Westminster Hall
Thursday 18th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:43
13:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I beg to move that this house is considered safeguarding human rights in UK supply chains, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Dowd, particularly at such short notice. Globalization and technological advances over the last few years have given us the ability to better connect across the world and improve our ability to trade globally with increased connectivity comes increased awareness of issues and events around the world. And one issue. This increased awareness has brought into sharp focus is human rights. In our countries, supply chains from the boho, from the Boohoo scandal of the exploitation of workers for £3.50 pay per hour in a factory in Leicester to the sweatshops in Bangladesh, making our clothes to state imposed forced labour in the Uighur community in China, we have never been more aware of the need to ensure that our supply chains do not involve human rights violations and the exploitation of workers at home and abroad.
Run our daily lives. But the uncertainty of not knowing where many of our daily products originate from, and whether they have been produced through forced labour and inhumane conditions, have wide ranging, wide ranging ethical and national security implications. Here is an example to illustrate the point. This morning, a nurse in the UK woke up to prepare her for her NHS shift. She wears a cotton uniform whose fibres were produced with Uyghur forced labour, eats a banana for breakfast grown by workers facing union busting in Costa Rica.
Checks her smartphone built with cobalt mined by children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. She makes her journey in a car fuelled by petrol from companies linked to threats against environmental defenders and indigenous communities in Nigeria. At hospitals, she puts on gloves made in a union busted factory in Sri Lanka and with lights provided by solar panels made with Uyghur forced labour in China. She uses surgical tools linked to child labour in Pakistan. On her break, she gets a cup of tea with a biscuit containing palm oil from Indonesia, where communities and forests have been swept away to be replaced with palm oil plantations.
I give way.
Run our daily lives. But the uncertainty of not knowing where many of our daily products originate from, and whether they have been produced through forced labour and inhumane conditions, have wide ranging, wide ranging ethical and national security implications. Here is an example to illustrate the point. This morning, a nurse in the UK woke up to prepare her for her NHS shift. She wears a cotton uniform whose fibres were produced with Uyghur forced labour, eats a banana for breakfast grown by workers facing union busting in Costa Rica.
Checks her smartphone built with cobalt mined by children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. She makes her journey in a car fuelled by petrol from companies linked to threats against environmental defenders and indigenous communities in Nigeria. At hospitals, she puts on gloves made in a union busted factory in Sri Lanka and with lights provided by solar panels made with Uyghur forced labour in China. She uses surgical tools linked to child labour in Pakistan. On her break, she gets a cup of tea with a biscuit containing palm oil from Indonesia, where communities and forests have been swept away to be replaced with palm oil plantations.
I give way.
13:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Mr. chairman, first of all, can I commend you for coming to to save the debate?It is said, Mr. Chairman, that you never go home, and maybe that's the reason why we're able to get you. But can I just say to the honourable gentleman for bringing forward this debate to thank him for that?It's really important and incredibly important. But does he agree?He's outlined a number of countries where the problems are very, very acute. But China is the worst of all.
They did it on an industrial scale of of, of abuse and human rights in particular. Some 70 million Christians abused the human rights and their their right to believe. Hundreds of millions of Uyghur Muslims as well, and some 7 to 20 million Falun Gong. China must be taken to task. And does he agree that when it comes to the summing up in the debate that the honourable lady needs to outline a number of methods to take China on. They've done 13.75 million of forced labour transactions.
It's time to stop.
They did it on an industrial scale of of, of abuse and human rights in particular. Some 70 million Christians abused the human rights and their their right to believe. Hundreds of millions of Uyghur Muslims as well, and some 7 to 20 million Falun Gong. China must be taken to task. And does he agree that when it comes to the summing up in the debate that the honourable lady needs to outline a number of methods to take China on. They've done 13.75 million of forced labour transactions.
It's time to stop.
13:47
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The honourable gentleman makes an excellent point, and I'm sure that many colleagues in this room will focus on the Uyghurs in their contributions. But he is right to highlight about the abuse that is going on in China and the need to address that. So this is the reality. New case supply chains today, products that we use every day integrated into our lives. And we need legislation to fix it to prevent the abuse of human rights and the degradation of the environment.
13:48
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So does my hon. Friend agree that it is our duty to promote human and labour rights wherever we can and regulate the countries denied the right to establish or join a trade union?So does my hon. Friend agree that it is our duty to promote human and labour rights wherever we can and regulate our global supply chain chains so that workers across the world can also enjoy the protection that we have here.
13:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My friend makes an excellent point. The. Trade union rights globally is seriously worrying and as a proud trade unionist, we need to make sure that trade union rights are respected in the supply chains that we have in the UK, and I will be coming on to that in my speech shortly. Our country is the birthplace of trade union of the trade union movement, and we pride ourselves on championing workers rights, human rights and our democratic values. Our Labour government recently passed the Employment Rights Act, the biggest reform of workers rights in a generation, bringing more security to millions of workers and making work pay.
Our freedom of association and collective bargaining, some of the most important rights that we have, allowing workers representation in the face of unfair treatment. Advocating for fair pay and protections against dismissal, discrimination and other unfair and inhumane conditions. The same cannot be said for workers around the world. Workers in 75% of countries are denied the right of freedom of association, and in many countries it is illegal to be a trade unionist. Coupled with attacks on freedom of speech, there have been countless reports of human rights activists and environmental defenders being threatened or even killed when challenging or opposing abuses by large corporations.
With 50 million people trapped in modern slavery globally and growing every year, and labour rights under under threat almost everywhere, it has never been more critical to tackle the issue head on. Without these freedoms, workers have no power to challenge inhumane conditions that exacerbate inequality and poverty, particularly for women and children. The UK was once a leader on safeguarding human rights in supply chains, but we are now falling behind. Currently in the UK, we have a patchwork of narrow legislation and guidelines on businesses and human rights that are not enforcing our moral duty to ensure that our supply chains are free from human rights abuses.
Our freedom of association and collective bargaining, some of the most important rights that we have, allowing workers representation in the face of unfair treatment. Advocating for fair pay and protections against dismissal, discrimination and other unfair and inhumane conditions. The same cannot be said for workers around the world. Workers in 75% of countries are denied the right of freedom of association, and in many countries it is illegal to be a trade unionist. Coupled with attacks on freedom of speech, there have been countless reports of human rights activists and environmental defenders being threatened or even killed when challenging or opposing abuses by large corporations.
With 50 million people trapped in modern slavery globally and growing every year, and labour rights under under threat almost everywhere, it has never been more critical to tackle the issue head on. Without these freedoms, workers have no power to challenge inhumane conditions that exacerbate inequality and poverty, particularly for women and children. The UK was once a leader on safeguarding human rights in supply chains, but we are now falling behind. Currently in the UK, we have a patchwork of narrow legislation and guidelines on businesses and human rights that are not enforcing our moral duty to ensure that our supply chains are free from human rights abuses.
13:50
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
At that point. I'm extremely grateful for my honourable friend for giving way. He'll know that I'm a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recently published a report on forced labour in UK supply chains, and one of the recommendations we had was that the government needed to strengthen section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, specifically strengthening the reporting duty in a way that reflects the size and capacity of the business in question. Does he agree with that recommendation, and would he like to see more done to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act?
13:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My friend makes an excellent point. It's actually part of my speech I'll be coming on to in just a moment, but I strongly support the strengthening of section 54 and its application. With the UK importing £20 billion worth of high risk goods every year. Our current framework is not effective enough in preventing goods made with forced labour from entering the UK market. Despite the government's stated position that no company operating in the UK should have forced labour in their supply chains.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was considered world leading legislation, as the UK was the first country in the world to introduce such legislation. However, the current transparency and supply chain reporting, as set out in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, is wholly inadequate, inadequate, applying only to organisations with a turnover of over £36 million and excluding public bodies, meaning many businesses and organisations fall through the cracks. The exclusion of public bodies from the duty to report transparency in their supply chains can leave our country's most important agencies vulnerable to being complicit in horrific human rights abuses, affecting, affecting overall not only the welfare of workers globally, but also the stability and growth of our economy.
Additionally, the transparency reporting duty in the Modern Slavery Act can be met by organisations simply declaring that they have taken no steps to address forced labour in its supply chains. This is simply not good enough. Corporate giants with big money are given a free pass to escape their moral responsibilities by not even looking for any abuses that are present in their supply chains. Businesses are at present able to voluntarily identify, mitigate or prevent any forced labour risks found in their supply chains. Many responsible businesses in the UK want to do the right thing, but are being undercut by corporate giants and less responsible companies.
Clear and enforceable rules are needed to provide the right guidance for businesses and to level the playing field for all. We can do this by introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to hold all businesses across all sectors, including financial institutions and the public sector, legally accountable for preventing human rights abuses and environmental harm in their supply chains. Mandatory due diligence would compel corporations to undertake proactive processes to minimise and manage the risk of violations within their operations by, for example, conducting risk assessments requiring their suppliers to fulfill certain conditions, or carrying out unannounced audits internationally.
We are far behind our allies and partners. All other G7 nations have either introduced or planned to introduce mandatory due diligence laws or import bans on goods made by forced labour, and the EU is doing both, with the UK seeking a closer relationship and alignment with the EU. We must act on catching up. Businesses have also spoken up themselves in the last few years. Over 150 businesses and investors, representing over 4.5 trillion in UK assets, have publicly demanded mandatory standards. The Trade Unions Congress, the Ethical Trading Initiative, the British Retail Consortium and the Corporate Justice Coalition, who collectively represent over 350 high street brands with £800 billion of turnover, have called on the government to introduce mandatory due diligence laws.
Public support also shows that people value companies who responsibly, responsibly source and produce products we use every day. With 4 in 5 adults supporting new laws by failing to update the current patchwork of legislation and guidelines, delaying the introduction of human rights and environmental due diligence laws. We are failing workers, communities and environments integrated into our supply chains, failing UK businesses who want to do the right thing and ultimately risking complicity of the UK economy and national security as well. The government has already made clear that supply chain resilience is critical to the UK's economic security.
The trade strategy in June last year committed to new supply. A new supply chain centre within the DBT to play a role in supporting businesses to address the risks of forced labour in supply chains. The strategy also launched the Responsible Business Conduct Review, the UK's implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. A year later, Parliament is still waiting for these reviews to be published and scrutinised. Although I very much welcome yesterday's publication of the Action Plan for the Supply Chain Centre, the trade strategy rightly recognised the strengthening responsibility.
Responsible business conduct is not only a moral imperative but also a positive part of the government's mission to grow the economy, supply chains and the need to ensure that they are free of abuses and harm are embedded into our growth mission. With modern slavery cost in the UK economy, £60 billion every year, we urgently need to ensure that we cannot lose out on more growth by simply introducing new legislation. Resilience of our economy goes hand in hand with our energy security. The conflict in the Middle East and the ongoing Ukraine-russia war, which have significantly contributed to the cost of living crisis for our constituents, have shown clearer than ever that the UK must become energy independent and continue focusing on renewable sources of energy.
However, the security of home grown energy is exposed when we look further into its supply chain. An estimated 98% of solar panels in the UK are produced in China, predominantly in the Xinjiang region, with forced labour in the Uyghur community. Therefore, the UK is at risk of being a dumping ground for slave labour. Produced solar panels. We must ensure that with new legislation, home grown energy through Great British Energy is produced through ethical means so that we do not produce energy to heat our homes while contributing to the inhumane treatment of workers and communities around the world.
Nonetheless, in addressing these challenges, we cannot overlook the unbreakable link between safeguarding human rights and the protection of the environment in supply chains. When there is a failure to protect one, the other suffers. UK imports of beef, soya, cocoa, rubber and palm oil, also known as the forest commodities, have wiped out forests the size of our major cities. The UK's deforestation footprint linked to these imports has increased to 39,000 hectares in the last few years, and is likely to be higher. The biggest culprit is corned beef from Brazilian companies such as JBS, who have been linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the earth.
When communities lose vital access to clean water because of corporate contamination or indigenous communities lose access to ancestral lands or environmental defenders are threatened or killed for speaking out against mega projects that destroy our environment. It becomes a human rights issue. New legislation must address all human rights and environmental harms in a way that provides clarity to businesses in ensuring that they are conducting themselves responsibly. They need to the need for legislation to address these issues will protect the workers, communities and the vital environment, including in producing our everyday goods.
Consumers in the UK can be sure that they are shopping responsibly and not contributing to abuses around the world, and businesses can have the clarity they need to do the right thing. So I therefore have a few asks of the government. Continues to await the publication of two reviews set out in the trade strategy last year. So can the Minister confirm when the Responsible Business Conduct Review and the National Baseline Assessment will be published and the key outcomes that should be expected from these reviews and a timeline from moving from review to action on the recommendation of each report.
Given the inter connectedness of human rights, labour rights and environmental harm, can the Minister also confirm that the government will engage in meaningful action to address this issue by adopting a thorough and holistic approach, rather than a narrow approach on responsible business conduct?Does the government agree that we need a cross-cutting and holistic legislation to provide clarity and certainty to UK businesses, rather than a patchwork approach that burdens businesses and enables irresponsible businesses?Whilst undercutting those who act responsibly. Failure to act on human rights abuses and environmental harm will damage the resilience of our supply chains and our economy.
Introducing the human rights and environmental safeguards to UK supply chains, set out in my speech is not just the right thing to do economically, it is our ethical and moral duty to do so and to ensure that the protections we enjoy in the UK are shared across the world.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was considered world leading legislation, as the UK was the first country in the world to introduce such legislation. However, the current transparency and supply chain reporting, as set out in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, is wholly inadequate, inadequate, applying only to organisations with a turnover of over £36 million and excluding public bodies, meaning many businesses and organisations fall through the cracks. The exclusion of public bodies from the duty to report transparency in their supply chains can leave our country's most important agencies vulnerable to being complicit in horrific human rights abuses, affecting, affecting overall not only the welfare of workers globally, but also the stability and growth of our economy.
Additionally, the transparency reporting duty in the Modern Slavery Act can be met by organisations simply declaring that they have taken no steps to address forced labour in its supply chains. This is simply not good enough. Corporate giants with big money are given a free pass to escape their moral responsibilities by not even looking for any abuses that are present in their supply chains. Businesses are at present able to voluntarily identify, mitigate or prevent any forced labour risks found in their supply chains. Many responsible businesses in the UK want to do the right thing, but are being undercut by corporate giants and less responsible companies.
Clear and enforceable rules are needed to provide the right guidance for businesses and to level the playing field for all. We can do this by introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to hold all businesses across all sectors, including financial institutions and the public sector, legally accountable for preventing human rights abuses and environmental harm in their supply chains. Mandatory due diligence would compel corporations to undertake proactive processes to minimise and manage the risk of violations within their operations by, for example, conducting risk assessments requiring their suppliers to fulfill certain conditions, or carrying out unannounced audits internationally.
We are far behind our allies and partners. All other G7 nations have either introduced or planned to introduce mandatory due diligence laws or import bans on goods made by forced labour, and the EU is doing both, with the UK seeking a closer relationship and alignment with the EU. We must act on catching up. Businesses have also spoken up themselves in the last few years. Over 150 businesses and investors, representing over 4.5 trillion in UK assets, have publicly demanded mandatory standards. The Trade Unions Congress, the Ethical Trading Initiative, the British Retail Consortium and the Corporate Justice Coalition, who collectively represent over 350 high street brands with £800 billion of turnover, have called on the government to introduce mandatory due diligence laws.
Public support also shows that people value companies who responsibly, responsibly source and produce products we use every day. With 4 in 5 adults supporting new laws by failing to update the current patchwork of legislation and guidelines, delaying the introduction of human rights and environmental due diligence laws. We are failing workers, communities and environments integrated into our supply chains, failing UK businesses who want to do the right thing and ultimately risking complicity of the UK economy and national security as well. The government has already made clear that supply chain resilience is critical to the UK's economic security.
The trade strategy in June last year committed to new supply. A new supply chain centre within the DBT to play a role in supporting businesses to address the risks of forced labour in supply chains. The strategy also launched the Responsible Business Conduct Review, the UK's implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. A year later, Parliament is still waiting for these reviews to be published and scrutinised. Although I very much welcome yesterday's publication of the Action Plan for the Supply Chain Centre, the trade strategy rightly recognised the strengthening responsibility.
Responsible business conduct is not only a moral imperative but also a positive part of the government's mission to grow the economy, supply chains and the need to ensure that they are free of abuses and harm are embedded into our growth mission. With modern slavery cost in the UK economy, £60 billion every year, we urgently need to ensure that we cannot lose out on more growth by simply introducing new legislation. Resilience of our economy goes hand in hand with our energy security. The conflict in the Middle East and the ongoing Ukraine-russia war, which have significantly contributed to the cost of living crisis for our constituents, have shown clearer than ever that the UK must become energy independent and continue focusing on renewable sources of energy.
However, the security of home grown energy is exposed when we look further into its supply chain. An estimated 98% of solar panels in the UK are produced in China, predominantly in the Xinjiang region, with forced labour in the Uyghur community. Therefore, the UK is at risk of being a dumping ground for slave labour. Produced solar panels. We must ensure that with new legislation, home grown energy through Great British Energy is produced through ethical means so that we do not produce energy to heat our homes while contributing to the inhumane treatment of workers and communities around the world.
Nonetheless, in addressing these challenges, we cannot overlook the unbreakable link between safeguarding human rights and the protection of the environment in supply chains. When there is a failure to protect one, the other suffers. UK imports of beef, soya, cocoa, rubber and palm oil, also known as the forest commodities, have wiped out forests the size of our major cities. The UK's deforestation footprint linked to these imports has increased to 39,000 hectares in the last few years, and is likely to be higher. The biggest culprit is corned beef from Brazilian companies such as JBS, who have been linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the earth.
When communities lose vital access to clean water because of corporate contamination or indigenous communities lose access to ancestral lands or environmental defenders are threatened or killed for speaking out against mega projects that destroy our environment. It becomes a human rights issue. New legislation must address all human rights and environmental harms in a way that provides clarity to businesses in ensuring that they are conducting themselves responsibly. They need to the need for legislation to address these issues will protect the workers, communities and the vital environment, including in producing our everyday goods.
Consumers in the UK can be sure that they are shopping responsibly and not contributing to abuses around the world, and businesses can have the clarity they need to do the right thing. So I therefore have a few asks of the government. Continues to await the publication of two reviews set out in the trade strategy last year. So can the Minister confirm when the Responsible Business Conduct Review and the National Baseline Assessment will be published and the key outcomes that should be expected from these reviews and a timeline from moving from review to action on the recommendation of each report.
Given the inter connectedness of human rights, labour rights and environmental harm, can the Minister also confirm that the government will engage in meaningful action to address this issue by adopting a thorough and holistic approach, rather than a narrow approach on responsible business conduct?Does the government agree that we need a cross-cutting and holistic legislation to provide clarity and certainty to UK businesses, rather than a patchwork approach that burdens businesses and enables irresponsible businesses?Whilst undercutting those who act responsibly. Failure to act on human rights abuses and environmental harm will damage the resilience of our supply chains and our economy.
Introducing the human rights and environmental safeguards to UK supply chains, set out in my speech is not just the right thing to do economically, it is our ethical and moral duty to do so and to ensure that the protections we enjoy in the UK are shared across the world.
14:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Can I just remind members that we've got about 5 or 6 minutes, give or take. So just just bear that in mind if you would, doctor. Ellie Chowns. Sorry if I remind members that they should. Bob if they wish to be called. I think we've got that. And the question is that the House is considered safeguarding human rights and supply chains. Ellie Chowns.
14:00
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Mr. Dowd. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'm sure I speak for us all in extending our warm thanks to you for stepping into the breach at the last minute. Very much so. To enable us to have this debate. And I thank the honourable member for Southgate and Wood Green for securing this timely and important debate. It's absolutely clear that UK business has global, environmental and human rights impacts. UK business has impacts on climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, waste management, deforestation and of course on human rights and labour rights.
As we have already discussed. And the government has indeed acknowledged these concerns. And this debate comes at a particularly timely moment because, as the honourable member has pointed out, we are awaiting with bated breath government release of announcements. Indeed, I note that the honourable member for Glasgow North tabled a question to the Secretary of State in January, asking when the Responsible Business Conduct Review would be would be published and the Minister of State responded with one word soon. It's now five months later, so perhaps the minister could assure us in her winding up that soon will mean really soon.
We would very much appreciate seeing that review. So it's clear that although we do have some parts of an existing legal framework, the Modern Slavery Act, for example, the Environment Act, and they are too narrow to meet internationally accepted standards. Single issue measures, such as robust legislation to prevent and address modern slavery, including through import and export restrictions of goods and services that involve forced labour, are useful, but they are not in themselves sufficient to address the full range of human rights and environmental risks and harms, and in particular, if they only require companies to report rather than take action, they do not have the force that we need.
And there is a risk here of the UK falling behind its international partners. The UK was once a front on environmental and human rights legislation, but progress has stalled. The EU's corporate sustainability Due Diligence directive will apply, of course, to UK, UK companies that generate significant turnover in EU markets, meaning that UK businesses will face mandatory due diligence obligations abroad without equivalent domestic standards at home. This doesn't make sense. The UK would be better able to produce and sell goods and services in the EU single market, as well as continue to position itself strongly as a global leader on human rights.
If we had our own mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation, and it's not just campaigners that are calling for this business is calling for a new law. A clear majority of businesses surveyed by the British Institute for International and Comparative Law believe that current UK laws do not provide clarity or sufficient legal certainty on human rights obligations. Nearly three quarters of UK businesses believe that additional regulation would provide benefits, including greater legal certainty and a level playing field. Indeed, I met a large business in my own constituency just a couple of weeks ago who made exactly this point.
A level playing field is needed. Business is calling for this. And of course, major businesses as in fact has already been reflected, including the British Retail Consortium, the John Lewis Partnership, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Twinings are all calling for new mandatory due diligence laws on human rights and environment. And again, as we've heard, over 160 businesses and investors representing trillions of pounds of investments are calling for the failure to prevent liability model. So this failure to prevent model, which is what underpins the Bribery Act 2010, of course, we already have the legal model in UK legislation that we can adopt.
In the same way, this is not having to reinvent the wheel, this is simply applying the wheel more consistently. And of course, three parliamentary committees have already recommended this. Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has specifically recommended legislation modelled on the failure to prevent framework of the Bribery Act 2010. So we have business calling for this. We have parliamentary committees and parliamentarians calling for it. Indeed, the Business Matters pledge to secure cross-party support from over 80 MPs and peers from across eight different political parties, and we have public support for this as well.
We have 145,000 citizens who signed a petition to call for this. We have three quarters of the British population. In a YouGov YouGov survey calling for stronger legislation on this. So in summary, mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation is not only the right thing to do to protect the environment, to protect human rights around the world, to be consistent. It's also good for our economy. As we've heard, we are missing out on opportunities by not adopting this legislation.
It is called for urgently by really major businesses who want the government to support them in showing leadership in this area, and it is strongly called for by the British citizens who care people in this country really, really care about the standards under which our goods and services are produced. We see this with the strong outcry about the continued import of goods and services from stolen land in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. We see this in the outcry over import of goods that are produced under slave labour conditions by Uighurs in China.
We see this in the outcry over import of goods and services that result in deforestation, that result in environmental devastation and climate damage. It's time for the government to act on this, and I very much hope that the minister will assure us that this will happen soon. Thank you.
As we have already discussed. And the government has indeed acknowledged these concerns. And this debate comes at a particularly timely moment because, as the honourable member has pointed out, we are awaiting with bated breath government release of announcements. Indeed, I note that the honourable member for Glasgow North tabled a question to the Secretary of State in January, asking when the Responsible Business Conduct Review would be would be published and the Minister of State responded with one word soon. It's now five months later, so perhaps the minister could assure us in her winding up that soon will mean really soon.
We would very much appreciate seeing that review. So it's clear that although we do have some parts of an existing legal framework, the Modern Slavery Act, for example, the Environment Act, and they are too narrow to meet internationally accepted standards. Single issue measures, such as robust legislation to prevent and address modern slavery, including through import and export restrictions of goods and services that involve forced labour, are useful, but they are not in themselves sufficient to address the full range of human rights and environmental risks and harms, and in particular, if they only require companies to report rather than take action, they do not have the force that we need.
And there is a risk here of the UK falling behind its international partners. The UK was once a front on environmental and human rights legislation, but progress has stalled. The EU's corporate sustainability Due Diligence directive will apply, of course, to UK, UK companies that generate significant turnover in EU markets, meaning that UK businesses will face mandatory due diligence obligations abroad without equivalent domestic standards at home. This doesn't make sense. The UK would be better able to produce and sell goods and services in the EU single market, as well as continue to position itself strongly as a global leader on human rights.
