Property Service Charges

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered property service charges.

It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the House today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

I remember vividly the day, over 20 years ago now, when I picked up the keys to my first flat in south-east London. It took time to get to a position where my salary was sufficient to secure a mortgage and to save up the deposit, but I managed to do it. I spent the first few weeks on a mattress on the floor while I saved for a bed, but it was the most amazing feeling in the world to own my own home. I was fortunate enough to have purchased the freehold, so I never had to face paying service charges that I could not afford and I never had to rely on a third-party management company to make essential repairs. When the time was right for me to move on, my flat was easy to sell.

Others have not been so lucky. They have bought leasehold on a private estate, and with that comes a life sentence. Today, I want to give a voice to those people on the hook for ever-increasing service charges, trapped in homes they cannot afford but cannot sell either, who thought they were buying their dream home when actually it was the start of a nightmare. Make no mistake—this is no exaggeration on my part—people’s lives have been and are being ruined by excessive service charges.

Let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling you about Park 25, a housing estate in Redhill. It was built 18 years ago and has 500 homes, a mixture of houses and flats. It is a contemporary and stunning site, with the type of homes that people want to live in. It is particularly attractive to key workers, such as doctors and nurses, due to its proximity to East Surrey hospital. Like many new estates, it was built by private developers with no arrangements made for the local authority to adopt the communal land after completion, so FirstPort was appointed as the property manager to maintain the estate. This means that residents of Park 25 pay an expensive service charge to FirstPort, on top of their mortgage and on top of their council tax, for pretty basic services. Those service charges are going up significantly every year, driving some homeowners to the absolute brink.

I first became aware of the issue when I met Louise, a single mum, at my first ever surgery last year—a meeting I will never forget. She told me how she had purchased a one-bedroom flat on Park 25 when they were first built, but the service charges quickly increased, becoming unaffordable for her, in part due to the expensive biomass communal heating system. In desperation she tried to sell, but three times over she lost her buyer. She now lets out the flat and has moved back in with her family, unable to access the equity that would allow her to buy somewhere else. She is trapped, not able to move on with her life.

Then there is Alfie, who purchased a two-bedroom flat in 2018. He was

“thrilled to get on the property ladder at the age of 23, thinking it was a valuable investment.”

His first service charge payment was just under £2,200 per annum. Six years later, it is over £3,600—a 70% increase. For that, he says

“they basically cut the grass and insure the building”.

When heating is included it gets even worse, due to the biomass system. The first amount becomes £3,400, going up to a whopping £8,000 per annum—a 135% increase. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind you that he is paying council tax and a mortgage on top.

Alfie did consider challenging the service fees at a tribunal, but he was advised by the Leasehold Advisory Service that for any chance of success he would need to appoint a surveyor to review the service charges. However, to do that there needed to be a recognised tenants’ association, and to set that up, over 50% of leaseholders needed to agree. In the case of Park 25, he quickly found that to be an impossible task as many rent out their properties and so are not easily traced. With that door closed to him, he tried to sell his property for over two years—even for £50,000 less than he bought it for just to cover the mortgage. There was lots of interest, but every time the potential purchaser found out about the service charges, they withdrew. Alfie says:

“Understandably, nobody wants to buy it. The ‘we buy any property’ companies won’t touch it and even the auction sites which run a ‘no sale no fee’ policy don’t want to take it on”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this important debate—the fact that so many Members are present is an indication of its importance. In my constituency I have seen an increase in the number of people who bought their house or flat many years ago and are now facing difficulties with the level of charges, unexpected cost increases, and poor communication and service quality. Does she agree that a service charge can never be seen as a blank cheque for the owners, and that what those charges are spent on must be itemised and made clear?

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree.

To add insult to injury, Alfie told me that FirstPort charges an £80 administration fee if payment is not made within 30 days of demand. In 2023 he received his fee on Christmas day while in discussions about a payment plan to settle outstanding fees. FirstPort refused to remove the charge despite his financial struggles. Alfie has now left the UK and is renting his flat out at a loss, because that is the only option available to him.

Building Safety Regulator

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Members for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for introducing the debate. It is always great to be here to give a local perspective from Northern Ireland.

I commend the Government and the Minister in particular for their commitment to the 1.5 million homes. I hope they can achieve that, but some things have to be in place for it to happen. One of those relates to the Building Safety Regulator. Northern Ireland does not have a building safety regulator equivalent to the one in England, but we are strengthening building safety regulations, which are enforced by local councils across Northern Ireland.

Building regulations in my constituency of Strangford are carried out by Ards and North Down borough council and, to a lesser degree, by Lisburn and Castlereagh city council and by Newry, Mourne and Down district council. My relationship with them has always been positive and helpful. When we bring something to their attention, they do their best to contact the office right away. Local building control enforces health, fire safety, energy and safe accessibility—all the things that I hope the Building Safety Regulator here would do as well.

