that were scheduled for May 2025. That request was granted, and the result is that councillors elected in 2021 will now remain in office until April 2027, two years beyond their original mandate, and oversee one of the most significant and consequential restructurings of local government in our county’s history. The idea of cancelling elections has, more recently, fallen out of favour with both the Government and, as I understand it, the Conservative party. Sadly, for those of us in Surrey, that realisation came only after the Surrey Conservatives pulled the trigger on the policy that the Government had placed before them. Whatever one’s view of reorganisation, it is difficult to argue that such a profound change should proceed without giving residents the opportunity to pass judgment on those leading it. Local government reform should be carried out with democratic consent, not in its absence.

Alongside those democratic concerns sit serious financial questions. Over the past decade, several councils across Surrey pursued large-scale commercial property investments in an attempt to generate income as central Government funding declined. In some cases, those strategies have left councils carrying extremely substantial debt. The six councils that could form the proposed West Surrey council—Woking, Spelthorne, Guildford, Runnymede, Surrey Heath and Waverley—collectively carry around £4.5 billion-worth of debt. In my constituency, the then Conservative-led Surrey Heath borough council speculated wildly on commercial property between 2016 and 2019. It spent £113 million on a shopping centre with a knackered roof and a former department store riddled with asbestos. At the time, those purchases were described by the council’s then chief executive as “investments” that would help to secure the council’s long-term financial viability as Government funding declined. In practice, it amounted to a Conservative-run borough council borrowing heavily on the financial markets and through the public works loan board in the hope of defying the gravity of the cuts coming from Conservative central Government. Today, those assets are estimated to be worth around £30 million—not the original £113 million. They are operationally loss-making and together risk bankrupting my borough before we even reach unitarisation next year. Surrey Heath cannot afford to keep them but cannot afford to sell them because selling would crystallise the losses it has incurred.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I recognise well and with deep sorrow the situation that my hon. Friend describes. It is outrageous that over 40% of all recorded religious hate crime targets Muslims—that is way out of line with the Muslim proportion of our population. We have published the report, the entire plan and the definition to encourage and support organisations in tackling the forms of discrimination that blight the lives of British Muslims up and down the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement, in which he described the society we all wish to live in. It is the society that I wish to live in, too. As he will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which speaks up for those of the Christian faith, those of other faiths and, indeed, those of no faith. Respect is core to realising that we can all live together. In Northern Ireland, the past 34 years have shown that Protestant and Roman Catholic can live together. We have seen that in my constituency of Strangford. In Ards, the local mosque is side by side with the Presbyterian church, and there are no problems and no attacks—nothing happens. Christian Syrian refugees came to Ards for sanctuary under the refugee allocation of the last Conservative Government. Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to see what has been done in Northern Ireland, as he considers the pluralistic society that he desires? Will he ensure that all religious beliefs are treated and respected equally?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is right: there will be much to learn from the experience of Northern Ireland in bringing back together disparate communities, particularly in the period since the troubles came to an end with the Good Friday agreement. I will ask my Department to reach out and make sure that we take those lessons on board.

Community Cohesion

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to have the opportunity to be here. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for allowing us to discuss the important issue of community. I may be giving the hon. Gentleman a big head, but may I say what a joy he brings in his contributions in this House, both in Westminster Hall and the Chamber? He is always soft-spoken, and his voice is filled with compassion. That is important, especially with this subject matter.

In Northern Ireland, we have moved beyond where we were in the past. I am a very proud representative of Strangford, and I am privileged and honoured that my constituents have chosen me to be their MP on a number of occasions—Members will be aware of that already. However, most of that pride does not come from me, but from the people I represent, and I want to speak about them. Although we have a tainted history of anger and violence, that does not adequately represent who we really are.

I represent a community that proudly upholds the Northern Ireland tradition of being the most generous charity givers per capita. We do that without coercion or nudging, because we are generous people. I represent people who have the highest amount of kinship fostering in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is another example of what we do. We care about people and we want to help them. The programmes run by churches and community groups are examples that should be highlighted in this place— I am going to do that, because that is about the people we represent, who make the community and the place we live just that bit better.

Northern Ireland is a place of immense strength, resilience and character. That is found in every community, from the beautiful Portaferry at the tip of the Ards peninsula where I live, to the heart of the constituency in Newtownards and down the other side of the lough to Ballynahinch and Spa. Ours is a community shaped by faith—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and I say that very sincerely. It is also shaped by family, hard work and deep-rooted traditions. Where once there would have been division over faith, I do not see that ever happening today like it happened in the past.

