Women’s Safety in Rural Areas

Debate between Jim Shannon and Anna Sabine

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Anna Sabine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Department said it was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas

Debate between Jim Shannon and Anna Sabine

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered broadband and mobile connectivity in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I represent the fairly rural constituency of Frome and East Somerset. In February this year, I conducted a survey asking residents in villages such as Lamyatt, Doulting, Alhampton, West Pennard and Witham Friary about their experiences with mobile and broadband signal. The number of responses was overwhelming, and there was a striking consistency to what they told me. The current arrangements for getting a mobile or broadband signal are mismatched, too expensive, frequently slow and, in many cases, simply not fit for purpose.

Access to a reliable internet and mobile signal is now a basic necessity of our lives. Whether for work, education, healthcare or simply staying connected, people rely on broadband and mobile coverage every single day. I heard from a number of brilliant rural businesses—wedding venues, farms, ironmongers—who battle with poor connectivity daily. For many, broadband remains one of the biggest obstacles they face as a business, in terms of both the quality and speed of the connection available and the frustrating experience that creates for their customers. One local farm, for example, was quoted more than £250,000 by Openreach just to connect a wire across a relatively short distance to secure full-fibre broadband.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We are all here for the same purpose: our constituencies do not have the 3G broadband that we all wish to see. Does the hon. Lady agree that Westminster and all the other regions of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—should collectively have a programme that delivers 3G broadband for everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Anna Sabine]

I have met the Minister before, which I will come on to. I know there is a plan, about which I have some specific questions. I totally agree that this is a nationwide challenge. On mobile reception, I am particularly concerned about the elderly and vulnerable in the Government’s digital switchover. Many of those individuals still rely on landlines, not by choice but because mobile signal in their area is unreliable.

Access to Dentistry: Somerset

Debate between Jim Shannon and Anna Sabine

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine]

Yes, I absolutely agree, and I will talk later about how poor access to dentistry impacts other parts of the health sector.

Yesterday, I was lucky enough to visit a local primary school in Frome, along with a friend who is a dentist. We started with an assembly about the many superpowers the mouth has, in which I was delighted to be given the leading role of saliva. Then we moved on to taking two reception classes through a supervised toothbrushing session. The school is part of the Government’s supervised toothbrushing scheme, an initiative I welcome. Sadly, of the 30 children in the room, 10 did not have consent for the toothbrushing—some because forms had not been returned, and some because there was a parental objection to the activity or to the use of fluoride. To ensure that they did not feel left out, my dentist friend played a game where they counted their teeth instead. She said that, based on what she could see from that game, that group of 10 children had 50 obviously decayed teeth, and one child had at least 10 teeth that would need to be removed under general anaesthetic. Those children were four and five years old. Although the scheme overall is to be welcomed, I hope consideration will be given to having an opt-out rather than an opt-in, to ensure that the children who most need the scheme are actually benefiting.

Somerset used to be well above the national average on access to dentistry. As recently as 2018, 55% of adults were seen by an NHS dentist in a two-year period, compared with 50% nationally.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and she is right to highlight the issue affecting children but also adults. Does she agree that the news that some pensioners are carrying out their own barbaric dentistry should send shockwaves about the affordability and accessibility of NHS dentistry? Does she also agree that there is a need for immediate intervention in each trust area, whether in Somerset, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?

[Anna Sabine]

Yes, there are certainly some horror stories about tooth removal. It does beg the question as to why NHS dental services in Somerset and the wider south-west have deteriorated in the last seven years. It seems to me that that is symptomatic of a lack of investment in the region, in terms of not only health and social care but withdrawn levelling-up funding and diverted rural England prosperity funding.

Financial Inclusion: Rural Areas

Debate between Jim Shannon and Anna Sabine

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I do agree. I will come on to talk about the criteria that Link uses in allocating banking hubs.

In Frome and East Somerset, an average of £630,000 is withdrawn in cash each month, showing how vital access is for people in these areas. The two main groups most affected by lack of access to cash are the deprived and the elderly. For people on low incomes, cash can act as an effective method to budget efficiently. Many elderly people feel excluded by the increasing reliance on digital services. With BT set to swap from analogue to digital landlines for millions of customers across the UK, there are concerns that that will lead to more isolation for elderly people who rely on landlines for their access to the outside world, and in many rural areas they may not have good broadband or mobile signal either.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Unfortunately, in my Strangford constituency, 11 banks have closed, I think, so the impact on rural dwellers is very real. Does the hon. Lady share my concern? If people do not have a bank or the face of someone to talk to, what do they end up doing? They can look towards unregulated moneylending and not receive the appropriate financial advice that they need. With that being the case, the banks and the massive profits they make mean that the ordinary person is suffering even more.

[Anna Sabine]

I totally agree. I had not considered that for my speech, but I will take away unregulated moneylending as a point to note.

Since the Financial Conduct Authority changed its regulations, Link has been able to do some valuable work to provide cash access to local areas. However, I urge the Government to look at how to make the regulations for Link more flexible to allow it to work on a case-by-case basis, as the current criteria do not take into account certain geographical and other barriers that affect rural areas. We know that 93% of people live within 1 mile of an ATM, which on paper sounds good, but it does not take into account issues that might come up in rural areas. For example, if someone lives in a village or hamlet, that 1-mile walk might have no safe walking routes and no bus connection. That is why we want to see the legislation expanded to include specific geographical, physical and societal barriers, so that they are taken into consideration.