Heart Disease and Stroke: Premature Deaths

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for setting the scene incredibly well on a subject that affects all of us. As always, I will give some stats for Northern Ireland, where unfortunately we seem to have a particular problem when it comes to premature deaths from heart disease and stroke. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease, which has looked at the subject in some detail.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well; she seems to be in Westminster Hall almost as much as I am, but with much more authority, I have to say. She and I have been friends for many years. I always start looking forward to her contributions the day before I hear them, because I know she will work incredibly hard to give us the answers we wish for; I thank her for that in advance.

It is also nice to see the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) in his place. He was a busy man when he was in Government and is now a busy man as a shadow Minister. He is always approachable, always dedicated and always dependable. We thank him for his commitment to the subject.

We cannot shy away from what the British Heart Foundation has rightly called a “ticking timebomb” on heart health. Across the United Kingdom, cardiovascular disease claims a life every three minutes. This debate will last for about an hour and a half, so the mathematics are quite clear: 20 people will have passed away between the start and the end.

I must do what I always do in this Chamber, which is to bring a specific perspective from Northern Ireland, where the crisis is acutely felt. It replicates the rest of the United Kingdom, in a way, but unfortunately the stats tell us that it is probably worse for us. The stats for Northern Ireland are indeed scary: an estimated 225,000 people are living with heart and circulatory diseases. To put that into context, because it is important that we do so in this Chamber, our total population is 1.95 million, so one in 10 of our citizens are fighting these conditions. When I walk up the high street in Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford, every 10th person I see will potentially be affected by heart disease, stroke or circulatory disease. That concerns me greatly.

The statistics from the British Heart Foundation’s Northern Ireland analysis are also deeply alarming. Cardiovascular conditions are responsible for 24%—nearly a quarter—of all deaths across Northern Ireland. That concerns me greatly, too. Even more heartbreaking is the fact that one in four of those deaths are premature, which means that the person could have been saved if they had had their checks or if help had come earlier. Because of my age, I can remember many occasions when someone has had a stroke or a heart attack and has died instantly. That includes some friends whom I have known over the years and who are not here any more.

It is also heartbreaking that those premature deaths are stealing the lives of people under 75. In a single year, we saw some 4,227 deaths due to cardiovascular disease. That means that every single month, 350 families in Northern Ireland are losing a loved one to a heart attack or a stroke. To put that into perspective, that is 350 empty chairs at the dinner table and 350 families left grieving. Sometimes, when we look at the stats, we think of the people who have passed away, but we must also think of the families on whom there is a significant impact.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is, as always, generous with his time. We all fully appreciate the slant that he brings from Northern Ireland. Would he agree that there is also the issue of regional inequalities within England? We see in Yorkshire and the north of England some of the worst rates of survival when it comes to cardiovascular disease. Does he agree that we need to do more to close the gap when it comes to people from more deprived backgrounds and the poorer health outcomes that they face as a result of heart disease, stroke and other CVD?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman always sums up the thrust of the debate in his interventions; he has outlined that there is sometimes a postcode lottery. He is also right to underline that in areas with deprivation where the emphasis on health is probably less, the issues and the number of those with heart disease rise as well.

I must also declare an interest: I have lived with type 2 diabetes for over 20 years. To put that into perspective, I could call myself a big fat pudding—I was 17 stone at one time. I am now 13 and a quarter stone. I have done that through a bit of willpower, but also by trying to cut out the sweet stuff. I am not always successful, but I do try very hard. My diabetes is controlled by medication, and I thank God every day that we are able to control it that way. I know first hand how closely linked diabetes and high blood pressure are. I take a tablet for blood pressure; I cannot speak for anybody else here, but when hon. Members come to a certain age, they probably will as well. Along with high cholesterol, those two things increase the risk of a catastrophic stroke or heart attack.

I was recently at the diabetes event in the Churchill Room. The lady in charge told me that people with diabetes must always get a check at least once a year—have their heart checked and ensure that their blood pressure is under control.

[Tom Gordon]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, I should say that we have been pushing to make sure that, when people with diabetes have those diabetic care processes, those are better linked with other comorbidities and ancillary services. Does he agree that we need to see more of that to get better outcomes for people with those comorbidities?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do; the hon. Gentleman and I most definitely agree about that.

The tragedy is that so much of this premature loss of life is entirely preventable; if it can be prevented, then we should be doing more. The British Heart Foundation reports that half of all strokes and heart attacks are linked directly to high blood pressure. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has again underlined that, as I have likewise tried to.

Right now in Northern Ireland, over 42,000 diagnosed hypertension patients are not being treated to clinical guidelines. That is unfortunate. Furthermore, 66,000 high-risk individuals are missing out on statins to control their cholesterol. There are things that can be done and prevention strategies that we should focus on. My hope would be that those will improve. If we optimise care, we can save hundreds of lives almost immediately. Surely if we can do that, we should be doing it. If we can treat blood pressure properly over the next three years, we can prevent 380 strokes and 260 heart attacks in Northern Ireland alone—the place I am bringing the stats from.

The issue is not just about statistics, of course. It is about early detection, standardising care and addressing health inequalities. I look to the Minister to outline what direct, co-ordinated action the Government are taking with their devolved counterparts: the hon. Member for South Ribble referred to that in his speech—I thank him for referring to the devolved Administrations, because this issue is about us all.

I know the Minister is always very responsive; has she had a chance to talk with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, to ensure that the good things done here are exchanged with him? What can be done with devolved counterparts to tackle the missing patients? They are missing patients, but if they are missing then it is time to put them on the list, to ramp up the diagnostic screenings and, please, to defuse this ticking time bomb before it claims any more of us in this Chamber, or our constituents.

Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Thursday 18th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered public toilet provision for people with stoma.

