Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for introducing a topic that, as he said and as we all know, touches the very core of human dignity, equality and basic compassion. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) as well; I thank her for her contribution.

It was also a pleasure to hear the story told by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) of how he was approached by his constituents and how, as he rose up the ministerial ladder, he used his position to ensure that the very things that his constituents had asked for were delivered. I wish to put on record my thanks to him for using his position for his constituents and all our people, because ultimately, we all benefit from that £50 million to which he referred.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I am not sure what is going on, but whenever she turns up, I seem to turn up as well. Westminster Hall has been well used this week on numerous occasions by both of us, and by many others as well. However, we seem to be featuring in similar debates.

When it comes to the welfare of vulnerable people, I will knock on any door and speak in any Chamber to ensure that they are not forgotten. That is why today is so important. I secured a debate just a few weeks ago about stoma care facilities and public toilets, but today we are talking about something slightly different: Changing Places toilets. We are not talking about standard disabled toilets; we are talking about life-changing essential facilities that provide an adult-sized, height-adjustable changing bench, a tracking hoist system, a centrally placed toilet and room for two carers—the physical room for them to be able to help.

Without those facilities, thousands of our fellow citizens cannot leave their homes for more than a couple of hours without facing the horrific, unsanitary and utterly degrading reality of being changed on a dirty public toilet floor. I would not like that, which is why I am here to speak up. I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his moving contribution and his personal story. We all agree that personal stories carry weight. Today, he shared his with us all, and I thank him for doing so.

The Government previously announced magnificent capital funding pots for Changing Places toilets across England. But as the Member for Strangford, I will tell the story from Northern Ireland—it is not a great story but a disappointing one; maybe not for my constituency but certainly across Northern Ireland—to ensure that capital funding reaches the places that are falling desperately behind.

An estimated 7,000 people across our province rely entirely on Changing Places facilities to live a normal life, yet the figures show that Northern Ireland has historically been one of the worst-performing regions in the entire United Kingdom for provision, with a shocking lack of options outside major city hubs. Campaign groups have highlighted that four out of five hospitals in Northern Ireland—it almost makes me cringe to say this—still have no registered Changing Places facilities, leaving vulnerable patients, staff and visitors completely stranded in the very places that are meant to care for them, which leaves me incredulous. I followed up with the Northern Ireland Minister in relation to the stoma debate, and I will do the same now to reinforce the need for change.

I am very fortunate that my constituency of Strangford and the borough of Ards and North Down have been able to record the data: out of nearly 40 publicly available toilets across the borough, only about a dozen are standard accessible toilets. When looking for true, fully compliant and registered Changing Places toilets, the list shrinks even further. I commend—and I mean this, because I know that it has been doing many things—Ards and North Down borough council. I had the distinct honour of serving on it for some 26 years, and it has shown real leadership: it was the first council in Northern Ireland to ensure that all council accessible toilets were stoma-friendly. That is the good news story I shared in the stoma debate in this place about four weeks ago.

The council has successfully put standard Changing Places facilities into key hubs like the Bangor Aurora Aquatic and Leisure Complex, the Comber Leisure Centre and the magnificent Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex. My council has moved mountains to make sure that those things happened, but local councils cannot carry the weight alone on strained ratepayers’ money.

If a family want to enjoy the beautiful shores of the Ards peninsula where I live, or visit Ballyhalbert, Portavogie or Cloughey, the facilities simply do not exist. Those places are nearly off-limits for those who, as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, want to take their family out, even if it is only two hours down the road and back again. Families are forced to cut their days short and rush back to Newtownards or Bangor just so a loved one can use a bathroom in a dignified manner—we are talking about dignity here—which is a crying shame in this day and age.

While Northern Ireland has introduced legislative changes to building regulations in recent years to mandate these toilets in any new major public buildings such as shopping centres—the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford referred to that—the Department of Health and local authorities back home are facing severe financial constraints and have explicitly stated that they lack the central capital budget to retrofit existing hospitals, transport hubs and some town centres.

I am ever-mindful of the Minister’s responsibilities and that she always tries to give helpful answers to our questions, but will she take up this cause with the Chancellor and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that regional capital funding formulas allow for dedicated, ringfenced resources to expand their Changing Places network? The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton can tell me whether I am right or wrong, but I presume that the £50 million earmarked for the project had Barnett consequentials.

[Rishi Sunak]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

So we got some, but we need that to be ringfenced. Minister, if moneys are coming through Barnett consequentials, let us ensure that they are used for those purposes. We need central capital funding that can be accessed by local councils like Ards and North Down borough council to retrofit our coastal towns, tourist hotspots and community centres; I believe that many are ready.

A civilised society is always judged by how it treats the most vulnerable. This is not a political issue—we all know that—it is about personal dignity, equality and what is right. It is about independence, inclusion and the basic right to go out for a cup of tea or a walk by the sea without losing your dignity. I urge the Minister to work hand in hand with the devolved Administration to ensure that capital funding flows to where it is needed the most, so that no child or adult in Northern Ireland is ever forced to use a public toilet floor again.

National Planning Policy Framework

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I will suggest to the Minister that, if he wishes to pursue a policy of building on land that will almost certainly flood, we need to put those buildings on stilts. That is not impossible, and there is certainly one very beautiful house on the levels that sits on stilts.

Yatton, the village subject to the decision, sits within the North Somerset levels, barely 2 km from the Bristol channel. On Friday 12 June, the High Court handed down its judgment permitting the development of 190 homes in this flood-prone area, on a site that failed the flood risk sequential test. The judgment follows the NPPF exactly, as the judge had to, and prioritised building homes over protection from flooding. It imperils not only the new homes—I should explain that the judge said that homeowners threatened by flooding had sufficient time to vacate their houses before the floodwater reached them—but the homes and businesses in and around the Yatton site. The impact of flooding does not disappear just because people can get away safely. This is about property as well as people. The damage to wellbeing and mental health takes its toll on those affected, as does the damage to property, which can take months and sometimes years to remedy and replace.

I would not want the Minister to think that this is a case of nimbyism and anti-development sentiment by those in rural areas. My Lib Dem colleagues and I agree with the Government’s desire to meet the huge need for housing across the country. There are 12,800 people on the Homefinder list in Somerset, which covers 66% of my patch, and a similar proportion on the North Somerset list.

