Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The Government remain committed to supporting ex-coalfield communities, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and to tackling the decline and neglect we saw under the Conservative party. It was our party that established the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in 1999, and we are committed to working with it to support our coalfield communities. That comes alongside our wider efforts to invest in communities that were held back under the Conservative party through our trailblazing Pride in Place programme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am intrigued to hear how coalfield regeneration relates to the hon. Gentleman’s part of Northern Ireland. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for that answer. The fact is that there were coalfields in Northern Ireland. There has been an opportunity—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. So the hon. Gentleman is saying that he has coalfields in his constituency? [Interruption.] Okay. I am going to allow the question, but I ask that we think about whether issues are relevant to our constituencies.

[Jim Shannon]

The question of who benefited from coalfields in the past is always relevant to people in Northern Ireland. Other parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have experienced coalfield regeneration, and people have come back from those areas on the mainland to Northern Ireland. Can we ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to benefit from this? These benefits have been brought forward in England; bring them forward in Northern Ireland as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that that is relevant.

Religious Crematoriums

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of religious crematoria.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to have secured this important debate on the provision of religious crematoriums and the access issues faced by faith communities across our country.

At its heart, this debate is about dignity, respect and equality. How we support families at the end of life is a test of our society’s values. Every person, regardless of faith or background, deserves the opportunity to say farewell to their loved ones in a manner that honours traditions and beliefs. For many, cremation or burial may seem a straightforward matter, an administrative process supported by local authorities and funeral providers. Yet for a significant section of our population, and particularly those from minority faiths, the reality is far more complex. Limited provision, a lack of awareness, and regulatory barriers too often mean that families are left distressed and unsupported at the moment when they most need compassion.

I want to begin with the provision of crematoriums. There are more than 300 crematoriums across the United Kingdom, but the vast majority operate on a standardised model that does not reflect the full diversity of religious practice. For many communities, including Hindu and Buddhist communities, religious tradition often requires that cremation be accompanied by specific rites—including chanting, prayers and periods of meditation before the cremation itself—yet many crematoriums impose strict time limits, restrict the length of services or fail to provide space for those rituals to take place with the dignity they deserve. Families are therefore required to adapt their practices, often in ways that feel at odds with centuries of teaching. That adaptation is accepted by some. For others, it leaves a sense that their most sacred rituals are being denied.

This is not a question of faith; it is about fairness and equality. We must not have a situation in which some families can conduct funerals according to their beliefs with ease, while others must travel hundreds of miles, negotiate with reluctant providers or compromise on their most cherished traditions.

That inequality is compounded by financial barriers. In many parts of the UK, families seeking more accommodating crematoriums find themselves reliant on private providers. The cost of travelling, combined with higher fees, makes it impossible for many to access the services they need. For some, this results in long delays or fragmented ceremonies, which add to the distress of bereavement. Local authorities are, of course, under immense financial pressure, but the Equality Act 2010 places clear duties on public bodies. They must have due regard to the needs of religious communities under the public sector equality duty. Inadequate provision risks indirect discrimination against minority faiths, undermining the principle of equal treatment before the law.

There are some examples of progress. At Great Glen crematorium in Leicestershire, a dedicated Hindu shrine has been installed to support ritual practice. Leicester city council’s burial space strategy recognises the growing demand from Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities for more suitable provision.

Alongside cremation, I want to address burial. For Muslim families and Jewish families, religious teaching requires that a body be buried as soon as possible—within 24 hours of death. That is not a matter of preference; it is a religious obligation. Reading borough council took the local Muslim community’s needs into account when updating its cemetery regulations, but the truth is that good practice remains the exception, not the rule.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. As she knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak out for those of Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith, because we believe that everyone should be treated equally. Does the hon. Lady agree it is vital that we enable people of all faiths to access facilities to ensure that their loved ones’ wishes for their burial or cremation are respected, and even more so when it comes to the expression of that person’s faith and deeply held belief?