The safety of derelict buildings is an issue I have mentioned before. Some of the ones in my constituency raise deep concern, and there is a call for building safety officers to step in and do their bit. For example, in the past few years young people have been breaking into a number of derelict two-storey homes and businesses in Court Street in Newtownards, the main town in Strangford. They were using them for under-age drinking and antisocial behaviour—drug smoking and other things. The antisocial behaviour is one thing, but it has been noted that the buildings may not have been safe for people to be in, even prior to their dereliction. In such instances, there is a real need for further consideration to be given to having a building safety regulator, which could support what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North and others have put forward as the key issue here on the mainland.

The safety of housing has been a key theme in this debate, and I wholeheartedly agree with what has been said, especially as we instinctively think of the likes of Grenfell. The devastation that that caused for so many people is imprinted on our minds forever.

We have a housing crisis across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have homes that are not deemed safe or habitable for our constituents. Work can be completed through the Building Safety Regulator to enforce the maintenance of homes so that they are safe for people and their families, and in Northern Ireland the local building control will do the same.

Ever mindful of your request to be pithy, Sir Desmond, as you always are, I will conclude. We reflect on lessons learned from past tragedies, including Grenfell. Building safety is our moral responsibility. Everyone should have the right to feel safe and sleep soundly at night, knowing that the homes they are in, as well as their places of work, are safe. While England is the Minister’s jurisdiction, I respectfully request that she looks to commit to ensuring that Northern Ireland follows with similar rules and that building legislation be looked at and, more importantly, improved for everyone.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. We want to provide both renters and landlords with certainty about how the new system will be implemented. I will say a bit more on that in the course of my remarks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments to the Bill on 8 September, although the Government were not prepared to accept amendments that would undermine the core principles of the Bill, we were more than willing to make sensible changes in response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised. The changes we are proposing today are firmly within the spirt of that commitment. I am delighted that we were able to reach agreement with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and Lord Young of Cookham, and I thank all the noble Lords involved for their willingness to work collaboratively to strengthen the Bill.

Let me briefly set out the purpose and effect of the amendments in question, beginning with those that relate to shared owners. Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D exempt shared owners from the 12-month “no re-let” period in respect of new mandatory possession ground 1A, which allows a landlord to evict a tenant because they intend to sell their property. The exemption is subject to meeting set criteria, to ensure that shared owners have made a genuine attempt to sell their property. The amendments in question also include a delegated power to remove the exemption in the future—for example, once the building safety programme has been completed.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome what the Minister has proposed. More and more of these issues have come to my attention in my constituency. Tenants then have to find alternative and affordable accommodation that is close to their work and close to their children’s education. I know this legislation applies to England and Wales only—I understand that. But the Minister is a good Minister, and he always shares information on the legislation that is put forward with the regional assemblies—in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will he do me and this House the favour of sharing the legislation with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the good things in the Bill can become good things for us in Northern Ireland as well?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Northern Ireland Assembly can access this legislation online, but I will certainly continue to have conversations with Ministers in all the devolved Administrations about what lessons can be learned from what we have done with this Bill, and about what they can take from it.

I once again commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis, and I thank him for tabling his three amendments in lieu. As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments last month, the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. Many are facing unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distress sale. We also appreciate that it is often harder to secure a purchaser for a shared ownership property, and that the sales of shared ownership flats are more likely to fall through due to the additional constraints involved. As such, we have always accepted that the 12 month no re-let period would have placed many shared owners in an extremely challenging position.

The reason why the Government did not feel able to accept Lord Young’s original Lords amendment 19 was that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happened to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. I am therefore pleased to report to the House that the amendments in lieu deliver the core aims of that original amendment, while also ensuring that three key safeguards are in place to protect tenants.

First, there is a requirement for the shared owner to have informed the assured subtenant in writing at the outset of the tenancy about the exemption and its possible use. This will ensure tenants are aware of the particular circumstances of the tenancy they are entering into and can make an informed choice about whether they wish to enter into a tenancy agreement with the shared owner in question.

Secondly, shared owners must have informed their provider of their intention to sell before obtaining possession of the property from the tenant. This is an essential first step that all shared owners must take to begin the process of selling their property. I am satisfied that it is a proportionate requirement to evidence that a shared owner is genuinely intending to sell their home.

Thirdly, a valuation must be undertaken on the property by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, or the shared owner must have advertised the property for sale. This can be done at any point before a property is re-let, recognising the need for flexibility in how shared owners will approach a sale.

Taken together with the protections that are already in place as a result of registered providers having to authorise sub-letting requests and having oversight of what rent levels can be charged, I am satisfied that these safeguards will reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the risk that an exemption from the 12-month no re-let period might otherwise have posed.

Lords amendments 39B and 39C will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard.

Ending Homelessness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for setting the scene so well, and I wish the Minister well in her new role. I will ask her for one thing at the beginning. This morning I met representatives from Centrepoint, which looks after homeless young people, and I understand that they have written to the Minister, as part of the youth chapter collective, to ensure that youth homelessness is a central part of what the Government are doing. Will the Minister agree to a meeting on that?