Thank you for standing in, Mr Dowd. It is much appreciated by us all. It is always good to have you in the Chair, no matter what, but today is a special occasion. This is not what I would call a particularly fashionable debate, but it is one that affects many people and it needs to be aired in Westminster Hall so we have the opportunity to put forward a case.

Throughout my life, I have had occasion to engage with people who have stomas. I never quite understood what they were, other than that there was something wrong with their bowel system and a stoma as a method to give them a normal life, if that is the right way to put it. In some cases, the stoma was there for only a short time because the person recuperated. Sometimes their body needed a bit of rest, and perhaps that was one way of doing it.

I am pleased to have secured this debate, and I am grateful to the colleagues who have come along to participate. I also place on the record my thanks to Colostomy UK for its support in preparing for the debate and, more importantly, for the work it does every day to support people living with stomas across the United Kingdom. I recently had the opportunity to meet representatives from Colostomy UK to learn more about the challenges it faces, and the challenges faced by patients living with stomas. The discussions highlighted an issue that many of us rarely think about, but it affects thousands of people every single day. This debate is not just about public toilets for those with stomas. At its heart, it is about dignity, independence and inclusion. Those are the three themes that I wish to put on the record.

I apologise for not saying at the beginning that it is lovely to see the Minister in her place. I understand that this is her first debate, and I wish her well in her new role. We will not be hard on her—that is not in my nature—but we will collectively put forward a case, and she will respond in a positive way to encourage us on what we are asking for. I have four asks for her to look at.

For most of us, access to a toilet is something we take completely for granted. We leave home to go to work, visit friends, attend events, go shopping and go travelling without giving it so much as a second thought, because there will always be a toilet. That reminds me of a story. When I was in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, John Spellar, who used to be a Member, told me that he had two pieces of advice when we went on a course—he always gave good advice. He said, “If you see a toilet, go, and if you see food, eat.” Those were the two things he told me to do whenever I went anywhere, and I have always remembered his words of wisdom. The fact of the matter is that I did not have a stoma, so I could go to the toilet anywhere, but it becomes a great problem for those who have a stoma.

We assume that if we need a toilet, one will be available, but the many people living with a stoma do not have that certainty. That is the key theme of this debate. For the benefit of those following, a stoma is a surgically created opening in the abdomen that allows waste to leave the body into an external pouch. People may require a stoma following bowel cancer, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis, trauma or other serious health conditions. I have had a couple of friends over the years with Crohn’s disease and one with colitis. For a short period of their life they had a stoma, which helped them to heal and eventually they were able to do without it.

For many people, a stoma is lifesaving surgery that allows them to have a comparatively normal life. It enables them to regain their health, maintain their independence and continue living active and fulfilling lives. Having a stoma should not mean they cannot do that; it just means they have to deal with the toilet issue.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate and raising awareness of this issue. Anyone who was at Prime Minister’s questions last week will have seen me talk about living with ulcerative colitis. I am grateful that the Prime Minister has arranged for the Minister to meet me to talk about the issues that people with inflammatory bowel disease face. If the hon. Gentleman or anyone else is interested in trying to join that meeting, should the Minister allow it, I would be more than happy to include them in that conversation.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I will take advantage of that opportunity if it comes.

More than 200,000 people across the United Kingdom live with a stoma. For some, it may be a short-term issue, their body may heal and they will recover—that is to be welcomed. However, there is a lot of anxiety for those who have to live with a stoma even for a short time. Many find that something as simple as leaving home can require careful planning and considerable anxiety. One of the strongest messages I took away from my discussions with Colostomy UK is that many people living with a stoma plan their life around toilet access. It is a fact of life, and if they are going to a restaurant or a shopping centre, or if they are going on a journey, they have to make sure there is toilet provision.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. He listed restaurants, businesses and other places where one might find a toilet. In recent years, we have seen the hollowing out of local government and the loss of publicly accessible toilets provided by town councils, unitary authorities or whatever it might be. Does he agree that when local authorities look either to close or to charge for those facilities, they need to consider the impact on people with stomas and other IBD conditions?

[Jim Shannon]

The very poor provision of toilets is an issue I will address shortly. Fortunately, we have been proactive in my constituency, which may be something that others wish to follow.

The availability of a suitable toilet can determine whether a person feels confident enough to attend a family gathering. When all the family is there and the kids are running about, they wonder, “Is the toilet handy?” or “Are there two toilets, if somebody is in one, because I need to make sure I get there fairly quickly?” It determines whether they can enjoy a day out, travel for work, visit a town centre or simply spend time with friends. It is not a situation any of us would wish to see.

Evidence gathered by Colostomy UK highlights the significant scale of the issue. Its Stoma Aware survey found that 62% of people living with a stoma avoid activities that many of us take for granted because suitable toilet facilities are not available. One in four had been challenged for using an accessible toilet, despite having a genuine need to do so. Most concerningly, 4% said they left home only for emergencies. Those figures are striking. It seems that they are almost a captive in their own house.

The figures tell us that this is not an issue of convenience, but of social participation, confidence and, for many people, isolation—isolation is the key issue. In this House, we spend a great deal of time discussing loneliness and social isolation, to which the Government rightly respond positively by trying to make the situation better. We talk about encouraging people to remain active in their communities and ensuring that those living with long-term health conditions are not left behind, yet, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) said, inadequate toilet provision can be a significant barrier to those ambitions, affecting the way a person plans their day, their journey or their outing.

If someone cannot be confident that they will find a suitable toilet when they need to, they may begin to avoid situations that others take for granted. They may stop attending social events, going to family occasions, travelling or visiting friends and family, or they may avoid shopping centres, cultural events or community activities. “If I go there and am caught short, where do I go? Is there provision? How far can I travel?” It is not that they lack the desire to participate, but that they are concerned about the predicament they might find themselves in because they lack confidence that the facilities they need will be available.