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Many of our discussions centre on the Flood Re scheme, which was a great initiative that meant insurers could cover flooding claims and the premiums for home insurance in high flood risk areas were not astronomical. The scheme comes to an end in 2039, and the Government have been very clear that it will not be extended. As set out in legislation, homes built after 2009 are not covered by the scheme. As we get closer to that 2039 date, more and more homes built in high flood risk areas are not covered by the scheme and so risk becoming uninsurable and consequently unmortgageable. The consequences for developers and those who have already bought the homes will be awful. And the Yatton decision compounds the problems with the NPPF in allowing the need for home building to override common sense.

To press the point, it is very likely that residents of new homes built on floodplains, such as those in Yatton, will face flooding damage in the coming years. Not only will they not be able to make an insurance claim, but any new buyers will likely struggle to access a mortgage. Residents may well end up trapped, unable to sell a home that might cost them thousands of pounds in repairs every winter. The Minister knows the weather experts say that what we are experiencing now is the most stable weather that we are ever going to see.

I mentioned that the current neighbours would also be affected due to the simple fact that the floodwater must go somewhere. If developers choose to build up the land on which they wish to develop, the floodwater may well not hit those homes precisely, but will cause the existing homes and businesses in the area to be flooded more greatly. I have a lovely set of photographs of the land I am speaking about, which I will send to the Minister, showing exactly how it floods every year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for the ambition she has put forward. Does she not agree that there is a risk of severe regulatory divergence? If the English planning system undergoes massive deregulation and introduces a faster, rules-based yes by default to major projects, capital will do what it always does and flow through the path of least resistance. The Government and the Minister need to ensure that the possibility she outlines for her constituents does not happen elsewhere.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The point I would like to make to the Minister is that, if developers choose to raise the level of the land on which they wish to build, we make a complete mockery of the Environment Agency’s work in relation to the LiDAR data that it uses to measure flood risk. There will be little pockets that are no longer in flood zone 3a, for example, but everybody else is then in a more problematic area for flooding. The current neighbours would be affected, because floodwater has to go somewhere. In the event of flooding, if the properties are lifted above sea level by raising the land, the displaced water goes straight into existing homes and businesses.

The Association of British Insurers has been clear that, while it supports the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes, it has serious concerns about allowing developers to bypass the flood risk sequential test in areas at high risk of surface water flooding, which is precisely the kind of decision we have seen play out in Yatton. The scale of the risk to which it points is sobering.

The Environment Agency’s national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk shows that 6.3 million homes in England are already at risk of flooding, 4.6 million of them from surface water alone. In just the first quarter of this year, insurers paid out £846 million in property claims, with the average weather-related claim reaching £6,040—the highest first quarter figure on record. Subsidence claims, often linked to the same extreme weather, rose 9% year on year to £17,820. Research commissioned by Aviva suggests that 11% of new homes built between 2022 and 2024 are already at risk of flooding, and that figure is projected to rise to one in seven by 2050, once climate change is factored in.

That is why I believe the Association of British Insurers, together with UK Finance and flood campaigners, has written directly to the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise the alarm. The message is simple: rather than weakening the sequential test, the Government should mandate sustainable drainage systems, finally implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. That legislation has been in the ether, unimplemented, for nearly 16 years. It is telling that 66% of the public already say that they do not believe the country or their local area is prepared for future flooding. Ignoring the industry that pays out when floods happen is really not the way to change people’s minds.

I put it to the Minister that Somerset council is required to deliver 75,000 new homes in the next 20 years, and I believe that North Somerset has to produce nearly 25,000 new homes in the next 15 years. To repeat something that one of my colleagues on Somerset council says, it has taken since the dawn of time for the population of the Somerset council area—not including the North Somerset council area—to reach 560,000. I am keen to know why the Minister and his Government believe that the population will grow by more than 75,000 people in the next 20 years. That is a 13% increase, when it has taken centuries to get to 560,000. It is a ridiculous population increase, and it is not realistic in the slightest. For context, the Office for National Statistics projects that the entire population of the United Kingdom will grow from around 70 million to around 72 million over the same period—a rise of just 2.8%.

I am the first to recognise that Wells and Mendip Hills is a lovely place to live—actually the best—but, even allowing for that huge appeal, I struggle to understand why the Government believe that such a disproportionately rural area will see growth at almost five times the national rate. The NPPF changes will affect much more than just flood risk—our area and its green spaces will be under pressure.

It seems especially disproportionate when I look at Bristol, my local city, which I love dearly. Its population is projected to grow by about 10%, which is again above the national average. It seems that those in Somerset and North Somerset will be asked to take a huge number of new residents. I do not know where they are coming from, and I cannot quite see how the Government have come to those figures. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me on how his team has come to that assumption.

The last matter I would like to raise is that farmers run factories. Those factories are the agricultural land—it is just that we do not have roofs on them. That is no different from any other part of the country that has some sort of manufacturing. Farmers use fields, and they do not have roofs, so it is quite hard for people to spot the fact that they are food factories. In the interests of an honest debate, I acknowledge that many in the farming community welcome what is set out in the new NPPF, but that comes with real caveats. It is worth the House hearing what they are.

A lot of our greenhouses are more than 40 years old and in urgent need of modernisation, yet large glasshouse developments are still routinely treated as major infrastructure projects, which triggers huge delays that again undermine our domestic food production. My colleagues will need no second invitation on this point: food security is national security. I am really glad that the Government recognised that in February. Ensuring that our farmers can produce the food this country needs is of critical importance in what is a very unstable world.

Will the Minister consider the points that I have made and write to me about the population figures? I want to make absolutely certain that he does not misunderstand me; this is not a sentimental case for nature and green spaces. It is very realistic damage that is happening to Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I will try to cover four aspects of the NPPF in just short of four minutes. The first is what the NPPF says on intentional unauthorised development. I welcome the move towards stronger wording in that area. I should stress that I am not talking about a house extension or somebody accidentally not complying with regulations, but entire new dwellings and wilful non-compliance. I welcome the move from material consideration, as it is known, to substantial weight, but I fear it does not go far enough. As I said in my submission to the consultation, it should be set out very clearly that

“wilfully ignoring planning consent requirements will not result in retrospective planning permissions being granted”,

and that this cannot in normal circumstances be overridden by personal circumstance arguments. Other things could be done in support, such as making sure that stop notices are easier to issue, and restrictions on things like delivery of construction materials and mobile homes to unlawful sites.