[Susan Murray]

I completely agree with that principle, but our systems are not always designed with it in mind. Delays in death certification, the coronial process and registration services frequently mean that families are unable to bury their loved ones within the required timescale. Some local authorities have taken steps to improve responsiveness by offering out-of-hours registration services. Those efforts show that, with the right planning and partnership, it is possible to respect religious obligations around timely burial, but provision remains patchy across the country and too often families are left facing painful delays at a time of grief. In 21st-century Britain, it is not unreasonable to ask that every family should be confident that their loved one can be buried according to their faith.

I understand that it is important to recognise the devolved aspect of this matter. In Scotland, the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 provides a modern legislative framework with greater recognition of religious needs. In Wales and Northern Ireland, responsibility also lies with the devolved Administrations, but in England the responsibility rests with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

At UK level, Parliament remains responsible for equalities law and for setting the broader standards of fairness and human rights that underpin our system. That means the Government cannot simply say that crematoriums are a local issue. There is a role for national leadership. All communities across the UK are entitled to expect that their needs will not be ignored because they are in a local minority. Minimum standards, guidance and funding support are all tools available to the Government to ensure fairness across the country.

Constituents and communities have raised this issue for many years. Hindu and Sikh organisations have petitioned successive Governments to highlight the lack of appropriate crematoriums. Muslim representatives have repeatedly drawn attention to the difficulties caused by delays in burial, which has also been highlighted by Jewish representatives. Behind every one of those campaigns is a grieving family—real people facing unnecessary distress because our systems are not flexible enough to accommodate their faith.

The basic concept is simple: public services must reflect the diversity of the people they serve. That is not a question of favouring one group over another, but of recognising that equality sometimes requires accommodation. A one-size-fits-all approach, designed for the majority, inevitably excludes minorities, and that is not good enough in modern Britain.

I therefore ask the Minister to commit to three steps. The first is to review the provision of religiously appropriate crematoriums across Britain, to identify gaps and to work with local authorities to close them. The second is to work with the relevant authorities to ensure that coroner and registration services are able to respond to the urgent burial needs of certain faiths with clear national guidance. The third step is to ensure that the equality duty is properly considered in all planning and funding decisions relating to crematoriums and burial services, so that minority communities are not excluded.

How we treat people at the end of life reflects who we are as a society. A society that truly respects diversity and equality is one that values every community, however small, and ensures that they can say farewell to their loved ones in accordance with their beliefs. Families in grief should not face barriers, compromises or indignities. They should find public services that meet them with understanding, respect and compassion.

Provision of Council Housing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff]

I fully agree that council housing is essential to meeting the housing crisis that we face, and I hope that we will hear ambitious remarks from the Minister.

The question is not simply how much housing is built, but the type of housing built and for whom. As has been referenced, more than 1.3 million households in England are trapped on waiting lists—a rise of 10% in the past two years alone. The scale of our failure to provide homes for all our citizens is staggering and reveals in the starkest possible terms the absolute folly of relying on the private sector to meet the public’s basic needs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate. In my office, as I suspect in everybody else’s, benefits are the first issue of importance and housing is the second. One possible solution—I want to be constructive, and I showed him this suggestion—is to focus on building smaller social housing units, enabling older couples to move out of family homes, which are larger and more difficult to heat. That would enable younger families to stay within their community and older people to have homes that are easier to heat. When it comes to solutions, it is also about that.

[Chris Hinchliff]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. As usual, he makes a good point, and I wholly agree.

As our whole nation loses out on the stifled energy, talent and creativity of so many people held back by not having a secure home where they can put down roots and flourish, it is ever clearer that the magic of the invisible hand of the free market is little more than a fairy tale told by economists to justify a refusal to meet our obligations to the least well-off members of society. However, if we look to our past for inspiration, we see many parallels between the challenges confronting us now and those facing the great post-war Labour Government who took office 80 years ago. Then, Labour came into office determined to change the “devil take the hindmost” approach to housing policy in which, as Aneurin Bevan described:

“The higher income groups had their houses; the lower income groups had not. Speculative builders, supported enthusiastically, and even voraciously, by money-lending organisations, solved the problem of the higher income groups in the matter of housing”—[Official Report, 17 October 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1222.]

while the rest were left behind. Bevan’s solution was to start at the other end and focus on meeting the needs of the working class.