If we had our own mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation, and it's not just campaigners that are calling for this business is calling for a new law. A clear majority of businesses surveyed by the British Institute for International and Comparative Law believe that current UK laws do not provide clarity or sufficient legal certainty on human rights obligations. Nearly three quarters of UK businesses believe that additional regulation would provide benefits, including greater legal certainty and a level playing field. Indeed, I met a large business in my own constituency just a couple of weeks ago who made exactly this point.
A level playing field is needed. Business is calling for this. And of course, major businesses as in fact has already been reflected, including the British Retail Consortium, the John Lewis Partnership, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Twinings are all calling for new mandatory due diligence laws on human rights and environment. And again, as we've heard, over 160 businesses and investors representing trillions of pounds of investments are calling for the failure to prevent liability model. So this failure to prevent model, which is what underpins the Bribery Act 2010, of course, we already have the legal model in UK legislation that we can adopt.
In the same way, this is not having to reinvent the wheel, this is simply applying the wheel more consistently. And of course, three parliamentary committees have already recommended this. Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has specifically recommended legislation modelled on the failure to prevent framework of the Bribery Act 2010. So we have business calling for this. We have parliamentary committees and parliamentarians calling for it. Indeed, the Business Matters pledge to secure cross-party support from over 80 MPs and peers from across eight different political parties, and we have public support for this as well.
We have 145,000 citizens who signed a petition to call for this. We have three quarters of the British population. In a YouGov YouGov survey calling for stronger legislation on this. So in summary, mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation is not only the right thing to do to protect the environment, to protect human rights around the world, to be consistent. It's also good for our economy. As we've heard, we are missing out on opportunities by not adopting this legislation.
It is called for urgently by really major businesses who want the government to support them in showing leadership in this area, and it is strongly called for by the British citizens who care people in this country really, really care about the standards under which our goods and services are produced. We see this with the strong outcry about the continued import of goods and services from stolen land in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. We see this in the outcry over import of goods that are produced under slave labour conditions by Uighurs in China.
We see this in the outcry over import of goods and services that result in deforestation, that result in environmental devastation and climate damage. It's time for the government to act on this, and I very much hope that the minister will assure us that this will happen soon. Thank you.
14:06
14:06
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thanks to my hon. Friend from Southgate and Woodgreen for securing the debate. It's much needed and also thanks to you, chair. Not often I'll be thanking Everton supporter for anything, but thank you very much for stepping into the breach. But also, can I just thank. A number of organisations have been working incredibly hard with this on a number of fronts on this for some time. I just list them. Corporate Justice coalition, large coalition organisations.
I want to thank the TUC and my own union, unison, for the briefings. The anti-slavery international, ActionAid and Sara Ben Gordon, who put together a whole range of information from herself and also the wonderful House of Commons library. I've. I want to say that I actually think the Joint Committee on Human Rights Report is an excellent piece of work. Um, not. Not surprisingly, the honourable member for Bracknell has gone, but um, he's a specialist in Aristotle and you can see the logic in the report that that's come out.
Um my I've read through the government's response and I just want to make sure I've got this clear and the minister can clarify later what the response says, that the government shares our concerns. That's been expressed in the Committee of human. The Human Rights Committee's concerns. It accepts there are real worries about global supply chains, and we've got to ensure that as a country, we're not complicit. The second part of the government's response is that it's actively exploring options to strengthen protections.
And the third element, as others have noted, is that its response will be based upon the trade strategy review. Um, launched some time ago, aimed at um to ensure that we have responsible business conduct across supply chains and companies operating in the UK. What I found interesting in the government's response is it listed the exactly the same concerns as human rights, labour rights and environmental concerns and anti-corruption. It also said there has to be a due regard to costs. We understand that by implementation, but then listed the departments it was engaged in the review.
The Home Office, Department of Business and Trade, Foreign Office, Fcdo, the Cabinet Office but no Treasury, no Treasury whatsoever and there didn't seem to be any reference to the either the Financial Conduct Authority or the Bank of England or others. And that's the small point I want to make, really, in this debate. The finance sector seems to be an excluded from the whole debate. It's certainly not covered in any of the reports so far. And as I say, we need to be concerned.
It's not just about goods in. Our concern is about finance out and about the scale of investment in the city and our finance sector. Unfortunately, in abusive business practices on the globe, sometimes funded by money that's been laundered into the city and then laundered out. And I remind people about only a few years ago, the City of London was described as the Russian laundromat. Russian money, the oligarchs money was coming in here, then invested in a whole range of schemes which abused human rights and brought about environmental degradation.
Now, so that's why I just want to know whether or not in this overall review, the finance sector is to be included. At the moment, the what's covering the finance sector is largely. We rely upon the corporate Sustainability and due Diligence directive from the EU. The problem is the omnibus proposal in 2025 literally softened, watered down the. The role that would play the requirements within it. But also there's a finance exemption. The large section of the finance sector completely exempted.
So investment and lending is largely exempt. Um, in terms of the requirements on due diligence. It also excludes downstream partners. So the companies that they invest in. But in addition to that, there's no reference to shadow banking at all. Shadow banking is going on at the moment, virtually unregulated overall. There's others. There's the EU, sustainable finance disclosure regulations, but there's various interpretations of how asset managers could comply with that. And in addition to that, what we've got to the situation is compliance is virtually voluntary, certainly unclear and certainly unmonitored.
So then we rely upon the treaties and memorandums of understanding. But first of all, the standards about human rights abuse and labour rights abuse are not consistently applied in treaties. And if you look at the the Pacac Committee, the public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report, and I served on it at the time, is treaties are virtually. Devoid. Of any parliamentary scrutiny and memoranda of understanding as well. We never debate treaties on the floor of the House. And in fact, there's no central register of memoranda of understanding where we can even understand where we can get some comprehension of what they're covered, etc..
So that's as a result of that. There are just numerous examples of what the implications of this unregulated of finance sector with regard to human rights abuse and environmental degradation. So very quickly, my question is whether any new supply chain legislation will cover the finance sector and if it does, what consultation is now going to take place to ensure it is included, who will be involved in those consultations?Exactly?My hon. Friend's question what's the timescale?Because we're waiting and soon is becoming a long soon that we've had so far.
Um, I, we I don't want to get too far into debate. I'll shut up at this point, but there's always this argument about finance regulation. Um, somehow restrains the animal spirits. And as a result of that undermines growth actually in the finance sector. My word is my bond and trust and confidence is the most important element in the finance sector. And as a result of that, proper regulation is required to maintain that trust.
I want to thank the TUC and my own union, unison, for the briefings. The anti-slavery international, ActionAid and Sara Ben Gordon, who put together a whole range of information from herself and also the wonderful House of Commons library. I've. I want to say that I actually think the Joint Committee on Human Rights Report is an excellent piece of work. Um, not. Not surprisingly, the honourable member for Bracknell has gone, but um, he's a specialist in Aristotle and you can see the logic in the report that that's come out.
Um my I've read through the government's response and I just want to make sure I've got this clear and the minister can clarify later what the response says, that the government shares our concerns. That's been expressed in the Committee of human. The Human Rights Committee's concerns. It accepts there are real worries about global supply chains, and we've got to ensure that as a country, we're not complicit. The second part of the government's response is that it's actively exploring options to strengthen protections.
And the third element, as others have noted, is that its response will be based upon the trade strategy review. Um, launched some time ago, aimed at um to ensure that we have responsible business conduct across supply chains and companies operating in the UK. What I found interesting in the government's response is it listed the exactly the same concerns as human rights, labour rights and environmental concerns and anti-corruption. It also said there has to be a due regard to costs. We understand that by implementation, but then listed the departments it was engaged in the review.
The Home Office, Department of Business and Trade, Foreign Office, Fcdo, the Cabinet Office but no Treasury, no Treasury whatsoever and there didn't seem to be any reference to the either the Financial Conduct Authority or the Bank of England or others. And that's the small point I want to make, really, in this debate. The finance sector seems to be an excluded from the whole debate. It's certainly not covered in any of the reports so far. And as I say, we need to be concerned.
It's not just about goods in. Our concern is about finance out and about the scale of investment in the city and our finance sector. Unfortunately, in abusive business practices on the globe, sometimes funded by money that's been laundered into the city and then laundered out. And I remind people about only a few years ago, the City of London was described as the Russian laundromat. Russian money, the oligarchs money was coming in here, then invested in a whole range of schemes which abused human rights and brought about environmental degradation.
Now, so that's why I just want to know whether or not in this overall review, the finance sector is to be included. At the moment, the what's covering the finance sector is largely. We rely upon the corporate Sustainability and due Diligence directive from the EU. The problem is the omnibus proposal in 2025 literally softened, watered down the. The role that would play the requirements within it. But also there's a finance exemption. The large section of the finance sector completely exempted.
So investment and lending is largely exempt. Um, in terms of the requirements on due diligence. It also excludes downstream partners. So the companies that they invest in. But in addition to that, there's no reference to shadow banking at all. Shadow banking is going on at the moment, virtually unregulated overall. There's others. There's the EU, sustainable finance disclosure regulations, but there's various interpretations of how asset managers could comply with that. And in addition to that, what we've got to the situation is compliance is virtually voluntary, certainly unclear and certainly unmonitored.
So then we rely upon the treaties and memorandums of understanding. But first of all, the standards about human rights abuse and labour rights abuse are not consistently applied in treaties. And if you look at the the Pacac Committee, the public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report, and I served on it at the time, is treaties are virtually. Devoid. Of any parliamentary scrutiny and memoranda of understanding as well. We never debate treaties on the floor of the House. And in fact, there's no central register of memoranda of understanding where we can even understand where we can get some comprehension of what they're covered, etc..
So that's as a result of that. There are just numerous examples of what the implications of this unregulated of finance sector with regard to human rights abuse and environmental degradation. So very quickly, my question is whether any new supply chain legislation will cover the finance sector and if it does, what consultation is now going to take place to ensure it is included, who will be involved in those consultations?Exactly?My hon. Friend's question what's the timescale?Because we're waiting and soon is becoming a long soon that we've had so far.
Um, I, we I don't want to get too far into debate. I'll shut up at this point, but there's always this argument about finance regulation. Um, somehow restrains the animal spirits. And as a result of that undermines growth actually in the finance sector. My word is my bond and trust and confidence is the most important element in the finance sector. And as a result of that, proper regulation is required to maintain that trust.
14:13
14:13
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you very much indeed. Uh, it's always a blessing to have you chairing a meeting. It's particularly a blessing today as we wouldn't have this debate were you not here. So my thanks to you and on everybody else in this committee as well. Um, I've been active on this subject for some time now. I've been sanctioned by China because of the issues that we've raised over modern day slavery. And it was, if I remind those here, the um, centre for Social Justice, which I set up that first published the paper, it happens here, which we were able to then get the government to initiate the first in the world, a modern day slavery act, which we were all very proud of.
But the sad part about that act is it really has no enforcement and it has no obligations to check by government or by suppliers. They're supposed to make a declaration. But we know that many of those declarations are, in fact, false, deliberately false. They don't have to because they know they're not going to be checked, and therefore they don't have to worry about it. So while the act is great, it's rather toothless. And I agree with the hon.
I congratulate him, by the way, for getting this debate and for making such a good intervention at the beginning, and I'm not going to repeat all that, he said, because I agree with so much of it.
But the sad part about that act is it really has no enforcement and it has no obligations to check by government or by suppliers. They're supposed to make a declaration. But we know that many of those declarations are, in fact, false, deliberately false. They don't have to because they know they're not going to be checked, and therefore they don't have to worry about it. So while the act is great, it's rather toothless. And I agree with the hon.
I congratulate him, by the way, for getting this debate and for making such a good intervention at the beginning, and I'm not going to repeat all that, he said, because I agree with so much of it.
14:14
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Pete all that he said, because I agree with so much of it. And in the limited time, I just want to focus on some issues here. The first is that, you know, the reality for us is that slave labor is not just a massive punishment. It is not just a human rights abuse on a scale wider anything else as is genocide, slave labor is also commercial. And the reality is that countries like China use slave labor as a way of undercutting markets, competing unfairly, and driving businesses out of business, particularly here in the UK.
As we've experienced. And one of the big areas is this issue about the net zero determination and what we wish to do to clean up the environment. But at the same time, the biggest providers of the solar arrays and the wind farms themselves and the technology are in fact based in China. And so the big problem we have is you have two. Conflicting requirements from government, government quite reality wants to get on with cleaning up the environment. But at the same time, they know that if they can't buy from China on a clear set of of supply chains that are.
Without this. This will cost them more money. And this has an impact on the pace and the way in which they can provide for a cleaner atmosphere. So we have to say one thing is more important than the other. And it has to be the human rights of those people who are being abused in places like China. Surely at the end of the day, we cannot, with any grace, go to bed at night saying that we were able to get more solar arrays and more wind farms put up, but people that were producing them may well have died in that process, or been abused, or have their lives and their families destroyed.
We know that China in the case of Xinjiang, is committing a well-established genocide and a genocide. That is so, so scaled up that you have all the children now in forced education camps. You have the adult males, millions of them now in forced labor, many of them producing the polysilicon that goes into the arrays that are made in and around Xinjiang. And of course, the women, unbelievably, are being forcibly sterilized. The birth rate in Xinjiang has gone off the edge of a cliff, and they are going to eradicate an ethnic group.
That is very much the policy of the Chinese Communist Party is to have basically Han Chinese in charge of China. Nobody else. At the end of this. They also make money off the fact that these people in slave labor, as I said earlier, are now producing goods much cheaper than anybody else can. Now, if we look at what we're not doing, we are not checking supply chains. The government and by the way, whoever was in government on this, I've been in opposition, frankly, the last government and this government have not made a big effort to get those company declarations checked and go along.
I've had responses from government now and before saying, well, they're doing their best. They're trying hard. It's not good enough to do your best or try hard, because the question is, what is the best?And if we look at what's going on in other places, I just want to say to the USA's act that basically outlawed all use of slave labor in any of the supply chains. They also put the means in place to check on that. So the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States creates a rebuttable presumption that goods produced wholly or partly in Xinjiang and other places of slave labor are made with forced labor.
Unless importers can improve, can prove otherwise. That is the way that you do it, you say to them, you must now prove to us that you have avoided any slave labor in your product. Failure to do that has you banned and fined. I mean, it's immediate. And they don't just sit there saying, well, we're helping. Other bits of government are helping us because be honest with you, the government doesn't have the ability to check themselves. They don't have what it takes.
There are companies out there that do this regularly. One of them is a company that I met myself. Forensic companies such as Oratane was based in New Zealand, make a speciality of using forensic science to check where the goods were made, and they know from that what the footprint is of likelihood of slave labour. So they will immediately investigate the declaration by the company and will challenge them. And if they challenge them, the US government will ban them and find them.
And that has led to a whole rerouting of supply chains across China for the US market. Sadly, that has meant that they redouble their efforts with slave labour into markets like the UK, because they know the UK is a soft option. And if you look around the countryside of the east of England and others, you will see a load of arrays out there. I will bet you that the vast majority of those were made with slave labour, because no checks were taken out. And so the reality is we have to do more.
The the modern day Slavery Act, which a great supporter of. And we in government got it through, has now become toothless. 54 needs to be upgraded. It needs to have it as a as a punishment. There needs to be the ability of government to prosecute immediately and for the necessity for those checks to take place of the supply chains. And I want to just end with this. The reality is that we have a mess out there of legislation.
I managed to get an amendment through with colleagues on both sides of the House, on the Great British Energy Bill, to ban them from using any products made with slave labour. It was a classic rebellion, but we got this done. Yet when I've checked, next to nothing has been done about that. That is in fact an offence in there. But nothing has been done by government to call out any of the companies that are selling them. And the other one we have in the health service is the Health and Care Act, where we put a similar obligation in and next to nothing we can see has been done in that no declarations, no, no speeches to Parliament about what they've done.
But we can't go on doing this piecemeal. It has to be done across the board, and this is why I support the honourable gentleman in his call for the modern day Slavery Act, to have teeth, and for article 54 to be implemented so that any business that is found, having been checked properly, to have misdeclared themselves and their supply chain, should be punished, they should be banished from importing to the UK, and they should face financial and even criminal penalties. That way we will stop it.
As we've experienced. And one of the big areas is this issue about the net zero determination and what we wish to do to clean up the environment. But at the same time, the biggest providers of the solar arrays and the wind farms themselves and the technology are in fact based in China. And so the big problem we have is you have two. Conflicting requirements from government, government quite reality wants to get on with cleaning up the environment. But at the same time, they know that if they can't buy from China on a clear set of of supply chains that are.
Without this. This will cost them more money. And this has an impact on the pace and the way in which they can provide for a cleaner atmosphere. So we have to say one thing is more important than the other. And it has to be the human rights of those people who are being abused in places like China. Surely at the end of the day, we cannot, with any grace, go to bed at night saying that we were able to get more solar arrays and more wind farms put up, but people that were producing them may well have died in that process, or been abused, or have their lives and their families destroyed.
We know that China in the case of Xinjiang, is committing a well-established genocide and a genocide. That is so, so scaled up that you have all the children now in forced education camps. You have the adult males, millions of them now in forced labor, many of them producing the polysilicon that goes into the arrays that are made in and around Xinjiang. And of course, the women, unbelievably, are being forcibly sterilized. The birth rate in Xinjiang has gone off the edge of a cliff, and they are going to eradicate an ethnic group.
That is very much the policy of the Chinese Communist Party is to have basically Han Chinese in charge of China. Nobody else. At the end of this. They also make money off the fact that these people in slave labor, as I said earlier, are now producing goods much cheaper than anybody else can. Now, if we look at what we're not doing, we are not checking supply chains. The government and by the way, whoever was in government on this, I've been in opposition, frankly, the last government and this government have not made a big effort to get those company declarations checked and go along.
I've had responses from government now and before saying, well, they're doing their best. They're trying hard. It's not good enough to do your best or try hard, because the question is, what is the best?And if we look at what's going on in other places, I just want to say to the USA's act that basically outlawed all use of slave labor in any of the supply chains. They also put the means in place to check on that. So the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States creates a rebuttable presumption that goods produced wholly or partly in Xinjiang and other places of slave labor are made with forced labor.
Unless importers can improve, can prove otherwise. That is the way that you do it, you say to them, you must now prove to us that you have avoided any slave labor in your product. Failure to do that has you banned and fined. I mean, it's immediate. And they don't just sit there saying, well, we're helping. Other bits of government are helping us because be honest with you, the government doesn't have the ability to check themselves. They don't have what it takes.
There are companies out there that do this regularly. One of them is a company that I met myself. Forensic companies such as Oratane was based in New Zealand, make a speciality of using forensic science to check where the goods were made, and they know from that what the footprint is of likelihood of slave labour. So they will immediately investigate the declaration by the company and will challenge them. And if they challenge them, the US government will ban them and find them.
And that has led to a whole rerouting of supply chains across China for the US market. Sadly, that has meant that they redouble their efforts with slave labour into markets like the UK, because they know the UK is a soft option. And if you look around the countryside of the east of England and others, you will see a load of arrays out there. I will bet you that the vast majority of those were made with slave labour, because no checks were taken out. And so the reality is we have to do more.
The the modern day Slavery Act, which a great supporter of. And we in government got it through, has now become toothless. 54 needs to be upgraded. It needs to have it as a as a punishment. There needs to be the ability of government to prosecute immediately and for the necessity for those checks to take place of the supply chains. And I want to just end with this. The reality is that we have a mess out there of legislation.
I managed to get an amendment through with colleagues on both sides of the House, on the Great British Energy Bill, to ban them from using any products made with slave labour. It was a classic rebellion, but we got this done. Yet when I've checked, next to nothing has been done about that. That is in fact an offence in there. But nothing has been done by government to call out any of the companies that are selling them. And the other one we have in the health service is the Health and Care Act, where we put a similar obligation in and next to nothing we can see has been done in that no declarations, no, no speeches to Parliament about what they've done.
But we can't go on doing this piecemeal. It has to be done across the board, and this is why I support the honourable gentleman in his call for the modern day Slavery Act, to have teeth, and for article 54 to be implemented so that any business that is found, having been checked properly, to have misdeclared themselves and their supply chain, should be punished, they should be banished from importing to the UK, and they should face financial and even criminal penalties. That way we will stop it.
14:21
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, sir. Under your chairmanship, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Southgate and Woodgreen for securing this important debate, which has implications for human rights everywhere, whether here at home in Malaysia, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo or elsewhere. Today I will be focusing my remarks firstly on Bangladesh. In May, the all party parliamentary group on Bangladesh, which I chair, held a meeting on workers rights and labour conditions in Bangladesh, where we were jointly, where we where we were joined by the Rana Plaza Solidarity Collective, the International Centre for Trade Union Rights and Human Rights Lawyers.
Following the 13th anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse. That day, on the 25th of April 2013, 1134 garment workers lost their lives in what trade unions at the. At the time, described as mass industrial homicide. This incident exposed the brutality of the global production system, in which labour rights are constantly under attack, and I want to be clear those Bangladeshi lives would not have been taken if workers rights, which are human rights, were respected in global supply chains. Before the Rana Plaza collapse, workers safety concerns were unheard by managers and their attempts to organize unions to address their unsafe working conditions were suppressed.
We know that a global outrage followed the collapse of Rana Plaza, and it is true that there have been some welcome advances in workers rights in Bangladesh since then. But the truth is that the gains have been slow and partial, unevenly, unevenly distributed across industries as well. This is in part because of a failure to implement universal mandatory responsibilities for human rights and labor rights. Instead, what we have seen is the spread of voluntary mechanisms for safeguarding rights. So. Brands in the global north which want to avoid reputational risk are the ones which implement safeguards themselves.
Now, many garment industry workers supplying, like the likes of Zara or Walmart, do benefit from some measures introduced on labour rights. But it is not universal. For those in sectors less exposed to reputational damage. It is a different story. For example, in Chittagong's deadly shipbreaking, industry workers, including child labourers, still face highly dangerous conditions without safety equipment or compensation upon death, shipping being what it is means that this affects nearly every supply chain in the world and. And I think we just cannot pretend that Bangladesh's garment or exporting factories themselves are now all safe.
As labour behind the label have pointed out, fires at two separate factories last autumn in which 17 people were killed have shown the glaring gaps in protections between firms that have adopted the international accord and those which have not. In the years since Rana Plaza, Bangladesh has therefore seen another 7160 deaths in the workplace, a figure which itself is likely a gross undercount. That figure alone should tell us that we have long moved past the point where voluntary corporate responsibilities alone can be considered sufficient. And as we explored in the Appg on Bangladesh in response to the Rana Plaza collapse, France introduced its due duty of vigilance law requiring companies to establish, publish and effectively implement measures to to severe to prevent severe abuses to human rights in their supply chains.
Now, we have also seen the EU move to bring in its. Bring in the Due Diligence directive, and members have already pointed out its watering down. And nonetheless, I think its existence, um you know, does create and had created a legal pathway which is absent in the UK to provide victims of corporate abuse with, with a, with a path to actually try and seek justice. But in the UK, as, as I've just mentioned, we are still relying mostly on voluntary measures which offer little protection to millions or billions of workers globally working for unscrupulous employers or sectors.
In that context, market forces will continue to drive down labour rights in a race to the bottom that rewards bad business practices and exploits, or even kills workers as civil. Society organisations, including those here today, have pointed out, mandatory due diligence laws are already in force in many European nations and are being advanced in Asia. If the UK fails to keep pace, we risk the country becoming a dumping ground for tainted goods, with our market enabling abhorrent rights violations. In the same vein, it cannot be said that it is anywhere near sufficient for the government offering new business risk guidance to firms undertaking business with settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
It does not meet the demands of the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the occupation, and offers tacit permission, dressed in strong wording, for firms to continue to do business with illegal settlements, that settlement trade serves to entrench settlements, unlawful presence while importing the importing of goods and produce justifies their continued expansion. And I want to be clear that that expansion is a violent process. It's a violent process of ethnic cleansing undertaken by means of horrific settler attacks, hand in hand with a military occupation that stifles Palestinians, Palestinian people's livelihoods and demolishes their homes.
K trade policy here is enabling these rights abuses and I note the words of ActionAid when they say that this business guidance and I quote, is effectively outsourcing the UK's compliance with international law to private actors. But this all just again shows how all encompassing the issue of human rights in supply chains is. There is no doubt, then, that if the UK government is serious about protecting people's human rights in supply chains, including labour rights, then there must be strong legislation brought in. And I note that a model is being advanced in the other place presently, and I hope that all members will support the calls from trade unions, lawyers and civil society organisations in the corporate justice.
Coalition's efforts to bring forward a new business, Human Rights and Environmental Bill. In conclusion, um, Mr. Chair, to be meaningful protections for human rights, including workers rights, must be enshrined in law. We can only say that we take human rights seriously when we take accountability for the abuses committed to bring goods to our markets. And this is important because every worker deserves to have dignity and equality, and upholding these rights is a collective responsibility. And because we fail in those duties, if we if the rights that we enjoy, we deny to others in other parts of the world.
