Jim Shannon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot let the occasion pass without putting it on the record that silent prayer is very much just that: a silent prayer between the individual and their God. Nothing is ever said. With respect to the hon. Lady, it is totally erroneous for her to say that a silent prayer is wrong.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Many moons ago, we were friends in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the council, and we are still friends at Westminster. I am aware of the Savanta ComRes polls, which were taken over a period of time. They cannot be ignored, because they provide focus for where we are. Without criminal repercussions, or new restrictions on abortions that are carried out by a woman or a malignant professional up to birth, are we truly ready to take such a radical step? I do not want to belabour the point, but I find it deeply worrying that a child born prematurely, for example at 22 or 24 weeks, would be treated as a legal person with full rights, while decriminalisation would permit abortion at the same gestational age with no legal recourse. I said earlier that there are two people in this: the mother and the baby.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  It is not often that I come to Westminster Hall and find myself the first person to be called after the Member in charge, in this case of the petition. I am pleased to be able to comment on where we are on the petition. In this world, I try to be respectful to everyone—that is the nature of who I am and what I do. I probably have a very different opinion from the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), who spoke on behalf of the petition, and other Members who will speak afterwards. It is one of the quirks of this place and our procedures that we find ourselves debating this petition today, when in all likelihood we will have a similar debate in the next few weeks on new clauses tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill in the main Chamber. Our debate today is almost a rehearsal for what will come in a few weeks’ time. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Vickers, that I will not digress too much into discussion of the specifics of the new clauses, but it is safe to say that they are deeply concerning to me and many thousands of my constituents. I referred to where we are and our position in Northern Ireland. My constituents have made me aware of their position, so in speaking today I will represent that and the position of many other constituents across Northern Ireland. I should say at the outset that I find it tragically ironic that proposals have been made to further liberalise a law here in part on the premise that the law is more liberal, more permissive, and supposedly more progressive in Northern Ireland. That suggestion has been made today. Of course, the change to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland was only brought about as a result of overreach—I use that word on purpose—by Westminster, undermining the constitutional value of Northern Ireland and its elected representatives, who should have been allowed to make decisions on this matter. On a personal level and on behalf of my constituents, it is important to place that on record in this Westminster Hall debate. Hon. Members know my position on abortion; it is a matter of public record. In coming up to 15 years here, there has not been a question or a debate on this subject that I have not participated in or had a question on in the Chamber. That is for the record. I will not go into much detail, save to say that in my view every abortion is a tragedy for both the woman and the unborn child whose life is cut short. I hope that my view will be respected in this debate, as I respect those who hold a very different view from my own. This is a very sensitive subject and deserves to be considered in that light, but it is also important that we consider this debate in the round. There is no right to abortion in international law. It is worth noting at the outset that, contrary to what seems to be a popular belief both in the media and among some hon. Members, even academics who take an opposing view to mine on abortion acknowledge that there is no right to abortion directly enshrined in any key international human rights instrument. That is their opinion. I put that on the record as well, because it is important to discuss these matters in full. Although this is often cited as the impetus and imperative for change in the UK, the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women are not binding on the United Kingdom. We can and should determine our own laws on this subject. It is neither required nor determined that we should go down the path of further liberalisation. Abortion is not simply medical treatment. This is not a simple matter—it certainly is not for me and my constituents and those of us who represent this point of view.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for that. She and I have debated this at some length over the years from two different points of view. I think that decriminalisation leads to deregulation, and I have concerns about where we will end up. As I said, I aim to represent the views of my constituents, as well as the views of other Members’ constituents. Another three hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have similar views to my own have been driven by their constituents to respectfully give their point of view in the Chamber today. Decriminalising abortion by disapplying the provisions of existing penalties under sections 58 to 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, or by repealing these provisions altogether, would be a seismic change. I use the word “seismic” on purpose, because I believe it reflects the size and magnitude of what has been proposed. To be clear, regardless of whether the specific provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 are touched on by amendments to other legislation, gutting the laws that underpin that Act would have the same effect. Depending on the model of decriminalisation, the effect could be wide enough to include de facto access to abortion for woman up to the point of birth for any reason. There would, for example, be no enforceable prohibition on abortion on the basis of the sex of the unborn baby that would have criminal repercussions.