People living with stomas can also experience complications that require immediate access to a toilet, such as leakage, pancaking or ballooning. Those can happen without warning and often require urgent attention. I remember when one of my friends was caught short unexpectedly and went to the toilet. The problem was that his stoma had overflowed. Apart from the embarrassment, the people around him did not quite understand what was going on. For my friend, especially, it was incredibly worrying. Such situations can happen without warning and often require urgent attention, so when they occur, having access to a suitable toilet is not a luxury but essential—“We must get there right now.”

I have heard some of the comments made by people who responded to the Colostomy UK survey. One respondent said:

“I plan every journey around toilets. Sometimes I cancel plans because I can’t face the stress”.

That is the stress of not knowing whether a location has a toilet, whether they will have access to it or whether there will be a problem.

Another respondent said:

“I once had a woman yell at me for using the accessible toilet because I looked fine”,

and she could not understand what was going on. The respondent did not go out again for weeks because of the fear of having to deal with somebody else who might shout at her, maybe saying worse things.

Those comments are a reminder that many conditions are invisible. People should not have to justify their need to use an accessible toilet, nor should they be challenged at any time when doing so. The impact extends far beyond physical inconvenience; it affects confidence, wellbeing and quality of life.

It strikes me that the solutions to this issue are neither complicated nor expensive, so I have some thoughts to put to the Minister on how to move forward. We are not talking about major infrastructure projects or significant new financial burdens. In many cases, we are talking about practical measures that can make a substantial difference to people’s lives. The challenge is not a lack of solutions, but ensuring that those solutions are consistently available and embedded in policy and practice.

That brings me to the two key issues I wish to raise with the Minister. The first concerns public toilet provision. Across the United Kingdom, public toilets have disappeared from town centres and public spaces. Communities that once had facilities on which people could rely have seen those facilities close, often without any indication that they will be replaced. That issue is well known. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred to it in his intervention, and it will be commented on by others.

[Tom Gordon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on being one of the most generous Members I have encountered. On the provision of public toilets, the issue is not only the toilet closures, but the lack of maintenance and spending to make them a toilet that someone wants to use. Does he agree that we need to make sure that, where we have those facilities, they are up to the standard that anyone, let alone someone with one of these conditions, should expect?

[Jim Shannon]

That is, again, an incredibly powerful intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who is very focused on the issue. The toilet should be of the right level of cleanliness, and with the relevant attendance, so that it can be used by everyone.

The wider decline has been highlighted by the Royal Society for Public Health, which has warned of the emergence of public toilet deserts in the UK. Recent research found that there is now one public toilet for every 15,500 people in England and that public toilet provision has fallen by 14% since 2016. That is incredibly worrying, and highlights the importance of this debate. It is also why my requests to the Minister will be fairly specific.

For many people, the lack of provision may simply be frustrating; for somebody living with a stoma, it can be life-limiting. It can influence where they go, how long they stay and whether they feel able to leave home at all. Public toilets are not simply a convenience for many people: they are essential infrastructure and an essential part of everyday life. The Royal Society for Public Health has warned that, for some people, access to a public toilet can be the difference between whether they leave the house or not. That is the reality that Colostomy UK hears from people living with stomas.

I do not set aside the financial pressures facing local authorities, and I appreciate that there are difficult decisions to be made, but I hope the Minister agrees that nobody should be excluded from public life because they cannot access a suitable toilet when they need one. I therefore hope the Government will consider how local authorities can be supported to ensure that people living with stomas and other long-term health conditions are not disadvantaged by a lack of public toilet provision. I also hope the Minister will consider whether the current discretionary approach to public toilet provision is sufficient for those who rely on these facilities to participate in everyday life.

The second issue I wish to raise is separate but equally important. The first issue is whether people can find a toilet at all; the second is whether, when they do find one, it is suitable for their needs. That is key. Even where accessible toilets exist, they do not always meet the needs of people living with stomas. A toilet may be accessible from a mobility perspective, but may still lack the practical features needed by somebody managing a stoma, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough outlined in his three key interventions.

As I mentioned earlier, I am fortunate to be the hon. Member for Strangford, but I also represent the largest part of the Ards and North Down borough council area. What the council has done, which I have supported over the years, is so important and is perhaps a blueprint for other councils to follow. It has worked with Colostomy UK on a strategy and a process to upgrade all accessible toilets in council-owned facilities and make them become stoma-friendly. In doing so, it became the first council in Northern Ireland to make all accessible toilets within its facilities stoma-friendly, demonstrating real leadership on this issue. Ards and North Down borough council—the council I served on for some 26 years—has led the way, and I hope others will take forward its policy.

The improvements include practical additions such as shelves, mirrors, hooks and appropriate disposal facilities. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred to in his intervention, that is one way forward. Those may sound like small changes, but they make a significant difference to people managing a stoma. I commend the council for recognising the needs of people living with stomas and for taking practical action to improve accessibility across its estate.

The fact that the first council in Northern Ireland has already implemented changes demonstrates that they are achievable and can be delivered within existing public sector budgets. The council delivered those special features in the toilet facilities it has in my constituency. That is particularly encouraging, because it demonstrates that the solutions being proposed are practical and achievable and can be delivered. The council recognised the need, worked with people who understand the issue and implemented changes to make public facilities more accessible. The question we should ask ourselves is this: if we recognise that these features are necessary, why should their provision depend on the goodwill of individual councils, businesses and organisations? Should they not become the standard that people can expect?

As things stand, provision is inconsistent. Some facilities include those features, while others do not. As a result, people living with stomas cannot be certain that an accessible toilet will meet their needs. That is why Colostomy UK is calling for stoma-friendly features to be incorporated in part M of the building regulations and in future accessibility standards. These are constructive policies, put forward so that people with stoma bags are able to have a better quality of life.