Our current state of affairs is much the same. We need the same priorities to get to the root of the contemporary housing crisis, because while house prices in many parts of the country are eye-wateringly high for all, the reality is that higher-income earners—frustrated though some of their ambitions may be—can find a home, while too often those at the other end of the spectrum cannot. Simply flooding the market with speculative developments will not address the problem. The only way to get high-quality homes that those on waiting lists can actually afford is to directly plan and deliver housing for people on low incomes. That is why we must have council housing —not housing built to maximise profits for developers’ shareholders—offering rents linked to local incomes, and hundreds of thousands of them. I will be quoting Bevan extensively, given his achievements in delivering high-quality council housing in this country.

Playgrounds: Bournemouth East

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered playgrounds in Bournemouth East constituency.

Eight months ago, I stood just a few seats away from this spot to lead the first debate on playgrounds in eight years—the longest in 17 years. The previous debate, 17 years ago, saw the last Labour Government launch the first and only national play strategy, backed by £235 million of investment in children’s right to play. On behalf of my constituents, it is an honour to open this debate, my second, and to turn a spotlight specifically on my constituency, focusing exclusively on playgrounds in Bournemouth East.

When Parliament has effectively ignored playgrounds in Bournemouth for 17 years, is it any wonder that they are rotting? Is it any wonder that people feel pushed away from politics when Parliament did not speak to their priorities to any meaningful extent for nearly two decades? Is it any wonder that people feel disaffected with democracy when the last Government did not care enough about children to invest in their playgrounds? Children who sat GCSEs this year were not even alive the last time that Parliament seriously considered playground provision. We are talking about near adults whose formative years went unexamined at the very highest levels of the last Conservative Government.

Children make up 20% of our population and 100% of our future, but we are not treating them that way as a country. As Play England’s Eugene Minogue says, “Let’s start with play.” This really matters. In 1925, Lloyd George called play “nature’s training for life”. Frank Dobson later described it as,

“what children and young people do—when they follow their own ideas, in their own way, and for their own reasons.”

Play is instinctive and natural; it is how children learn, grow and take responsibility. In Gaza, where children are hungry, exhausted and emotionally wounded, the instinct to play still endures. Just two weeks ago, Palestinian children were filmed playing with a parachute used to drop aid.

Play is natural, essential and deeply personal. It nurtures emotional development, builds confidence and fosters creativity, collaboration and resilience. Those are the skills that renew our democracy and reinvigorate our liberal values, but right now, in Bournemouth East and across England, that right is being eroded. Lloyd George warned how infringing the right to play can cause

“deep and enduring harm to the minds and bodies of its citizens.”

Lloyd George was right.

Today, 2 million children in England live more than 10 minutes from a playground, and one in eight have no garden—in London, it is one in five. Nearly 800 playgrounds have closed in the past decade, casualties of austerity. In Bournemouth East, only 35% of children live within reach of a play area.

What are the deep and enduring harms that result when children cannot play outdoors? First, they retreat indoors, glued to screens. As my constituent Helen from Southbourne says,

“We must provide exciting, enjoyable and affordable alternatives to screen time.”

Secondly, as Baroness Longfield, the former Children’s Commissioner reminds us,

“Play is a social justice issue—it’s about who gets to thrive and who gets left behind.”

Among those children being left behind the most are wheelchair users and neurodivergent children. As Terri from Muscliff says:

“If a child uses a wheelchair, there is nothing they can do.”

Teens for whom traditional spaces such as multi-use games areas and skate parks just do not work are excluded too. In particular, teenage girls who mostly want social spaces near, but not within, family zones are not being catered for. If inclusive design is to be the baseline, not a bonus, we must listen to my constituent Jennie Savage, a community place-making designer, who, at our surgery on Saturday, spoke about the importance of listening to the very people who use playgrounds.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In my time on the council in a previous life, we always encouraged playgrounds, and it was the same in the Assembly; now, we are here in Parliament. New playgrounds are really important, and they need to include wheelchair-accessible swings and roundabouts, sensory play areas, nature zones and family facilities such as toilets and baby rooms. Are those the things that the hon. Gentleman is pushing for?