In the short time available, let me give a quick perspective on Northern Ireland, the stats for which are incredibly worrying. Some 7,600 households presented as homeless in 2024-25. Of those, 67% were accepted as statutory homeless, with 5,200 living in temporary accommodation. Here is the big thing: the cost of temporary accommodation, according to the Northern Ireland Audit Office, is some £39 million. For us in Northern Ireland, it is a massive issue. In my office, housing issues and affordable housing make up most of the issues we deal with. I think of those living in accommodation, but then the landlord decides to sell the property and makes them homeless, and when they go for private accommodation they find that the price is absolutely out of reach.

One of the solutions would be for uninhabitable homes to become habitable. In Northern Ireland we have almost 1,600 or 1,700 of them. A nationwide campaign on that could turn around accessible housing very quickly. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we need to be able to offer first-time buyers affordable homes. That would take some of the pressure off. Those are my quick requests; in two minutes that is all I can say.

Local Government Funding: North-west England

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for local government in the North West.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the Minister for being here today.

I will start by reading the words of Stuart, who lives in my Cheadle constituency, and who wrote to me just two days ago—a timely admission for this debate. He said:

“I am writing as a resident of Cheadle Hulme to express my deep concern about the level of council tax and the prospect of further increases. My current council tax is £275 per month...This level is already difficult to sustain, and any further rise will make it unmanageable for many working households like mine. I understand that a large proportion of council spending now goes toward adult and children’s social care, but the current trajectory feels unsustainable without fundamental reform or additional central government support.”

Stuart is right: the current situation is completely unsustainable, and I am sure Members here today will agree that it cannot go on.

I am sure we all entered politics to effect change—campaigning to keep a school open, fundraising for a library or creating a community group. We know that change starts small, with one person, one area or one community. We must take to heart the saying that all politics is local. Local government is at the forefront, the most frequent point of interaction between the British public and government. As a former councillor myself, I know the amazing things that local government can achieve and the real and lasting impact it can have on a personal level.

Local governments are the key to unlocking growth, improving health and poverty outcomes, and providing the best support to the most vulnerable. But our local authorities, as Stuart rightly points out, are suffering tremendously from years of cuts and a systemic failure to properly fund even the most essential services. Our local authority finances are on their knees, and this country cannot deliver growth, reform public services or improve life changes without first fixing local government finances.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He is absolutely right to underline the importance of local government. I served as a local councillor for some 26 years before I came to Parliament, so I understand the importance of local government. He is outlining why Government needs to commit to funding for local towns and cities across all of the United Kingdom. Does he feel that Government’s interaction with local government should be the first stop when it comes to organising funding and understanding what the real issues are on the streets?

[Mr Morrison]

I completely agree. There has to be a two-way dialogue, in which the Government talk and work with local government to work out the challenges that need to be fixed.

The Local Government Association reports that 29 councils needed exceptional financial support in 2025-26 to set a balanced budget. That is 11 more than the previous year, and I am afraid that number will only continue to grow. The Government’s pride in place strategy is meaningless when local authorities are still being encouraged to sell community commodities such as libraries and leisure centres to avoid financial ruin. That is no way to set our communities up for success. It is stripping away the key things that make a community, the places where people gather and access the support and services that they need. Drawing on dwindling reserves is not a sustainable financial plan.

However, there are also regional inequalities to the issue, which slice across all aspects of daily life, from transport to potholes. Last year’s fairer funding review lacked all nuance, basing criteria for recovery grants on deprivation figures from over a decade ago. Stockport council missed out on any recovery funding; it is now left to pick up the pieces, and to continue fighting tooth and nail without the £20 million it so desperately needs to sustain long-term services, despite having some of the most deprived wards in the UK in our borough. In just three years’ time, Stockport council will be underfunded by £63 million. Despite that, the council won local authority of the year in 2025—a testament to its officers and councillors.

Stockport is a council that does not shy away from hard decisions. It was promised more from the Government, yet things have not changed. In opposition, the Labour party decried the underfunding of local councils across the country and said that things could only get better under its tenure. Well, councils are facing the same problems across the north-west, and we are seeing the same lack of ideas from the Government that we did under the Conservatives. Real-time cuts to local government funding in Stockport alone have reached more than £133 million in the past few years. As a result, Stockport council was forced to find £24.5 million of savings just for the 2025 budget.

Social Housing: South Cotswolds

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Savage]

That does indeed sound like an excellent idea.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to get an idea of what she would be referring to. We had a debate in Westminster Hall this morning on homelessness, and one point that came through very clearly was affordability. House prices can sometimes be over 10 times the average of what people can afford from their earnings. In my constituency—I suspect it is the same in the hon. Lady’s—many young people want to buy for the first time but cannot get a mortgage because the houses are too expensive. Does the hon. Lady agree that to address the needs of those who want to buy a house or access social housing, the Government must build more houses to bring the prices down so that people can actually afford them?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that that is relevant.

Religious Crematoriums

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of religious crematoria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Susan Murray]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provision of Council Housing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Chris Hinchliff]

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

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

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

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

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

Playgrounds: Bournemouth East

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered playgrounds in Bournemouth East constituency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd George was right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Tom Hayes]

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

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

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

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