The Minister and I have discussed the NPPF housing formula many times across this Floor. He is a very diligent Minister and, although he always robustly defends the Government line, which is kind of annoying, he always does it with great courtesy. I thank him for that. The problem is that this formula has meant a massive increase in housing numbers for the countryside. It is not a north-south thing; it is an urban to countryside shift. Whereas the numbers have gone up by 50% for the country overall, in East Hampshire they have doubled. When that happens overnight, no one has a five-year land supply that can deal with it, so we get speculative developments.

That has been brought into sharp relief by the issue of water supply, which has particularly come to prominence since South East Water’s submission to the Basingstoke and Deane local plan. The Basingstoke area that it talks about—zone 4, as it is known—extends to Alton and around my constituency. The Environment Agency has stopped the extension of the abstraction licence at Greywell Fen because of the degradation of that globally rare site of special scientific interest. I met South East Water recently to discuss this. There are questions outstanding, particularly regarding parts of my constituency. Clearly, action should have happened before now, but a doubling of the housing target hugely exacerbates the issue. Large- scale development should not go ahead unless and until this issue is resolved.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on his speech. I know that the Minister is not responsible for my constituency across the water, but does the right hon. Gentleman feel that recommendations and good things learned on the mainland should be shared with us back home to ensure that we do not have the same problems that seem to be repeating over and over again here?

[Damian Hinds]

I agree. There is no practical limit on what we can learn from one another in the home nations of the United Kingdom.

I want to come on to what is known as policy L3, which concerns the minimum density requirements for areas around train stations. I have written about this in my submission to the consultation. I fear that a policy that is, on the face of it, sensible—“Let’s have people living close to train stations where they can commute to work or whatever it might be”—is really designed for urban town areas. But it will also have an impact on market towns in places like East Hampshire and in villages that just happen to have a train station. The sorts of densities discussed in the NPPF would be wholly inappropriate for market towns like Alton in East Hampshire and rural villages like Bentley or Rowland’s Castle.

Finally, I want to address how the NPPF interacts with local government reorganisation. I am totally opposed to the Government’s top-down reorganisation of Hampshire local government for multiple reasons, including the fact that it splits up an area with an identity—namely, East Hampshire. It puts the lower parts into a new Portsmouth super-council area and the rest of East Hampshire into this vast new Mid Hants unitary. Local plans have been built around existing district council geographies. For councils that are part-way through the process and about to have this enormous reorganisation thrust upon them, what is the guidance from the Government on how they should proceed?

Estate Regeneration

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for highlighting this issue.

Many of us can be guilty of forgetting that a house is not just a unit on a spreadsheet, but the anchor of a family’s life. I see it that way, as do others, including the hon. Gentleman. Our historical, post-war social housing estates across Northern Ireland possess an incredible and undeniable community spirit, but are too often choked by generational underinvestment, outdated design and structural neglect. As always, I will give the Northern Ireland perspective on this topic to support the hon. Gentleman in his challenge and focus, and in what he wants to achieve, as it is what I want as well. It is nice to see the Minister in her place again—she is becoming a regular in Westminster Hall. I look forward to hearing her contribution.

I stand here to speak up for the thousands of families living in social housing across my constituency. Those estates were built decades ago, and although they were built with the best of intentions, time, by its very nature, has taken its toll. We are dealing with ageing housing stock that suffers from chronic dampness, poor insulation and completely outdated heating systems. In an era where energy prices remain painfully high, it is a tragedy that our lowest-income families are living in the hardest-to-heat homes and are forced to choose between heating their homes—or even just their front rooms—and feeding their children.

Considered estate regeneration is about so much more than putting a new lick of paint on a building, replacing a roof or putting in insulation; it is about having a holistic blueprint for community renewal. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke for highlighting the community aspect, because I want to focus on the community drive as well. It means looking at the layout of our estates to eradicate the poorly lit alleys that breed antisocial behaviour. It also means investing in community infrastructure: the playgrounds where our children can play safely; the community hubs where our elderly residents can find a reprieve from chronic loneliness; and the green spaces that support mental wellbeing and social interaction.

True regeneration must be considered, meaning that it must be done with the community, not to the community. As the hon. Gentleman outlined incredibly well, our local communities must be the co-architects of their own future. We must empower local tenant associations and community groups to lead the design process. If they are drawn into that project and focus, it will make a community and a family atmosphere, and it will bring people together. That is what I would love to see.

To know how to fix a troubled estate—I say this respectfully—just ask the grandmother who has lived on that street for 40 years. She knows exactly where the problems are and exactly what the neighbourhood needs to thrive. Her love for that estate—the place she stayed in for 40 years of her life—should focus us all in the future.

Although housing policy and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are devolved matters managed by the Minister for Communities in Stormont, the fiscal reality is that our devolved Administration cannot deliver the scale of transformation needed on their own. That is why the Barnett consequential and what the Government give the Northern Ireland Assembly to dish out are so important. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive faces a multi-billion-pound maintenance and investment deficit over the next decade, just to bring its current stock up to a decent standard. That is why we need a joined-up, UK-wide approach to funding capital infrastructure. The UK levelling-up and building frameworks must ensure that Northern Ireland receives a fair, proportionate share of macro investment specifically earmarked for social housing regeneration.

This subject means a lot to me. Back in 1985, when I was first elected to a council, the social, bread-and-butter issues were about housing; it is still one of the biggest issues that my constituency office receives in the mailbag every week. Today’s debate means a lot to me. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke on securing it and look forward to hearing what the Minister can do to encourage him and us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

You’re playing catch-up!

[Nesil Caliskan]

Yes, and I have a long way to go.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and thank all Members for their contributions. Each one has provided an important perspective on the challenges of estate renewal and the need generally to build homes in a way that works for communities. My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about the difference between good regeneration and poor examples in his constituency. The Government recognise that good estate regen is critical to delivering our housing target and to providing decent homes for everybody to live in.

There are many reasons why estate regeneration might be the best thing for existing tenants or for a local area. In some cases, years of neglect from a Conservative Government that failed to invest in existing estates and mandated council rent reductions, which meant even less for housing revenue accounts, has left many estates in dire need of regeneration. I know that only too well, having led a local authority that felt the burden of pressures on the HRA account. Social housing was the tenure most affected by damp and mould issues—my hon. Friend correctly highlighted the impact that that has on many of his constituents, and I know that many other Members have cases involving the same problem.