I am a Democratic Unionist party MP, and we firmly believe in the Union—in Northern Ireland’s proud place within the United Kingdom. We want to be part of it, and we maintain that as part of who we are. We believe in strengthening the bonds between the people who share this land—the Scots, the Welsh, the English and ourselves.

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

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised the issue of balancing different opinions. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether in Northern Ireland or across the UK, we always need to keep at the heart of what we say and do the balance that has to be struck between people, however stringent and difficult the circumstances might be? We need to understand those who may have opposing opinions, and try to ensure that life goes on and that we make progress for everybody, whatever their differences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague has summed that up incredibly well. That is exactly how I feel about where we are, and the community that we are trying to build for our children and grandchildren. I have six grandchildren, and I want to build a future for them—I want to build a future for every grandchild, by the way, not just mine, because everybody has a share in where we are, and that is where we are coming from.

Community cohesion is not about erasing identity, diluting culture or pretending that our history does not matter. Northern Ireland works best where identity is respected: British identity, Ulster identity, and indeed the Irish identity of those who cherish it. Mutual respect must be the foundation on which we build our future. The Belfast agreement created a framework where differences could be managed peacefully and democratically. That framework must always operate on the principles of consent, fairness and parity of esteem, not on the erosion of one tradition to appease another. That is not about cohesion, resilience or moving forward. I believe with all my heart that we must respect each other.

Cohesion cannot grow where there is imbalance; it requires confidence that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position is secure, which I believe it is. The Prime Minister and the Labour Government have said that very clearly, which we should respect and understand—as did the Conservative party, in fairness. It requires confidence that the position is secure and that decisions are made with cross-community support, and it requires that no section of society feels sidelined. Bringing everybody forward is not always easy; it is incredibly hard at times, but if we focus on the goal we can achieve that together.

Strengthening community cohesion also means strengthening opportunity. Too many working-class communities—Unionist and nationalist alike—feel left behind. Economic regeneration, job creation, investment in apprenticeships and support for local businesses are not just economic policies; they are cohesion policies, and part of what we need to move forward. When people have dignity in work and hope for their children, division loses its grip. People are more relaxed, more positive and more confident about the future.

We must also deal honestly with the past. That does not mean endless relitigation of history, nor does it mean selective memory. It means fairness, proportionality and recognition of the suffering experienced by all victims of terrorism, including the thousands murdered by the IRA and other paramilitary organisations. True reconciliation requires truth, but it also requires balance. Community cohesion is not achieved through slogans; it is built day by day in churches, community halls, sports clubs and businesses and in the home itself, where the family is centre of the home. It is built when neighbours look out for one another, and when cultural expression is carried out with respect.

I sincerely believe that our community is something to be proud of. We are stronger together and can be an example to many other communities in United Kingdom, showing how funding and programmes can build foundations that change mindsets. That has been a long process. I lived through the troubles, having been born a long time ago, being older than anyone in this room without a doubt.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I don’t know about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

With one exception—my colleague sitting to my left, who is two years ahead of me. None the less, we understand that for many other communities in the UK, funding and programmes can build the foundations and change mindsets in a long process. That cannot be done without leadership from our communities. I am thankful for all those across Northern Ireland who have turned from the old ways and are leading generations on to a new path.

I am very fortunate in my constituency. The Minister and others will probably know this story about a leader in the community whose name I may not previously have mentioned but will today. There are those who had a coloured past but walked away from the history that formed them to be the new generational leaders. They have walked the path of aggression, controversy and sometimes violence. Davy Mac—Davy McAlonan—is chair of the Scrabo residents association. When any Minister or shadow Minister comes to Northern Ireland, I take them to meet Davy Mac. Why? Because he epitomises the new Northern Ireland and the way we move forward. The Davy Macs of this world believe in respect through differences, and their legacy is of understanding. A community can celebrate its own culture while accepting and working with anyone else as long as there is respect.

I shall finish as I am conscious of time. There is a hard lesson which is still being taught, but one we must continue to sow into with funding and support from Government and hope for a brighter future. I believe in that brighter future, and others in the room do as well. Let us do that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Funeral Premises: Environmental Health Inspections

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I always try to be helpful by talking about what we do in Northern Ireland. Issues around funeral service premises are sensitive and people must be treated with care when they are dealing with the death of loved ones. In Northern Ireland, funeral premises operate within general health and safety frameworks rather than a dedicated inspection programme. There is also no published fixed frequency for routine environmental health inspections. Does he agree that more must be done to create clearer regulation? I believe that the code of conduct in Scotland would be helpful to ensure industry standards and oversee premises and services more consistently.