Thank you.
Following the 13th anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse. That day, on the 25th of April 2013, 1134 garment workers lost their lives in what trade unions at the. At the time, described as mass industrial homicide. This incident exposed the brutality of the global production system, in which labour rights are constantly under attack, and I want to be clear those Bangladeshi lives would not have been taken if workers rights, which are human rights, were respected in global supply chains. Before the Rana Plaza collapse, workers safety concerns were unheard by managers and their attempts to organize unions to address their unsafe working conditions were suppressed.
We know that a global outrage followed the collapse of Rana Plaza, and it is true that there have been some welcome advances in workers rights in Bangladesh since then. But the truth is that the gains have been slow and partial, unevenly, unevenly distributed across industries as well. This is in part because of a failure to implement universal mandatory responsibilities for human rights and labor rights. Instead, what we have seen is the spread of voluntary mechanisms for safeguarding rights. So. Brands in the global north which want to avoid reputational risk are the ones which implement safeguards themselves.
Now, many garment industry workers supplying, like the likes of Zara or Walmart, do benefit from some measures introduced on labour rights. But it is not universal. For those in sectors less exposed to reputational damage. It is a different story. For example, in Chittagong's deadly shipbreaking, industry workers, including child labourers, still face highly dangerous conditions without safety equipment or compensation upon death, shipping being what it is means that this affects nearly every supply chain in the world and. And I think we just cannot pretend that Bangladesh's garment or exporting factories themselves are now all safe.
As labour behind the label have pointed out, fires at two separate factories last autumn in which 17 people were killed have shown the glaring gaps in protections between firms that have adopted the international accord and those which have not. In the years since Rana Plaza, Bangladesh has therefore seen another 7160 deaths in the workplace, a figure which itself is likely a gross undercount. That figure alone should tell us that we have long moved past the point where voluntary corporate responsibilities alone can be considered sufficient. And as we explored in the Appg on Bangladesh in response to the Rana Plaza collapse, France introduced its due duty of vigilance law requiring companies to establish, publish and effectively implement measures to to severe to prevent severe abuses to human rights in their supply chains.
Now, we have also seen the EU move to bring in its. Bring in the Due Diligence directive, and members have already pointed out its watering down. And nonetheless, I think its existence, um you know, does create and had created a legal pathway which is absent in the UK to provide victims of corporate abuse with, with a, with a path to actually try and seek justice. But in the UK, as, as I've just mentioned, we are still relying mostly on voluntary measures which offer little protection to millions or billions of workers globally working for unscrupulous employers or sectors.
In that context, market forces will continue to drive down labour rights in a race to the bottom that rewards bad business practices and exploits, or even kills workers as civil. Society organisations, including those here today, have pointed out, mandatory due diligence laws are already in force in many European nations and are being advanced in Asia. If the UK fails to keep pace, we risk the country becoming a dumping ground for tainted goods, with our market enabling abhorrent rights violations. In the same vein, it cannot be said that it is anywhere near sufficient for the government offering new business risk guidance to firms undertaking business with settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
It does not meet the demands of the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the occupation, and offers tacit permission, dressed in strong wording, for firms to continue to do business with illegal settlements, that settlement trade serves to entrench settlements, unlawful presence while importing the importing of goods and produce justifies their continued expansion. And I want to be clear that that expansion is a violent process. It's a violent process of ethnic cleansing undertaken by means of horrific settler attacks, hand in hand with a military occupation that stifles Palestinians, Palestinian people's livelihoods and demolishes their homes.
K trade policy here is enabling these rights abuses and I note the words of ActionAid when they say that this business guidance and I quote, is effectively outsourcing the UK's compliance with international law to private actors. But this all just again shows how all encompassing the issue of human rights in supply chains is. There is no doubt, then, that if the UK government is serious about protecting people's human rights in supply chains, including labour rights, then there must be strong legislation brought in. And I note that a model is being advanced in the other place presently, and I hope that all members will support the calls from trade unions, lawyers and civil society organisations in the corporate justice.
Coalition's efforts to bring forward a new business, Human Rights and Environmental Bill. In conclusion, um, Mr. Chair, to be meaningful protections for human rights, including workers rights, must be enshrined in law. We can only say that we take human rights seriously when we take accountability for the abuses committed to bring goods to our markets. And this is important because every worker deserves to have dignity and equality, and upholding these rights is a collective responsibility. And because we fail in those duties, if we if the rights that we enjoy, we deny to others in other parts of the world.
Thank you.
14:27
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you very much, Mr. Dowd. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And thank you very much for stepping in to chair the debate. I'd like to congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Southgate and Wood Green, also my constituency neighbour, in securing this debate, and I know he has a long standing commitment to human rights in this House as well, and he's quite right to emphasise the international nature of trade and the risks of human rights abuses, for example, from China.
As the right hon. Member for Woodford and Chingford Green has said, and also, um, as the right hon. Member for, Poplar and Limehouse has said across South East Asia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, all countries where we do a lot of trade and where often we don't know enough about what is going on. I wanted to add some very brief remarks about the UK fashion and textiles industry and human rights here in the UK. Um, and I know that the minister has a background in understanding the potential for human rights abuses.
Um and also for understanding manufacturing and the scope that there is within the UK to augment this particular segment and produce more jobs for local people. Um, and we know that there is a potential for international trade, best practice and home grown industries to sit side by side. And I noted that in, um, a couple of weeks ago, the member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, when he was reflecting on defense spending, said that there should be more defence money spent locally. And certainly in terms of uniforms.
In a previous debate in Westminster Hall, um, which I led, I go into that in detail about the potential that there is to. Um, enhance supply chain understanding here in the UK, but in areas like Leicester and other parts of the UK, there could be much more done to support many women who want to work in that area and have high quality jobs. Local authorities are ready to work on that, as our universities, and it seems a pity not to be enhancing that through, um, being more.
Organised around how our supply supply chains work. Very briefly, I want to welcome the supply chain centre announcement and the 14 point action plan from yesterday. I haven't had time yet to digest it, but I'm sure that the Minister will refer to that in her remarks. But we do know that Onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry could unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs, 1.2 billion in tax receipts. That's not throwing away all of the international trade system. It's just saying that we could be making more with some political will for jobs here in the UK.
We know that the 2025 budget included new measures to stop overseas online firms from undercutting, undercutting UK bricks and mortar businesses by ensuring that customs duties apply to parcels of any value. And I'd be interested in the preparations for that which I believe are coming in, in 2829, and I wonder if the Minister will reflect briefly on that in her remarks. There are costs to producing in the UK, aren't there?But what about the benefits, more flexibility and agility from local suppliers, faster turnaround times which global competitors can't match due to distance and more transparency?Customers know exactly where their clothes are made and made in the UK as a point of pride.
Why not made in the UK under fair conditions?Thank you very much, Mr. Dowd.
As the right hon. Member for Woodford and Chingford Green has said, and also, um, as the right hon. Member for, Poplar and Limehouse has said across South East Asia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, all countries where we do a lot of trade and where often we don't know enough about what is going on. I wanted to add some very brief remarks about the UK fashion and textiles industry and human rights here in the UK. Um, and I know that the minister has a background in understanding the potential for human rights abuses.
Um and also for understanding manufacturing and the scope that there is within the UK to augment this particular segment and produce more jobs for local people. Um, and we know that there is a potential for international trade, best practice and home grown industries to sit side by side. And I noted that in, um, a couple of weeks ago, the member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, when he was reflecting on defense spending, said that there should be more defence money spent locally. And certainly in terms of uniforms.
In a previous debate in Westminster Hall, um, which I led, I go into that in detail about the potential that there is to. Um, enhance supply chain understanding here in the UK, but in areas like Leicester and other parts of the UK, there could be much more done to support many women who want to work in that area and have high quality jobs. Local authorities are ready to work on that, as our universities, and it seems a pity not to be enhancing that through, um, being more.
Organised around how our supply supply chains work. Very briefly, I want to welcome the supply chain centre announcement and the 14 point action plan from yesterday. I haven't had time yet to digest it, but I'm sure that the Minister will refer to that in her remarks. But we do know that Onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry could unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs, 1.2 billion in tax receipts. That's not throwing away all of the international trade system. It's just saying that we could be making more with some political will for jobs here in the UK.
We know that the 2025 budget included new measures to stop overseas online firms from undercutting, undercutting UK bricks and mortar businesses by ensuring that customs duties apply to parcels of any value. And I'd be interested in the preparations for that which I believe are coming in, in 2829, and I wonder if the Minister will reflect briefly on that in her remarks. There are costs to producing in the UK, aren't there?But what about the benefits, more flexibility and agility from local suppliers, faster turnaround times which global competitors can't match due to distance and more transparency?Customers know exactly where their clothes are made and made in the UK as a point of pride.
Why not made in the UK under fair conditions?Thank you very much, Mr. Dowd.
14:31
14:31
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Mr. Dowd. It's an honour to speak and serve under your chairship. And thank you again for joining us and allowing this important debate to take place. I'd like to start by congratulating the honourable member for Southgate and Wood Green. Um he introduced this debate um, emphatically and wonderfully, and I couldn't have done better myself. Um, I sit as one of the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and as we've heard already from other members, the committee last year published its report into forced labour in UK supply chains.
Our inquiry found that despite ministers repeated assurances that no company operating in the UK should have any forced labour whatsoever in its supply chain, that simply isn't happening in practice. Goods made, or at least partly made with forced labour, are still reaching our shelves here in the UK. In fact, we report billions of pounds of goods a year from sectors where forced labour is rife. And yet companies still aren't required to map their supply chains or prove their goods are clean. Nowhere was that gap between rhetoric and reality more clearly seen than in the government's China audit.
This was a genuine opportunity to set out transparently in public exactly how Britain intends to tackle states imposing forced labour against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and other minority groups across China. Instead, the Foreign secretary offered us shining a spotlight and described the audit as an ongoing exercise. When our committee pressed for concrete measures behind that language, the answers amounted to export controls and sanctions that already existed. This is not a strategy. It's a missed opportunity. Over 95% of the world's solar panels rely on polysilicon, and over half the world's polysilicon comes from Xinjiang.
So it was unsurprising that the government's own evidence to our committee accepted that there is credible evidence that companies in solar supply chains may be linked to forced labour against people in China. And thanks to the great work of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Parliament holding the government to account, GB energy sourcing rules were strengthened. But well over a year later, we still won't see guaranteed panels. Guaranteed panels are free of forced labour and it will only tackle the issue as far as possible.
And our committee found that the industry's own solar stewardship initiative offers thin reassurance. Certification applies to individual sites and not whole companies to a to a firm with mostly uncertified factories can still wear the badge of membership. If we don't get a proper grip on this, it will be the new Achilles heel to the green transition. But this isn't only about solar. Our inquiry also heard evidence about North Korean workers on Chinese fishing vessels. Last year, I visited the Falklands Islands as part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, and when we met with members of the Legislative Council over there, we heard about how the issues of the Chinese fishing fleet in the South Atlantic were causing problems, and some of the horrific instances where we'd heard about the the actions of the Chinese Communist Party and the regime selling and buying labour from North Korea.
We've also heard about tomatoes which have been processed in China. Now sitting on British supermarket shelves documented by the BBC as recent as last year. And we've also heard from members today about the critical minerals such as cobalt, from the DRC. We know that the ILO estimates 27.6 million people are trapped in forced labour globally, and two thirds of that is linked to commercial supply chains. This is a systemic, cross-sector and growing issue. So what has the government done with the report recommendations?Well, in October, ministers published their response.
They launched a responsible business conduct review. And I want to be fair. That is a start. But the honest answer is that they have deferred almost everything to that review. Want to know whether the UK will introduce mandatory human rights due diligence?Waiting on the review. An import ban on goods linked to forced labour. Waiting on a review. A stronger use of the Proceeds of Crime Act powers where Border Force and the National Crime Agency are currently deploying far too rarely.
Well, the government told us that it cannot direct how Poca powers are used. Whilst that may technically be correct, governments can. Resource enforcement set priorities and fund agencies to act. Choosing not to do so is still a policy choice. We heard from the honourable member for Bracknell and he talked about the section 54 of Modern Slavery Act, which requires large companies to publish those supply chain transparency statements. Yet we know a significant number of companies aren't even complying, and those that do can satisfy their legal obligations simply by reporting that they have taken no action whatsoever.
This is transparency with no actual meaningful word or sense of the obligation. Our committee recommended strengthening it, and the government's response is under consideration as part of the review. Next week, I will be holding the inaugural General Meeting for the Appg for coffee, tea and spices. If anyone is interested, I hope to see you there. Um, and that's something that throughout that Appg, we will look at how the impact of supply chains impact, particularly women and girls working in those sectors to we heard earlier as well from the right hon.
Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about the actions that other countries have taken when it comes to slavery in supply chains, and particularly pointing to the United States and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, a rebuttable presumption, rebuttable presumption that anything from Xinjiang was made with forced labour, unless a company can prove otherwise. And we've heard about the European Union and its forced labour regulations, too. We simply have a review. Our committee recommended that the government introduce new legislation within one year of our report's publication.
That deadline would be July 2026. So just next month, I would ask the minister today to give a clear answer. Will the government meet that recommendation from our report?I'd also like to ask the Minister to take three things from that report further as well. Looking to bring forward mandatory human rights due diligence for UK companies. Voluntary reporting isn't creating a level playing field, and business itself told our committee as much. Secondly, will we will she follow the United States and the European Union and introduce a proper import ban on goods linked to forced labour, rather than relying on the occasional under-used application of proceeds of crime powers.
And third, will the government look to use a China audit for what it should have been a public account of exactly what the UK will do to keep state imposed forced labour out of our supply chains, starting with solar. Thank you.
Our inquiry found that despite ministers repeated assurances that no company operating in the UK should have any forced labour whatsoever in its supply chain, that simply isn't happening in practice. Goods made, or at least partly made with forced labour, are still reaching our shelves here in the UK. In fact, we report billions of pounds of goods a year from sectors where forced labour is rife. And yet companies still aren't required to map their supply chains or prove their goods are clean. Nowhere was that gap between rhetoric and reality more clearly seen than in the government's China audit.
This was a genuine opportunity to set out transparently in public exactly how Britain intends to tackle states imposing forced labour against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and other minority groups across China. Instead, the Foreign secretary offered us shining a spotlight and described the audit as an ongoing exercise. When our committee pressed for concrete measures behind that language, the answers amounted to export controls and sanctions that already existed. This is not a strategy. It's a missed opportunity. Over 95% of the world's solar panels rely on polysilicon, and over half the world's polysilicon comes from Xinjiang.
So it was unsurprising that the government's own evidence to our committee accepted that there is credible evidence that companies in solar supply chains may be linked to forced labour against people in China. And thanks to the great work of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Parliament holding the government to account, GB energy sourcing rules were strengthened. But well over a year later, we still won't see guaranteed panels. Guaranteed panels are free of forced labour and it will only tackle the issue as far as possible.
And our committee found that the industry's own solar stewardship initiative offers thin reassurance. Certification applies to individual sites and not whole companies to a to a firm with mostly uncertified factories can still wear the badge of membership. If we don't get a proper grip on this, it will be the new Achilles heel to the green transition. But this isn't only about solar. Our inquiry also heard evidence about North Korean workers on Chinese fishing vessels. Last year, I visited the Falklands Islands as part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, and when we met with members of the Legislative Council over there, we heard about how the issues of the Chinese fishing fleet in the South Atlantic were causing problems, and some of the horrific instances where we'd heard about the the actions of the Chinese Communist Party and the regime selling and buying labour from North Korea.
We've also heard about tomatoes which have been processed in China. Now sitting on British supermarket shelves documented by the BBC as recent as last year. And we've also heard from members today about the critical minerals such as cobalt, from the DRC. We know that the ILO estimates 27.6 million people are trapped in forced labour globally, and two thirds of that is linked to commercial supply chains. This is a systemic, cross-sector and growing issue. So what has the government done with the report recommendations?Well, in October, ministers published their response.
They launched a responsible business conduct review. And I want to be fair. That is a start. But the honest answer is that they have deferred almost everything to that review. Want to know whether the UK will introduce mandatory human rights due diligence?Waiting on the review. An import ban on goods linked to forced labour. Waiting on a review. A stronger use of the Proceeds of Crime Act powers where Border Force and the National Crime Agency are currently deploying far too rarely.
Well, the government told us that it cannot direct how Poca powers are used. Whilst that may technically be correct, governments can. Resource enforcement set priorities and fund agencies to act. Choosing not to do so is still a policy choice. We heard from the honourable member for Bracknell and he talked about the section 54 of Modern Slavery Act, which requires large companies to publish those supply chain transparency statements. Yet we know a significant number of companies aren't even complying, and those that do can satisfy their legal obligations simply by reporting that they have taken no action whatsoever.
This is transparency with no actual meaningful word or sense of the obligation. Our committee recommended strengthening it, and the government's response is under consideration as part of the review. Next week, I will be holding the inaugural General Meeting for the Appg for coffee, tea and spices. If anyone is interested, I hope to see you there. Um, and that's something that throughout that Appg, we will look at how the impact of supply chains impact, particularly women and girls working in those sectors to we heard earlier as well from the right hon.
Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about the actions that other countries have taken when it comes to slavery in supply chains, and particularly pointing to the United States and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, a rebuttable presumption, rebuttable presumption that anything from Xinjiang was made with forced labour, unless a company can prove otherwise. And we've heard about the European Union and its forced labour regulations, too. We simply have a review. Our committee recommended that the government introduce new legislation within one year of our report's publication.
That deadline would be July 2026. So just next month, I would ask the minister today to give a clear answer. Will the government meet that recommendation from our report?I'd also like to ask the Minister to take three things from that report further as well. Looking to bring forward mandatory human rights due diligence for UK companies. Voluntary reporting isn't creating a level playing field, and business itself told our committee as much. Secondly, will we will she follow the United States and the European Union and introduce a proper import ban on goods linked to forced labour, rather than relying on the occasional under-used application of proceeds of crime powers.
And third, will the government look to use a China audit for what it should have been a public account of exactly what the UK will do to keep state imposed forced labour out of our supply chains, starting with solar. Thank you.
14:38
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Dowd. And may I join other members in thanking you for being here?And may I also, if your Wikipedia page is correct, be the first to wish you a very happy birthday for Saturday. So I am grateful to the honourable member for Southgate and Wood Green for securing this debate and to members from across the House for the thoughtful and serious way in which they've approached it. The member for wood, Southgate and.
Wood green really brought to life what it looks like in a day to day way that international and globally sourced products are infiltrating every part of our daily life, and I thank him for that. I also thank the. My Right honourable friend, the member for Chingford and Wood Green, for sharing the benefit of his many years working on this particular issue, and I thank the honourable lady, the member for North Hertfordshire, the Right Honourable member for Hayes and Harlington, the honourable member for Poplar and Limehouse and the honourable member for Hornsey and Free and Barnet all have brought a different perspective and I am grateful.
There have been differences this afternoon about the causes of the problem, the strength of enforcement required and the precise tools the government should use. But there should be no disagreement on one central point. Goods produced through forced labour, modern slavery or serious human rights abuses have no place in UK supply chains. The question is whether the government is prepared to deliver a serious enforcement, potentially with the support of new technologies and businesses like Oratane, or whether it will simply pile fresh cost and complexity onto responsible British businesses.
While the worst offenders continue to evade accountability. TheJoint Committee on Human Rights was right to highlight the fact that goods produced wholly or partly through forced labour are being sold in this country. It is also right that the current framework has not been enforced strongly or consistently enough to stop that happening. The overwhelming majority of firms, responsible retailers, manufacturers, importers and investors want to do the right thing. They invest time, money and effort into understanding their supply chains and meeting their responsibilities.
They should not find themselves undercut and placed at a competitive disadvantage by organisations who are willing to look the other way. Nor should they be buried under layers of poorly designed, duplicative new obligations that create cost and complexity without improving outcomes or catching the ones who break the law. The Modern Slavery Act, introduced by my noble friend Baroness May of Maidenhead when she was Home Secretary, was a landmark piece of legislation. It placed the issue firmly onto the national agenda. It was also conservative governments that imposed sanctions on those responsible for the persecution of Uighurs.
Strengthened export controls and introduced tougher penalties for businesses that fail to meet their obligations. Those achievements should not be diminished, but equally, we should not pretend that enforcement cannot be strengthened. We support enforcing the laws we already have. And the first test for the minister is whether she is prepared to make the existing framework bite on the bad actors. The task for government is to strike the right balance. Strong enforcement is needed. Clear where expectations must be met.
Yet proportionate where businesses are already acting responsibly and practical enough to work in the real world. Public procurement and I include in this great British energy, a subject brought up by my right hon. Friend has an important role to play in that effort. Government must lead the way. Taxpayers rightly expect that public money is not rewarding forced labour. Serious exploitation or suppliers whose conduct falls far below the legally prescribed standards. The challenge is making that principle work in practice, with rules that are clear, usable and targeted at those who break them.
The risks exist across apparel, food manufacturing and they exist in sectors that are becoming increasingly important to our future economic and national security. LAsupply chains were once viewed mainly through the lens of cost and efficiency. The assumption was that they would deliver cheaper goods and greater prosperity. We now understand that they can also create strategic vulnerabilities when too much control is concentrated in too few hands. My right hon. Friend the member for Chingford and Woodford Green has been particularly persistent in drawing attention to concerns around Xinjiang polysilicon and critical minerals.
He is right to do so. Growth and trade must never come at the price of our values and pursuit of warmer relations with Beijing must not mean going soft on human rights or turning a blind eye to slave made goods entering our market. Standards apply only when the politics are convenient, then they are not really standards at all. The framework must address risk wherever it appears. It must apply consistently. It must be based on evidence and it must be enforced fairly.
The Minister will have heard the points raised this afternoon and will no doubt address them directly. After the government's jobs Tax, the Employment Rights Act and a surge of new regulation. Businesses are entitled to ask whether labour supply chain plans will be properly thought through and address their actual needs. So to finish, I have a number of straightforward questions for the Minister. When will the government's review of responsible business conduct conclude?What specific steps does she intend to take to strengthen enforcement?How will she improve traceability in high risk and newly emerging sectors?How will she protect legitimate businesses from unnecessary burdens whilst ensuring bad actors and the worst offenders face meaningful consequences?Lessons has she drawn from allies including the United States, the European Union and others about what works in practice?And how will she ensure the United Kingdom remains a leader rather than a follower in confronting modern slavery and forced labour?Warm words, statements and reviews on their own will not solve this problem.
The Modern Slavery Act was a significant conservative achievement. We are rightly proud of it. The challenge now is to ensure that it is enforced as seriously, practically and effectively as possible. That is the standard that Parliament should expect and is a standard against which we will judge the government's response.
Wood green really brought to life what it looks like in a day to day way that international and globally sourced products are infiltrating every part of our daily life, and I thank him for that. I also thank the. My Right honourable friend, the member for Chingford and Wood Green, for sharing the benefit of his many years working on this particular issue, and I thank the honourable lady, the member for North Hertfordshire, the Right Honourable member for Hayes and Harlington, the honourable member for Poplar and Limehouse and the honourable member for Hornsey and Free and Barnet all have brought a different perspective and I am grateful.
There have been differences this afternoon about the causes of the problem, the strength of enforcement required and the precise tools the government should use. But there should be no disagreement on one central point. Goods produced through forced labour, modern slavery or serious human rights abuses have no place in UK supply chains. The question is whether the government is prepared to deliver a serious enforcement, potentially with the support of new technologies and businesses like Oratane, or whether it will simply pile fresh cost and complexity onto responsible British businesses.
While the worst offenders continue to evade accountability. TheJoint Committee on Human Rights was right to highlight the fact that goods produced wholly or partly through forced labour are being sold in this country. It is also right that the current framework has not been enforced strongly or consistently enough to stop that happening. The overwhelming majority of firms, responsible retailers, manufacturers, importers and investors want to do the right thing. They invest time, money and effort into understanding their supply chains and meeting their responsibilities.
They should not find themselves undercut and placed at a competitive disadvantage by organisations who are willing to look the other way. Nor should they be buried under layers of poorly designed, duplicative new obligations that create cost and complexity without improving outcomes or catching the ones who break the law. The Modern Slavery Act, introduced by my noble friend Baroness May of Maidenhead when she was Home Secretary, was a landmark piece of legislation. It placed the issue firmly onto the national agenda. It was also conservative governments that imposed sanctions on those responsible for the persecution of Uighurs.