An ageing housing stock not only impacts life chances, but costs the taxpayer more in the long term, because disrepair has a bigger impact on communities and also on the stock itself. In that context, it might make more sense for an entire estate to be regenerated than to take a sticking-plaster approach, particularly when some buildings reach the end of their life. In other cases, estates are the best places to build more affordable homes, particularly in our towns and cities, where there may be fewer development sites available, but more social infrastructure in local areas.

The people often forgotten in housing debates are the 1 million families on council housing waiting lists and the thousands of people trapped in temporary accommodation. I know that there are something like 4,000 on the housing register in my hon. Friend’s local authority area, and the figure is similar in my borough of Barking and Dagenham. Everyone deserves a decent home—a safe home, in a clean neighbourhood, with decent social infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who spoke so passionately and accurately about the importance of the facilities that make a community, whether that is a youth centre or much needed GPs. I pay tribute to her long-standing campaign, which reflects the need to build neighbourhoods with homes that are more than just the buildings that house people.

In my view, the simplest, most powerful thing we can do to lift people out of poverty and improve life chances in this country is to provide more decent homes. First and foremost, we must recognise that the supply of homes is the foundation for everything. Indeed, we will only address the housing crisis by building more homes, period. I listened with great interest to the shadow Minister, who made important points about house building and getting on with it. I have to say, though, having been a council leader in and now a Labour Member of Parliament in London, that it is a great shame that Conservative and Lib Dem councils, councillors and MPs frequently object to house building.

Of course, brownfield sites are a really important part of the solution; but the idea that we can meet housing need in London or the rest of the country only by using brownfield sites or doing infill on existing estates is, I am afraid, misleading. That does not mean that we look at only one aspect of house building. I recognise that the picture is complicated, and it will take a multitude of approaches to make sure that regeneration delivers the number of homes to the decent homes standard that we need, but I also know that regeneration must be delivered in partnership with communities. Good regeneration puts communities in the driving seat. That does not just mean being transparent with decision making; it also means allowing those who live in the community to have a real say in shaping proposals. Decisions on property size, building height, materials, amenities and timelines for delivery are important for getting community buy-in. That approach is not new. Good developers, of which there are many, do that anyway, and the regulatory standards are clear: registered providers must communicate with tenants, provide information to them and take their views into account in decision making. That extends to providers undertaking estate regeneration.

It is difficult to set out realistic timelines, because each estate regeneration is different and unique due to their different sizes and ambitions, and good engagement with existing residents may further change those ambitions. Timelines for estate renewal are also highly dependent on viability, phasing, planning permission conditions, and ground and infrastructure prep, but I accept that families who live on an estate face huge anxiety when they do not know when their home is going to be knocked down. Indeed, there are examples in my constituency of families who have been told their estate has been earmarked for renewal; they can see their community being hollowed out, yet they do not know when they will need to move on. Timelines for estate renewal are complicated, but it is important that engagement takes into account the instability caused by estate renewal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked a valid question about whether the process for decision making should be through a ballot. I led a local authority that had a ballot for an area. It is hard work to say the least, but it is perhaps one of the most important things a local authority can do to secure community buy-in. However, to say that ballots in themselves are what secured that engagement would be to do a disservice to the engagement that the ballot provided.

Ballots in and of themselves do not solve trust issues among residents. They can force developers to do the meaningful engagement that they should be doing anyway, but they do not mean that we will get the outcome that we want. Where providers fall short, there is usually a complaints process and an ombudsman. In addition, the Government have also committed to introducing social tenant access to information requirements from this October, which will make it mandatory for providers to give information about property management in response to information requests.

Regeneration in Reddish

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Navendu Mishra]

In meetings with the hon. Lady I have pushed the Government for more funding for Stockport, and I just mentioned that the Government should go beyond what the 7.5% increase will deliver. I agree that more deprived and lower-income areas across Stockport and Greater Manchester deserve more attention; we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. As a politician, I will make political points, but I hope she sees that my voting record and my record in Hansard show that I do what is best for Stockport.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Navendu Mishra]

I am happy to take an intervention from Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate; he is absolutely right to press for his constituents. Does he agree that whether we are talking about an urban, industrial town like Reddish or a rural community, for instance my Strangford constituency, the foundational rules of successful regeneration remain exactly the same? Regeneration requires targeted central Government support, modernised infrastructure and revitalised high streets, so that people can live, work and thrive in their home towns. The hon. Gentleman is pressing for that. I support him, and wish him well.

[Navendu Mishra]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is extremely important to invest in our high streets and have thriving high streets with independent local businesses, as well as thriving district centres. We are lucky that Reddish has a wide range of fantastic independent local businesses, as I will mention later.

As I said, I call on the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council to take investment in Reddish seriously, and nowhere is the need for fair investment clearer than in Reddish. Stockport council must not continue to overlook its needs when allocating funding. Reddish faces many issues, including serious health inequalities. In Reddish the average male life expectancy is 78 and the average female life expectancy is 83. That is lower than other parts of my constituency, where the average male life expectancy is 81 and the average female life expectancy is 84.

Residents have consistently raised concerns with me about ageing infrastructure, a lack of high-quality public facilities and the lack of investment in the area. The people of Reddish deserve good-quality public amenities and facilities, and better infrastructure in key green spaces like Reddish Vale and North Reddish park. Under the previous Government, many residents felt forgotten, while more affluent areas of Stockport benefited from sustained investment. Sadly, this is continuing under our Liberal Democrat-controlled local authority. It is purely a political choice, just as austerity was. Can I remind the House that the Liberal Democrats were in coalition with the Conservatives for five long years, delivering truly regressive policies such as austerity, the bedroom tax and much more?

A Reddish resident told me recently:

“It feels like Reddish is a cash cow, the residents pay lots in and get absolutely nothing in return.”

Across my constituency, there has been a string of failures by Stockport council. Grand Central swimming pool, which has provided this country with sporting champions, is in need of investment, with the future of its 50-metre capacity uncertain. Many roads across my constituency are in an unacceptable state, with potholes and ineffective repairs. Stockport Central library has been closed since September 2025, with no timetable or indication of when it will be reopened by the council. The bridge near Harrison’s weir in Reddish Vale is still out of action almost 18 months after it was severely damaged by flooding, with Stockport council producing no timeline for its repair. Charges in council-owned carparks, including at Broadstone Road in Reddish where charges were recently introduced, are hitting residents and small businesses hard.