The success of Changing Places toilets shows what can be achieved when the Government identify a genuine accessibility need and respond positively. The features required to make a toilet stoma-friendly are modest, yet they can have a profound impact on people’s daily lives. I therefore believe that there is a strong case for examining whether stoma-friendly features should become a standard requirement for accessible toilets in any new developments.

The Minister has already seen them, but before I conclude I have four specific questions for her. First, will she agree to meet Colostomy UK to hear directly from people living with stomas and discuss their issues further? I understand and appreciate that she has only just taken over, but if she could make the time, we would appreciate the opportunity to act on this issue.

Secondly, on public toilet provision, will the Minister engage with her ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to explore how local authorities can be supported to maintain adequate public toilet provision for people with stomas and other long-term health conditions? There are many pertinent long-term conditions, which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred to in one of his interventions.

Thirdly, on building standards, will the Minister ask officials to examine whether part M of the building regulations could and should be updated so that stoma-friendly features become standard for accessible toilets in new developments? Fourthly, will she work with Colostomy UK and other stakeholders to ensure that people living with stomas are able to participate fully in work, education, travel, culture, community life and, indeed, normal life?

Let us be quite clear: this is not a party political issue. In the debates that I bring forward, I try to never make it about that, because it is not; it is about the people. It is a practical issue, an accessibility issue and, above all, a human issue. No one should feel excluded from society because they cannot access a suitable toilet when they need one.

I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions, and I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for his interventions. I look forward to the contributions of the shadow spokespeople, the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), and I really do wish the Minister well in her role. Today we have the opportunity to work collectively to do better for our people.

Abuse of Customer-facing Workers

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for telling us the stories of this issue with passion, belief and conviction, as he so often does. He brought them to our attention capably today. It is always a pleasure to come along and support him. Indeed, I always do because he brings issues to the Chamber that are pertinent to me, which I will explain in relation to my constituency. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place—she is back as well. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), is also here again. It is almost like “Groundhog Day”, only with a different subject. We wake up at 6 o’clock when the alarm goes off, but I digress.

I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, as that is my duty here on behalf of my constituents in Strangford. When we talk about the rise of retail crime and abuse against customer-facing workers in Northern Ireland, we are talking not about isolated incidents but about a systematic, daily onslaught against our high streets. I am sad to say it is at that level in my constituency.

The latest figures from Retailers Against Crime expose the terrifying scale of the problem. Shoplifting in Northern Ireland has surged by a staggering 33% year on year. Let us be clear: this is not petty theft, but highly organised, aggressive criminal behaviour that has caused retail financial losses to skyrocket by some 45%. Far worse, it is not just a financial toll; there is a devastating human cost, as the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) said. That cost is the people who never thought that they would ever be threatened at their place of work, who probably know everybody in the community and who suddenly find themselves being threatened, traumatised and unable to cope. They never envisaged that as part of their job.

The retail union USDAW has revealed the deeply alarming statistic that 18% of shop workers in Northern Ireland suffered a direct physical attack over a single 12-month period. That means that nearly one in five workers went to do their job and ended up being physically assaulted. That is why this debate is incredibly helpful for our constituents and for those who want change and protection for shop workers.

My son Jamie, my eldest boy, was the manager of Shop 4 U on Newtownards High Street. He left that job some five years ago, but at that time he was the manager. It is a very big shop with an off-licence at the end of it. One night, as so often happened at that time, a guy came in, probably high on drugs. He had a knife in his hand and threatened Jamie. Jamie was right to step back and say, “Look, you go ahead.” Why would someone throw themselves in front of somebody with a knife who is perhaps unable to understand their pleas, or who is aggressive enough to ignore those pleas, whatever they may be? Why would someone do that if it is only for a bottle of whisky or gin or a dozen beers? A life is worth more than that. On that occasion they had CCTV in the shop, so they were able to chase up the individual and see where they came from.

My point is that the traumatic effect that that has on people will differ from person to person, character to character and personality to personality. Jamie was probably able to get over it because he is a strong young man. Somebody else who is threatened by a person with a knife may not be able to get over it. What about the ladies in the shop, for instance? What if Jamie had not been there as the manager of the store? I often think of how they would have responded. We look back at those things.

Furthermore, some 60% of all violent incidents, threats and verbal tirades directed at local shop staff are triggered by confronting shoplifters. Physical abuse is one thing, but verbal abuse can be almost as terrifying because of the aggression behind it. Our retail staff have been forced on to the frontline. It used to be a case of, “Let’s go and do me six hours, four hours, eight hours in the shop and fill the shelves, speak to the people, look after the customers.” But now they get threatened and, all of a sudden, their job is not the job they signed up for. They face everything from physical intimidation to the terrifying threat of ammonia and acid attacks. Bleach is used against them as well.

Our official Police Service of Northern Ireland data shows an overall decrease of 2.3% in standard police logs, which tells us a dangerous truth. It is one that the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned and he is right. That is also my perception in my constituency. It proves there is a massive under-reporting gap: every verbal or physical attack on a shop worker might not be reported to the police. If it is reported to the police, is there a reaction? That is what the hon. Gentleman referred to. Shop workers endure verbal abuse and threats every single day, but they do not report it because they feel the system has abandoned them. If they feel the system has abandoned them, the system has to change.

We cannot look at the numbers and do nothing. Our independent shops have been forced to absorb a massive crime tax just to pay for security. I am the oldest person in this Chamber—I suspect by far—and I can remember going to the shops down the road and there was not a security man in the shop. There was never any need to have a security person in the shop. There was no need for CCTV cameras. A police van was always available, by the way. It was never too far away. It was always on the beat, but things have changed.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will join me in commending the work that organisations such as the Harrogate business improvement district do to support the town centre in Harrogate. It has recently hired a business crime officer who has 30 years’ experience in policing. Having organisations that connect the shops, the town centre, the police and the council, keeping everyone looped together, adds real value to our communities. It helps keep them safe and reduces crime and threats to shop workers.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman always brings something pertinent to the debate, so I thank him for that. That is a positive step forward and probably one of the things that the Minister will respond to when she concludes.