[Tom Hayes]

I entirely agree; the hon. Gentleman pre-empts some of what I am about to say. Community infrastructure and accessible infrastructure are absolutely critical alongside playgrounds.

The public voted for change last year, and we now happily have a different Government. The question is whether this Government will restore playgrounds for future generations. My first year as an MP has taught me how difficult it is to bring together Departments around the cross-cutting issue of play. We have a fantastic Minister, Baroness Taylor, who holds responsibility for play. To support her, this Parliament needs to agitate for a strategy with objectives and deadlines. That is my first request.

Seventeen years ago, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham, as Secretaries of State, published England’s first national play strategy, and much of it still stands. It is time to dust it off. This is unfinished business for Labour, and momentum is building now, as it was before the last play strategy and the multimillion-pound budget were announced. In June, I hosted the launch of Play England’s 10-year strategy, “It All Starts with Play!”, here in Parliament, and I also welcomed the Raising the Nation Play Commission’s final report, “Everything to Play For”, which called for a new national strategy, a statutory duty for councils and a cultural shift that places play at the heart of public life. Last week, a new all-party parliamentary group on play launched with a Minister in attendance. I am honoured to chair it. That followed, on the same day, a session on play by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Yesterday, I was pleased to sponsor and speak at a LEGO reception in Parliament. The LEGO group, supported by the LEGO Foundation, launched “The Power of Play”, a report that looked into its project in Tower Hamlets, where poverty limits and denies access to play, as it does around the country.

Housing: North Staffordshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing developments in north Staffordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, and I thank the House for allowing this debate today.

With the publication of three draft local plans across my constituency, this is an incredibly timely debate. Too many of my constituents know the struggle of finding suitable affordable housing. Families need high-quality homes in which to raise their children, young people starting out need affordable homes, and many people need accessible bungalows. I understand our Government’s targets for house building and the three draft local plans for my constituency deliver on that commitment. My constituents deserve to have a home to call their own and I back every effort to support local people into good homes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand and I congratulate her on securing this debate. Does she agree that housing for over-55s, with smaller units, must also be a priority, in order to free up larger homes for younger families, and that every local authority should consider the inclusion of such units when housing developments are being built?

[Dr Gardner]

I agree with the hon. Member: we are an ageing population and need to think about how we house our older residents. I am a big advocate of bungalows, having just moved into one.

That is not to say that proposals for new housing developments come without challenges. In Barlaston, the local community are trying to resist a planning application on green-belt land off Barlaston Old Road. The local parish council has proactively produced its own neighbourhood plan and is not against developments. It is offering suitable alternatives that will deliver more housing and address local issues regarding abandoned land. I hope that Stafford borough council engages meaningfully with the parish council and works to protect the integrity of the village while supporting new housing. Does the Minister agree that parish councils have a strong role to play in planning—indeed, increasingly so, as we proceed with devolution? The local voice must be empowered and heard.

Similarly, my constituents in Lightwood are concerned about the draft proposal to build up to 3,000 new homes in a neighbouring valley. A development of such size would create a whole new electoral ward. Although this proposal is in the very early stages of the local plan, should it proceed, it would have a significant impact on the surrounding communities. Residents are rightly worried about the scale of the development, the loss of green space and the strain on local infrastructure.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

This Government were elected with a clear mandate to do what the Conservatives failed to do in the last Parliament—namely, to modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and empower private renters by providing them with greater security rights and protections. Our Renters’ Rights Bill does just that, and it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that England’s 11 million private renters can benefit from its provisions.

Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I want to thank Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation of all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government made several important changes to the Bill in the other place with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended and in response to the legitimate concerns raised about the implementation of specific provisions. In the interests of time, I will update the House only on the two that are most apposite.

The first change concerns the date from which a tenant is required to pay a new rent in instances where the first-tier tribunal has set a new rent amount following a tenant’s challenge to a proposed increase. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on that commitment not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure, but to prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of back-door eviction once section 21 notices have been abolished.