Turning to Reddish Baths, the site includes the disused baths building, the former community centre and fire station, and Reddish library. The 1908 buildings—library, fire station, baths and mortuary—are thought to be the only configuration of their type in the UK. They were a gift to the people of Reddish on joining the county borough of Stockport and are considered by some to be a symbol of the esteem—or the lack thereof—in which Reddish is held by Stockport council. Reddish Baths closed in 2005 and has stood vacant ever since. For generations, the swimming baths brought the community together, allowed young people the opportunity to learn a vital skill and served as a much-loved facility. Despite that, Stockport council currently has no firm plans to reopen or reinvest in this historic building. I want to pay tribute to Reddish North councillors Rachel Wise and David Wilson, who work tirelessly for the wider community and have done lots of work with me on this issue.

I recently ran a community survey in Reddish, asking residents to share their views on the future of Reddish Baths. Almost 1,000 residents responded, offering crucial insights into the community’s opinion: 86% of respondents placed swimming or fitness facilities in their top three preferred future uses for the site; 50% selected youth activities and services; 43% chose a community café or meeting space. The strongest guiding principles were promoting health and wellbeing, preserving historic architecture and expanding youth and family services. Some 65% of respondents want a plan that brings together the library, baths and community centre into a single, multi-use community and cultural hub. The most frequent expressed hope was clear: reopening the baths.

Many respondents referenced childhood memories, the loss of local pools and frustration at seeing a valued building left unused. There is also a strong desire for a shared community asset that serves all ages. However, residents also raised concerns that future plans could be too expensive for local people, exclusionary for low-income households, older residents or young people, run in a way that limits genuine community access or harmful to the site’s heritage. Some residents also expressed distrust of Stockport council due to previous delays and failed plans. I contacted the chief executive and the leader of the council to reopen engagement on the future of the bath site. I am grateful to the chief executive for visiting the baths with me a few months back. Across five facilities in Stockport borough, the public supply is 2,648 square metres of water. To meet the recommended supply of 12 square metres per thousand of the population, Stockport would need another 990 square metres, meaning that there is currently a clear water provision deficit.

Not only has Reddish lost its baths; we also have serious issues as Grand Central swimming pool in our town centre. Sport England has been less than helpful with my inquiries, which is highly disappointing because it receives a huge amount of funding from British taxpayers. Nationally, swimming outcomes are worsening looking at the 2024-25 statistics, only 73% of year 7 pupils can swim 25 metres competently, and just 67% of children aged five to 16 can swim 25 metres unaided. That is 30,000, or 3.5%, fewer children than in 2017-18.

Turning to libraries, only 19% of children and young people in the north-west read daily in their free time. That is the second lowest percentage in England. Alongside this, research from the University of Liverpool suggests that 1.2 million residents in Greater Manchester could be digitally excluded, with around 450,000 residents being non-users of digital technology. Reddish library was the first to have been purpose built in Stockport. It is also the home to the longest continuous library provision in the borough. Reddish library needs investment in its equipment, staffing and opening hours. The building itself is crumbling with a leaky roof. The library is a vital community asset, supporting people of all ages to learn crucial literacy skills and providing support for members of the community who are digitally excluded with free wi-fi provision, computers and help with digital skills. Many people also rely on our library as a warm space.

I am concerned that the urgent works identified for the library have still not been undertaken, despite the importance of this facility to the local community. I have been lucky enough to hold surgeries at the library, and I remember during my last surgery a few months back that there were lots of buckets out in Reddish library catching the water that was leaking from the roof. It is absolutely unacceptable. It is also deeply concerning that scaffolding has now remained in place at Reddish library for over three years at a cost of over £26,000 to the taxpayer. When including VAT, that cost rises to over £30,000 paid by the people of Stockport.

I am so disappointed that Stockport council made a combined application for four libraries across Stockport borough under the libraries improvement fund, rather than prioritising areas such as Reddish, where the need is most urgent. Reddish north has a digital exclusion risk index score of 4.37 out of 10. That is much higher than other parts of my constituency, where the scores are between 1 and 2.

The local authority, Stockport council, could have made a decision to submit a one-off individual application for Reddish library. However, Reddish was simply one of many bundled into one joint application, despite needing thousands of pounds to stabilise the roof in addition to the other issues that I mentioned. The council did not inform me of this application. Had they done so, I would have been more than happy to lobby the Government and the Minister on behalf of the council. However, communication with elected officials, whether councillors or MPs, seems to be really poor from Stockport council. I recognise and welcome the investment secured from this Labour Government for nearby Bramall Hall, in my neighbouring constituency of Cheadle, including £1 million this year in addition to the £1.6 million previously awarded. Many of my constituents feel strongly that Reddish has once again been overlooked.

To be clear, I welcome investment in all parts of Stockport, not just in my constituency. However, the Liberal Democrats should be honest and upfront about overlooking some parts of our borough and prioritising other areas. I am a proud trade union member and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank Unison members working in Stockport libraries and across Stockport council for all the work that they do and the vital services they provide to the people of Stockport. It has been noted that Reddish has fewer home library service users than other parts of Stockport borough with similar demographics. That is attributed, among other factors, to the extraordinary knowledge, diligence and care demonstrated by Nicki and Belinda, Reddish’s long-serving librarians.

As we mark the National Year of Reading, I also want to recognise the outstanding work of organisations such as Read Easy Stockport, whose volunteers help adults improve their literacy and confidence. Facilities such as Reddish library play an essential role in supporting that work, but they need a roof that does not leak to do so.

I want to challenge the narrative being pushed by the Liberal Democrat council leadership in the local press. We are told that this Labour Government, who are trying to address the effects of the coalition years of austerity and cuts, have made a political decision on funding in respect of Stockport. Let me be clear: blaming this Government, who have been in power for less than two years, has become a convenient excuse for years of neglect in Reddish under the Liberal Democrats. The real question the people of Reddish and myself as the local MP ask is: why do some communities always seem to be at the back of the queue? Residents in areas such as Reddish can see the difference for themselves. They can see nearby areas getting investment attention, yet their infrastructure and public realm is left to deteriorate even further. If council leaders are prepared to speak loudly and publicly about funding shortfalls, they should also be prepared to explain their own choices. How have local resources been allocated? Which communities benefited the most, and why do some areas such as Reddish repeatedly feel overlooked and, frankly, invisible?