We are talking about absorbing a crime tax just to pay for security when staff live in fear. They need to know that abuse is not acceptable, whether they are paid a minimum wage or £1 million a year. A job should never determine the abuse that someone has. We need to make that point very clear today.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly for securing the debate. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution and to the contributions of the two shadow spokespersons and the speakers who follow me.

Home-to-School Transport

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her diligent work as a member of the PAC, and for making that point about SEND, which I will come on to during my speech.

Local authorities in England spent £2.6 billion on home-to-school transport in 2024-25, which was a real-terms increase of 70% since 2015-16. SEND transport alone more than doubled in cost over that same period, and it now accounts for £2 billion of that total. These are enormous sums, but remarkably, the PAC found that the Department for Education does not know whether this spending is achieving value for money. It does not have the data needed to oversee the system effectively, and it cannot adequately measure the relationship between transport and school attendance.

The consequences of that failure are visible in other figures: some 1 million young people in the UK are not in education, employment or training, and one in five children of compulsory school age misses at least a day of school per fortnight, which rises to one in three at sixth-form age. The Department’s own assessment looks only at transport disruptions on the day they occur, not the wider issue of whether the system is keeping children in school. This is a serious blind spot, and one that the Government need to address.

This is not just a North Yorkshire problem; the County Councils Network has warned that three quarters of councils are expected to tighten mainstream transport eligibility in the coming years. What is happening in my constituency today, and across North Yorkshire, is a preview of what families across rural England will face if this direction of travel is not reversed. Nowhere is the picture more stark than in some of the stories that my constituents have told me, which is why I secured this debate today.

At the heart of the problem is a growing disconnect between two systems that are supposed to work together but increasingly do not. We have a school admissions system built around catchment areas and feeder school relationships, and a home-to-school transport framework that has been interpreted ever more narrowly as being for the “nearest school only”.

For many years, county councils bridged that gap pragmatically by offering transport to the nearest or catchment school. That reflects the realities of rural England, where many children live well beyond walking distance, where public transport is sparse or often non-existent, and where the geography means that the nearest school on the map is often not the most practical school to reach—sometimes there is a dale in the way, sometimes a river crossing, and sometimes a simple county boundary that bears no relation to how communities actually function.

As budgets tighten and authorities retreat towards the statutory minimum provision, councils are removing catchment transport and reverting to nearest school only. In rural areas like North Yorkshire, the consequences are severe and they are being felt right now. Within days of being elected, the issue of home-to-school transport was landing in my email inbox, and it has not stopped since. North Yorkshire council changed its transport policy to base eligibility on nearest school only, rather than the nearest or catchment school. The council says this is to address rising costs, which are now expected to exceed £52 million—one of the three largest areas of the council’s expenditure—with unsubstantiated claims of savings of up to £3 million over the next seven years.

I understand budgetary pressures, and I understand that local authorities are being squeezed from every direction, but understanding a pressure does not simply mean accepting the response to it uncritically, when the policy is clearly not working. The system that North Yorkshire council uses to calculate the nearest school is not publicly available, so families receive decisions with no ability to interrogate the methodology behind them. That opacity alone is a problem, but when we look at what the methodology is actually producing, it becomes something worse than opaque; it becomes absurd.

The council measures distance using the shortest available walked route to school, which sounds reasonable until we look at what counts as a “walked route”. That includes riverside paths, farm tracks, roads with no pavements or street lights, cliffside grass tracks and hiking paths over the dales. Campaigners have discovered that the council’s mapping tool has even been thought to include a private farm track and a ford crossing of a river as an available walking route to school. In reality, the ford is passable only by tractor and the track is on private land. One family appealed successfully against the use of the route, but it remains on the council’s mapping system, ready to be used again.

The School Transport Action Group has documented routes that children have been expected to follow, including climbing over metal barriers on the A64 and using paths that cross an active military firing range. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view of whether any of those constitute a “nearest available walked route”, in North Yorkshire council’s words. STAG, which was formed to fight the changes, has done determined and important work in documenting the human and financial cost of the policy. I pay particular tribute to Jo Foster, whose campaigning on the issue has been tireless and has helped bring the national attention that it warrants. STAG puts the situation plainly:

“North Yorkshire Council has lost the plot on home to school transport”,

and I am inclined to agree. More than 1,000 families have been affected, with more than 200 appeals and 20 ombudsman cases in the past year alone. A senior councillor who voted for this very policy has publicly admitted that it contains errors, and some families have been left as losers. This is not a rounding error; it is a clear policy failure.

STAG has completed a survey of families going through the process right now, the class of 2026. The group has 60 responses so far, and the findings are telling: nearly 59% applied to a school because it was their catchment school, more than a third already had siblings there, and 84% live in towns and villages that have a school bus going to their chosen catchment school, yet 73% will not be eligible for free transport. Nearly two thirds of those families have no back-up plan at all.

Some have told STAG what their options look like in practice. One parent said:

“My back-up plan is to leave my job so I can drive my child to school.”

Another said:

“We would have to consider driving, but we both travel with work and it wouldn’t allow us to do our current jobs.”

A single parent wrote:

“I would not be able to work. I am a single parent household.”

One parent captured the particular absurdity of sibling cases:

“I shall have to take extra overtime at work in order to pay for my second child to sit on a bus that my eldest child is already on.”