Strengthened export controls and introduced tougher penalties for businesses that fail to meet their obligations. Those achievements should not be diminished, but equally, we should not pretend that enforcement cannot be strengthened. We support enforcing the laws we already have. And the first test for the minister is whether she is prepared to make the existing framework bite on the bad actors. The task for government is to strike the right balance. Strong enforcement is needed. Clear where expectations must be met.
Yet proportionate where businesses are already acting responsibly and practical enough to work in the real world. Public procurement and I include in this great British energy, a subject brought up by my right hon. Friend has an important role to play in that effort. Government must lead the way. Taxpayers rightly expect that public money is not rewarding forced labour. Serious exploitation or suppliers whose conduct falls far below the legally prescribed standards. The challenge is making that principle work in practice, with rules that are clear, usable and targeted at those who break them.
The risks exist across apparel, food manufacturing and they exist in sectors that are becoming increasingly important to our future economic and national security. LAsupply chains were once viewed mainly through the lens of cost and efficiency. The assumption was that they would deliver cheaper goods and greater prosperity. We now understand that they can also create strategic vulnerabilities when too much control is concentrated in too few hands. My right hon. Friend the member for Chingford and Woodford Green has been particularly persistent in drawing attention to concerns around Xinjiang polysilicon and critical minerals.
He is right to do so. Growth and trade must never come at the price of our values and pursuit of warmer relations with Beijing must not mean going soft on human rights or turning a blind eye to slave made goods entering our market. Standards apply only when the politics are convenient, then they are not really standards at all. The framework must address risk wherever it appears. It must apply consistently. It must be based on evidence and it must be enforced fairly.
The Minister will have heard the points raised this afternoon and will no doubt address them directly. After the government's jobs Tax, the Employment Rights Act and a surge of new regulation. Businesses are entitled to ask whether labour supply chain plans will be properly thought through and address their actual needs. So to finish, I have a number of straightforward questions for the Minister. When will the government's review of responsible business conduct conclude?What specific steps does she intend to take to strengthen enforcement?How will she improve traceability in high risk and newly emerging sectors?How will she protect legitimate businesses from unnecessary burdens whilst ensuring bad actors and the worst offenders face meaningful consequences?Lessons has she drawn from allies including the United States, the European Union and others about what works in practice?And how will she ensure the United Kingdom remains a leader rather than a follower in confronting modern slavery and forced labour?Warm words, statements and reviews on their own will not solve this problem.
The Modern Slavery Act was a significant conservative achievement. We are rightly proud of it. The challenge now is to ensure that it is enforced as seriously, practically and effectively as possible. That is the standard that Parliament should expect and is a standard against which we will judge the government's response.
14:43
14:44
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Dowd. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank and join honourable members here today. Thank you for sharing today's debate at short notice. And I want to thank my hon. Friend the member for Southgate and Woodgreen for securing a debate on this deeply important issue. He raised some excellent points today, particularly on how fundamental supply chain resilience is to our economic security and the importance of the public sector procurement regime to ensure that public bodies do not inadvertently support international labour and humanitarian abuses.
He and members across the House that are here and present today continue to be excellent and thoughtful advocates on these matters, and I thank all colleagues for their really important contributions today. Human rights are just that. They are fundamental and exist to protect us all. Infractions cannot be ignored or dismissed simply because they occurred far enough back in the supply chain for us to feel insulated and not responsible for supporting exploitative practices, and never has this issue been more important. With more than 70% of global trade now running through complex global supply chains, whilst global.
Ization has driven the productivity, innovation and technological advancements that have lifted billions out of poverty and created the life that we depend on. It has also made supply chains more complex and opaque, reducing the transparency and accountability that consumers, retailers and government to protect workers and the natural world from exploitation. Members have rightly drawn attention to the egregious human rights abuses that come with forced labour. In 2026, more than 27 million people remain in the shackles of modern slavery across all inhabited, all six inhabited continents, often enduring imprisonment, abuse and coercion, being exploited for profit.
As we approach the 200th anniversary of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in much of the British Empire, it is right that I reaffirm this government's commitment to tackling this vile practice, one that continues to generate nearly £176 billion in illegal profits each year in all its forms, including nonpayment or underpayment of wages, excessive working hours and unsafe working conditions. There is also clear evidence of severe environmental harms in our global supply chains, losing the equivalent of 11 football pitches of tropical rainforest per minute and threatening nearly 1 million animal and plant species with extinction.
As members have raised, the UK has a proud record of pioneering global advancements to support human and workers rights. Putting this issue on the international stage with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which the Shadow Minister spoke to, that members have noted was world leading then and crucial in solidifying our place as a global leader on this issue. It was also the first time businesses were made to report how they are tackling modern slavery that could exist in their supply chains. But as members know and have raised rightly today, whilst the Modern Slavery Act was world leading at the time, it is now more than a decade old and in need of review.
If we are to tackle the many violations that still occur globally. While many UK businesses respect human rights and the environment throughout their supply chains, international violations are unethical and undercut. The vast majority of UK businesses that support fair international supply chains that many members have rightly made their reflections and points today in this debate, and this will only increase as geopolitical, industrial and technological shocks continue to transform how and where goods are produced and extracted. That is why we must take a more strategic approach, working with our global allies and trading partners to secure forced labour provisions in our fair trade agreements and using the Developing Countries Trading Scheme to suspend preferential trading arrangements on the grounds of serious violation of labour rights.
As my hon. Friend noted, I recently travelled to the 114th session of the International Labour Conference in Geneva last week, where I met with trade union delegations and labour and employment ministers from across the world, including some of the most significant manufacturers, extractors and business hubs. And as honourable members pointed out, this is an issue that is close to my heart and that I have worked closely on before I was elected to this place last week, talking lots about the work that we're proudly doing in government on the Employment Rights Act and a lot of that domestic agenda.
And I thank members for raising that today. But we are also clear that a collaborative, holistic and cross-border approach is the only way that we will drive the change that exploited workers and environments need, alongside our recognition of other international transitions from voluntary to mandatory measures such as human rights and environmental due diligence laws. In the trade strategy. The government underlined how responsible business conduct is a positive part of our mission to grow the economy, and launched a review of our approach to responsible business focus on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK.
This is an evidence based review of our policy framework and alternative measures to enhance it, including consideration of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence, and forced labour bans, amongst others. Also considers the approaches of our international trading partners and the best way to promote a coordinated approach that minimises costs consistent with the government's commitment to reduce the administrative costs of complying with regulation by 25% over the course of this Parliament. So far, we have engaged more than 200 organisations throughout the review, including businesses, investors, civil society, trade unions and academic institutions, and learning from international partners and meeting with communities that have been impacted by supply chain harms.
Many honourable members stress the need for urgency today and want to reassure them that we will update Parliament on the review in due course. I thank members for raising that pressing issue on dates, and we will, of course, work closely with all members in the debate here today. I will give.
He and members across the House that are here and present today continue to be excellent and thoughtful advocates on these matters, and I thank all colleagues for their really important contributions today. Human rights are just that. They are fundamental and exist to protect us all. Infractions cannot be ignored or dismissed simply because they occurred far enough back in the supply chain for us to feel insulated and not responsible for supporting exploitative practices, and never has this issue been more important. With more than 70% of global trade now running through complex global supply chains, whilst global.
Ization has driven the productivity, innovation and technological advancements that have lifted billions out of poverty and created the life that we depend on. It has also made supply chains more complex and opaque, reducing the transparency and accountability that consumers, retailers and government to protect workers and the natural world from exploitation. Members have rightly drawn attention to the egregious human rights abuses that come with forced labour. In 2026, more than 27 million people remain in the shackles of modern slavery across all inhabited, all six inhabited continents, often enduring imprisonment, abuse and coercion, being exploited for profit.
As we approach the 200th anniversary of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in much of the British Empire, it is right that I reaffirm this government's commitment to tackling this vile practice, one that continues to generate nearly £176 billion in illegal profits each year in all its forms, including nonpayment or underpayment of wages, excessive working hours and unsafe working conditions. There is also clear evidence of severe environmental harms in our global supply chains, losing the equivalent of 11 football pitches of tropical rainforest per minute and threatening nearly 1 million animal and plant species with extinction.
As members have raised, the UK has a proud record of pioneering global advancements to support human and workers rights. Putting this issue on the international stage with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which the Shadow Minister spoke to, that members have noted was world leading then and crucial in solidifying our place as a global leader on this issue. It was also the first time businesses were made to report how they are tackling modern slavery that could exist in their supply chains. But as members know and have raised rightly today, whilst the Modern Slavery Act was world leading at the time, it is now more than a decade old and in need of review.
If we are to tackle the many violations that still occur globally. While many UK businesses respect human rights and the environment throughout their supply chains, international violations are unethical and undercut. The vast majority of UK businesses that support fair international supply chains that many members have rightly made their reflections and points today in this debate, and this will only increase as geopolitical, industrial and technological shocks continue to transform how and where goods are produced and extracted. That is why we must take a more strategic approach, working with our global allies and trading partners to secure forced labour provisions in our fair trade agreements and using the Developing Countries Trading Scheme to suspend preferential trading arrangements on the grounds of serious violation of labour rights.
As my hon. Friend noted, I recently travelled to the 114th session of the International Labour Conference in Geneva last week, where I met with trade union delegations and labour and employment ministers from across the world, including some of the most significant manufacturers, extractors and business hubs. And as honourable members pointed out, this is an issue that is close to my heart and that I have worked closely on before I was elected to this place last week, talking lots about the work that we're proudly doing in government on the Employment Rights Act and a lot of that domestic agenda.
And I thank members for raising that today. But we are also clear that a collaborative, holistic and cross-border approach is the only way that we will drive the change that exploited workers and environments need, alongside our recognition of other international transitions from voluntary to mandatory measures such as human rights and environmental due diligence laws. In the trade strategy. The government underlined how responsible business conduct is a positive part of our mission to grow the economy, and launched a review of our approach to responsible business focus on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK.
This is an evidence based review of our policy framework and alternative measures to enhance it, including consideration of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence, and forced labour bans, amongst others. Also considers the approaches of our international trading partners and the best way to promote a coordinated approach that minimises costs consistent with the government's commitment to reduce the administrative costs of complying with regulation by 25% over the course of this Parliament. So far, we have engaged more than 200 organisations throughout the review, including businesses, investors, civil society, trade unions and academic institutions, and learning from international partners and meeting with communities that have been impacted by supply chain harms.
Many honourable members stress the need for urgency today and want to reassure them that we will update Parliament on the review in due course. I thank members for raising that pressing issue on dates, and we will, of course, work closely with all members in the debate here today. I will give.
14:48
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Date for straying into her. Time, but could we just get a commitment today that the government will look carefully at what other countries are doing who are well in advance of us, like the United States, like parts of Europe, to make sure that we get urgently onto this issue rather than delaying it with another review and then more sort of debates. We know what needs to be done. Surely we can get on with that pretty quickly.
14:49
14:49
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I thank the honourable member for his intervention and for his contributions today, which I will come to shortly in response and reassure him that we are working closely with the US on the review and updating them on all the work that that we are doing and understanding their practices to. And I will turn to the other really important points that he raised throughout the debate and thank him again for it. My right hon. Friend the member for his Harlington raised about our work with the Treasury as part of this review, and I thank him for for raising this.
We are doing the review economy wide and we have engaged with investors on the review too, and are working with HMT. And of course we'll keep you updated as I know he is. He is interested in this area and passionate about it too. Trade strategy, we took another key step which is launching the office for Responsible Business Conduct, providing UK businesses, trade unions and charities with a simpler route to compliance, supporting the integration of responsible business practices and helping victims of corporate malpractice through providing a non-judicial grievance mechanism.
Alongside the broader Rbcc review, we are considering also how we strengthen the section 54 transparency regime, which lots of members have raised today, and I thank them for it, including mandatory reporting requirements extending to the public sector and penalties for non-compliance. We published updated transparency in supply chains statutory guidance in March 2025, calling on businesses to go further and faster to. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I thank him for his contributions today and for his work on the committee and engagement, and focus on this vital, vital area.
As I mentioned in my previous answer, in terms of our work with with the US and our relationship, I hope he's reassured by our continued engagement regularly with the US administration as part of our negotiations, and hope he'll feel reassured by my previous comments to. As a proudly internationalist and pro-worker government, we have a responsibility to remain a world leader in tackling modern slavery, slavery clearances and human rights abuses wherever they are their ugly head. The government stands firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, which where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detained Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities.
And lots of members have raised this today, and I thank them for it. I hope they know that we raised these concerns with China at the highest levels, including recently, the Prime minister himself and the former foreign secretary, and we continue to coordinate efforts with our international partners to hold China to account, for example, joining a UN statement. And in October 24th and co-signing a US joint statement in November 2025. I thank my right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and respect lots of his work in this area and thank him for the consistency of raising this issue today and outside this House.
We all saw my Right Honourable member also raised GB energy and I will bring my remarks to a close after this. As a publicly owned energy company and the Shadow Minister raises two. And of course, GB energy is expected to demonstrate leading practice in complying with UK modern slavery legislation and aligning with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. We have established an ethical supply chain advisory group to review and inform GB's approach to ethical supply chains within its investments and operations.
Chaired by Baroness Frances OGrady. My department will sit on this group and it meets for the first time next week, which I'm sure he will welcome. We must continue working with our international counterparts and key stakeholders across the international trade union, movement and business community to take action against those who illegally destroy families, communities and our natural world for profit. As members have outlined, this action cannot be singular or a patchwork of separate policy decisions. Only co-ordinated root and branch decisions will enable our constituents to know that they can trust the t shirt they're wearing, the bag they're carrying and the food they're eating has not arrived in our country at the expense of exploited people and areas thousands of miles away.
Delivering this confidence for British people is good for business, good for growth, and cements our place as a world leader on these matters. And I thank all honourable members for their contributions. Again, we look forward to working with you closely on the review and on this issue to make sure that we continue to focus it, and it's a priority for our government. And I'll end by wishing you a very happy birthday for Saturday. And thank you again.
We are doing the review economy wide and we have engaged with investors on the review too, and are working with HMT. And of course we'll keep you updated as I know he is. He is interested in this area and passionate about it too. Trade strategy, we took another key step which is launching the office for Responsible Business Conduct, providing UK businesses, trade unions and charities with a simpler route to compliance, supporting the integration of responsible business practices and helping victims of corporate malpractice through providing a non-judicial grievance mechanism.
Alongside the broader Rbcc review, we are considering also how we strengthen the section 54 transparency regime, which lots of members have raised today, and I thank them for it, including mandatory reporting requirements extending to the public sector and penalties for non-compliance. We published updated transparency in supply chains statutory guidance in March 2025, calling on businesses to go further and faster to. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I thank him for his contributions today and for his work on the committee and engagement, and focus on this vital, vital area.
As I mentioned in my previous answer, in terms of our work with with the US and our relationship, I hope he's reassured by our continued engagement regularly with the US administration as part of our negotiations, and hope he'll feel reassured by my previous comments to. As a proudly internationalist and pro-worker government, we have a responsibility to remain a world leader in tackling modern slavery, slavery clearances and human rights abuses wherever they are their ugly head. The government stands firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, which where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detained Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities.
And lots of members have raised this today, and I thank them for it. I hope they know that we raised these concerns with China at the highest levels, including recently, the Prime minister himself and the former foreign secretary, and we continue to coordinate efforts with our international partners to hold China to account, for example, joining a UN statement. And in October 24th and co-signing a US joint statement in November 2025. I thank my right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and respect lots of his work in this area and thank him for the consistency of raising this issue today and outside this House.
We all saw my Right Honourable member also raised GB energy and I will bring my remarks to a close after this. As a publicly owned energy company and the Shadow Minister raises two. And of course, GB energy is expected to demonstrate leading practice in complying with UK modern slavery legislation and aligning with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. We have established an ethical supply chain advisory group to review and inform GB's approach to ethical supply chains within its investments and operations.
Chaired by Baroness Frances OGrady. My department will sit on this group and it meets for the first time next week, which I'm sure he will welcome. We must continue working with our international counterparts and key stakeholders across the international trade union, movement and business community to take action against those who illegally destroy families, communities and our natural world for profit. As members have outlined, this action cannot be singular or a patchwork of separate policy decisions. Only co-ordinated root and branch decisions will enable our constituents to know that they can trust the t shirt they're wearing, the bag they're carrying and the food they're eating has not arrived in our country at the expense of exploited people and areas thousands of miles away.
Delivering this confidence for British people is good for business, good for growth, and cements our place as a world leader on these matters. And I thank all honourable members for their contributions. Again, we look forward to working with you closely on the review and on this issue to make sure that we continue to focus it, and it's a priority for our government. And I'll end by wishing you a very happy birthday for Saturday. And thank you again.
14:53
14:54
14:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Mr. Dowd. And I think we've had a. Great debate today. Lots of agreement in the room, and I'm sure the minister has heard about the strength of feeling about what needs to be done. We would very much welcome, uh, the, responsible Business conduct review to happen as quickly as possible. I know it's not the minister's direct brief, and I know she's a champion of international labour rights, but we do need this to happen as quickly as possible. We also need to make sure that section 54 is also strengthened.
This has cross-party support and I'm sure that we will get there eventually, but it needs to happen quickly. Um, so I just look forward to having um, a more. Failed response from the department in due course. And I just want to say, um, to. Mr. Dowd, thank you again for stepping into the breach at the last minute and for allowing this debate to continue. We couldn't have done it without you. And I hope you have a very happy birthday soon as well.
Thank you.
This has cross-party support and I'm sure that we will get there eventually, but it needs to happen quickly. Um, so I just look forward to having um, a more. Failed response from the department in due course. And I just want to say, um, to. Mr. Dowd, thank you again for stepping into the breach at the last minute and for allowing this debate to continue. We couldn't have done it without you. And I hope you have a very happy birthday soon as well.
Thank you.
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I beg to move that this house has considered toilet provision for people with stoma. Um, can I first of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for for standing in. And it's much appreciated by us all. Um, it's always good to have you in the chair no matter what. But today is a special occasion and thank you so much for that. Um, I want to thank honourable members for coming along to the debate.
Um, it's not maybe what I would call a, a particularly fashionable debate, but it's a debate that affects a great many people and it's a debate, uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, that needs to be aired in the Westminster Hall, and we need to have the opportunity to, to put forward the case. Now, the title of it is A public toilet provision. Um, and it's about, uh, toilet provision for people with stomas. Now through, through my life, I've had occasion to, to engage with some people who have had stomachs and I never really, probably really quite understood what it was, other than the fact that there was something wrong with their bowel system.
Uh, and this was a method whereby they were able to have a, a. Normal life, if that's the right way to put it. And in some cases. Mr. Chairman. The Stomas were only there for a short term, uh, because the people recuperated and sometimes the body needed a bit of rest. And perhaps that was one way of doing it. But I'm very pleased to have secured this debate, and I'm grateful to the colleagues who have come along to participate.
I also place on record my thanks to colostomy UK for its support. Um, in preparing for today's debate and more importantly, for the work it does every day. Supporting people living with Stomas across the United Kingdom and. We had the opportunity to meet with representatives from colostomy UK to learn more about the challenges that they have, the challenges that their patients have, um, living with Stomas and what they face. These discussions have highlighted an issue that many of us rarely think about, but which affects thousands of people every single day.
This debate is not just about public toilets for those with stomas, but it's very hot. It's about dignity. It's about independence and it's about inclusion. And that's the three the three themes that we maybe put on record. Can I say I should have said at the beginning, I apologize for not really lovely to see, Mr. Chairman, to see the minister in her place. Uh, I understand this is our first debate. Uh, and I wish her well in her new role that she carries on.
And I think we're not too hard on you, Minister. Definitely not. You know, I won't be. That's not my nature anyway to be that. But we put forward the case and I think all of us collectively, and you as the minister, will respond in a positive way to encourage us in relation to what we're asking for. And we have a number of asks and have, um. Hopefully given you those for us so that we can have them looked at later on when we come to the conclusion of, of the debate and my contribution um, for most.
Of us access to a toilet, um, is something we take completely for granted. We leave home to go to work, we visit friends, we attend events, we go shopping and we go travelling without giving so much as a second thought because you know, there'll always be a toilet there. Um, it reminds me of the story whenever I in the Armed Forces Parliament, John Spellar it was used to be, uh, the, the member, uh, and he told me when we go on this course, he says, there's two things I'm going to tell you.
Advice. And John Sparrow always give you good advice. He says, if you see a toilet go. He says, if you see food, eat. That was his two things for me to do whenever I went anywhere. And I've always remembered John Speller's words of wisdom. Uh, of course, the fact of the matter is I didn't have the stoma. I was able to go to the toilet anywhere. But for those who have stomas, that becomes a great problem.
We assume that if we need a toilet, one will be available for many people living with a stoma. However, that certainly does not exist and that's the key theme of this debate today. For the benefit of those following today's debate, a stoma is a surgically created opening in the abdomen that allows waste to leave the body into an internal pouch. People may require a stoma following bowel cancer. Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis. Diverticulitis, trauma or indeed serious health conditions.
I've had a couple of friends over the years. They've got Crohn's disease and one with colitis. And they, for a short period of their life, had a stoma. Uh, and that helped them to heal their body. And eventually they were able to do without the stoma. For many people, having a stoma is life saving surgery. And it does enable you to, to have a comparatively normal life. It enables them to regain their health, to maintain their independence, and to continue living active and fulfilling lives.
And it shouldn't mean that you can't. It just means that you have to deal with the toilet issue. And that's the key issue in relation to this very on that point.
Um, it's not maybe what I would call a, a particularly fashionable debate, but it's a debate that affects a great many people and it's a debate, uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, that needs to be aired in the Westminster Hall, and we need to have the opportunity to, to put forward the case. Now, the title of it is A public toilet provision. Um, and it's about, uh, toilet provision for people with stomas. Now through, through my life, I've had occasion to, to engage with some people who have had stomachs and I never really, probably really quite understood what it was, other than the fact that there was something wrong with their bowel system.
Uh, and this was a method whereby they were able to have a, a. Normal life, if that's the right way to put it. And in some cases. Mr. Chairman. The Stomas were only there for a short term, uh, because the people recuperated and sometimes the body needed a bit of rest. And perhaps that was one way of doing it. But I'm very pleased to have secured this debate, and I'm grateful to the colleagues who have come along to participate.
I also place on record my thanks to colostomy UK for its support. Um, in preparing for today's debate and more importantly, for the work it does every day. Supporting people living with Stomas across the United Kingdom and. We had the opportunity to meet with representatives from colostomy UK to learn more about the challenges that they have, the challenges that their patients have, um, living with Stomas and what they face. These discussions have highlighted an issue that many of us rarely think about, but which affects thousands of people every single day.
This debate is not just about public toilets for those with stomas, but it's very hot. It's about dignity. It's about independence and it's about inclusion. And that's the three the three themes that we maybe put on record. Can I say I should have said at the beginning, I apologize for not really lovely to see, Mr. Chairman, to see the minister in her place. Uh, I understand this is our first debate. Uh, and I wish her well in her new role that she carries on.
And I think we're not too hard on you, Minister. Definitely not. You know, I won't be. That's not my nature anyway to be that. But we put forward the case and I think all of us collectively, and you as the minister, will respond in a positive way to encourage us in relation to what we're asking for. And we have a number of asks and have, um. Hopefully given you those for us so that we can have them looked at later on when we come to the conclusion of, of the debate and my contribution um, for most.
Of us access to a toilet, um, is something we take completely for granted. We leave home to go to work, we visit friends, we attend events, we go shopping and we go travelling without giving so much as a second thought because you know, there'll always be a toilet there. Um, it reminds me of the story whenever I in the Armed Forces Parliament, John Spellar it was used to be, uh, the, the member, uh, and he told me when we go on this course, he says, there's two things I'm going to tell you.
Advice. And John Sparrow always give you good advice. He says, if you see a toilet go. He says, if you see food, eat. That was his two things for me to do whenever I went anywhere. And I've always remembered John Speller's words of wisdom. Uh, of course, the fact of the matter is I didn't have the stoma. I was able to go to the toilet anywhere. But for those who have stomas, that becomes a great problem.
We assume that if we need a toilet, one will be available for many people living with a stoma. However, that certainly does not exist and that's the key theme of this debate today. For the benefit of those following today's debate, a stoma is a surgically created opening in the abdomen that allows waste to leave the body into an internal pouch. People may require a stoma following bowel cancer. Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis. Diverticulitis, trauma or indeed serious health conditions.
I've had a couple of friends over the years. They've got Crohn's disease and one with colitis. And they, for a short period of their life, had a stoma. Uh, and that helped them to heal their body. And eventually they were able to do without the stoma. For many people, having a stoma is life saving surgery. And it does enable you to, to have a comparatively normal life. It enables them to regain their health, to maintain their independence, and to continue living active and fulfilling lives.
And it shouldn't mean that you can't. It just means that you have to deal with the toilet issue. And that's the key issue in relation to this very on that point.