One cannot claim to stand for fairness while presiding over unequal outcomes; one cannot demand accountability from the Government while avoiding accountability for one’s actions—the “one” being the Liberal Democrat leadership at Stockport council. The leadership at Stockport council should stop looking for someone else to blame and explain to the good people of Reddish why their neighbourhood has been left behind.

High Streets

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

I agree, and in a few moments I will talk about some of the positive developments, but they are chinks of light, not the answer. I believe that we need to look at this issue much more radically.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Anchor institutions on our high streets, such as banks and post offices, are disappearing. Across the United Kingdom, 7,000 banks have disappeared, including 11 in my constituency, and post offices have disappeared in my constituency too. According to a YouGov poll, 76% of Britons say that access to a physical bank branch in their local area is important to them. Does my hon. Friend agree that that issue is contributing to the decline of high streets and that steps must be taken to ensure that high street regeneration policy reflects the importance of maintaining anchor institutions to sustain economic stability?

[Mr Campbell]

I agree that that is contributing significantly to the downturn.

High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for setting the scene so well. The reason so many hon. Members are present is because the future of our high streets is of great concern to everyone, myself in particular.

Each high street is different and should reflect the unique character and personality of each community. High street restoration requires shared visions, creative thinkers and strategic planning. I always bring a Northern Ireland perspective, and the high street in Newtownards is important to me because it is in our major town. High streets should be home to places that provide important functional services, alongside cultural, community and leisure functions. Regeneration should be community-led, ensuring that local voices are heard and that our high streets reflect the genuine needs of our communities, fostering a sense of belonging in our town centres.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is up to each local authority in Northern Ireland to bring forward a marketing, tourism and economic plan for each high street to get under the bonnet and start fixing this problem, which has been around for so long?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

To ensure that regeneration is lasting, work must continue to be done by all councils across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to prevent unlawful shopfronts and enforce planning permission breaches. The number of enforcement actions carried out increased by nearly 25% in 2025, compared with 2022. However, significant disparities remain between local authorities, with evidence indicating that some councils are considerably more proactive than others in monitoring such activity.

In Strangford, £1 million has been provided for the Supporting Thriving High Streets programme to create safer and more attractive streetscapes, boost footfall and attract new businesses. These transformations do not happen overnight, and a significant amount of planning and work has already been done to begin the project. All four UK nations record year-on-year declines in footfall. Shopfronts lie deserted, a visual reminder of the economic pressures. Regular health checks should be carried out to assess the effectiveness of these efforts. That would ensure that investment is not only delivered effectively but protected over time, creating resilient, responsive high streets.

I look to the Minister to ensure that UK-wide funding is available to support high streets, to ensure that banks have a high street presence and to re-engage people with the joy of shopping local and sowing into their local economy. That can be achieved, and together we must achieve it.

Elections: First Past the Post

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).

I will shed some light from a constituency that operates PR for local government and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The hon. Lady—I spoke to her already—and I will have slightly different opinions on this matter, but I respect her greatly. Indeed, I respect all my colleagues on the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] And on the Government Benches, by the way—sorry, but I corrected myself quickly. We may have differences of opinion, but there are many more things that we agree on.

I will put forward the point of view from Northern Ireland. I say gently and respectfully to the House that the DUP and, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland speak on this matter with a unique form of authority. We are not better than anybody else; it is just that we have done this for a great number of years. We do not just look at alternative voting systems in theory or on academic balance sheets. Through the single transferable vote, we live it, operate within it and contest it in every single local government mandate and Northern Ireland Assembly election. STV is the law of the land.

First, I want to look at the undisputed champion of stability—forgive me, those close to me who may not agree with this—the first-past-the-post system used for our UK general elections. First past the post delivers what the British public value above almost all else in Governments: clarity, accountability and a direct, inseverable link between a Member of Parliament and their constituents. When the voters of Strangford sent me here, they knew exactly who was responsible for standing up for local schools, roads, hospitals and many other issues—farming, fishing and immigration. There is no hiding behind a party list. There is no passing the buck to three or four regional members. The buck stops with the constituency MP.

For the record, whenever I have been elected as an MP—that has been five times—I have always said in my election speech that I thank everybody who voted for me and those who did not vote for me, because I am still their MP and I will work for everybody to the fullest of my ability. I fought seven council elections and five Assembly elections, including for the Forum for Political Dialogue. This is my 41st year as an elected representative; it has been a long time. I started with hair and now I have none, so maybe that is the reason—I do not know.

First past the post provides a clear outcome. It allows the electorate to decisively choose a Government or throw one out. I believe that it prevents the sort of backroom political horse-trading we see perpetuated across Europe, where coalitions are cobbled together weeks after an election has finished, rendering the manifestos that parties fought on and the public voted for completely meaningless. I point Members towards the Republic of Ireland, where partnership or coalition Governments are cobbled together each and every time. In doing so, parties have to water down what they set out to the electorate in their manifestos.

Let us contrast first past the post with our experience back home in Northern Ireland. We use PR via STV for councils and the Assembly. Although STV was introduced as a tool to ensure cross-community representation in a deeply divided society, let us be honest about its practical realities. First, it is complex. Sometimes it is confusing. Every election shows that many people, no matter how many times they are told how the PR system works, still spoil their votes by marking six or seven Xs, or by writing one, two, three, four, five and six in different columns. Someone might put ones, twos or even threes for everybody; the PR system is confusing for them.

STV also fundamentally dilutes the democratic mandate. Counting goes on for days. Fractional transfers of votes decide who wins the final seats. Candidates with a minuscule share of first-preference votes can end up being elected on the 10th or 11th count, not because they were anybody’s first choice but because they were the least disliked one. A candidate someone disliked the most could still be elected, even though they did not want them to be.

I am very conscious of time. First past the post has preserved the integrity of this Parliament for centuries. It ensures that Governments are robust and that the Union remains anchored by a strong, understandable and decisive democratic process. We must never trade a system of proven stability and direct accountability for one of permanent compromise, fractured local representation and endless coalition haggling. I strongly urge the House to reject this proposal—although, of course, we will not vote on it—and to maintain the strength of first past the post, the best system there is. Let us continue with it.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Shannon—nearly bang on time.

Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

[Tom Gordon]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another respondent said:

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Gordon]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I worked for Diverse Abilities, which looks after disabled children and adults in Dorset. The number of times that we could not ensure that the children in our care had suitable facilities was really frightening. I spoke at the Backbench Business Committee earlier this week, where the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), put in a pitch for a debate on a new strategy for Changing Places toilets. That is hugely important, and I would absolutely support it.

[Jim Shannon]

Let me read out an example. I do not know this young lady, but you know her incredibly well, Mr Dowd. She is a young constituent called Jessica, who has had a stoma since she was four years old and has campaigned for 16 years. She fundraises to provide special teddy bears with their own stoma bags to children preparing for surgery. They are called Buttony bears. She works with Colostomy UK’s “Step Up for Stomas” campaign to promote an active and positive lifestyle. You are right to say that she is a heroine, Mr Dowd; she is a very brave young girl. She has her own Facebook page to raise awareness. We now know her story because you have shared it. We think of her, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

That is exactly the point that I am making. I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that very good example of what local leadership can deliver in the community. It is important that we empower local authorities and leaders to think outside the box, champion this issue and speak up on tricky topics. That gives me the opportunity once again to pay tribute to hon. Members for taking part in this debate. By talking about and giving attention to a difficult subject, we are able to shift views and encourage our public sector to provide facilities that meet the needs of our communities.

[Jim Shannon]

The role of councils is incredibly important. The Government’s 10-year health plan sets out a shift from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital. For stoma care, moving from analogue to digital could mean remote monitoring for high-risk people living with a stoma, app-based ordering of stoma appliances, reducing prescription errors and delays, and digital self-management for diet, hydration and troubleshooting. Those are all critical issues for the health service to consider when moving from analogue to digital. I ask the Minister, whether or not it is in the notes I gave her, to look at that point as well. I also ask that she meets Colostomy UK with all Members present. That organisation has much more knowledge than me, and we look forward to that opportunity.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Absolutely. I am very happy to meet any campaigning organisation to discuss this important issue. I note that other hon. Members have also made that request. If charities would like to contact me, I will happily meet them to talk about how we can better support the needs of all our communities.

On the important point the hon. Gentleman makes about the NHS plan and healthcare support, he is absolutely right. It is all the more reason why we need a joined-up approach to what local authorities and NHS local boards are doing. I take the opportunity to highlight health and wellbeing boards across the country, which will play a really important role in making sure that, as one part of the local authority is delivering something, it is making the most of what it is doing so that it meets the objectives of a different part. In the case we are talking about, health is a really obvious example.

To return to my general point about local authorities thinking outside the box and doing things differently, one area we should encourage them to consider is how they conduct procurement. There are many examples across the country where public toilets in parks and open spaces have fallen into disrepair. Some local authorities are addressing that through procurement processes by stipulating, for example, that the owner of a new café must look after the toilets in that space. Those are good ideas that should be encouraged and will ultimately make it easier for our communities to access facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank everyone for their participation, and those in the Gallery who gave us information to use in the debate. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) brought a focus to this issue in a way that I would have been too hesitant to do. I am too much of a traditionalist, too much of a conservative and maybe a wee bit careful, but I thank him for that. We need a bit of humour sometimes; he gave us that, and I thank him for it. I was fearful of what the next name he would come up with was going to be. I was sitting here thinking, “Don’t say that!” but that is by the by.

Toilet provision must be clean. The psychological adjustment is something that we need to focus on as well. I just know how I feel and think, and if I had such a condition, I know how much worse it would be to try to deal with it. We must also focus on the knock-on effect on the NHS. The Minister has grasped that issue. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) always makes very perceptive interventions. He is no longer present, but in his absence, I thank him for his interventions on toilet provision and living with a stoma bag.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) has great knowledge of this matter. She has been active on this subject for some time, especially since she was elected but even before that when she was on the council. It would cost a small amount to address this issue, but it would have a big return. It is a bit like a credit union; if we invest a wee bit, we will get a lot more out of it. Toilet access has a big impact, as it protects people’s dignity. Some 40% of toilets in the UK have disappeared. They are a public necessity, and surely England could do better. Public toilets must be a part of modern society.

The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), also brought knowledge to this debate. He referred to the 200 to 250 people in his constituency who have had a stoma in the last year. He also referred to the “Boys Need Bins” campaign, which others have referred to, and which those in the Gallery have made us very much aware of.

The disability is invisible—we need to remember that. I know about stomas only because of friends and constituents. Under the previous Government’s Changing Places policy, the number of toilets has risen, which is good news, but there is a lot more to do. I think the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to that as well. He also asked for a meeting with Colostomy UK—I think we can help each other on that.

I congratulate the Minister on her debut in Westminster Hall. I wish her well in the role that she has chosen—or that someone else has chosen for her. [Laughter.] It does not matter; it is a role that she is capable of. On behalf of our constituents, I was very pleased with her response to us as individuals and collectively as well. She referred to the 13,000 each year who have the stoma operation. Independence for people with such a disability is important for them to live a normal life and not be conscious of all the things that can happen. The standard of public toilets needs to be up to a certain level. The hon. Member for Fylde explained things about going to the toilet that I had not thought of or even conceived of, but he explained it very well. Only then do we realise how important it is to have a certain standard of toilet.

Local authorities were also referred to. The Minister gave us some assurance, which I am very pleased about, in relation to the 10-year plan and how the scheme will change from analogue to digital. It is important that we look at ways of doing things better.

Again, I thank you, Mr Dowd. We do not often say this, but we should thank our Hansard staff who come along and decipher our words, or my accent or my Ulster-Scots-isms or whatever it may be. I thank them and the civil servants who come along and dutifully listen to all the things we have to say, take notes and never show emotion. That is the standard of a good civil servant.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved, 

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

Legacy of Jo Cox

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for her words, which are spot on.

Ten years ago next week, I was in Portcullis House next door when I received a message from the now Chancellor of the Exchequer telling me that our friend Jo Cox, the then Member for Batley and Spen, had been murdered in her constituency. It remains the worst moment of my life in politics. That someone so courageous and strong, someone small in stature but enormous in spirit, should be killed like that is as horrific today as it was in that moment. At the time of her killing, her loved ones and friends decided that it was she who should be talked about, not the person who killed her. Her life, her work, her beliefs are important; helping her murderer achieve any notoriety is not. Today, we meet to put her legacy on the record again.