However, recognising that there is inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force, and as a safeguard against a scenario in which the first-tier tribunal is overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges, Lords amendments 6 to 8 introduce a new delegated power that will enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal of new rent amounts. I want to reiterate what Baroness Taylor made clear in the other place—namely, that it is not the Government’s intention to make use of this new power unless and until it is considered necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard. If used, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In addition to introducing that important safeguard, the Government also concluded that there is a compelling case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. Subject to a final viability assessment, we intend to establish such an alternative body or mechanism as soon as possible, and will confirm further details in due course.

The second important change the Government made in the other place concerns insurance to cover potential damage from pets. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill as originally introduced, mirroring provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, enabled landlords to request such insurance in instances where a tenant had requested a pet. In response to concerns expressed by several peers that the insurance industry appears unlikely to provide suitable financial products at the speed and scale required, and that the reasonable request of tenants to keep pets might be hampered as a result, Lords amendments 10, 12 and 13 remove the provisions in the Bill which made landlord consent to a request to keep a pet conditional on the tenant taking out, or paying for, pet damage insurance.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Just last week, I was asked a similar question back home; the legislation back home is not covered by this House. The issue for those who have animals is that almost every person who has an animal in a flat, apartment or other property always looks after the property as if it were their own and the issue of animal damage does not come up. It does, however, come up the odd time, so is it not better—I think the Minister is saying this—to have an obligation rather than legislation to ensure that the tenant covers any damage by a pet, because most tenants will be accountable for their pets no matter what?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a good point. There is evidence that pet damage is, in many cases, not extensive or a particular issue. Where pet damage occurs, as I will come on to make clear in response to the relevant Lords amendment, we think that the provisions in the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which allow for tenant deposits to be changed in response to such issues, mean that we have the necessary delegated powers, but I will set out further detail on that particular issue in due course.

I will now turn to the amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely, in each instance, where that is the case, starting with Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 53 dramatically broadens the scope of possession ground 4A, so that it encompasses not only full-time students living in houses in multiple occupation, but non-typical students, such as older students with families undertaking postgraduate studies who may live in self-contained one and two-bed properties. Ground 4A exists precisely because the Government recognise the unique nature of the student rental market and are determined to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings continues accordingly. However, ground 4A was deliberately designed to ensure that the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced in the Bill were not denied to non-typical students. We believe restricting its use to HMOs or dwelling-houses in HMOs strikes the right balance, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 64 introduces a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves or a member of their family living with them. Everyone in this Chamber recognises the vital work carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. However, while the Government are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid we cannot support this amendment for two main reasons. First, while I appreciate entirely that some peers currently own and let rental properties in close proximity to their homes, with a view to one day using them to house a carer for themselves or members of their family, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that this practice is sufficiently widespread to justify the insertion into the Bill at this late stage of a dedicated possession ground to cater specifically for it. Secondly, the definition of “carer” in the amendment—namely, anyone providing any form of care in a voluntary or contractual arrangement, is so broad that the scope for abuse, in our view, is substantial. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.

Lords amendment 18 would reduce the prohibition on re-letting or re-marketing a property following the use of possession ground 1A from 12 months to six. We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so, but we are not prepared to weaken the strong safeguard against abuse provided by the 12-month no-let provision. It is essential to prevent landlords misusing ground 1A and evicting tenants who are not at fault, whether that be because they have made a legitimate complaint or simply because the landlord wants to re-let at a higher rate. The Government remain firmly committed to the 12-month no-let restriction, and I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 18 on that basis.

Lords amendment 19 is a related amendment that exempts shared owners from the 12-month re-letting and re-marketing restriction, as well as other important restrictions. I want to make it clear that the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. I know from my own efforts to support shared owners in my constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich that those affected by the building safety crisis often face unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distressed sale.

Housing Provision in Stafford

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing provision in Stafford.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate.

To give some understanding of the local picture, Stafford borough is currently without an adopted local plan. A new draft plan was due to be approved just as the general election was called last year, but with that and the new housing targets, the process paused. While it is good that the work has restarted, getting a new plan in place for our area will take years, even in the best-case scenario. That matters because, in the meantime, communities such as Eccleshall are left exposed to speculative development without the protections that a local plan provides.