15:03
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way, and securing was really important debate, and I just really wanted to put on record my thanks to him for securing this debate and raising the issue and profile and awareness around this. Um, anyone who was at PMQs last week would have seen that I was talking about living with ulcerative colitis. And I'm really grateful that the PM has now got the minister to meet with me, talking about the issues that people with IBD face. Um, I would just say to him, if he or anyone else is interested in trying to join that meeting, should the minister allow it and be more than happy to include him in that conversation?
15:04
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Okay. Can I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention?And if possible, I would maybe take advantage of that if the opportunity comes. Okay. And if you don't mind, um, more than 200 000 people across the United Kingdom live with a stoma. And for some, a stoma may be a short term issue and that their body may heal and they will recover. And that is to be welcomed. But for those who have to live with us, even a short time or short term.
Uh, there's a lot of anxiety in relation to that. Yet despite that, Mr. Chairman, many people find that something as simple as leaving home can require careful planning and considerable anxiety. One of the strongest messages that I took away from my discussions with colostomy UK was that many people living with Stomas plan their lives around toilet access. Um, it's a fact of life. And if you haven't got access to where we are going to the restaurant or to the shopping centre, or you're going a journey, you've got to make sure that there's toilet provision along the way.
Uh, there's a lot of anxiety in relation to that. Yet despite that, Mr. Chairman, many people find that something as simple as leaving home can require careful planning and considerable anxiety. One of the strongest messages that I took away from my discussions with colostomy UK was that many people living with Stomas plan their lives around toilet access. Um, it's a fact of life. And if you haven't got access to where we are going to the restaurant or to the shopping centre, or you're going a journey, you've got to make sure that there's toilet provision along the way.
15:05
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I really do thank the honourable gentleman for being very generous with his time. And just on the point that he's just raised there, I noticed that he listed restaurants, businesses and other places one might find a toilet. In recent years, we've seen the hollowing out of local government and the loss of public, publicly accessible toilets, which would be provided by the likes of town councils or unitary authorities, or whatever it may be. Does he agree with me that we need to consider the impact on people with Stomas and other IBD conditions?When local authorities are looking at either closing or charging for those facilities?
15:05
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah. Okay. Thank you again for for his intervention and and he intervened on an issue I'm going to bring forward very shortly in relation to to the provision, the very purpose of toilets. I'll give some examples and I will give an example of my own constituency where we unfortunately have been able to take some proactive, um and, and maybe something that others may wish to do as well. The availability of a suitable toilet can determine whether someone feels confident enough to attend a family gathering.
Uh, when all the family's here and the kids are on the boat, uh, and you wonder, well, is the toilet handy?And, and it's a two toilets because there's somebody in one. I need to make sure I get there fairly quickly. Enjoy a day out, travel for work, visit a town centre, or simply spend time with friends. It's not a situation any of us would wish to see. The evidence gathered by colostomy UK highlights the scale of the issue and the scale of the issue.
Uh, Mr. Chairman and Minister is quite significant. It's stoma aware survey found that 62% of people living with a stoma avoid activities that many of us take for granted, because a suitable toilet facilities are just not available. 1 in 4 of those people have been challenged for using an accessible toilet, despite having a genuine need to do so. And most only 4% say they leave home only for emergencies. Uh, those figures are indeed striking. It seems that they're almost captives in their own houses.
They tell us that this is simply not an issue of convenience. It's an issue of social participation. It's an issue of confidence. And for many people, it's an issue of isolation. And that's the key issue of this. We spend a great deal of time in this House discussing loneliness and social isolation and government rightly respond to that there in a positive way of trying to make it better. We talk about encouraging people to remain active in their communities.
I'm encouraging people to ensure that those living with long term health conditions are not left behind. Yet inadequate intervention. Inadequate toilet provision can be a significant barrier to all of those ambitions. Whenever you plan your day and you plan your journey and you plan your writing, as someone cannot be confident that they will find a suitable toilet when they need one. They may begin to avoid situations that others take for granted. They may stop attending social events. They may stop going to family occasions.
They may stop travelling. They may stop visiting friends and family. They may avoid shopping centres, cultural events or community activities. Just because if I go there and I'm cut short, where do I go?Is there provision?How far can I travel?That is not because they lack the desire to participate. That's never the issue. It's the issue of of the predicament that they will find themselves in, because they lack confidence that the facilities that they need may indeed not be available.
People living with Stomas can also experience complications that require immediate access to toilets, such as leakage, pancaking or ballooning, and these can happen without warning and often require urgent attention. Um, I remember one of my friends was caught short quite unexpectedly. Uh, and he presented himself at the toilet and. But the problem was that they, they, they stoma had overflowed, uh, and apart from the embarrassment that was for him, it was also for others round about who were wanting to know what was going on and didn't quite understand it, but for him, for him especially, it was incredibly, uh, worrying.
These can happen without warning and often require urgent attention. And when these situations occur, access to a suitable toilet is not a luxury. It's a an essential. And we must get there right now. And a couple of comments by some of the people that colostomy UK survey, uh, took details on one person responding to colostomy, UK survey said I plan every journey around toilets. Sometimes I cancel plans because I can't face the stress of not knowing if there's a toilet there.
I have access to it. Will it be a problem?Another said I once had a woman yell at me for using the accessible toilet because I look fine. She couldn't understand what was going on and I didn't go out again for weeks because the fear of having to deal with somebody else who might just shout at her and maybe say worse things. These comments, I believe, 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, well-being, and quality of life. And what strikes me, madam, Mr. Chairman, about this issue is that the solutions are often neither complicated nor expensive, and they're not really when you think on it. So I will put some, some probably some thoughts to to the minister and how we move forward. We're not talking about major infrastructure projects or significant new burdens financially. In many cases, we're just talking about practical measures that can make a substantial difference to people's lives.
The challenge is not the lack of solutions. The challenge is to ensure that those solutions are consistently available and embedded within policy and practice. And that brings me to the two issues that I wish to raise with the minister today. The first concerns public toilet provision, the very thing that the honourable gentleman referred to in his intervention and across the United Kingdom, public toilets have disappeared from town centres, from public spaces, communities that once had facilities that people could rely on have seen those facilities close and often without any indication of replacement.
So that's a very issue. The gentleman referred to, and it's well known, and others will comment on it.
Uh, when all the family's here and the kids are on the boat, uh, and you wonder, well, is the toilet handy?And, and it's a two toilets because there's somebody in one. I need to make sure I get there fairly quickly. Enjoy a day out, travel for work, visit a town centre, or simply spend time with friends. It's not a situation any of us would wish to see. The evidence gathered by colostomy UK highlights the scale of the issue and the scale of the issue.
Uh, Mr. Chairman and Minister is quite significant. It's stoma aware survey found that 62% of people living with a stoma avoid activities that many of us take for granted, because a suitable toilet facilities are just not available. 1 in 4 of those people have been challenged for using an accessible toilet, despite having a genuine need to do so. And most only 4% say they leave home only for emergencies. Uh, those figures are indeed striking. It seems that they're almost captives in their own houses.
They tell us that this is simply not an issue of convenience. It's an issue of social participation. It's an issue of confidence. And for many people, it's an issue of isolation. And that's the key issue of this. We spend a great deal of time in this House discussing loneliness and social isolation and government rightly respond to that there in a positive way of trying to make it better. We talk about encouraging people to remain active in their communities.
I'm encouraging people to ensure that those living with long term health conditions are not left behind. Yet inadequate intervention. Inadequate toilet provision can be a significant barrier to all of those ambitions. Whenever you plan your day and you plan your journey and you plan your writing, as someone cannot be confident that they will find a suitable toilet when they need one. They may begin to avoid situations that others take for granted. They may stop attending social events. They may stop going to family occasions.
They may stop travelling. They may stop visiting friends and family. They may avoid shopping centres, cultural events or community activities. Just because if I go there and I'm cut short, where do I go?Is there provision?How far can I travel?That is not because they lack the desire to participate. That's never the issue. It's the issue of of the predicament that they will find themselves in, because they lack confidence that the facilities that they need may indeed not be available.
People living with Stomas can also experience complications that require immediate access to toilets, such as leakage, pancaking or ballooning, and these can happen without warning and often require urgent attention. Um, I remember one of my friends was caught short quite unexpectedly. Uh, and he presented himself at the toilet and. But the problem was that they, they, they stoma had overflowed, uh, and apart from the embarrassment that was for him, it was also for others round about who were wanting to know what was going on and didn't quite understand it, but for him, for him especially, it was incredibly, uh, worrying.
These can happen without warning and often require urgent attention. And when these situations occur, access to a suitable toilet is not a luxury. It's a an essential. And we must get there right now. And a couple of comments by some of the people that colostomy UK survey, uh, took details on one person responding to colostomy, UK survey said I plan every journey around toilets. Sometimes I cancel plans because I can't face the stress of not knowing if there's a toilet there.
I have access to it. Will it be a problem?Another said I once had a woman yell at me for using the accessible toilet because I look fine. She couldn't understand what was going on and I didn't go out again for weeks because the fear of having to deal with somebody else who might just shout at her and maybe say worse things. These comments, I believe, 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, well-being, and quality of life. And what strikes me, madam, Mr. Chairman, about this issue is that the solutions are often neither complicated nor expensive, and they're not really when you think on it. So I will put some, some probably some thoughts to to the minister and how we move forward. We're not talking about major infrastructure projects or significant new burdens financially. In many cases, we're just talking about practical measures that can make a substantial difference to people's lives.
The challenge is not the lack of solutions. The challenge is to ensure that those solutions are consistently available and embedded within policy and practice. And that brings me to the two issues that I wish to raise with the minister today. The first concerns public toilet provision, the very thing that the honourable gentleman referred to in his intervention and across the United Kingdom, public toilets have disappeared from town centres, from public spaces, communities that once had facilities that people could rely on have seen those facilities close and often without any indication of replacement.
So that's a very issue. The gentleman referred to, and it's well known, and others will comment on it.
15:12
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Will he give way?I really do commend him on being one of the most generous members that I've ever encountered. Um, on that point of the provision of public toilets, not only is the issue of toilet closure, but also of them just having a lack of maintenance and spending and making them a place where someone wants to use the toilet. Does he agree with me that we need to make sure where we have those facilities, they're up to the standard that anyone would expect, let alone someone who might have one of these conditions.
15:12
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
As again, uh, incredibly powerful interventions, but also very focused on, on the issue. Yes, the toilets should be of a, of a level and a cleanliness and, and attendance in relation to the, they are and are able to be used by everyone. The wider decline, of course, has now been highlighted by the Royal Society for Public Health, which has warned of the emergence of public toilet deserts and there are those places in the UK. Recent research found that there's now one public toilet for every 15,500 people in England, and that public toilet provision has fallen by 14% since 2016.
And that is incredibly worrying because it does highlight the issue and why the importance of us to be it has been brought forward. And why, uh, my request to the minister will be will be fairly specific for many people. That may simply be frustrating. Uh, 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're an essential infrastructure and essential part of everyday life. The Royal Society for Public Health has also warned for some people, access to a public toilet can be the difference between whether they leave the house or not, and that is exactly the reality that colostomy UK hears from people living with Stomas. I do. Mr. chairman, I don't uh. Push aside the thoughts of of the financial pressures facing local authorities, and I appreciate that there are difficult decisions to be made. However, I hope that the minister can agree that nobody should be excluded from public life because they cannot access a suitable toilet when they need one.
I therefore hope that the government will consider how local authorities can be supported to ensure that people living with Stomas and other long term health conditions aren't disadvantaged by a lack of public toilet provision. I also hope that the Minister can consider whether the current discretionary approach to public toilet provision is sufficient for those who rely on these facilities to participate in everyday life.
And that is incredibly worrying because it does highlight the issue and why the importance of us to be it has been brought forward. And why, uh, my request to the minister will be will be fairly specific for many people. That may simply be frustrating. Uh, 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're an essential infrastructure and essential part of everyday life. The Royal Society for Public Health has also warned for some people, access to a public toilet can be the difference between whether they leave the house or not, and that is exactly the reality that colostomy UK hears from people living with Stomas. I do. Mr. chairman, I don't uh. Push aside the thoughts of of the financial pressures facing local authorities, and I appreciate that there are difficult decisions to be made. However, I hope that the minister can agree that nobody should be excluded from public life because they cannot access a suitable toilet when they need one.
I therefore hope that the government will consider how local authorities can be supported to ensure that people living with Stomas and other long term health conditions aren't disadvantaged by a lack of public toilet provision. I also hope that the Minister can consider whether the current discretionary approach to public toilet provision is sufficient for those who rely on these facilities to participate in everyday life.
15:14
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
And everyday life. And the second issue I wish to raise is also separate, but equally important. Well, the first issue is whether people can find a toilet at all. The second is whether, when they do find one, is it suitable for their needs?And that's the key issue. 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 still lack the practical features needed by somebody managing a stoma.
And the very issues and three very key interventions as I lined the case for this debate. Now, I mentioned earlier on, Mr. Chairman, I'm very fortunate to be the member for Strangford. I recognise that, but I'm also. The biggest part of the Ards and North Down Council and what they have done and what I've supported over the years, I maybe sets a blueprint for other councils to try and follow. Um Ards and North Down Council and the work that they took is so important.
And I give the example Ards and North Down Borough Council worked with many UK and getting a strategy and getting a process that could be used. To take it forward. They work with across the UK to upgrade all accessible toilets within council owned facilities to become stoma friendly. And doing so, it became the first council in Northern Ireland to make accessible toilets within its facilities. Stoma friendly, demonstrating, I believe, real leadership on this issue. So the origins of North Down Council.
My council council that I served on for some 26 years and they have led the way. And perhaps maybe they could be the way for others to take forward as their policy. These improvements include practical additions such as shelves as mirrors, hooks and appropriate disposal facilities. The very things that the honourable gentleman and his intervention had referred, that would be one of the ways forward. They may sound like small changes, Mr. Chairman, but they make a significant difference to people managing stoma.
So I want to 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 Council of Northern Ireland has already implemented these changes, I believe, demonstrates that they are achievable and that they can be delivered within existing public sector budgets, the Council's delivered the special facilities within the council, within the toilet facilities that they have and my constituency. And what is particularly encouraging is that this demonstrates, I believe, that the solutions being proposed are practical, they're achievable and they can be delivered.
The council recognises the need, working with people who understand the issue and implementing changes that make public facilities more accessible. The question we should ask ourselves is this if we recognise that these features are necessary, why should there provision depend on the goodwill of individual councils, businesses or indeed 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 there is an accessible toilet within that will meet their needs.
And that is why colostomy UK is calling for stoma friendly features to be incorporated with and within part M of the Building Regulations and future accessibility standards. These are constructive policies put forward to, um make the lives of those who have stomas bags to be able to have a better quality of life. The success of Changing Places Toilets shows what can be achieved when government identifies a genuine accessibility need and responds positively. The features required to make a toilet stoma friendly are modest in comparison, yet they can have a profound impact on people's daily lives, and I therefore believe that there is a strong case for examining whether stoma friendly features should become a standard requirement within accessible toilets in any new developments.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I the minister already has my my my for ask, but I would ask the Minister to do for four specific questions. Please. Firstly, would the Minister agree to meeting with colostomy UK to hear directly from people living with Stomas and discuss their issues further?I know the Minister has only taken over and I appreciate that and understand that, but at. The minister can make the time. I think that we would appreciate the opportunity to to act on this.
And secondly, on public toilet provision. Uh, will the minister engage with, um with ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to explore how local authorities can be supported to maintain adequate, um, public, toilet provision for people with stomas and other long term health conditions, because there's many long term conditions that the honourable gentleman and the intervention referred to that that are, that are pertinent. Thirdly, on building standards. Will the minister ask officials to examine whether part M of the part of the building regulations could and should be updated so that stoma friendly features become standard within accessible toilets and new developments?And fourthly, will the Minister work with colostomy UK and other stakeholders to ensure that people living with Stomas are able to participate fully in work and education and travel and culture and community life, and indeed in normal life?And let's be quite clear, this is not a political party political issue.
Mr. chairman, uh, I always try and debate that I bring forward never to make it that because it's not about that. It's about the people. So it's a practical issue. It's an accessibility issue. And above all, it's a human issue. No one should feel excluded from a society because they cannot access a suitable toilet when they need one. I look forward to hearing other members contributions, and thank the honourable gentleman for the interventions, and look forward to the contributions.
And I really, really do, Minister, I wish you well in the role that you play. And today we have an opportunity to work together collectively to do better for our people. Thanks so much.
And the very issues and three very key interventions as I lined the case for this debate. Now, I mentioned earlier on, Mr. Chairman, I'm very fortunate to be the member for Strangford. I recognise that, but I'm also. The biggest part of the Ards and North Down Council and what they have done and what I've supported over the years, I maybe sets a blueprint for other councils to try and follow. Um Ards and North Down Council and the work that they took is so important.
And I give the example Ards and North Down Borough Council worked with many UK and getting a strategy and getting a process that could be used. To take it forward. They work with across the UK to upgrade all accessible toilets within council owned facilities to become stoma friendly. And doing so, it became the first council in Northern Ireland to make accessible toilets within its facilities. Stoma friendly, demonstrating, I believe, real leadership on this issue. So the origins of North Down Council.
My council council that I served on for some 26 years and they have led the way. And perhaps maybe they could be the way for others to take forward as their policy. These improvements include practical additions such as shelves as mirrors, hooks and appropriate disposal facilities. The very things that the honourable gentleman and his intervention had referred, that would be one of the ways forward. They may sound like small changes, Mr. Chairman, but they make a significant difference to people managing stoma.
So I want to 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 Council of Northern Ireland has already implemented these changes, I believe, demonstrates that they are achievable and that they can be delivered within existing public sector budgets, the Council's delivered the special facilities within the council, within the toilet facilities that they have and my constituency. And what is particularly encouraging is that this demonstrates, I believe, that the solutions being proposed are practical, they're achievable and they can be delivered.
The council recognises the need, working with people who understand the issue and implementing changes that make public facilities more accessible. The question we should ask ourselves is this if we recognise that these features are necessary, why should there provision depend on the goodwill of individual councils, businesses or indeed 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 there is an accessible toilet within that will meet their needs.
And that is why colostomy UK is calling for stoma friendly features to be incorporated with and within part M of the Building Regulations and future accessibility standards. These are constructive policies put forward to, um make the lives of those who have stomas bags to be able to have a better quality of life. The success of Changing Places Toilets shows what can be achieved when government identifies a genuine accessibility need and responds positively. The features required to make a toilet stoma friendly are modest in comparison, yet they can have a profound impact on people's daily lives, and I therefore believe that there is a strong case for examining whether stoma friendly features should become a standard requirement within accessible toilets in any new developments.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I the minister already has my my my for ask, but I would ask the Minister to do for four specific questions. Please. Firstly, would the Minister agree to meeting with colostomy UK to hear directly from people living with Stomas and discuss their issues further?I know the Minister has only taken over and I appreciate that and understand that, but at. The minister can make the time. I think that we would appreciate the opportunity to to act on this.
And secondly, on public toilet provision. Uh, will the minister engage with, um with ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to explore how local authorities can be supported to maintain adequate, um, public, toilet provision for people with stomas and other long term health conditions, because there's many long term conditions that the honourable gentleman and the intervention referred to that that are, that are pertinent. Thirdly, on building standards. Will the minister ask officials to examine whether part M of the part of the building regulations could and should be updated so that stoma friendly features become standard within accessible toilets and new developments?And fourthly, will the Minister work with colostomy UK and other stakeholders to ensure that people living with Stomas are able to participate fully in work and education and travel and culture and community life, and indeed in normal life?And let's be quite clear, this is not a political party political issue.
Mr. chairman, uh, I always try and debate that I bring forward never to make it that because it's not about that. It's about the people. So it's a practical issue. It's an accessibility issue. And above all, it's a human issue. No one should feel excluded from a society because they cannot access a suitable toilet when they need one. I look forward to hearing other members contributions, and thank the honourable gentleman for the interventions, and look forward to the contributions.
And I really, really do, Minister, I wish you well in the role that you play. And today we have an opportunity to work together collectively to do better for our people. Thanks so much.
15:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. The question is that this house has considered public toilet provision for people with Stomas Andrew Snowdon. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr. Dowd, especially on your birthday. So thank you for standing in and choosing to spend your special day talking about public toilets. Um, with us today, I'd also like to thank the honourable member for Strangford, um, to, for calling this important debate. I know that not only is he the most industrious contributor to debates and question times across this House, he also champions matters that really do cut to the heart of why we are here.
And um and um, things that really matter to people in their everyday lives. Um, now if you have been and supported a loved one, a family member, a friend who has a stoma, um, has gone through the process of requiring a stoma, um, then you will realise that there are two things that you often do together and that is laugh and cry. And um, if you don't do the laughing, you will just spend all your time crying. Um, as you can probably already tell, this is quite a personal subject.
Um, for me and actually a little bit of irreverence and a little bit of humor, um, is actually a very good way of dealing with the issue of stoma care and inflammatory bowel disease. In fact, it's an essential, I would say. Um, and it also helps break down the barriers and the embarrassment about talking about the subject in its first place. And we have, um, had a very good explanation of what a stoma actually is in terms of a surgical opening, um, to allow waste to leave the body, usually at the expense of significant amounts of intestine having been removed, um, or in many cases the entire um area of the colon, which is as painful, damaging and difficult to recover from, um, as you can imagine it would be.
And the conditions themselves that have often led to someone requiring a stoma. Um, let's be honest, this all evolves and evolves about talking about poo. Um, which is the British public, we're not particularly comfortable talking about. So actually a stoma, as the honourable member has already outlined what it is. Um is something that most people are embarrassed about. And actually one way people get around it is, as I've said, having a sense of humour. So, um, I've met many people with Stomas.
Um, I have a very close loved one who has a stoma. Um, and um, I've met many of her friends that she's made over the years on her many hospital stays. What are some of the things you pick up on is what do you call a stoma once you've got one?Um, and actually they're quite creative. Um, the names and actually the naming process of a stoma is actually a quite humorous and B a degree of taking ownership of it. So I'd just like to run the members through some of the names.
So we get beyond just a surgical opening and talk about some of the names that people come up with for Stomas. Um, and some of these are ones that have, I've seen, researched and some of these are ones actually named to people I know, the people who've got the stoma. So most of the names are either a play on words. You get a rhyme from stoma or they are references to poo or pumping. So apologies to the committee in advance, but hopefully you'll find there'll be something in here for one of you.
Hopefully. So an opening gambit is, um, Paloma Faith, um, is a good name for stoma Winnie the Pooh. Um, being another one. Uh, another favourite of mine is Vladimir pooping just because it takes the mick out of a dictator. Something straightforward and simple, which is windbag. Um, which is pretty much what it is. Captain Craptastic. That's another another good one. Donald Trump's, um, is another one, Bilbo Baggins. And finally, uh, my favorite one, um, is Lewis on, um, which I think is excellent.
And I'm delighted to have got that into Hansard. Um, so hopefully that will a. Just give a bit of that insight into actually, whilst people who suffer, um, and have had to have a stoma because of their suffering have been through um difficult times, they are people, remarkably resilient people, um, with a great sense of humour, many of them, um, every member in this house will have a constituent who has either inflammatory bowel disease or colonic cancer or um, or any of the conditions that has led to a stoma.
Um, and you will all have constituents with Stomas that is beyond a doubt. In fact, um, in terms of the conditions that can lead to requiring a stoma because the conditions themselves depend on how controllable it is in, in an individual person. Um, so for example, whether you can get Crohn's or colitis flare ups, whether the cancer is caught and treated early enough, but all of those things that have similarity of issues, you will have hundreds, if not thousands of constituents who either have it or know someone who has, um, and directly.
Affected. And the condition itself, the conditions themselves are embarrassing. Um, it's not just having a stoma and you've got to that point by the time you get to having a stoma, you have usually been through years of having to deal and suffer in silence about a condition that you don't want to talk about. And there's a lot of misunderstanding. So with Crohn's and colitis, for example, a lot of people think it's effectively some form of IBS. Um, and you will often find that very well.
People suggest, um, if you tried eating less spicy food or not eating brown bread, um, when they don't realize that actually it's a condition that generates internal ulcers in the most painful place they could possibly be that then internally bleed, create internal blood clots that then need to urgently pass through your system in an incredibly painful way. Um, and whether you had a Madras on Friday night makes absolutely no difference. Um, to that condition. Um, so actually the toilet provision is so important, not just for people with stomas, but for people, um, with the conditions um as well.
Um and, and I think that is an important thing to remember that actually, you can look at the number of people with Stomas colostomy UK have provided a helpful briefing ahead of this. You can look at the number of people with Stomas, but that would give you a very distorted view about the total number of people who require access to toilets due to um, health conditions. And just to, to put it in perspective specifically for stoma. And it goes back to some of the points.