Jo was a parliamentarian for just a year, yet her life before becoming an MP had been so adventurous and full, and she had already seriously influenced politics. There is therefore much about her whole life to talk about.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister for leading the debate. I recall well the Friday morning in my constituency office when the news broke. I immediately penned a letter because at that stage, Jo was still with us, although injured. I had hardly finished the letter when, unfortunately, the sad news came through that she had passed away. To her sister, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and to all her family, I will say that we very much think of them and our prayers are with them as well. We always remember, as the Minister said.

I cannot be here for the whole debate, as I am leading another debate in Westminster Hall, so I want to put these words on record. I admired Jo for her courage and for her advocacy of her constituents. No one doubted her determination, and when she spoke we were always moved by what she had to say. Today, 10 years later, we still remember her with fondness.

[Alison McGovern]

On behalf of us all in this House who have ever received the kindness of a letter from the hon. Gentleman, I say to him that he embodies the “more in common” spirit and we are so grateful to him for doing so. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Whether someone is inspired, as we all are, by Jo’s work in international development—travelling around the world to stand up for women in the most dangerous environments—the impressive physical challenges she undertook, or the manner in which she included people, whatever their background or beliefs, this is the story of a woman whose life may have been cut short, but whose contribution will be remembered and will continue always. Members from across the House will share their own stories today, and I encourage them all to do so with joy.

For my part, I will never forget sitting on the Opposition Benches during a turbulent time in Labour politics, when Jo showed leadership on the horrors in Syria while far too many others equivocated or looked the other way. I will never forget her sense of humour and fun, or her unrelenting hope that there was always something we could do.

Much has been achieved in Jo’s name and in that spirit in 10 years. From the Jo Cox Women in Leadership graduates to the thousands of people who have been along to a Great Get Together, her impact on the people of this country has never weakened.

Local Government Reform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate.

Obviously, the Minister is not responsible for local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, but I want to caution against the approach that has been put forward today, because the shortfalls of what we have done in Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be replicated here on the mainland.

It is nice to see the Minister in her place. She will know some of the things I have said in the past, including in my questions to her in the Chamber. We have done a local government review and reorganisation in Northern Ireland and it did not quite work out, so perhaps a cautionary approach should be taken, learning from the promises that were made and ultimately not delivered for us in Northern Ireland.

I note the optimistic projections before us. The House was told that this grand restructuring will streamline services and save an estimated £2.9 billion over five years. That is to be welcomed, if those words turn into reality. I wish I could say it is the reality of what happened in Northern Ireland, but it is not because the promises were not realised at all. From our distinct experience in Northern Ireland, I must therefore issue a strong note of caution to the Government.

We had reform of all councils in Northern Ireland, reducing their number from 26 to 11. Massive savings were promised due to less duplication, with no need to have so many middle staff because one departmental head could look after two sections, and no need to have buildings in all the council areas. Lots of savings were promised, and unfortunately they were not realised.

I served on a council for some 26 years from 1985 right through to 2010, so there is a very special place in my heart for local government. I know at first hand the real and tangible benefit of local councils making local decisions for the people who live there. Indeed, some of the best days I had were on the council. I love bread-and-butter issues, and councillors get their hands dirty with that sort of stuff.

I know that any Member who has served at local council level will agree that the general public having access to their council must be protected at every single level. Unfortunately, I suspect that will not happen with these reforms. We know the importance of that level of representation and advocacy. I look back with fondness on my 26 years of apprenticeship. For a short period of three months, I served as a councillor, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and an MP at the same time. I gave an undertaking to resign from the other two places to take up my position here, and I did.

The systematic removal of face-to-face access for people in our towns and villages caused by aggressive centralisation can never be acceptable. We have seen this movie before. It is like a less funny “Groundhog Day”. It happened to us in Northern Ireland, and it is going to happen here again—except when we wake up this time, it will not be so much fun.

Northern Ireland is now a decade on from our own major reform of local authorities, which reduced the number of councils from 26 to 11. The promises made then mirror the promises made today. A 2024 Department for Communities report concluded that it is still too early to determine if those reforms have been cost-effective. Crucially, the report also revealed that the new, larger councils are actually spending more than their 26 predecessors combined—wow. The promises were never realised. Indeed, they went the other way. As has already been said, bigger does not automatically mean cheaper. Centralisation does not inherently guarantee efficiency.

The Minister is an honourable lady who does her best for us all in this Chamber. Looking to Northern Ireland, has she and her Department fully taken into account the findings of that DFC report and the deep financial uncertainties that it highlighted? What iron-clad guarantees can she offer to ensure that we are not promising billions in theoretical savings, when the reality might mean taking more hard-earned cash from the pockets of local taxpayers and ratepayers? That is what this means, as that is who pays for it all at the end of the day.

We must not allow structural change to become an expensive, box-ticking exercise that leaves hard-working families picking up the tab at a particularly difficult time.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about local government finances. My constituency currently sits in two different district councils. The Government’s proposals would mean that my residents in Pagham and Bersted will end up in a coastal authority that will be bankrupt on day one; the rest of my constituents will be in an authority that should be on a sound financial footing. What will happen to my residents in Pagham and Bersted? Their council tax bills will go up overnight to manage the debt that is currently held in Adur and Worthing, when their current council is on a sound financial footing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an unacceptable position for my residents to be put in, when they did not ask for this?

[Jim Shannon]

That intervention sums up my comments, and it provides further evidence. When Ards borough council, on which I served for 26 years, was partnered with North Down council, we took on North Down’s debt, while we had been prudent—very Ulster Scottish—and had made sure that our moneys were well managed. That is not a bad reflection on North Down council, but it illustrates the issue. The hon. Lady has illustrated it incredibly well with her comments.

I am all for making efficiencies, but throwing areas together that have little in common, as the hon. Lady just said, and removing the face-to-face contact points, centralising to an inaccessible hub and doing all of that with no savings to show over 10 years must be a warning to all. Sometimes financial projections do not meet the reality. We must all be aware of the myriad difficulties presented. I gave the example of Ards borough council and the changes in Northern Ireland. It did not work for us. Will it work here?

[Several hon. Members rose—]