I attended a public meeting in Eccleshall two weeks ago, and the atmosphere was thoughtful, not hostile, and the message was clear. People understand that we are in a housing crisis, and they know we need more homes not just for this generation but for the next generation. People also want to stay close to their family. They want to contribute to their community and grow old where they have always lived, but they are also dealing with the consequences of past development in which infrastructure has not kept pace.

Those pressures are visible in Eccleshall’s drains, roads and local environment. Eccleshall’s sewage treatment works flooded 67 times in 2023 and has flooded 26 times so far in 2025. The aim is to have no more than 10 spillages a year by 2045—that is in 20 years’ time. It flooded again last Sunday, spilling sewage and waste water, which affected residents. That is the reality for people living there now, before a single additional home has been built.

I make my position absolutely clear: I know that we need more homes. Across Staffordshire and across the country, far too many people—including young families, pensioners and key workers—are being priced out of the areas in which they grew up, and that is true even in Eccleshall. That is the legacy of the previous Government, who made things worse.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Does she agree that housing must be provided for families, for single people and for elderly people? Newtownards in my constituency is providing a mix for everyone. Is that something she is trying to achieve for her constituents, in conjunction with the Minister?

[Leigh Ingham]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My dad does not work any more, but he was a bricklayer. He always said to me that if he had owned his own business, he would have built bungalows because there is always a need for them—this country can never build enough bungalows. We need a mix of housing, but he always said, “If you want to sell houses, build bungalows.” That is my dad’s life tip, if anyone is interested.

That goes to the point that we have not built the right homes in the right places. Pensioners cannot find smaller homes to downsize into; families are not able to settle for the long term; and people are being pushed away from their support networks and lifelong communities. We need to build, but we have to do it responsibly and with infrastructure. In Eccleshall right now, that balance has not been found.

Residents are understandably alarmed, as there are 10 speculative development proposals on the table for potentially over 1,500 homes. Accounting for families, that is likely to be more than a 50% population increase for a town of 6,500 people. That would stretch the resources of any community, but it would be overwhelming for a very small market town. To be very clear, not a single application has yet been approved, but the sheer number of proposals coming in simultaneously is creating real anxiety and uncertainty, because people do not know what might be approved.

More broadly, we have already seen how this can go in another part of my constituency, in Loggerheads. There, development went ahead without an up-to-date local plan. Developers insisted that infrastructure was adequate, but in reality there were no buses, few community services and precious little investment in support to new residents. The building continues.

In Eccleshall, planning officers are doing everything they can, but without a local plan, they are working with one hand tied behind their backs. The default position of presumption in favour of sustainable development leaves them vulnerable. The Minister and his Department are committed to fixing this broken system, and I recognise wholeheartedly that the challenges are not new—they were building up for years under the previous Conservative Government—but Eccleshall provides a case study of why councils need more tools and more flexibility to get things right.

Today, I want to offer four practical suggestions that would make a real difference to Eccleshall and other communities like it. First, we need faster and more flexible processes for approving local plans. Right now, it can take up to three years, in ideal conditions, and during that time councils and communities are left in limbo. If we want to plan properly, we need the system to keep pace.

Secondly, infrastructure must come first, not years later. The flooding in Eccleshall is a red flag. The system has not caught up with past development, let alone proposed future growth. With respect to that, I ask the Minister: what specific support is available to towns such as Eccleshall to help building to happen sustainably, without overloading existing stretched services?

Thirdly, we need to let councils assess housing proposals in the round, not one by one. When multiple speculative bids are in play, applications cannot be treated as if they exist in isolation. Local authorities must have the power to consider the cumulative impact and align decisions with community priorities.

Fourthly, we need strong protections for our best agricultural land. In Eccleshall, the sites under threat are all grade 2 and 3a, some of the best and most versatile farmland in the country. If we lose it, we do not get it back. We cannot build over the land that feeds us and call that sustainable.