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the point. I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. Her mind is the same as my mind and that of the people we represent across the Province and in our constituencies. Abortion is not simply a medical treatment. It is not a simple matter. One of the underlying rationales behind the push for decriminalisation of abortion is worth addressing. Abortion is not a mere medical treatment that should be treated akin to other matters of healthcare. However uncomfortable this may be to confront, my view and the biological reality is that there is more than one life involved in any abortion. It is essential that that is reflected in the law and in the penalties that result from breaking that law. Of course, laws send messages and shape culture.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I understand the point that she makes. I mentioned earlier that in every abortion two lives are involved. There is the life of the mum and the life of the baby—two lives that have to be considered. We also have to be concerned about backstreet abortions and where they can sometimes lead. Laws, as I said, send messages and shape culture. More broadly, they are a reflection of our core values as a society. Although calls for abortion decriminalisation are repeated and vocal, I truly think—I say this with great respect—that many people do not understand the implications of decriminalising abortion. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has her opinion and I have mine—I certainly have a different interpretation of what she refers to.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, the hon. Lady and I have slightly different opinions about decriminalisation. I have been concerned over a period of time, and still am, about examples of cases involving Down’s syndrome children, including one in Northern Ireland—a lovely, young Down’s syndrome child who would not be here today had her parents not decided to ensure that she had the opportunity to have a life. We are talking about those things. Ultimately, we are talking not solely about what is ethically or morally good or bad, or right or wrong, but about what would be permissible under the law without criminal sanction. That is what I and other hon. Members are talking about: the reality in law, and an increase in late-term unsafe abortions. Decriminalisation sounds innocuous but, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) referred to, when the public is polled on its effect, the results are plain: only 1% of the public support abortion being permitted up to birth, which is what decriminalisation of abortion would permit without legal consequence, against the views of the majority—99% of people. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that following the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand in March 2020, which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to, late-term abortions—those occurring after 20 weeks gestation—increased by 43% compared to the previous year. That is not scaremongering; it is evidential fact. We are asking that all hon. Members take on board that information. As the evidence from overseas shows, the risk of decriminalising abortion is not only that more abortions may take place but that the dangerous, unsafe abortions that supposedly prompted the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967 in England and Wales will occur. To date, none of the legislative proposals for decriminalisation, including the proposed new clauses of the Crime and Policing Bill, contains safeguards that would effectively guard against women seeking abortions while subject to coercion or abuse. Given the operation of the pills-by-post system, it is also not clear to me or to some hon. Members in this Chamber that there can be any guarantee that a woman’s gestational age or her general health would be effectively ascertained under a decriminalisation regime. Whatever view we take on the principle of abortion, there is a general public consensus that fewer abortions taking place is a good thing, so I am concerned that the decriminalisation of abortion would lead to the normalisation of late-term—or at least later-term—abortions, and have a chilling effect on the broader discussions about the viability and value of life. I am coming to the end of my speech—we have three hours for the debate, but I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. Given the ready availability of pills by post without the requirement for an in-person consultation—which I believe is critical—the bitter irony of the decriminalisation of abortion is that it would place women at greater risk of harm. Not all choices should be entirely free or unfettered. We accept limits to our choice in many areas of law, and this one should be no exception. The criminal law on abortion safeguards women by providing clarity and a regulatory framework. Decriminalisation does the opposite, and in a way that is much more damaging and much more critical to the debate. Decriminalisation is not a simple matter of choice and autonomy. If we reduce the debate to that, we will fail in our duty to protect women and the babies. I urge hon. Members, irrespective of their views on the principle—which, as I said, may be very different from my own—to consider the full ramifications of decriminalisation of abortion. It will harm more than help, and those who suffer will be women who endanger their own safety and that of the unborn children, who are equally important. We must protect both equally. Decriminalisation of abortion would fail to accomplish that.

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answers to the urgent question. Nobody can doubt her commitment to the change that is necessary to keep schools working and teachers in place. I always try to be helpful in the Chamber. Northern Ireland has come through a period of teacher strike action, which led to years of no school inspections, and to altered classroom practices, so there is a need to re-engage with teachers. The Minister knows well that engaging with teachers at all stages is essential, or the losers will undoubtedly be the parents and, of course, the pupils. How will she ensure a spirit of co-operation to ensure in-depth education? We all hope that co-operation will be reciprocated by unions and senior leadership teams in all schools.