Those families who plan to buy a paid-for bus pass face a further cruelty. Those passes will not be confirmed until August. They will be subject to availability and can be withdrawn with one week’s notice. The council has made it clear that its intention is to phase out catchment routes entirely, as soon as possible. Families are therefore being asked to plan their working lives around a service that may not exist by the time that their child starts secondary school.

Those are not edge cases; they are predictable, documented consequences of a policy that has stripped the transport system away from the admissions system it is supposed to support. The costs have not disappeared; they have simply been transferred from the council to the rural families who can least afford them. Council officers have described the changes as ensuring “fairness and consistency”, but I will put some individual stories on the record and let Members judge that for themselves.

Leanne lives in a village outside Harrogate. Her daughter has been waiting three and a half years for a diagnosis, but is on the SEN register and has a PDA—pathological demand avoidance—profile with emotional-based school avoidance. There is no public bus through her village and no safe walking route. Leanne’s other child has Down’s syndrome and an education, health and care plan, and cannot travel to school safely alone. Both children need to be at school at the same time; Leanne and her husband both work full time. Under the new policy, they have been denied free transport to the nearest suitable school and are now paying £94 a month for a bus permit. She told me:

“The system is broken and does not take into account personal circumstances or rural villages’ needs.”

I agree with her entirely.

David lives in Upper Wharfedale. Every morning he drives in convoy with his neighbours, following the school bus past his house, because his neighbours qualified under the old policy, but he did not. For him, the bus goes to the nearest primary school, the only school that anyone in the local area has attended for 60 years, along the only safe route available. North Yorkshire council, however, is now saying that his children’s nearest school is Hawes, in Wensleydale. To get there, they would have to cross Fleet Moss, one of the highest and most remote routes in the country, which is treacherous in winter and frequently impassable. David and his family moved to the dales five years ago to run a farm diversification scheme, but they would never have come had this policy been in place then. He has told me that it will be

“the death of these communities, and that’s not hyperbole.”

I believe him.

Sophie, a friend I went to high school and college with, lives in one of the villages straddling multiple local authority boundaries, with a Doncaster postcode, North Yorkshire council oversight, an East Yorkshire postal address and a West Yorkshire phone number. Her children’s primary school cohort has been scattered across four secondary schools, in different local authorities and in four different directions. She made the point with her characteristic directness: it cannot possibly be more cost-effective to fund transport to four separate schools in four different directions than it would be to fund one bus to one school. The policy is not just unfair to families, but undermining the purpose that it is meant to be achieving.

There is also a wider consequence that is often not discussed. One in four small primary schools in North Yorkshire stands to lose pupils because of this policy. Small secondary schools in Settle, Whitby and Boroughbridge face an existential threat. When we hollow out the transport routes that sustain these schools, we do not just inconvenience rural families, but undermine the schools themselves and the rural communities they serve.

I also want to raise the issue facing SEND families specifically, and the additional injustice of a cliff edge at 16. I want to tell this Chamber about Noah, whose mother Catherine has shared his story with me. Noah deferred starting primary school by a year because he was unable to walk. After winning an appeal to attend St John’s, North Yorkshire council offset that deferred year and placed him in year 8. The consequence— I want colleagues to sit with this for a moment—is that Noah will now receive one fewer year of education than his peers, and four years of free transport rather than five because his transport entitlement ends at 16. He has already had more taken from him than other children, through no fault of his own, and the system’s response is to take even more.

Noah cannot walk independently and requires one-to-one support. His taxi to school has become the highlight of his day because it is the one moment where he does not feel dependent on his mum—when he can feel something like freedom. His family have one income, claim universal credit and have little to no savings; they cannot find the money needed to pay the monthly costs for school transport. When Noah turns 18, the assumption is that his mum will simply be able to drive him because she has a Motability vehicle, which will strip away his independence that took so long to build. This is not a bureaucratic edge case; the system does this to families like Noah’s without apology.

That is not an isolated experience. The Public Accounts Committee found that 40% of families with young people with SEND said that they needed to give up work because of transport provision ending when their child turned 16. Colleges report students failing to start courses because transport had not been agreed. I believe that there was an issue across the border in Leeds, where the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has already found the council at fault for its approach to post-16 SEND transport, identifying both individual injustice and systemic failure. However, families continue to report inconsistent decisions, inadequate assessments and personal travel allowances that do not cover the actual costs.

The charity Contact put it clear in evidence to PAC: the policy is simply not working post 16. The change in entitlement can feel like a cliff edge. For families who have spent years building routines and supporting a young person with complex needs, that cliff edge can be devastating for the young person and for every member of their family around them. We cannot have a system that claims to support inclusion and participation while simultaneously pulling the transport that makes participation possible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wanted to come along and support the hon. Gentleman in bringing this debate forward. He is a very assiduous MP in this House, whether it be on the Back Benches in the Chamber or leading debates in Westminster Hall, and I want to congratulate him on that. I also add my support to what he is hoping to achieve because, although this is not a responsibility for the Minister—this issue is devolved in Northern Ireland—we have similar problems when it comes to SEND issues, disabled children and road safety. In his quest to have a better system, I wish him well. I hope that, back home in Northern Ireland where it is devolved—the Minister here has no responsibility for it—we will see changes as well.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. As ever, he puts his point eloquently and passionately. I agree that, no matter where a SEND child is living in this United Kingdom, they deserve a lot better than they are getting at the moment.

I want to press the Minister on a number of specific points. The single most impactful achievable change that this Government could make is also the simplest. The statutory guidance on home-to-school transport should be updated so that the minimum provision becomes the nearest or catchment school, rather than solely the nearest suitable school. That one change would restore the alignment between admissions and transport that rural families depend on. It would give councils a clear framework and remove the incentive to reinterpret eligibility ever more narrowly. It would protect the community-school relationships that anchor rural life, and it would not even require primary legislation. I urge the Minister to give that serious consideration.