My honourable, um, other honourable members have already made about the cleanliness of public toilets as well. So when you are going to the toilet, um to when you've got a stoma, you're either going to empty it or you're going to change it. And to change it is not a quick thing. Um, and if you have a leak, which is something anybody with a stoma lives in absolute fear of, um, you need to urgently deal with that and to deal with that, let's just think and visualise yourselves about where it is on your body.
You then need to, even if you're just emptying it, the proximity to the toilet means also getting very close to the floor and the toilet itself, and you suddenly become an expert in the cleanliness of toilets. And which companies do keep clean toilets and which don't. And that goes back to remembering the. Human in all of this, and not just taking it from a purely clinical and and public health perspective, let's just say you've been through years of dealing with having a health condition that has led to you then needing to have major surgery, which is life changing and life threatening in its own right.
You then have a stoma. Um, and regardless of your age, um, but especially for younger people in, um, this hyper body conscious world, that is not something that you want. It's not something that you're proud of and it's something that you will be, you're often embarrassed about and will try and conceal and hide. So imagine you've been through all of that. You've recovered, you're just about psychologically coming to terms with having a stoma, and you want to go out. You want to pick up the courage to go out.
You find some clothes that for the first time, um, you think cover so you don't feel conscious about it. Um, you go out, you feel sexy, you feel confident. It's a big boost. Then you either need to empty the bag or have the dreaded leak, and there's nowhere to do anything about it or. As one of my friends and I do apologize in advance, but I am quoting one of our friends said, imagine getting dressed up for date night and then having to go and crawl around on a piss covered floor.
Simply to change your bag. Does that really do anything other than knock your confidence and your dignity and your self-respect?And it's not fair. And I will say, there does seem to be a general consensus from forums and things that I've read, um, that maybe we men need to take a little more, um, care and attention in toilets, um, than women do. And that the, um, the, the standard in male toilets is often significantly lower um than female toilets. Um, but it is a point none, none the less.
And that is about what I want to get across in this debate. I don't want to talk about the stats and figures and percentages at the. Every one of those numbers has a human being behind it who is trying to get on and rebuild their lives under immense physical and psychological and emotional damage that has been done. And that is what makes this so important. There are also other issues. So, um, the issues with private access to private toilets.
So all of this cannot fall down to local councils. I've been working in campaigning on this, um, since I was elected as a county councillor in 2017, I took a motion to full council. Um they were the days um and um and uh, basically around uh, the, the, the, the access, the, the, the card that you can carry to say, um, that you need access to the private toilets in a, in a, effectively a commercial, whatever facility. Um, we have our own experiences of that in our family.
So, um. This is pre stoma, but it highlights the conditions as well. When you're shopping, you suddenly feel the urge to go, we've already established you're not having a poo or a pump. You are passing blood clots in an incredibly painful way. And your body is trying to get them out of the system and you cannot contain it. And poo will come out with the blood clots. So you're out shopping. You've decided to go out, even though, as the honourable members have already highlighted, a lot of people plan their journeys around that.
You show your card to a member of staff, they point blank refuse to let you use the private toilets. You soil yourself in the middle of the shop, and then you don't go out for a long time afterwards out of embarrassment. No, I don't want to name or shame any individual companies. Um, uh, that may have been in, in, in that example, but you can draw your own conclusions. If I just say that their slogan is, um, you can do it if you do it.
Um, and um, they were a horrific chain, I believe from my lobbying of late that they've got an awful lot better. So it's about raising understanding within those organisations around, around what the, the cards are and why people carry them. It goes back to the stigma around, um, not all, not all disabilities are visible, which is something I pushed for to be rolled out across Lancashire all those years ago. Um, because it isn't visible, you may look physically well um um but it is that urgency and making sure that people with stomas um or.
Um advanced, um Crohn's and colitis etc. can have radar keys and access to radar keys and know that they can get a radar key and then knowing where the toilets are and lots of different people have tried this and lots of different ways, but basically, if you, if you are going to go out and you are dependent on toilets being nearby, and we already accept that councils themselves cannot be responsible for every providing a toilet in all places at all times. And you know, that there's that network of companies and commercial organisations out there that will let you use their toilets, you know, um, even if you're not a lot of it's just about pubs and hotels knowing that actually sometimes someone may need to come in and I know it's really annoying when non paying customers come in and use the toilets, but having those apps, um, is equally really important.
So people can actually plan their day out and plan their journeys. Um, with um that confidence. Um, and. And forme, it is the knock on benefits to the NHS and public health. Around helping people live and maintain normal lives. Post traumatic bowel surgery, helping them with the psychological recovery. Maybe they had to quit work and to get back into work. And these things can be noisy as well. Um, they rumble and they pump.
Uh, they your bowels just on the outside of your body. Um, or moving to the outside of your body and, you know, dealing with that is hard enough. And therefore people, for example, in work may not wish to empty or change a bag in work. They may wish to go somewhere near work to do it, or they may work on the tools, they may work in a job that's outdoors where they don't actually have access as part of their job to routine toilets. So the knock on benefits to the government, to the treasury of helping people back into work, stopping people becoming ill with mental health issues, from the lack of confidence and the emotional damage that's been done as part of this, about helping people manage their condition better so that they're not continuously spiralling and going back into the NHS.
The benefits are are there in terms of being able to do this. Um, and it's not just about doing the right thing. What's moral obligation, um, to those people to be able, um, to do that. And um the honourable member for Strangford has already outlined the requests of um colostomy UK, um in terms of the things um that could be. Advanced through building regulations to make, um to, to make toilets much more, um, stoma friendly, uh, about the just general need for more um public toilets, um provision.
Um and I'm sure they will continue to lobby effectively on that, but I think for a lot of the time it's about the role the government can play. In, in creating, understanding, creating awareness amongst public bodies and organisations about why this is important, about that human element that I have tried to outline. Um, because this is about people's lives and the quality of life that some of the most people who deserve our support, um, more than ever, um, have. So those simple things, making sure that councils do have nice clean toilets, that they do have open toilets that people can access information about where public and IBD friendly toilets are.
Um, and, and, and so on and so forth. Um, so I'm going to get into the territory of repeating myself now. Um, so I shall, I shall end my speech. Um, I think that is probably um personal best for me on inappropriate Hansard, um, contributions and I look forward to um, to reading. Those back. Um, and I once again thank the honourable member for bringing this debate. It really is an important topic, and I know it will mean a lot to people.
As I said, a lot of people with these conditions don't want to talk about it. They do want to hide it. They will suffer in silence. Their voice will not be heard. Uh, they will not contact their MP to say, please, can we have better public toilets?Because I have a stoma, I have IBD because they don't want people to know. Um, and therefore it is really important that we as their elected representatives are their voice.
And I hope we've been able to do that today. And I look forward to what the minister and Shadow Minister have to say. Thank you.
And um and um, things that really matter to people in their everyday lives. Um, now if you have been and supported a loved one, a family member, a friend who has a stoma, um, has gone through the process of requiring a stoma, um, then you will realise that there are two things that you often do together and that is laugh and cry. And um, if you don't do the laughing, you will just spend all your time crying. Um, as you can probably already tell, this is quite a personal subject.
Um, for me and actually a little bit of irreverence and a little bit of humor, um, is actually a very good way of dealing with the issue of stoma care and inflammatory bowel disease. In fact, it's an essential, I would say. Um, and it also helps break down the barriers and the embarrassment about talking about the subject in its first place. And we have, um, had a very good explanation of what a stoma actually is in terms of a surgical opening, um, to allow waste to leave the body, usually at the expense of significant amounts of intestine having been removed, um, or in many cases the entire um area of the colon, which is as painful, damaging and difficult to recover from, um, as you can imagine it would be.
And the conditions themselves that have often led to someone requiring a stoma. Um, let's be honest, this all evolves and evolves about talking about poo. Um, which is the British public, we're not particularly comfortable talking about. So actually a stoma, as the honourable member has already outlined what it is. Um is something that most people are embarrassed about. And actually one way people get around it is, as I've said, having a sense of humour. So, um, I've met many people with Stomas.
Um, I have a very close loved one who has a stoma. Um, and um, I've met many of her friends that she's made over the years on her many hospital stays. What are some of the things you pick up on is what do you call a stoma once you've got one?Um, and actually they're quite creative. Um, the names and actually the naming process of a stoma is actually a quite humorous and B a degree of taking ownership of it. So I'd just like to run the members through some of the names.
So we get beyond just a surgical opening and talk about some of the names that people come up with for Stomas. Um, and some of these are ones that have, I've seen, researched and some of these are ones actually named to people I know, the people who've got the stoma. So most of the names are either a play on words. You get a rhyme from stoma or they are references to poo or pumping. So apologies to the committee in advance, but hopefully you'll find there'll be something in here for one of you.
Hopefully. So an opening gambit is, um, Paloma Faith, um, is a good name for stoma Winnie the Pooh. Um, being another one. Uh, another favourite of mine is Vladimir pooping just because it takes the mick out of a dictator. Something straightforward and simple, which is windbag. Um, which is pretty much what it is. Captain Craptastic. That's another another good one. Donald Trump's, um, is another one, Bilbo Baggins. And finally, uh, my favorite one, um, is Lewis on, um, which I think is excellent.
And I'm delighted to have got that into Hansard. Um, so hopefully that will a. Just give a bit of that insight into actually, whilst people who suffer, um, and have had to have a stoma because of their suffering have been through um difficult times, they are people, remarkably resilient people, um, with a great sense of humour, many of them, um, every member in this house will have a constituent who has either inflammatory bowel disease or colonic cancer or um, or any of the conditions that has led to a stoma.
Um, and you will all have constituents with Stomas that is beyond a doubt. In fact, um, in terms of the conditions that can lead to requiring a stoma because the conditions themselves depend on how controllable it is in, in an individual person. Um, so for example, whether you can get Crohn's or colitis flare ups, whether the cancer is caught and treated early enough, but all of those things that have similarity of issues, you will have hundreds, if not thousands of constituents who either have it or know someone who has, um, and directly.
Affected. And the condition itself, the conditions themselves are embarrassing. Um, it's not just having a stoma and you've got to that point by the time you get to having a stoma, you have usually been through years of having to deal and suffer in silence about a condition that you don't want to talk about. And there's a lot of misunderstanding. So with Crohn's and colitis, for example, a lot of people think it's effectively some form of IBS. Um, and you will often find that very well.
People suggest, um, if you tried eating less spicy food or not eating brown bread, um, when they don't realize that actually it's a condition that generates internal ulcers in the most painful place they could possibly be that then internally bleed, create internal blood clots that then need to urgently pass through your system in an incredibly painful way. Um, and whether you had a Madras on Friday night makes absolutely no difference. Um, to that condition. Um, so actually the toilet provision is so important, not just for people with stomas, but for people, um, with the conditions um as well.
Um and, and I think that is an important thing to remember that actually, you can look at the number of people with Stomas colostomy UK have provided a helpful briefing ahead of this. You can look at the number of people with Stomas, but that would give you a very distorted view about the total number of people who require access to toilets due to um, health conditions. And just to, to put it in perspective specifically for stoma. And it goes back to some of the points.
My honourable, um, other honourable members have already made about the cleanliness of public toilets as well. So when you are going to the toilet, um to when you've got a stoma, you're either going to empty it or you're going to change it. And to change it is not a quick thing. Um, and if you have a leak, which is something anybody with a stoma lives in absolute fear of, um, you need to urgently deal with that and to deal with that, let's just think and visualise yourselves about where it is on your body.
You then need to, even if you're just emptying it, the proximity to the toilet means also getting very close to the floor and the toilet itself, and you suddenly become an expert in the cleanliness of toilets. And which companies do keep clean toilets and which don't. And that goes back to remembering the. Human in all of this, and not just taking it from a purely clinical and and public health perspective, let's just say you've been through years of dealing with having a health condition that has led to you then needing to have major surgery, which is life changing and life threatening in its own right.
You then have a stoma. Um, and regardless of your age, um, but especially for younger people in, um, this hyper body conscious world, that is not something that you want. It's not something that you're proud of and it's something that you will be, you're often embarrassed about and will try and conceal and hide. So imagine you've been through all of that. You've recovered, you're just about psychologically coming to terms with having a stoma, and you want to go out. You want to pick up the courage to go out.
You find some clothes that for the first time, um, you think cover so you don't feel conscious about it. Um, you go out, you feel sexy, you feel confident. It's a big boost. Then you either need to empty the bag or have the dreaded leak, and there's nowhere to do anything about it or. As one of my friends and I do apologize in advance, but I am quoting one of our friends said, imagine getting dressed up for date night and then having to go and crawl around on a piss covered floor.
Simply to change your bag. Does that really do anything other than knock your confidence and your dignity and your self-respect?And it's not fair. And I will say, there does seem to be a general consensus from forums and things that I've read, um, that maybe we men need to take a little more, um, care and attention in toilets, um, than women do. And that the, um, the, the standard in male toilets is often significantly lower um than female toilets. Um, but it is a point none, none the less.
And that is about what I want to get across in this debate. I don't want to talk about the stats and figures and percentages at the. Every one of those numbers has a human being behind it who is trying to get on and rebuild their lives under immense physical and psychological and emotional damage that has been done. And that is what makes this so important. There are also other issues. So, um, the issues with private access to private toilets.
So all of this cannot fall down to local councils. I've been working in campaigning on this, um, since I was elected as a county councillor in 2017, I took a motion to full council. Um they were the days um and um and uh, basically around uh, the, the, the, the access, the, the, the card that you can carry to say, um, that you need access to the private toilets in a, in a, effectively a commercial, whatever facility. Um, we have our own experiences of that in our family.
So, um. This is pre stoma, but it highlights the conditions as well. When you're shopping, you suddenly feel the urge to go, we've already established you're not having a poo or a pump. You are passing blood clots in an incredibly painful way. And your body is trying to get them out of the system and you cannot contain it. And poo will come out with the blood clots. So you're out shopping. You've decided to go out, even though, as the honourable members have already highlighted, a lot of people plan their journeys around that.
You show your card to a member of staff, they point blank refuse to let you use the private toilets. You soil yourself in the middle of the shop, and then you don't go out for a long time afterwards out of embarrassment. No, I don't want to name or shame any individual companies. Um, uh, that may have been in, in, in that example, but you can draw your own conclusions. If I just say that their slogan is, um, you can do it if you do it.
Um, and um, they were a horrific chain, I believe from my lobbying of late that they've got an awful lot better. So it's about raising understanding within those organisations around, around what the, the cards are and why people carry them. It goes back to the stigma around, um, not all, not all disabilities are visible, which is something I pushed for to be rolled out across Lancashire all those years ago. Um, because it isn't visible, you may look physically well um um but it is that urgency and making sure that people with stomas um or.
Um advanced, um Crohn's and colitis etc. can have radar keys and access to radar keys and know that they can get a radar key and then knowing where the toilets are and lots of different people have tried this and lots of different ways, but basically, if you, if you are going to go out and you are dependent on toilets being nearby, and we already accept that councils themselves cannot be responsible for every providing a toilet in all places at all times. And you know, that there's that network of companies and commercial organisations out there that will let you use their toilets, you know, um, even if you're not a lot of it's just about pubs and hotels knowing that actually sometimes someone may need to come in and I know it's really annoying when non paying customers come in and use the toilets, but having those apps, um, is equally really important.
So people can actually plan their day out and plan their journeys. Um, with um that confidence. Um, and. And forme, it is the knock on benefits to the NHS and public health. Around helping people live and maintain normal lives. Post traumatic bowel surgery, helping them with the psychological recovery. Maybe they had to quit work and to get back into work. And these things can be noisy as well. Um, they rumble and they pump.
Uh, they your bowels just on the outside of your body. Um, or moving to the outside of your body and, you know, dealing with that is hard enough. And therefore people, for example, in work may not wish to empty or change a bag in work. They may wish to go somewhere near work to do it, or they may work on the tools, they may work in a job that's outdoors where they don't actually have access as part of their job to routine toilets. So the knock on benefits to the government, to the treasury of helping people back into work, stopping people becoming ill with mental health issues, from the lack of confidence and the emotional damage that's been done as part of this, about helping people manage their condition better so that they're not continuously spiralling and going back into the NHS.
The benefits are are there in terms of being able to do this. Um, and it's not just about doing the right thing. What's moral obligation, um, to those people to be able, um, to do that. And um the honourable member for Strangford has already outlined the requests of um colostomy UK, um in terms of the things um that could be. Advanced through building regulations to make, um to, to make toilets much more, um, stoma friendly, uh, about the just general need for more um public toilets, um provision.
Um and I'm sure they will continue to lobby effectively on that, but I think for a lot of the time it's about the role the government can play. In, in creating, understanding, creating awareness amongst public bodies and organisations about why this is important, about that human element that I have tried to outline. Um, because this is about people's lives and the quality of life that some of the most people who deserve our support, um, more than ever, um, have. So those simple things, making sure that councils do have nice clean toilets, that they do have open toilets that people can access information about where public and IBD friendly toilets are.
Um, and, and, and so on and so forth. Um, so I'm going to get into the territory of repeating myself now. Um, so I shall, I shall end my speech. Um, I think that is probably um personal best for me on inappropriate Hansard, um, contributions and I look forward to um, to reading. Those back. Um, and I once again thank the honourable member for bringing this debate. It really is an important topic, and I know it will mean a lot to people.
As I said, a lot of people with these conditions don't want to talk about it. They do want to hide it. They will suffer in silence. Their voice will not be heard. Uh, they will not contact their MP to say, please, can we have better public toilets?Because I have a stoma, I have IBD because they don't want people to know. Um, and therefore it is really important that we as their elected representatives are their voice.
And I hope we've been able to do that today. And I look forward to what the minister and Shadow Minister have to say. Thank you.
15:36
15:36
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr. Dowd. And I want to thank the honourable member for Strangford for bringing forward this important debate and, um, great to follow the honourable member for Fylde, who did better than my maiden speech, where I managed to reference Shitterton and Happy Bottom, and I now do so for the second time for Hansard. So there we go, both places in my constituency, by the way. Stood for Parliament in 2015, the closure of public toilets was one of the key issues raised with me by local people.
In fact, we had pretty much a whole hustings on it at Canford School. And since arriving in this place, I have repeatedly sought opportunities to improve provision, whether through debates or through legislation, and I am delighted, therefore, to speak today in a debate focused on people living with Stomas. Although many of the issues we're discussing apply equally to people with other conditions or disabilities or indeed other sectors of our community. For many people, the worry about whether a public toilet exists, is open, is clean, or has the facilities they need is life changing.
It's the difference between participating in public life or staying at home. And this has come close to my home recently as a close family member of mine, um had a the need for a stoma last year. It stopped them travelling into London to watch me speak in Parliament, and it's even stopped them travelling to see their grandchild perform in the West End in a few weeks time. I know that they desperately want to enjoy those experiences along with the rest of the family, but they feel trapped close to home and close to the facilities that they know they can rely on now.
The honourable member from Fylde. I am going to have to ask them, um, what they're going to call their their stoma. And given the prevalence of bad jokes that emanate from their home on a daily basis, I'm sure they're going to come up with something. So I may have to catch you in the tea room. I'll let you know what they come up with. Simple changes such as shelves, mirrors, disposal bins, um, hooks and space to manage the stone with dignity can cost such a small amount, but make such an enormous difference.
And that's why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the government to support further research into the injustice adjustments that can promote the dignity, comfort and independence of people living with Stomas. And I would be interested to hear the minister's views about potential changes to part M building regulations, as suggested by the honourable member for Strangford. Yet too often these small facilities are absent or even removed because they might be misused for other purposes. And it's shocking that more than a third of stoma users report being challenged or criticised for using accessible toilets because their condition is invisible.
Two thirds of all disabled toilet users have experienced disapproving looks, and almost half have been verbally challenged. Imagine how distressing it must be, particularly for someone recently diagnosed with a life changing condition, already worried about getting to a toilet in time and then facing the judgment of strangers. For people with stomas, for older people, for those managing disabilities or continence conditions, for pregnant women, and for parents caring for young children. Access to an appropriate toilet is not just a convenience, it is essential. And with the new Ehrc guidance, those that are transgender, non-binary or don't conform to gender stereotypes for whom the disabled loo is not their preferred choice and nor should it be now find themselves possibly the only way they can protect their dignity and stay safe.
So public toilets are becoming even more of an issue for more people. There is also a widespread assumption that men's toilets don't need sanitary bins, yet they are essential for many men living with stomas. I was also delighted to join Matt Forde in Parliament last year as part of the Prostate Cancer. Boys Need Bins campaign. Their absence for people who have continence issues, it can have a completely unnecessary effect on their confidence, their dignity and their independence. And that's for people with stoma, bladder, bowel or digestive conditions.
Liberal Democrats are therefore calling on the government to ensure that all public toilets are equipped with sanitary bins and to update workplace guidance so it reflects the needs of men as well as women. There has been progress thanks to organisations such as colostomy UK and to retailers including Morrisons and B and Q, but have both made their toilets stoma friendly, possibly after the experience of the honourable member for Fylde, who shared earlier. We want to see the government working with national retailers to ensure that accessible toilets are routinely made stoma friendly and as some businesses have shown, it can be done.
The challenge should be to make good practice the norm. But I want to talk more widely about access to toilets. The British Toilet Association estimates that the number of public toilets has fallen by around 40% since the turn of the century. Their estimates suggest there are only 4000 public toilets remaining in England, which is one public loo for every 14,000 people, so we call them public conveniences. But they are in fact a public necessity. And this decline is happening as our population is ageing and more people need confidence that facilities are available when they leave home.
If we want thriving high streets, vibrant parks and successful tourist destinations, we need decent public toilets. And there are other groups whose needs are forgotten to homeless people refuse collectors, postal workers, delivery drivers, community nurses, social care staff, taxi drivers and highway maintenance crews. And I know this from personal experience because about ten years ago, I spent a day working alongside refuse collectors, starting at 5:00 in the morning for a full eight hour shift, and I climbed into the cab and I had my bottle of water and my can of Coke, and they said, you can't drink, you can't eat.
There's nowhere we can go. And I thought, well, that's that's ridiculous. These people are working for us. And there was absolutely nowhere on their route that they could go. And there was no way that they could go into a supermarket or a petrol station. We absolutely stank. You know, there was it would not have been reasonable for us to go in to a private business and expect us to use their toilets. Now, thankfully, the local council did address the issue with changes to their workplace facilities, but this sort of thing should concern all of us.
The government rightly speaks about healthy ageing, thriving town centres and reducing inequalities, yet they all become harder to achieve. If you cannot be confident you can find a toilet. And if the problem is so obvious, why has it continued to get worse?And I think part of the answer lies in the law. Councils currently have a power to provide public toilets. What they do not have is a duty to do so. And when budgets are stretched, discretionary services are often among the first things to disappear.
Now, I don't blame councils. I used to lead one, and I know that the system is so stretched and that, you know, there are few options available when your budgets are getting smaller and smaller. But that's why I'm proposing a change in approach, and I hope the minister will give it serious consideration along with her colleagues. I believe that councils should have a statutory duty to ensure sufficient public toilet provision within their area. That doesn't mean every council must directly own or operate these facilities.
Community toilet schemes, partnerships with businesses, libraries, leisure centres, churches and town councils can all play a really important role. But there should be a duty to assess local need, identify gaps in provision and ensure facilities are available when people need them, including reflecting the needs of local populations. Health profile I am sure the Minister will refer to the pride in place schemes, which is great for those areas that have it, but there are thousands of communities around the country that will not have access to that capital, and there needs to be a way that those areas can can make sure that those their residents are protected, too.
The Liberal Democrats also believe governments must support local authorities to reverse the decline in public toilet provision. Councils cannot be expected to deliver improved services if they are continually being asked to do more, with less, and alongside that duty should come expectations around accessibility, maintenance and cleanliness. A toilet that does not lock is filthy or is unusable is not really a toilet at all. And where facilities are built or refurbished, they should be genuinely inclusive, including being stoma friendly. We should also think carefully about signage because not every disability is visible, and the current image of a wheelchair may itself be driving the perception that someone is not disabled enough.
The adjustments required simple things, small small things, shelves, mirrors, hooks, disposal bins and signage. And this is also a public health issue because people who are choosing not to go out will become more isolated and affect their mental health. Those who restrict fluids to reduce the risk of getting caught short can develop other conditions, and those who are forced to change their stomas on filthy floors or their disabled child behind a bush will not only face distress, but could be at risk of serious infection. Wales already has a statutory yes, of course.