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the example of Scotland, which I encourage the Minister to consider. I think the Government should consider everything the hon. Gentleman set out, which I will come on to.

This debate is about a fundamental issue that many of us find difficult to talk about—death. The treatment and dignity of our dead is not typically a subject for dinnertime conversation; those who have experienced bereavement, which is most of us, know how complicated and emotionally overwhelming it can be. At such a vulnerable time, one of the few sources of comfort should be the reassurance that a trusted funeral director is caring for a loved one with dignity, professionalism and respect. The vast majority of funeral directors live up to and often exceed such expectations. People’s trust has been betrayed by a very small number of rogue operators. Each stunning revelation about a rogue operator —in some cases, they have even desecrated remains—has a compounding effect on the public’s consciousness. People used to believe that the funeral sector was regulated, but they now know that it is not regulated, and they worry about the consequences of that for their families.

There are a variety of options open to the Government to solve this problem. Empowering local authorities to carry out environmental health inspections, which I will get to, is one of them; introducing a national standard is another; and empowering trade bodies should also be considered. Ultimately, however, we have to establish an independent statutory regulatory regime. I want to be clear that inaction is not an option that we should consider. I firmly believe that statutory regulation should be introduced for this sector. However, that will take time and primary legislation to achieve, so we need to consider our options for such regulation and what can happen in the interim.

Environmental health inspections could act as a stopgap before full regulation, or become the statutory regime itself, or both. However, there are differing opinions. I have spoken to representatives of the funeral service industry, including from the two largest trade bodies: the National Association of Funeral Directors, or the NAFD; and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, or SAIF. I have also had discussions with Co-op Funeralcare, having visited its premises in Leeds. I am also very pleased to serve as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals, coroners and bereavement, which brings together many organisations from across the sector, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said in his intervention.

Every person and every operator who I have spoken to about this situation is appalled by the cases they have seen. They know how vital public confidence is to the funeral profession. They want the reassurance that a statutory regime will come into place, although views on what it should look like definitely differ.

Environmental health inspections could help to build back trust, but only if there is a unified national standard that funeral premises must adhere to. But that is precisely what we do not have right now: there is no statutory inspection regime in relation to the services provided by funeral directors. My constituent Cody put it best when she said that it is harder to set up a burger van than it is to set up a funeral home. Shockingly, she is right about that.

There are no routine checks or minimum standards of funeral homes outside those established by the trade bodies. The Government are still considering the Fuller inquiry’s recommendations on funeral sector regulation and inspections. I am very grateful for the engagement that I have had on this issue, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, including with the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She met me and some of my constituents towards the end of last year, and she was phenomenal in that meeting.

However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister who is here today: what assessment has her Department made of the Fuller inquiry’s recommendation to establish a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors in England? I appreciate that that is really a question for the Department of Health and Social Care, but given that it also affects her Department, I hope she has a view on it.

That question matters because of the steps that the Government have taken in the past. In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities wrote to all councils in England to strongly encourage them to inspect funeral premises. The letter said that this was to reassure the public that the sector as a whole is safe. That was a welcome step at the time, both for the public and the sector, but those visits were never intended as technical deep-dive inspections. Instead, they were conducted to check whether everything was generally in order.

The NAFD supported those visits, and it encouraged its members to co-operate and demonstrate the high standards required of them. It advised the environmental health officers on good practice and hosted webinars to help members to prepare for their visits. However, most of those EHOs had limited experience of visiting funeral premises. It is also unclear the extent to which local authorities communicated their findings back to the Ministry of Justice and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Has the Minister’s Department collated the information that was collected through those 2024 inspections? If it has, will it use that information to inform any position that it might take in relation to funeral sector regulation?

In my view, it is concerning that those inspections failed to identify the problems that came to light when my constituents needed help. Leeds city council participated in those inspections, but to my knowledge it did not inspect Florrie’s Army or identify it as a provider of concern at the time.

That also highlights a wider issue. There is scope for environmental health inspections to be carried out by local authorities and EHOs, but that approach would probably be best employed as a short-term or interim option. It must not act as a shield against wider regulation of the funeral industry. Environmental health officers may not have the relevant sector-specific experience, but they have the skills in overlapping elements, such as infection prevention, premises hygiene and safety. The benefit of utilising EHOs is that a move to expand their remit would not necessarily require primary legislation in the short term. It would be the quickest route to ensuring some sort of Government-backed regular inspections regime, but the issue of national standards would still be outstanding.

Representation of the People Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

That is a very appropriate intervention. My hon. Friend makes his point very well and I agree with what he has to say.