Secondly, I urge the Minister to impress on her colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government the need to reinstate the rural services delivery grant. The rural premium matters enormously for local authorities such as North Yorkshire, where distances are not a policy choice, but a geographical fact. Cutting that grant has had real consequences for the decisions that local authorities have to make, and those consequences are being borne by families in villages across the dales, across my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, and in North Yorkshire more widely.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and to open this debate on the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

Like many Members across this House, I welcomed the introduction of the Water (Special Measures) Act last year. After years of public anger over pollution, rising bills and declining services in the sector, the Act promised a tougher approach to a failing water industry. It pledged to ban bonuses for failing bosses, bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers, impose meaningful fines and introduce independent monitoring of every sewer overflow. On paper, that sounded like progress. In practice, the Act has proved to be little more than a drop in the ocean.

The Water (Special Measures) Act was meant to turn the tide, but right now the sewage is still flowing and so are the excuses from water bosses. The Act was intended to strengthen regulation and restore public trust, yet in the months since its introduction we have seen companies complying with the letter of the law while confidence continues to drain away. When regulation is drafted so narrowly it can be complied with but the purpose is undermined, it is quite clearly not fit for purpose and not strong enough. That brings me to a central question of this debate: how do we ensure that the principles of the Act are properly enforced, and that water companies are genuinely held to account?

Nowhere is the failure of the current system clearer than the performance of Yorkshire Water, which supplies water to my constituents in Harrogate and Knaresborough. The problems they face mirror those across the country, from poor customer services to rising bills and the persistent sewage pollution we see in our rivers.

Yorkshire Water was classified by Ofwat as “lagging behind” but my constituents are having to pay that price upfront. In October 2025, the Environment Agency gave Yorkshire Water a red rating for serious pollution incidents. Those incidents had almost tripled in 2024, leaving the company with one of the worst pollution records in the country. Despite this performance, customers have repeatedly been asked to pay more while receiving less. One constituent described their experience as:

“Probably the worst consumer experience I have had in my life”.

Against that backdrop, many were rightly shocked by comments from the Yorkshire Water chief executive when she suggested criticism of the company reflected

“a level of expectation from customers that’s much higher”

than it had been. With water bills expected to rise by as much as 41% over the next five years, and a hosepipe ban that was imposed from July to December, my constituents are entitled to ask how low does she think their expectations should be? If expectations are too high, then perhaps the problem is not the public but the leadership of Yorkshire Water.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Liberal Democratic party for all they do on water issues. That cannot be taken away from them: they are to the fore. Other parties may be a wee bit annoyed at that, but they are so active it is incredible. Well done.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the private companies do not appear to be tied to doing the right thing for the public as a whole, but to doing more for their investors? The ability to freeze bonus payments as a penalty should be used, and the consultation with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must allow this measure to be implemented in a quick and cost-effective manner, as a matter of urgency. Does he agree that is one thing that could be done?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It is a pleasure to take an intervention from him, as always. I completely agree with what he has outlined and the characterisation of the way that the water sector is, frankly, morally bankrupt. There is no interest in the public good. That is why my party has long been calling to see these companies reformed, where they have to put public benefit interest first rather than corporate shareholder responsibilities.

Long-term Medical Conditions

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing the debate and, like the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), I thank him for his service. I did not know he was a surgeon —I thought he was a GP—but whatever it was, I thank him. We are all indebted to him for his contribution.

It is great to speak in this debate as the Democratic Unionist party health spokesperson, and as an MP who has many constituents suffering from long-term health conditions. I frequently meet them to discuss the issues they face and, more often than not, the issue is benefits and help to fill in their benefit forms—I have a staff member who does nothing else but that. We are, then, face to face with those with complex and chronic long-term conditions. It is important to come here and make the case for them.

I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. Believe it or not, this thin young man—he is not young no more, by the way—used to be 17 stone. He is now down to just over 13 stone. Whenever I was told I was diabetic, the doctor was very clear that I really had to do something. A sweet trolley was going by the table—I remember that well; it has stuck in my mind all these years—and he phoned up to tell me. I went to see him because I thought there was something wrong, and there was something wrong, but thank goodness it was not what I thought it was at the time. He said, “You’re diabetic. The one good thing is that you’ve got a heart like an ox.” That was perhaps the one good thing out of it all.

I lost weight and was able to control my diabetes for four years or thereabouts, but then it got worse. I am now surviving with nine tablets in the morning and five at night. That keeps the condition subtle and manageable. This is not about me, but I wanted to tell that story because many people who are diabetic do not know they are. We always talk about early diagnosis, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and others will know.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

It is an honour to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes and I want to emphasise the point about early detection. A family recently got in touch with me who tragically lost their daughter because she had not been identified as a type 1 diabetic and ended up in diabetic ketoacidosis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to do more to identify people and screen them for chronic, lifelong conditions?

[Jim Shannon]

If I could ask for one thing in this debate, it would be that—it is important.

I should have welcomed the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) to her position; apologies for not doing that at the beginning of my speech. It is a real joy to see her there. It is better than whipping, I am sure she knows. This is two debates in two days running in which we have had Parliamentary Private Secretaries and, in this case, a Whip in the place of Ministers. I wish her well in her role today.

Many of the people I meet every day have diabetes, dementia, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, osteoporosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. COPD has been more prevalent this last while than it has been in the past. It is an accumulative disease, of course—it comes at the end of a person’s life, unfortunately —and it catches up with people, in many cases. It is not just about the long-term physical conditions; it is the depression, the anxiety and the mental health effects, as well as the pressure of life. The physical pressures are part of it, but the mental pressures come off the back that. Many of the people I speak to have complex needs, and might have one, two or perhaps three of those conditions, which adds to the issue.