In fact, we had pretty much a whole hustings on it at Canford School. And since arriving in this place, I have repeatedly sought opportunities to improve provision, whether through debates or through legislation, and I am delighted, therefore, to speak today in a debate focused on people living with Stomas. Although many of the issues we're discussing apply equally to people with other conditions or disabilities or indeed other sectors of our community. For many people, the worry about whether a public toilet exists, is open, is clean, or has the facilities they need is life changing.
It's the difference between participating in public life or staying at home. And this has come close to my home recently as a close family member of mine, um had a the need for a stoma last year. It stopped them travelling into London to watch me speak in Parliament, and it's even stopped them travelling to see their grandchild perform in the West End in a few weeks time. I know that they desperately want to enjoy those experiences along with the rest of the family, but they feel trapped close to home and close to the facilities that they know they can rely on now.
The honourable member from Fylde. I am going to have to ask them, um, what they're going to call their their stoma. And given the prevalence of bad jokes that emanate from their home on a daily basis, I'm sure they're going to come up with something. So I may have to catch you in the tea room. I'll let you know what they come up with. Simple changes such as shelves, mirrors, disposal bins, um, hooks and space to manage the stone with dignity can cost such a small amount, but make such an enormous difference.
And that's why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the government to support further research into the injustice adjustments that can promote the dignity, comfort and independence of people living with Stomas. And I would be interested to hear the minister's views about potential changes to part M building regulations, as suggested by the honourable member for Strangford. Yet too often these small facilities are absent or even removed because they might be misused for other purposes. And it's shocking that more than a third of stoma users report being challenged or criticised for using accessible toilets because their condition is invisible.
Two thirds of all disabled toilet users have experienced disapproving looks, and almost half have been verbally challenged. Imagine how distressing it must be, particularly for someone recently diagnosed with a life changing condition, already worried about getting to a toilet in time and then facing the judgment of strangers. For people with stomas, for older people, for those managing disabilities or continence conditions, for pregnant women, and for parents caring for young children. Access to an appropriate toilet is not just a convenience, it is essential. And with the new Ehrc guidance, those that are transgender, non-binary or don't conform to gender stereotypes for whom the disabled loo is not their preferred choice and nor should it be now find themselves possibly the only way they can protect their dignity and stay safe.
So public toilets are becoming even more of an issue for more people. There is also a widespread assumption that men's toilets don't need sanitary bins, yet they are essential for many men living with stomas. I was also delighted to join Matt Forde in Parliament last year as part of the Prostate Cancer. Boys Need Bins campaign. Their absence for people who have continence issues, it can have a completely unnecessary effect on their confidence, their dignity and their independence. And that's for people with stoma, bladder, bowel or digestive conditions.
Liberal Democrats are therefore calling on the government to ensure that all public toilets are equipped with sanitary bins and to update workplace guidance so it reflects the needs of men as well as women. There has been progress thanks to organisations such as colostomy UK and to retailers including Morrisons and B and Q, but have both made their toilets stoma friendly, possibly after the experience of the honourable member for Fylde, who shared earlier. We want to see the government working with national retailers to ensure that accessible toilets are routinely made stoma friendly and as some businesses have shown, it can be done.
The challenge should be to make good practice the norm. But I want to talk more widely about access to toilets. The British Toilet Association estimates that the number of public toilets has fallen by around 40% since the turn of the century. Their estimates suggest there are only 4000 public toilets remaining in England, which is one public loo for every 14,000 people, so we call them public conveniences. But they are in fact a public necessity. And this decline is happening as our population is ageing and more people need confidence that facilities are available when they leave home.
If we want thriving high streets, vibrant parks and successful tourist destinations, we need decent public toilets. And there are other groups whose needs are forgotten to homeless people refuse collectors, postal workers, delivery drivers, community nurses, social care staff, taxi drivers and highway maintenance crews. And I know this from personal experience because about ten years ago, I spent a day working alongside refuse collectors, starting at 5:00 in the morning for a full eight hour shift, and I climbed into the cab and I had my bottle of water and my can of Coke, and they said, you can't drink, you can't eat.
There's nowhere we can go. And I thought, well, that's that's ridiculous. These people are working for us. And there was absolutely nowhere on their route that they could go. And there was no way that they could go into a supermarket or a petrol station. We absolutely stank. You know, there was it would not have been reasonable for us to go in to a private business and expect us to use their toilets. Now, thankfully, the local council did address the issue with changes to their workplace facilities, but this sort of thing should concern all of us.
The government rightly speaks about healthy ageing, thriving town centres and reducing inequalities, yet they all become harder to achieve. If you cannot be confident you can find a toilet. And if the problem is so obvious, why has it continued to get worse?And I think part of the answer lies in the law. Councils currently have a power to provide public toilets. What they do not have is a duty to do so. And when budgets are stretched, discretionary services are often among the first things to disappear.
Now, I don't blame councils. I used to lead one, and I know that the system is so stretched and that, you know, there are few options available when your budgets are getting smaller and smaller. But that's why I'm proposing a change in approach, and I hope the minister will give it serious consideration along with her colleagues. I believe that councils should have a statutory duty to ensure sufficient public toilet provision within their area. That doesn't mean every council must directly own or operate these facilities.
Community toilet schemes, partnerships with businesses, libraries, leisure centres, churches and town councils can all play a really important role. But there should be a duty to assess local need, identify gaps in provision and ensure facilities are available when people need them, including reflecting the needs of local populations. Health profile I am sure the Minister will refer to the pride in place schemes, which is great for those areas that have it, but there are thousands of communities around the country that will not have access to that capital, and there needs to be a way that those areas can can make sure that those their residents are protected, too.
The Liberal Democrats also believe governments must support local authorities to reverse the decline in public toilet provision. Councils cannot be expected to deliver improved services if they are continually being asked to do more, with less, and alongside that duty should come expectations around accessibility, maintenance and cleanliness. A toilet that does not lock is filthy or is unusable is not really a toilet at all. And where facilities are built or refurbished, they should be genuinely inclusive, including being stoma friendly. We should also think carefully about signage because not every disability is visible, and the current image of a wheelchair may itself be driving the perception that someone is not disabled enough.
The adjustments required simple things, small small things, shelves, mirrors, hooks, disposal bins and signage. And this is also a public health issue because people who are choosing not to go out will become more isolated and affect their mental health. Those who restrict fluids to reduce the risk of getting caught short can develop other conditions, and those who are forced to change their stomas on filthy floors or their disabled child behind a bush will not only face distress, but could be at risk of serious infection. Wales already has a statutory yes, of course.
15:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the honourable member for giving way, and she has just touched upon a point that I kind of started on and then never actually finished off in my, um, my, my kind of like a wonder walk through the life of living with this dumb and that's children. And I have a four year old, um, and you read the stories of, um, of parents trying to deal with, you know, children who. Who are months old, not years old, who are required to have stomas. Um, and you know what it's like as a parent trying to manage a day out in its own right.
Imagine trying to manage that and give a child as normal a upbringing. I mean, that child, very unfortunately, the reality is, is going to face bullying potentially. He's, you know, going to face self-confidence issues from all the issues that go on around it. But just as a parent, being able to plan normal days out, normal lives out, make sure that schools as well as councils are managing, um, public toilets to be um, friendly to people with stomas as well as is a really, really important point.
And you cannot feel anything other than real heartache for a family having to deal with that and wanting to do the best by their child.
Imagine trying to manage that and give a child as normal a upbringing. I mean, that child, very unfortunately, the reality is, is going to face bullying potentially. He's, you know, going to face self-confidence issues from all the issues that go on around it. But just as a parent, being able to plan normal days out, normal lives out, make sure that schools as well as councils are managing, um, public toilets to be um, friendly to people with stomas as well as is a really, really important point.
And you cannot feel anything other than real heartache for a family having to deal with that and wanting to do the best by their child.
15:46
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I thank the honourable member for his intervention and having worked for Diverse Abilities, which looks after disabled children and adults in in Dorset, the number of times that we weren't able to to ensure that the children in our care had suitable facilities is really quite frightening. And and I spoke at the backbench business um Committee earlier this week where um a colleague, I believe the honourable member for Dartford, although I could be wrong, was putting in a pitch for a new strategy around changing places, toilets as well, which I think is hugely important and I would absolutely support.
Of course.
Of course.
15:47
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
But I just want to, if I can, with Honourable ladies, uh, agreement and yours as well, Mr. chairman, just to read out a. Bit, it takes an example. I don't know this young lady, but the chairman knows the young lady incredibly well, I coach um and he's a young constituent called Jessica who has had a stoma since she was four years old. She has campaigned for 16 years now. She fundraises to provide special teddy bears who have their own stoma bags and are provided to children preparing for surgery called Buttony Bears.
She campaigns with colostomy. UK steps up, step up for stoma to promote, promote an active and positive lifestyle. And I think, Mr. Chairman, you're right to say she is a heroine and she's a very brave young girl. She has her own Facebook page, uh, to call to. Raise awareness. And there's an example of a young lady chairman. Uh, did you know?Uh, but we know now because you've told us the story, uh, and we think of them as well.
She campaigns with colostomy. UK steps up, step up for stoma to promote, promote an active and positive lifestyle. And I think, Mr. Chairman, you're right to say she is a heroine and she's a very brave young girl. She has her own Facebook page, uh, to call to. Raise awareness. And there's an example of a young lady chairman. Uh, did you know?Uh, but we know now because you've told us the story, uh, and we think of them as well.
15:48
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I'd like to to really thank my hon. Friend for his intervention on behalf of of the chair and, and pay tribute to Jessica. What a fantastic young lady to go through her childhood and her teenage years. Um, with this condition is really, you know, incredibly heartwarming. And so just to go back to my point about Wales already having this statutory requirement for a local toilet strategy, surely England can do the same. This isn't a flashy proposal. We said earlier.
This is very basic needs. It doesn't need a new quango or a major reorganisation. It's simply about recognising that public toilets are part of the essential infrastructure of a modern, civilised society. Whether someone is living with a stoma, raising young family, managing a disability, working outdoors all day or simply getting older, access to a toilet shouldn't determine whether they can take part in public life. In fact, the British Toilet Association's campaign legalised Loos talks about the Loo leech, saying that there are 14 million people with incontinence.
50 million who menstruate and 16 million with a disability. We're failing all of those people. If we don't have decent toilets. So the message is simple support research into stoma friendly facilities, work with retailers to make accessible toilets fit for purpose. Ensure sanitary bins are available wherever they're needed. Support councils to reverse the decades of decline in public toilet provision and make it a statutory responsibility to have a strategy. Alongside these measures, they moved from a power to a duty requiring councils to assess need, ensure sufficient provision and provide facilities at clean, accessible and dignified.
Because public toilets are not an optional extra, they are not just a convenient. They are part of essential infrastructure and until we recognise that fact, too many people will remain excluded from public life simply because they cannot be sure where they will go. When nature calls.
This is very basic needs. It doesn't need a new quango or a major reorganisation. It's simply about recognising that public toilets are part of the essential infrastructure of a modern, civilised society. Whether someone is living with a stoma, raising young family, managing a disability, working outdoors all day or simply getting older, access to a toilet shouldn't determine whether they can take part in public life. In fact, the British Toilet Association's campaign legalised Loos talks about the Loo leech, saying that there are 14 million people with incontinence.
50 million who menstruate and 16 million with a disability. We're failing all of those people. If we don't have decent toilets. So the message is simple support research into stoma friendly facilities, work with retailers to make accessible toilets fit for purpose. Ensure sanitary bins are available wherever they're needed. Support councils to reverse the decades of decline in public toilet provision and make it a statutory responsibility to have a strategy. Alongside these measures, they moved from a power to a duty requiring councils to assess need, ensure sufficient provision and provide facilities at clean, accessible and dignified.
Because public toilets are not an optional extra, they are not just a convenient. They are part of essential infrastructure and until we recognise that fact, too many people will remain excluded from public life simply because they cannot be sure where they will go. When nature calls.
15:50
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Dowd. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship chairmanship. And can I also wish you a happy birthday and also welcome the Minister to her place. I congratulate congratulate the honourable member for Strangford for securing a debate on an issue that is too often overlooked, too rarely spoken about the provision of public toilets for people living with Stomas. He began by saying that it's, and I quote, not a fashionable debate, but something that needs to be aired. And he's absolutely right in saying that, and also right that this issue is about dignity and independence, which members from across the House have covered this afternoon.
Um, it's a very important debate for very many people throughout the UK, which is evident from the very personal stories that have been shared by honourable members this afternoon, including from my honourable friend, the member for Fylde, who described the importance of humour to deal emotionally with the difficult and embarrassing condition by naming Stomas. That was new to me. I didn't know this was a thing. So every day is a school day. Mr. Chair, I have to say my favourite from his catalogue was also Vladimir Pooping.
But maybe that reflects more of our politics than anything else. Um, can I thank all honourable members for their thoughtful contributions throughout the debate, particularly highlighting the human reality of people living with a stoma. Around 200 000 people in the UK live with a stoma following surgery for bowel cancer, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis and many other conditions. And I do hope that I've pronounced those correctly. There's a reason why I'm not a medic. On average, in a constituency like mine of Mid-bedfordshire, it's likely to be around 200 to 250 people living with a stoma.
With an ageing population. An increasing diagnosis of bowel conditions. This is a this is a need that will grow, not diminish over time. For them, a toilet is not a convenience. As it was mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. It's a necessity. A stoma bag must be emptied or changed. At the moment it's needed. This is quite literally. There is quite literally no waiting when it's required.
And yet the facilities. Most people with a stoma rely on standard accessible toilets are frequently not fit for purpose. As eloquently described by my hon. Friend the member for Fylde. Too often there are no there are no. There's no shelf on which to lay out medical supplies, no hook for clothing or a bag, no mirror to help someone change safely. No basin within reach and nowhere hygienic to dispose of used products. And can I thank my.
The Lib Dem spokesperson for highlighting the Boys Needs Bins campaign, which is an absolutely fantastic campaign which we should all get behind at present, provision depends on goodwill rather than standards, which leaves a postcode lottery for something as basic as using a toilet. The result is people changing a stoma bag balanced on their knees or on a dirty floor. People with a stoma often must plan their entire day around, whether a usable toilet exists, and coming from a rural constituency that must be a particular challenge. Actually, for those on days out in the countryside, there is a second barrier and it's one of attitude.
A stoma is, in the main, an invisible disability, which has been described by honourable members today. Many people with a stoma or inflammatory bowel disease report being challenged or even abused for using an accessible toilet, accused of not being so-called disabled enough because they do not use a wheelchair. Simple signage and staff awareness can prevent the confrontations. Many people with invisible conditions face. That is a stain on us, and it is precisely why the Crohn's and Colitis UK. Not every disability is visible.
Campaign and colostomy UK stoma aware work matters so much. I'm proud that the last conservative government understood that dignity in this area is a duty of the state, not an optional extra. As local government minister, the former prime minister Rishi Sunak, led the drive to expand changing places, toilets, the larger facilities with a bench, a hoist, a space for carers and the that the most severely disabled people need. He set in train the change to building regulations that from 2021 made changing places mandatory in large new public buildings in England, including a shopping centres, stadiums and art venues that was backed by funding a £2 million fund to install them in over 100 NHS hospitals.
Further investment in motorway service stations and funding for a national online map so families could more easily find them. The public sector could lead by example across councils, hospitals and transport networks. The number of changing places has risen from 140 in 2007 to around 1200. That is a record of practical, compassionate action and I pay tribute to it. But and I say this candidly, changing places, vital as they are, are designed for the most profoundly disabled. Most people with a stoma are fully mobile.
What they need is different and cheaper solutions to deliver the simple, stoma friendly standard of a shelf, a hook, a mirror and a bin in ordinary accessible toilets. Some retailers and B and Q was mentioned. I'm sure there are others, Mr. Chairman, have shown it can be done across an entire estate at a modest cost. The additions required are low cost, often under a few hundred pounds per facility. This is not a major capital infrastructure. It's a small retrofit with a huge impact on people's dignity.
The building blocks exist. What is missing is a national leadership to join them up. When people cannot rely on basic facilities, they withdraw from work, from shopping, from social life. That is not just a personal loss, but there are wider economic impacts, too. My constituents in Mid-bedfordshire have told me that living with these life changing conditions can be exhausting, isolating and unpredictable. The hidden nature of symptoms means they often means they are often invisible to others, but deeply impact the daily lives of people who live with them, and it's an honour to represent them.
At the opposition despatch box today. In such a good debate, with cross-party consensus. So I'd be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, what is the government considering doing to make places more stoma friendly?Second, what meetings have ministers had with colostomy UK and Crohn's and Colitis UK to discuss options?And third, what consideration is the government giving to local government facilities?Recognising the calls from the Lib Dem spokesperson for the statutory duty, which I think is an interesting proposal.
This is not a party political issue, Mr. Chair. This is about whether someone can leave their home with confidence. The previous government opened the door with changing places. I urge this government to walk through it and finish the job and support people with Stomas. Thank you. Mr..
Um, it's a very important debate for very many people throughout the UK, which is evident from the very personal stories that have been shared by honourable members this afternoon, including from my honourable friend, the member for Fylde, who described the importance of humour to deal emotionally with the difficult and embarrassing condition by naming Stomas. That was new to me. I didn't know this was a thing. So every day is a school day. Mr. Chair, I have to say my favourite from his catalogue was also Vladimir Pooping.
But maybe that reflects more of our politics than anything else. Um, can I thank all honourable members for their thoughtful contributions throughout the debate, particularly highlighting the human reality of people living with a stoma. Around 200 000 people in the UK live with a stoma following surgery for bowel cancer, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis and many other conditions. And I do hope that I've pronounced those correctly. There's a reason why I'm not a medic. On average, in a constituency like mine of Mid-bedfordshire, it's likely to be around 200 to 250 people living with a stoma.
With an ageing population. An increasing diagnosis of bowel conditions. This is a this is a need that will grow, not diminish over time. For them, a toilet is not a convenience. As it was mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. It's a necessity. A stoma bag must be emptied or changed. At the moment it's needed. This is quite literally. There is quite literally no waiting when it's required.
And yet the facilities. Most people with a stoma rely on standard accessible toilets are frequently not fit for purpose. As eloquently described by my hon. Friend the member for Fylde. Too often there are no there are no. There's no shelf on which to lay out medical supplies, no hook for clothing or a bag, no mirror to help someone change safely. No basin within reach and nowhere hygienic to dispose of used products. And can I thank my.
The Lib Dem spokesperson for highlighting the Boys Needs Bins campaign, which is an absolutely fantastic campaign which we should all get behind at present, provision depends on goodwill rather than standards, which leaves a postcode lottery for something as basic as using a toilet. The result is people changing a stoma bag balanced on their knees or on a dirty floor. People with a stoma often must plan their entire day around, whether a usable toilet exists, and coming from a rural constituency that must be a particular challenge. Actually, for those on days out in the countryside, there is a second barrier and it's one of attitude.
A stoma is, in the main, an invisible disability, which has been described by honourable members today. Many people with a stoma or inflammatory bowel disease report being challenged or even abused for using an accessible toilet, accused of not being so-called disabled enough because they do not use a wheelchair. Simple signage and staff awareness can prevent the confrontations. Many people with invisible conditions face. That is a stain on us, and it is precisely why the Crohn's and Colitis UK. Not every disability is visible.
Campaign and colostomy UK stoma aware work matters so much. I'm proud that the last conservative government understood that dignity in this area is a duty of the state, not an optional extra. As local government minister, the former prime minister Rishi Sunak, led the drive to expand changing places, toilets, the larger facilities with a bench, a hoist, a space for carers and the that the most severely disabled people need. He set in train the change to building regulations that from 2021 made changing places mandatory in large new public buildings in England, including a shopping centres, stadiums and art venues that was backed by funding a £2 million fund to install them in over 100 NHS hospitals.
Further investment in motorway service stations and funding for a national online map so families could more easily find them. The public sector could lead by example across councils, hospitals and transport networks. The number of changing places has risen from 140 in 2007 to around 1200. That is a record of practical, compassionate action and I pay tribute to it. But and I say this candidly, changing places, vital as they are, are designed for the most profoundly disabled. Most people with a stoma are fully mobile.
What they need is different and cheaper solutions to deliver the simple, stoma friendly standard of a shelf, a hook, a mirror and a bin in ordinary accessible toilets. Some retailers and B and Q was mentioned. I'm sure there are others, Mr. Chairman, have shown it can be done across an entire estate at a modest cost. The additions required are low cost, often under a few hundred pounds per facility. This is not a major capital infrastructure. It's a small retrofit with a huge impact on people's dignity.
The building blocks exist. What is missing is a national leadership to join them up. When people cannot rely on basic facilities, they withdraw from work, from shopping, from social life. That is not just a personal loss, but there are wider economic impacts, too. My constituents in Mid-bedfordshire have told me that living with these life changing conditions can be exhausting, isolating and unpredictable. The hidden nature of symptoms means they often means they are often invisible to others, but deeply impact the daily lives of people who live with them, and it's an honour to represent them.
At the opposition despatch box today. In such a good debate, with cross-party consensus. So I'd be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, what is the government considering doing to make places more stoma friendly?Second, what meetings have ministers had with colostomy UK and Crohn's and Colitis UK to discuss options?And third, what consideration is the government giving to local government facilities?Recognising the calls from the Lib Dem spokesperson for the statutory duty, which I think is an interesting proposal.
This is not a party political issue, Mr. Chair. This is about whether someone can leave their home with confidence. The previous government opened the door with changing places. I urge this government to walk through it and finish the job and support people with Stomas. Thank you. Mr..
15:58
15:58
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And, uh, may I just begin by paying tribute to right honourable members from across the House for incredibly thoughtful and personal stories. I. AM very conscious that members speak on behalf of their constituents. Of you speak from personal experience, and whilst I can't speak from personal experience, I do have a very, very close family member who does. And I've heard right honourable members speak in the chamber before about their own experience and have.
I've reflected very carefully of how powerful your remarks are for those beyond our chamber that listen to it. So I thank you very much for your contribution. Can I also thank the right hon. Member for Strangford for securing this very important debate and for his continued interest on this issue. I know that he's a committed advocate for public toilet provision, including those with non-visible disabilities such as stoma abuse. So I thank him again for securing this debate. I want to recognise the importance broadly, more broadly on good quality, accessible public toilets and provision.
As I say, more generally, for far too many people, access to clean, safe public toilets can be the deciding factor in whether they feel able to visit a town centre, a high street, a park or any local attraction. Such facilities support, as others in the debate have so eloquently put dignity and independence for people with disability and accessibility needs. And of course, accessibility to a decent facility encourages everybody to spend more time in their local areas to use the shops, services and attractions. I don't need to detail the benefits of that in itself, Mr.
chairman, it is true that for many, the everyday access that is so easily afforded to the rest of us is just too difficult. And members have correctly pointed out it isn't a challenge, just those with a stoma. But for many others, ulcerative colitis. Irritable bowel disease. There is a much longer list, but the point is that there are many, many people who are impacted by the lack of accessibility facilities. This debate focuses on stomas, and so I want to place on record the government's recognition that this is absolutely a real challenge, and approximately 1 in 335 people of all ages in the UK are estimated to be living with a stoma each year.
More than three more than 13,000 people in the UK undergo stoma surgery. And for people living with a stoma, access to a suitable public toilet provision is not simply a matter of convenience. It is a fundamental to their dignity, safety and independence. For many people living with a stoma, particularly in the period after surgery, they feel anxious about leaving home. And so I want to be able to say on behalf of the government to you that I know. Know to be able to live well, to work, to enjoy days out, to shop and to socialise.
We recognise that access to appropriate public toilet facilities is a really important part to enable all of that. Yet, as members across the chamber have said. The standard public toilets may not always provide that facility for everybody, not in a safe way or a dignified way. And it's important we recognize the specific experience of people with invisible disabilities. They're often. Uneasy about using a disabled facility for the fear that they may be challenged to do so. And that's assuming that the disabled facility would even meet their needs, Mr.
Chair. In recognition of the importance of this debate, the government committed at the last spending review in 2025 more than £5 billion over the next three years for essential local services, including public toilets. And we continue to provide 100% mandatory business rates relief for standalone public toilets, which are helping reduce ongoing costs for local authorities. But I absolutely accept the point that the existence of the facility in the first place is important, and I. Recognise that for stoma users, practical features such as clean shelf spaces and discreet disposal bins can make a significant difference, and I thank members for raising the points about a.
Facilities in male toilets, which are so frequently overlooked. Mr. chairman, it's worth me highlighting that all building work must meet the functional requirements of the building Regulations from 2010, which assesses which addresses accessibility and provides guidance on meeting these requirements, including the installation of shelves, sanitary disposal, disposal units and accessibility toilets. But I accept that the very fact we are having this debate means that the reality on the ground is very different. The building safety regulator also has a duty under the Building Safety Act 2022 to keep the standard of buildings under review, and I welcome that.