We will establish new safeguards on digital campaigning and allow digital voter identification. We will strengthen our elections against foreign interference, and we will protect those who put their name forward to stand in elections from harassment and intimidation. Today, this Government are making good on that commitment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The UN’s definition of an adult is somebody who is 18 years of age. Restrictions on social media are being introduced to ensure that those aged 16 and above will be protected. I genuinely and sincerely ask the Minister, when it comes to reducing the voting age to 16, have the Government considered the UN’s definition and the way that people use social media, which might mean that they are taken advantage of or abused on social media?

[Steve Reed]

Yes, we have absolutely considered that and we will continue to keep under review the important matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I will give way to my hon. Friend later.

We know already that illicit finance can damage people’s trust in politics, and maintaining the confidence of the electorate is imperative. That is why we are requiring stronger checks on significant donations, requiring more transparency from those making donations and ensuring that only companies with a legitimate connection to the UK can donate to those involved in UK politics.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).

[Jim Shannon]

We in Northern Ireland have a particular, perhaps peculiar circumstance in that we have a border with the Republic of Ireland. We have political parties in Northern Ireland and political parties in southern Ireland that are the same parties, but in different jurisdictions with different responsibilities. Can the Secretary of State indicate what controls there will be to ensure that money does not traverse the border in such a way that disadvantages those of us in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who wish to have the democratic system and policies that we have here?

[Steve Reed]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the existing arrangements covering Ireland will continue.

Power to Cancel Local Elections

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland, because no debate in Parliament would be complete without him.

[Jim Shannon]

Honourable would be enough for me. Does the right hon. Member agree that the elections are not just bureaucratic processes? They are how communities hold leaders to account, set local priorities and influence decisions that affect their everyday lives. If anybody tries to stop an election, it will backfire on them. Does the right hon. Member agree that people’s opinions are the priority? Let people decide. Do not deny them their right to the ballot box.

[Mr Francois]

I have two responses to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have a great deal of time for, as he knows. First, the Chairman of the Petitions Committee laid out clearly the responsibilities of local government, so I shall not try your patience, Mr Mundell, or that of the rest of the Chamber by repeating them, but it is everything from planning to housing, adult social care and education. These things affect people’s everyday lives, and they are really important. People should have a democratic right to decide which councillors run those services, which they pay for as customers via their council tax. So of course there should be elections.

Secondly, and on a personal note, and I hope that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other colleagues here will understand this: nobody delayed the general election. I went into battle 20 points behind in the polls. No one gave me a bye; I had to fight to be here. I had to convince my employers, in my constituency, to renew my contract of employment to represent them, and so did everyone else in this House this evening, so why should it be different for local councillors? Why do they not have to get their contract of employment, in effect, renewed by their employers at the ballot box?

I thank the Minister for the fact that the local elections will now go ahead. She may recall that we had some sparky exchanges in the Commons Chamber about this, but we have ended up with the right decision, albeit after far too long. So if the people of Essex wish to support the Government’s bonkers housing targets—mandatory and top-down, imposed by some Whitehall civil servant who could not find Essex with a TomTom, and supported by a mad computer algorithm—they can go and vote for that. If, conversely, they want to vote for Conservative councillors, who care about the area they live in and want to defend the green belt and carry on providing good services to people at a cost that they can afford, they have the chance to vote Conservative—although, for the record, other products are available.

People can actually have elections in Essex and pass a verdict, and I very much hope that in my corner of the world—for Essex county council, for Rochford district council and for Basildon borough council—they will vote Conservative. But however they vote, whomever they choose, whomever they give the very important mandate to run those really important services to, the fundamental point is that they will be allowed to exercise their right to choose. It was this Government who very nearly took that away and we should never let them forget it. Other than that, I have no firm view on the matter.

Local Government Reorganisation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

As I said in my statement, the unitary council elections will be going ahead in Surrey this year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his endeavours. I note that this reorganisation is set to streamline services and save an estimated £2.9 billion over five years. However, from my experience—I am not better than anybody else, but I always try to be helpful—I issue a note of caution. With Northern Ireland 10 years on from our reform of councils, a 2024 Department for Communities report concluded that it is too early to determine whether those reforms have been cost-effective, with the new, larger councils actually spending more than their 26 predecessors. Has the Secretary of State taken into account that report and that uncertainty, and has he ensured that the Government are not promising billions of pounds in savings while actually taking more from taxpayers and ratepayers?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his observations, but I remain confident that eliminating duplication where residents are paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief executives and two sets of finance directors will save residents money, which can then be invested in the frontline services that matter most to people; for example, it can be used to fix the potholes that we heard about earlier.