Ahead of the debate I met representatives from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and spoke to them about the effect of cystic fibrosis on people. This week, I celebrate the people, like the trust, who have responded to cystic fibrosis by trying to find a cure. CF is a chronic, life-limiting genetic condition without a cure. It affects more than 11,000 people across the UK, with approximately 500 of those diagnosed back in Northern Ireland. I meet some of them regularly in my constituency. For those living with the condition, medication and general health must be considered when planning the simplest of projects or activities—even getting out of bed, for goodness’ sake, or going down the stairs or making breakfast. Going shopping is a no-no for most of them, and interaction with family is another issue. Being unwell can interfere with work and education every day. Research has highlighted the intense financial costs of the condition, which causes an average loss in income of nearly £6,800 a year.

This is not a direct attack on the Minister, but I have to make a point about the potential changes to the guidance on welfare and personal independent payments. I have raised before how the changes will impact people with certain health conditions who are on benefits such as PIP. I know that the Government are trying to get people who want to work back into work. Some people with these conditions cannot work, of course, but for people with other conditions there are days that they feel good, and days that they do not. They cannot regulate themselves and say, “I’m going to work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week,” because the fact is that they do not know how they will feel next week. They may not be able to get out of bed. The Government need to look at flexibility in the PIP process. That probably means that a person cannot do every job that they would like to do, and is restricted. It might be that they have to do some of their work from home. When they look at changes, the Government need to consider that.

The Government must commit—this is my absolute red line in the sand—to scrap the four-point rule for personal independence payments, which disproportionately harms people with conditions such as Parkinson’s and CF by failing to account for conditions that tend to fluctuate. That is the very issue I am trying to put forward. As I said, the cost of some of these conditions is financially challenging for many. Aside from the loss of PIP payments, it is also important that a safety net is provided by increasing the age of transition for young people who are currently eligible for disability living allowance but transferring to PIP. These are not issues that the acting Minister will understand, or respond to positively, in a focused way, but it is important to feed these issues into the process so that when Labour comes up with a way forward, it understands the issues.

I wish to speak briefly about the Government’s national cancer plan, which is extremely important for people living with cancer and the care they receive. The plan states that more care will be shifted from hospitals to local communities. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) asked the Minister for Secondary Care a question on the health and social care statement, and expressed disappointment at not hearing anything about cancer in the statement. The Government need to focus on cancer, including the early diagnosis of the disease and how quickly the process can move forward to ensure that people get treatment.

Back home in Northern Ireland, general practitioners are referring people for cancer treatment, and only 35% of those people have been seen. What a disappointment. That is not the Minister’s fault—it is a devolved matter, so it is the responsibility of the Minister back home—but if 65% of people who are diagnosed with cancer are not getting treatment, my goodness me! That comes to the point that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) made about his constituent who had to wait two and a half years—how long are people waiting to get treated? Sometimes the delay in treatment means that the person does not survive and passes away. What a tragedy that they did not get the response they needed at the time that they needed it. We need to be ever mindful that the care of people who require long-term cancer care is tailored to them and structured in a way that suits them and makes them as comfortable as possible.

It is wonderful how the NHS has advanced, and how the cures for cancer have advanced. Although 50% of the people in this room will get cancer, 70% of us will hopefully survive. Is it not marvellous how the NHS has progressed and how the research into finding the cure for diseases has marched on?

One in two people with a serious disability or other long-term condition, such as diabetes or heart disease, say that it is now harder than ever to get a diagnosis, and some people may have the complex issues I referred to earlier as well as cancer. Too many opportunities to support people are being missed. I look to the Minister for a response, and for her to say that the Government will do what they can, through the legislature, to provide support for people with long-term health conditions.

So many people across this nation are suffering and we must do more to ensure that their lives are made as easy as possible. I look to the Minister for a very positive answer. I hope that I have not given her a difficult time; that was not my intention. I try to do things in a respectful way, and hope my questions have not been too hard to answer. They are straight from the heart, and from the heart of us all, because we are here to work on behalf of our constituents. The stories that I bring to this Chamber are those of my constituents, and the hon. Member for Eastbourne brings the stories of his constituents. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) told us three or four different stories about vision, which is not something we hear about often, but those are the true, everyday experiences of his constituents. We need something in response to that.

When it comes to the answers, perhaps we could have a better working relationship with the devolved Administrations. I am ever mindful that health is devolved in all three of them, but there could be concerted plans. Whenever I first came to this place, we had a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland diabetes plan that was agreed by this Parliament and by all the regions and all the Administrations. Sometimes, we need to do things collectively. I always put forward the advantages, and this great nation—this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is great because of all the people who make up the component parts: the Scots, the Welsh, the Northern Irish and, of course, the English.

Accountability for Daesh Crimes

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Throughout our discussion, our deliberations and the formulation of the report, the Committee talked extensively about that. A number of issues pertain to the rights of a child, and one of the key structural points of the report is the deprivation of citizenship. We tried to avoid talking about specific individuals, but the report clearly sets out what we think the appropriate mechanisms are for the Government: namely, that the power should not be used as a tool routinely and that, where it is used, there should be review, accountability and scrutiny.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The violence against and the murder and rape of Yazidi women has been truly horrendous. Way back in 2010 or 2012, I had a chance to meet some of them. Yazidi women who survived have a story to tell against their Daesh perpetrators. Has every effort been made to collate the evidence and pursue the perpetrators? The testimonies of the victims must be used to condemn the perpetrators to a long and very, very painful time in prison.

[Tom Gordon]

The Government could do more to look at, collate and document that information, so that we have something that we can refer back to for similar situations that may, sadly, occur in the future. The evidence sessions were carried out in the last Parliament, before my election, but I have read some of the transcripts, and they were truly harrowing. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for people who had to listen to that evidence, or for the people themselves giving it. We owe it to them, and to all victims of such crimes, to ensure that we never allow their words to be forgotten.