Opposition spokesperson drew attention to the £30 million Changing Places toilet programme, which supported the targeted installation of almost 500 new disabled toilet facilities in the area. As a programme, I learned to know much about having served as a council leader and if I have learned anything from my days in local government, is that bins and toilets are two topics that people get very passionate about. The role of local authorities is central to this conversation. It is the government's view that local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities, and to make decisions about the provision that is right for their areas.
I take careful note of the important arguments made around statutory requirements and regulation, and all I would gently say is that I'm not sure local authorities think that that is the best approach. I'm yet to come across a local authority that doesn't want to do the best for their area, and I think there is a conversation to be had as to how we can better support them to do that. And I very happy to give way.
I've reflected very carefully of how powerful your remarks are for those beyond our chamber that listen to it. So I thank you very much for your contribution. Can I also thank the right hon. Member for Strangford for securing this very important debate and for his continued interest on this issue. I know that he's a committed advocate for public toilet provision, including those with non-visible disabilities such as stoma abuse. So I thank him again for securing this debate. I want to recognise the importance broadly, more broadly on good quality, accessible public toilets and provision.
As I say, more generally, for far too many people, access to clean, safe public toilets can be the deciding factor in whether they feel able to visit a town centre, a high street, a park or any local attraction. Such facilities support, as others in the debate have so eloquently put dignity and independence for people with disability and accessibility needs. And of course, accessibility to a decent facility encourages everybody to spend more time in their local areas to use the shops, services and attractions. I don't need to detail the benefits of that in itself, Mr.
chairman, it is true that for many, the everyday access that is so easily afforded to the rest of us is just too difficult. And members have correctly pointed out it isn't a challenge, just those with a stoma. But for many others, ulcerative colitis. Irritable bowel disease. There is a much longer list, but the point is that there are many, many people who are impacted by the lack of accessibility facilities. This debate focuses on stomas, and so I want to place on record the government's recognition that this is absolutely a real challenge, and approximately 1 in 335 people of all ages in the UK are estimated to be living with a stoma each year.
More than three more than 13,000 people in the UK undergo stoma surgery. And for people living with a stoma, access to a suitable public toilet provision is not simply a matter of convenience. It is a fundamental to their dignity, safety and independence. For many people living with a stoma, particularly in the period after surgery, they feel anxious about leaving home. And so I want to be able to say on behalf of the government to you that I know. Know to be able to live well, to work, to enjoy days out, to shop and to socialise.
We recognise that access to appropriate public toilet facilities is a really important part to enable all of that. Yet, as members across the chamber have said. The standard public toilets may not always provide that facility for everybody, not in a safe way or a dignified way. And it's important we recognize the specific experience of people with invisible disabilities. They're often. Uneasy about using a disabled facility for the fear that they may be challenged to do so. And that's assuming that the disabled facility would even meet their needs, Mr.
Chair. In recognition of the importance of this debate, the government committed at the last spending review in 2025 more than £5 billion over the next three years for essential local services, including public toilets. And we continue to provide 100% mandatory business rates relief for standalone public toilets, which are helping reduce ongoing costs for local authorities. But I absolutely accept the point that the existence of the facility in the first place is important, and I. Recognise that for stoma users, practical features such as clean shelf spaces and discreet disposal bins can make a significant difference, and I thank members for raising the points about a.
Facilities in male toilets, which are so frequently overlooked. Mr. chairman, it's worth me highlighting that all building work must meet the functional requirements of the building Regulations from 2010, which assesses which addresses accessibility and provides guidance on meeting these requirements, including the installation of shelves, sanitary disposal, disposal units and accessibility toilets. But I accept that the very fact we are having this debate means that the reality on the ground is very different. The building safety regulator also has a duty under the Building Safety Act 2022 to keep the standard of buildings under review, and I welcome that.
Opposition spokesperson drew attention to the £30 million Changing Places toilet programme, which supported the targeted installation of almost 500 new disabled toilet facilities in the area. As a programme, I learned to know much about having served as a council leader and if I have learned anything from my days in local government, is that bins and toilets are two topics that people get very passionate about. The role of local authorities is central to this conversation. It is the government's view that local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities, and to make decisions about the provision that is right for their areas.
I take careful note of the important arguments made around statutory requirements and regulation, and all I would gently say is that I'm not sure local authorities think that that is the best approach. I'm yet to come across a local authority that doesn't want to do the best for their area, and I think there is a conversation to be had as to how we can better support them to do that. And I very happy to give way.
16:04
16:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the Minister for giving way and having been a councillor and on the frontbench of a council, I do know and feel for councils in delivering this. Um but I think going back to what was said before, which is that the reality of it is even if they do want to do their best and they do know what's best for their local area when funding is tight. Um, and we all know that the ever increasing adult social care bills and such, um, are creating bigger burdens on local government finances that things that are statutory will always take priority over things that are not statutory requirements.
And whilst I do not want to create a system that ends up costing more than actually opening the toilets themselves through its complexity and bureaucracy, I think some form of greater, greater requirement on councils to understand the provision and fill the gaps would be really important. And if she is looking for a commissioner for the Crappers in the future, so maybe a role for me.
And whilst I do not want to create a system that ends up costing more than actually opening the toilets themselves through its complexity and bureaucracy, I think some form of greater, greater requirement on councils to understand the provision and fill the gaps would be really important. And if she is looking for a commissioner for the Crappers in the future, so maybe a role for me.
16:05
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I take the point. Absolutely. I think there is a conversation to be had with the sector, with local authorities, with the LGA, about how we can best support local authorities to do that. As I say, I think there is a real willingness from local authorities, and I accept the point about statutory services. But there are, of course, a great number of examples and of provisions and services that local authorities are providing that are not statutory because they recognise the importance of public provision.
And so if I could just draw the member's. I'm happy to give way.
And so if I could just draw the member's. I'm happy to give way.
16:06
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I and I do take her point as as a former council leader, the last thing you need is a whole load of additional things you've got to do. But the whole point around this is that fear and inconsistency. And if it's a postcode lottery about whether a council, you know, is sufficiently interested in in making that provision or making available that information to people, then actually you're going to end up with people staying at home because they actually don't know where they're travelling to, what the rules are.
So I would urge, um, gently, the minister to, to think carefully about if we want everybody to have the opportunity to engage in public life at the requirement to actually have a duty to provide, make. In their area should be a bare minimum.
So I would urge, um, gently, the minister to, to think carefully about if we want everybody to have the opportunity to engage in public life at the requirement to actually have a duty to provide, make. In their area should be a bare minimum.
16:06
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you very much. And as I say, I absolutely take the point. And I think there is scope for us considering how we can do that without putting additional statutory burdens on local authorities. Um, and I think ultimately we are looking for the same outcome, which is that there is not a postcode lottery that if you are somebody that needs accessible toilets, you know, that you can leave the house and you'll be able to access them. And whether that is through regulation or through having schemes that will support the roll out of better facilities.
I'm very open minded to that, but I but I also have to say, um, you know, there are good examples of this being delivered across the country and there is something about learning as a sector and how the government can best place support local authorities. So if you take, for instance, and I did say I, you know, bins and toilets are an area of interest for local authorities and councillors and council leaders. And I note the experience of members in this chamber from local government. Background.
I just recall being council leader myself and rolling out the community toilet scheme, for example, very small things like small grants to businesses. I think it was £1,000 we did that, encouraged them to make sure they were making their facilities available to the public. It meant that the local authority didn't have to think about additional toilet spaces, and in many ways, the provision of a toilet in a local business or high street meant that for our residents, they had more access than they would otherwise, needing to move to a park, happy.
I'm very open minded to that, but I but I also have to say, um, you know, there are good examples of this being delivered across the country and there is something about learning as a sector and how the government can best place support local authorities. So if you take, for instance, and I did say I, you know, bins and toilets are an area of interest for local authorities and councillors and council leaders. And I note the experience of members in this chamber from local government. Background.
I just recall being council leader myself and rolling out the community toilet scheme, for example, very small things like small grants to businesses. I think it was £1,000 we did that, encouraged them to make sure they were making their facilities available to the public. It meant that the local authority didn't have to think about additional toilet spaces, and in many ways, the provision of a toilet in a local business or high street meant that for our residents, they had more access than they would otherwise, needing to move to a park, happy.
16:08
16:08
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I can't resist the opportunity to actually plug the fact that when I actually was prior to being a council leader, I had a business on Broadstone High Street and we were part of the community loo scheme, and there are currently, I think, 5 or 6 businesses within my own ward where I live, um, that have open access to toilets, whereas there was previously one public toilet, which was often closed, often vandalised and subject to crime. And I want to take this opportunity to tell the public these use your loo schemes are there for people and you do not need to buy anything.
And I think there's a really important that we remind our residents of that, because people are often very reluctant to go into a cafe if they're not going to spend money.
And I think there's a really important that we remind our residents of that, because people are often very reluctant to go into a cafe if they're not going to spend money.
16:09
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Mr. chairman, that's exactly the point I'm making, and I very much welcome, um, the Right Honourable member for for highlighting that very good example of what local leadership can deliver in your community. And it is so important that we are able to empower local authorities and leaders to think outside the box, to champion and speak up on what are tricky topics. And it gives me an opportunity once again to pay tribute to regional members for taking part in this debate, because actually by talking about it, by bringing attention to a subject that is difficult, we are able to shift views and encourage our public sector to provide facilities that will meet the needs of our communities.
Very happy to give way.
Very happy to give way.
16:10
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I just want to Castlemaine back to the council role is incredibly important, but the um and some of the information I got in relation to it with the it's in the ten year plan, uh, that the health plan the government has hospital to community sickness to prevention, analog to digital and in relation to analogue and digital for stoma care in particular, it could mean remote monitoring for high risk people living with a stoma aptt based ordering of stoma appliances, reducing prescription errors and delays in digital self-management for diet, hydration and troubleshooting. Uh, and I think those are all critical issues for the, the health service in relation to how to do the, the, the analogue to digital.
I just asked the minister, I think that might be in my notes, by the way. And if it is and if it isn't, it will be. Uh, just to look at that point for me as well.
I just asked the minister, I think that might be in my notes, by the way. And if it is and if it isn't, it will be. Uh, just to look at that point for me as well.
16:11
16:11
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And absolutely, of course, I'm very happy to meet any campaigning organization to talk about this important issue. And I and I note that other members have also made that request. And if organizations from, from from the various charities would like to contact me, I'll happily, happily meet them to talk about, um, how we can better support the needs of all of our communities. Just on the very important point Right honourable member makes about the NHS.
Um, plan and healthcare support is absolutely right. It's all the more reason why we need a joined up approach to what local authorities are doing, what NHS local boards are doing. And I take the opportunity to highlight things like the health and wellbeing boards across the country, who will play a really important role in making sure that as one part of the local authority is delivering something, it is making making the most of what they're doing so that it meets the objectives of of a different part.
And in the case that we're talking about, health is a really obvious example. Um, just to slightly return to my general point about local authorities, um, wanting to think outside the box to do things differently. Another really important, um, area that we should encourage them to consider is the way they conduct procurement. There are many examples across the country where public toilets have fallen into disrepair in, in parks and open spaces. And we have local authorities who are including as part of their procurement processes for opening up a new cafe, for example, and stipulating that that cafe owner has to look after the toilet in that space.
These are good ideas that I think should be encouraged, and that ultimately will make it easier for our communities to access facilities. Um, yes.
Um, plan and healthcare support is absolutely right. It's all the more reason why we need a joined up approach to what local authorities are doing, what NHS local boards are doing. And I take the opportunity to highlight things like the health and wellbeing boards across the country, who will play a really important role in making sure that as one part of the local authority is delivering something, it is making making the most of what they're doing so that it meets the objectives of of a different part.
And in the case that we're talking about, health is a really obvious example. Um, just to slightly return to my general point about local authorities, um, wanting to think outside the box to do things differently. Another really important, um, area that we should encourage them to consider is the way they conduct procurement. There are many examples across the country where public toilets have fallen into disrepair in, in parks and open spaces. And we have local authorities who are including as part of their procurement processes for opening up a new cafe, for example, and stipulating that that cafe owner has to look after the toilet in that space.
These are good ideas that I think should be encouraged, and that ultimately will make it easier for our communities to access facilities. Um, yes.
16:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Incredibly generous with her time and probably entered this room seeing only one backbench contribution and was thinking it wouldn't get close to 430. But here we are. We are. Two things on that point. One, is there a greater role on section 106 monies potentially?Um, through planning processes around um, public toilets. I think that was a really good example. Um the minister gave around creative thinking in terms of ownership, um, for toilets in parks and cafes.
I think if you speak to most people, my sister is going to kill me for saying this, but when my sister was growing up, she had a phobia of metal toilets. And I think it was actually just a phobia of unclean spaces to use. Um, but, um, I think a lot of people would rather use a well kept toilet in a private business where they weren't going to be judged for doing it. If it's not at the far end where you've got to walk past all the tables and everyone's looking at you, then use a public toilet that by the very nature given it's not in a manned location, is not going to be able to be guaranteed to be as clean.
So I think one, I think that's a great example. If we could if she could work with her colleagues in local government to try and see that rolled out more and also have a think about how section 106 money might help make that more of an incentive for commercial use that as more of an incentive for commercial operators who might not actually be able to afford to do that, or it might not make the project viable.
I think if you speak to most people, my sister is going to kill me for saying this, but when my sister was growing up, she had a phobia of metal toilets. And I think it was actually just a phobia of unclean spaces to use. Um, but, um, I think a lot of people would rather use a well kept toilet in a private business where they weren't going to be judged for doing it. If it's not at the far end where you've got to walk past all the tables and everyone's looking at you, then use a public toilet that by the very nature given it's not in a manned location, is not going to be able to be guaranteed to be as clean.
So I think one, I think that's a great example. If we could if she could work with her colleagues in local government to try and see that rolled out more and also have a think about how section 106 money might help make that more of an incentive for commercial use that as more of an incentive for commercial operators who might not actually be able to afford to do that, or it might not make the project viable.
16:14
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the contribution of the Right Honourable member. I mean, section 106 is often thought about in terms of big infrastructure. Money's being spent in an area and actually for a very small amount of money, you can have a really big public impact. Um, and sort of the grant funding of a £1,000 to a business is a good example of that. Um, and very happy to take that back. But as I say, I think there are actually lots of examples across the country where this is being done well, and we should as a government, and I will take this back, find a better way of being able to communicate some of that best practice.
And might I also just comment on a very important point he's making about lived experience. Because, you know, too often a governments and councils design schemes deliver things that do not necessarily with good intention, but that do not necessarily meet the real needs of what their community needs and lived experiences really at the heart of that. So he references his sister's experience. I'll join you. My own sister's experience is not dissimilar to that. Um, and if I could just take the opportunity to just reference what he said earlier, um, about the resilience that many people who are living with such conditions, um, develop over their lifetime, because my sister too is incredibly resilient and it is because of the experience of living with her colitis, um, which as with many other people, was diagnosed as a teenager.
And I think there is a very particular experience for those who are diagnosed with a lifelong condition that they have. When you are experiencing that as a teenager, which means that you are perhaps some of the most resilient individuals in our community, but their lived experience is so central to being able to make sure that our councils and Indian government's designed design, provision and services that really meet the needs. So. So in that spirit, I very much welcome the continued dialogue with honourable members.
And I know that there are others who are not in this chamber that also feel very strongly about this topic. Um, local government and partners with Mhclg can absolutely work together to deliver more accessible, well-maintained public toilets. Um, and we should look at existing schemes and new schemes that can encourage the provision. Um, so in closing, Mr. Chairman, can I thank honourable members again, particularly the member for Strangford, for securing this important debate and also his very warm words in welcoming me to my place.
It was very generous of him. The government recognises the importance of ensuring that public spaces are accessible, inclusive and supportive of people's dignity and independence. I welcome further representation from honourable members from the. Brilliant charities that do fantastic campaigning on this um from the local authorities across the country and other partners who want to see the provision of public toilets improve. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And might I also just comment on a very important point he's making about lived experience. Because, you know, too often a governments and councils design schemes deliver things that do not necessarily with good intention, but that do not necessarily meet the real needs of what their community needs and lived experiences really at the heart of that. So he references his sister's experience. I'll join you. My own sister's experience is not dissimilar to that. Um, and if I could just take the opportunity to just reference what he said earlier, um, about the resilience that many people who are living with such conditions, um, develop over their lifetime, because my sister too is incredibly resilient and it is because of the experience of living with her colitis, um, which as with many other people, was diagnosed as a teenager.
And I think there is a very particular experience for those who are diagnosed with a lifelong condition that they have. When you are experiencing that as a teenager, which means that you are perhaps some of the most resilient individuals in our community, but their lived experience is so central to being able to make sure that our councils and Indian government's designed design, provision and services that really meet the needs. So. So in that spirit, I very much welcome the continued dialogue with honourable members.
And I know that there are others who are not in this chamber that also feel very strongly about this topic. Um, local government and partners with Mhclg can absolutely work together to deliver more accessible, well-maintained public toilets. Um, and we should look at existing schemes and new schemes that can encourage the provision. Um, so in closing, Mr. Chairman, can I thank honourable members again, particularly the member for Strangford, for securing this important debate and also his very warm words in welcoming me to my place.
It was very generous of him. The government recognises the importance of ensuring that public spaces are accessible, inclusive and supportive of people's dignity and independence. I welcome further representation from honourable members from the. Brilliant charities that do fantastic campaigning on this um from the local authorities across the country and other partners who want to see the provision of public toilets improve. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
16:17
16:17
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Mr. chairman, first of all, can I thank everyone for their participation?Uh, I thank those of the, uh, in the gallery who, uh, give us some of the information that we were able to take forward. Um, first of all, in the recent. Many, um, a broader, um, a focus on it that, that I wouldn't, I'd have been hesitant to have done because I'm almost dead. I'm too much of a traditionalist and too much of a conservative and maybe a wee bit careful, but thank him for that.
You know something?We need a bit of humor sometimes, you know?And today he gave us that and I thank him for that. Uh, and in particular, he also talked about the, um. The names he came up with. I was nearly filled with the next name was going to be, to tell you the truth, you know, being the person. Sitting here, don't say that. But that's by the way, um, toilet provision. They must be clean.
They psychologically adjusted, I think is something that we need to focus on as well. Because sometimes I just know how I feel and I think about it. And if I had that, how much worse it would be trying to deal with the knock on to the NHS. Absolutely. Right. And and again, the minister, I think, has grasped that um I honourable member whose friend Harrogate and Knaresborough is just away. He always comes up with very perceptive uh interventions and, and that's one of the things he does really well.
He's not here now, but in his absence I would like to thank him for, for those interventions and and toilet provision on real life and living with a stoma bag. And North Pole. Um I again while knowledge of this subject matter uh active in this subject for some time and especially since she was elected and even before that when she was in the council. Um, and for the small amount and that's the issue I was trying to do as well, the small amount and the big return.
It's one of those things, you know, you, you invest a wee bit and, and, but the credit union you're given you and you get more out of it, if you don't mind me saying that, uh, for those who perhaps may be are aware of the credit unions and the big impact access, and toilet and must protect our dignity, 40% of toilets in the UK have disappeared. A public necessity, and surely England could do better. And moderate public toilets must be a part of modern society. And indeed, I've written down here the the honourable gentleman, the spokesperson, Honourable Member for Mid Bedfordshire.
Also brought forward a knowledge and a contribution in this debate, and referred to the. In its own. Consisting of some 200 250 people who have had the stoma in the last year, uh and referred to the Boys Need Bins campaign, uh, which others have referred to, and those in the in the gallery have made it very much aware of. Um, it's an invisible disability. Sometimes we need to remember that because you won't. And the reason I know about people who have stomachs because they're my friends, uh, my, my constituents.
And that's how you know about it. Uh, otherwise, I suspect I probably wouldn't know about it only because I know what the things I refer to changing places and that policy, that previous government, the mandatory numbers have risen. And that's good news. But there's a lot more to do. And I think that's the issue that the honourable gentleman is referring to as well. Um, and again. He also asked for the meeting with Crosby UK. I think I think we can help each other, Minister on that there.
And to minister herself, um, for her debut in Westminster Hall. Can I, can I, uh, wish her well in the role that she has chosen, uh, or maybe someone else has chosen for her to take. Uh, it doesn't matter. It's a role that you're able to do. And the minister were very pleased at your response to us as individuals are collectively as well on behalf of our constituents and referred to 13,000 each year who have the stoma operation independence for disabled.
How important that is to be able to let them have a normal life and and not to be conscious of of all the things that are happening. Uh, and the standard of public toilets need to be up to their level. And the honourable member for file explained, uh, what it's like having to go to the toilet. I hadn't thought of it that because I hadn't conceived it to be truthful with you, but but he explained it very well. And when you think of that, then you realise just how much more important it is to have a standard toilet.
Um, also referred to local authorities. Uh, and I think the minister also gives us some assurance, which I'm very, very pleased about in relation to, to the, the ten year plan and the analog to. That the, the scheme which will change from digital to analogue. And I think it's important that we look at those ways of doing it better. But again, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, as well, and don't often say it, but we should should thank our staff who come along, uh, and the safer our words or my accent or, or my Ulster-Scots isms, whatever it may be, and thank them.
And and the civil servants who come along and, and legitimately listen to all the things we've got to say, take notes and never show emotion. And that's a that's a standard of a good civil servant.
You know something?We need a bit of humor sometimes, you know?And today he gave us that and I thank him for that. Uh, and in particular, he also talked about the, um. The names he came up with. I was nearly filled with the next name was going to be, to tell you the truth, you know, being the person. Sitting here, don't say that. But that's by the way, um, toilet provision. They must be clean.
They psychologically adjusted, I think is something that we need to focus on as well. Because sometimes I just know how I feel and I think about it. And if I had that, how much worse it would be trying to deal with the knock on to the NHS. Absolutely. Right. And and again, the minister, I think, has grasped that um I honourable member whose friend Harrogate and Knaresborough is just away. He always comes up with very perceptive uh interventions and, and that's one of the things he does really well.
He's not here now, but in his absence I would like to thank him for, for those interventions and and toilet provision on real life and living with a stoma bag. And North Pole. Um I again while knowledge of this subject matter uh active in this subject for some time and especially since she was elected and even before that when she was in the council. Um, and for the small amount and that's the issue I was trying to do as well, the small amount and the big return.
It's one of those things, you know, you, you invest a wee bit and, and, but the credit union you're given you and you get more out of it, if you don't mind me saying that, uh, for those who perhaps may be are aware of the credit unions and the big impact access, and toilet and must protect our dignity, 40% of toilets in the UK have disappeared. A public necessity, and surely England could do better. And moderate public toilets must be a part of modern society. And indeed, I've written down here the the honourable gentleman, the spokesperson, Honourable Member for Mid Bedfordshire.
Also brought forward a knowledge and a contribution in this debate, and referred to the. In its own. Consisting of some 200 250 people who have had the stoma in the last year, uh and referred to the Boys Need Bins campaign, uh, which others have referred to, and those in the in the gallery have made it very much aware of. Um, it's an invisible disability. Sometimes we need to remember that because you won't. And the reason I know about people who have stomachs because they're my friends, uh, my, my constituents.
And that's how you know about it. Uh, otherwise, I suspect I probably wouldn't know about it only because I know what the things I refer to changing places and that policy, that previous government, the mandatory numbers have risen. And that's good news. But there's a lot more to do. And I think that's the issue that the honourable gentleman is referring to as well. Um, and again. He also asked for the meeting with Crosby UK. I think I think we can help each other, Minister on that there.
And to minister herself, um, for her debut in Westminster Hall. Can I, can I, uh, wish her well in the role that she has chosen, uh, or maybe someone else has chosen for her to take. Uh, it doesn't matter. It's a role that you're able to do. And the minister were very pleased at your response to us as individuals are collectively as well on behalf of our constituents and referred to 13,000 each year who have the stoma operation independence for disabled.
How important that is to be able to let them have a normal life and and not to be conscious of of all the things that are happening. Uh, and the standard of public toilets need to be up to their level. And the honourable member for file explained, uh, what it's like having to go to the toilet. I hadn't thought of it that because I hadn't conceived it to be truthful with you, but but he explained it very well. And when you think of that, then you realise just how much more important it is to have a standard toilet.
Um, also referred to local authorities. Uh, and I think the minister also gives us some assurance, which I'm very, very pleased about in relation to, to the, the ten year plan and the analog to. That the, the scheme which will change from digital to analogue. And I think it's important that we look at those ways of doing it better. But again, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, as well, and don't often say it, but we should should thank our staff who come along, uh, and the safer our words or my accent or, or my Ulster-Scots isms, whatever it may be, and thank them.
And and the civil servants who come along and, and legitimately listen to all the things we've got to say, take notes and never show emotion. And that's a that's a standard of a good civil servant.
16:23
16:23