In conclusion, no one—residents or developers—wants to see 10 disconnected developments forced on a community with no plan and no infrastructure. I want to be clear: the people I represent are not opposed to growth. They want to be part of shaping it, and to build homes in a way that is planned, not piecemeal, with infrastructure first, communities and the environment protected, and fairness at its heart. I ask the Minister to meet me—after recess; I will not I will not make him do it today—specifically to speak about Eccleshall. We have a meeting coming up to talk about wider housing provision in Stafford borough, but I hope he will not mind me asking for a separate conversation about this specific and unique case. I believe that we can build the homes we need in a way that is fair, sustainable and community-led, and that this Government want to do that. I hope this debate will be a constructive step towards making sure that happens.

Birmingham Bin Strikes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We have to accept that there are some issues here that are unique to Birmingham. For instance, many councils across England dealt with equal pay over a decade ago, and Birmingham did not, which is why the liabilities have escalated in the way they have.

On the hon. Member’s fundamental point about fair funding and ensuring that local public services can be rebuilt, we can agree. We believe that most people’s local neighbourhood services have been impacted so heavily by not only austerity but the growth in demand in adult’s, children’s and temporary accommodation that we have to completely rethink both how we fund local government and how we reinvest back into prevention and early intervention to prevent that crisis management model.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers and wish him well in his endeavours to enable a solution to be found. The Government have stated that they are committed to a “sustainable resolution” to the severe backlog of uncollected waste and the ongoing pay dispute. The workers state that they face cuts of some £8,000 per year, which would be a devastating loss for those with families and responsibilities. Will the Minister acknowledge that reducing current wages is not the way forward and that the Government must intervene now, to make workers feel worthwhile and to sustain trust between the council and the workers?

[Jim McMahon]

Whoever is negotiating in this environment will have the same guardrails as the local authority does. The local authority has to be mindful of the equal pay package that it has agreed with all the trade unions, and it cannot do anything in this very narrow dispute—however impactful it is on the workers and local residents—that means completely unravelling the equal pay package. I share the hon. Member’s concern about the impact, but it is important that the local authority and Unite the trade union continue those talks and try to find a resolution. With that being the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and other Members of the House a peaceful recess?

Black Country Day

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I suppose this is one of those occasions when you would love to be down here participating in the debate, but are unable to do so due to your responsibility as Chair—maybe it is a chance to listen and hear about all the good things. I am very fortunate to be able to participate in a small way, and I am really pleased that the three ladies who secured the debate, the hon. Members for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) and Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) are here. I was also pleased to hear the intervention from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor); I am not quite sure about orange chips, but there you are—that is by the by. I hope we can fly the flag. We have in the past had the flag of St Patrick flying for St Patrick’s Day. I was told that that was impossible; I hope they have better luck than me, but we will see how we get on.

I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury for leading the debate—she really sold it well, as did everyone. The day is crucial for remembering the heritage, culture and industrial history of the Black Country, including places like Walsall, Sandwell and Wolverhampton. There are many areas across the UK rich in industrial heritage.

I will take a slightly different tangent to help us to understand cultural and historical links that make this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a better place—the culture from the Black Country and the culture from Strangford. I will tie the two together in a way that, hopefully, will honour what the hon. Lady is saying. I do it with appreciate and in support, so it is great to be here to celebrate the Black Country in its time of celebration.

The date of Black Country Day coincides with the anniversary of the invention of the world’s first steam engine by Thomas Newcomen in 1712. The occasion was considered the start of the industrial revolution, which was seen in my constituency of Strangford and across Northern Ireland. It was a pinnacle moment for Britain. The industrial base of the Black Country, which the hon. Lady referred to, is the industrial base of Strangford, too. While we see some similarities, we also see differences, such as some of the culture and history. However, we are united by the fact that we all serve under one flag, the Union flag, and that is important for all of us.

Historically in Northern Ireland, we are known for our flax and linen industry, in which we have a rich culture. Back in the 1900s we had Crepe Weavers on the Comber Road, which was part of our industrial base and history. It was established in 1949 by the Mladek family, who were Czech refugees. I remember them quite well—the father in particular, who previously ran the site as a Miles Aircraft factory. The Crepe Weavers plant produced nylon and rayon fabrics until its closure in 2005. At its peak, the factory employed some 400 workers.

At the same time, the industrial base in the Black Country that the hon. Lady referred to is very similar to ours. There are numerous businesses and factories, rich in industrial culture, just like in the Black Country. In Newtownards, the major town in my constituency, we were fortunate to have the Lee Jeans factory and Baird clothing, which was also known as Bairdwear. These were two major factories, one in Bangor and one in Ards. They exclusively supplied Marks and Spencer across this Great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a connection that unites us—but in 1999 the contract ended, leading to hundreds of job losses and closures.

Strangford has changed incredibly—as has the Black country—but the illustration of its beauty by the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury and others has warmed my heart, because it has the same cultural activity that we have had in Strangford over the years. One pivotal issue is that there seems to be a decrease in the number of factories, and we are currently running a reliance on imports from other countries. Having an industrial base is important for the Black Country, as it is for Strangford and indeed for all of us.

What has happened in the Black Country has also happened in Strangford. The industrial base has declined, and where does it go from now? What is the vision for the future? That is what the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury has tried to outline. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as not only an interested person but the Minister with responsibility.

There has been a loss in local communities, which is sad to see given the history of the sector. We must all focus on upskilling those who have moved on from the jobs of the past to the jobs of the future. Life is changing, whether we like it or not. Job opportunities are changing. We once based our industrial prowess on the factory and that has changed as well, in the Black Country and in Strangford. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. We must upskill those who have a genuine interest in this industry, to take back skills from overseas and employ our own people again. There is such potential for the Black Country, for Strangford and Northern Ireland, and for the whole of the United Kingdom. We must do more to preserve and protect that.

What is it that makes this United Kingdom so great? It is the culture, the history and the attractions. It is the fun stories. It is the orange chips—I like the orange part in particular, but then I am from Northern Ireland, and that is one of the things I will hold on to with great fervour. What makes us great are all the things that make us different, but also the same. This is what I feel in my heart: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is better because of all the differences and all the things that unite us. We should not dwell on the differences, because they are not really important. We should dwell on the things that make us stronger—that is what we should be aiming for.

To conclude, it is great to celebrate this event and to remember the cultural and historical significance of the occasion. The transition through the industrial revolution is something to be remembered. I have hope that we can bring these local industries back, although perhaps in a different way, for the future. The Minister has the vision for his role in that, and the Labour Government have a vision for where they want to go. We should stand behind our Minister and our Government as they bring about the future for everyone by ensuring that our people have the necessary skills. I look to the Minister, as I always do—I see him as a friend and someone who has a heart for his job—to ensure that we will not fall behind, and that we will make more efforts, as a collective, to reinstate what was once a highly populated sector in our jobs industry, and could be again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss]

Yes, Jeff Astle was indeed a great player.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the greatest footballers that Wolverhampton has ever had was Derek Dougan. Where did he come from? Northern Ireland.

[Warinder Juss]

When I first came to Wolverhampton back in 1968, many years ago, one of the most memorable images that I saw plastered on gates and walls was of “the Doog”—Derek Dougan was well celebrated in Wolverhampton and he was affectionately known as “the Doog”. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Derek Dougan—one of the legends of Wolverhampton Wanderers.

Changing Places Toilets

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Francis]

Absolutely. As I will turn to, I know that at first hand as the parent of a child with cerebral palsy. The growth of Changing Places means that it is making an impact, but the fact is that we need more of these toilets across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to him beforehand to get an idea of what he was trying to achieve, and I want to congratulate him on his campaign—well done! Every one of us in our constituency wishes we had someone pushing as hard as he is with his campaign. I say that because in Northern Ireland we have only 1.4 Changing Places toilets per 100,000 people, which means we rank the second lowest in the UK after London. The hon. Gentleman is doing so much here, and we have a lot to learn. Some 7,000 people in Northern Ireland require additional room for assistance and support when using public restroom facilities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given that this issue impacts thousands across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we must ensure that enough Changing Places toilets are provided in all nations for all people with disabilities?

[Daniel Francis]

Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member. As I will come on to say, we have seen such growth, particularly in central London, but that needs to be replicated across the United Kingdom.

Access to a Changing Places toilet allows anyone, regardless of their access needs or disability, to use a toilet with dignity, privacy and hygienically.