• 22 May 2025 · Creative Industries: Wales · Hansard source

  More

  The creative industries in Wales are incredibly important, but it is also incredibly important to have creative industries everywhere in this United Kingdom. There is an opportunity for those in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England to have creative industry exchanges. Is that something that the Minister has considered, so that the benefits from Wales can come to Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and we can all gain?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing the debate and for giving me the opportunity to make some comments. As usual, it feels as though the Northern Ireland situation is front and centre, yet the Government do not appear to have managed to get it right. I cast my mind back to the 2016 referendum. I know exactly how I voted, and the majority of my constituents in Strangford voted: to leave, yet that was overtaken by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and modified by the Windsor framework of February 2023. We have been put in Euro limbo: we do not know where are. The fact is that we did not get the Brexit we voted for, and that is really disappointing. The Democratic Unionist party has been urging the Prime Minister to unashamedly make the case for the primacy and integrity of the United Kingdom and its internal market in the discussions with Brussels. For too long, communities and businesses throughout Northern Ireland have been in the Euro limbo zone, paying the price for daring to leave Europe—daring even to think it. This deal will hopefully reset that, yet I am not convinced that that aim has been achieved. Although I welcome some of the Prime Minister’s objectives in the negotiations, I am not convinced that Europe is determined to finally do the right thing by this nation, and particularly for Northern Ireland. In both Westminster and the Assembly, my party will take the time to scrutinise in detail what has been agreed. We will make our judgment solely through the prism of how it impacts on Northern Ireland’s businesses and people and our place within the United Kingdom, as is our role and responsibility. Members on both sides of the House have been doing that throughout the long Brexit process. We believe the Government should be radical in moving on from the Windsor framework. Tinkering round the edges does nothing but make the water muddier. The Prime Minister cannot on the one hand suggest that this deal restores trust between the United Kingdom and the European Union, edging us towards closer co-operation, and on the other continue to build oppressive border control infrastructure at Northern Ireland ports. The limitations on products shipped or parcels posted to Northern Ireland still boggle the mind and test the patience of my constituents, who regularly contact me about them. Yet the fact is that we are hammering away at infrastructure that should not be necessary within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. On behalf of my fishermen, I want to express deep disappointment at the Government’s decision to grant EU vessels 12 years of continued access to UK waters. That is a real blow for our fishing communities. I speak for places such as Portavogie in my constituency of Strangford and, through fish producer organisations, for Ardglass and Kilkeel too, because their MP does not bother coming here and therefore can make no contribution to this debate. That Short money has amounted to some £10 million over the last number of years, but those places have no representation in this Chamber. On behalf of them, I want to speak up for fishing, which is a vital economic lifeline. This move will create uncertainty. Sadly, it appears that the needs of our fishing communities have not been uppermost in these negotiations. We have once again yielded to EU demands. The Prime Minister could have done more to protect local fishing businesses, but instead handed over continued access to UK waters until 2038. That must not be allowed to stand. The 12-year deal means foreign vessels continuing to compete for limited stock, more pressure on small operators and another blow to coastal communities already struggling to survive—I cite those in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel as examples. Therefore I am asking the Government and the Minister urgently to explore how they can support the industry in other ways to alleviate the consequences of that 12-year deal. To be fair to the Prime Minister, in answer to my question on Tuesday about the trade deal, he did mention that £360 million would be available for fishing communities. Perhaps the Minister can say how much of that will come to Northern Ireland. If it is within his remit to do that, it would be helpful. The SPS agreement may help to ease the flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but it will not be a silver bullet for the host of problems created by the application of EU laws in Northern Ireland only, because that is what is happening to us. I know that I am the only Northern Ireland representative here today, but I am speaking on behalf of many others who do attend debates in this Chamber and make their contribution. For example, the agreement does not address issues around customs—particularly business-to-business movements—and other barriers to trade, not least in relation to manufacturing, product standards and the supply of veterinary medicines. The problems that have been created for veterinary medicines are absolutely unbelievable. I hope that the Minister can give us a response to that particular point. I know that this Minister always tries to be helpful and I genuinely appreciate that. These are questions that we are seeking to ask all the time on behalf of our constituents. A body was supposed to be set up to address the veterinary medicines issue, but it never really got off the ground, with the result that we are no clearer about where we are in relation to this. We are only able to receive certain veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland; there are many others that we cannot. The same thing applies to medications for human beings. The whole thing is quite incredible. We will assess what progress has been made, but we will also assess whether there remains in place architecture that puts Northern Ireland in a different position from the rest of the United Kingdom. The work to see such architecture removed must be a priority of the Government if they are serious about solving what we refer to—not in any funny way—as the hokey-cokey Northern Ireland situation. We are in; we are out; and we have been truly shaken all about. It is time for the dance to end and for us to return to our solid position within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When I came to this Chamber in 2010, I made a point of reiterating the position of Northern Ireland. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know that it means a lot to you, Mr Vickers, and it means a lot to us on the Opposition side of the Chamber. I hope that it is equally important to those on the Government side of the Chamber. Time will tell whether that is the case. Full restoration of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom of course includes removing the application of EU law in our country and the internal, Irish sea border that it creates. I ask the Minister to outline how and when that can take place. I know that the Minister really does try. I genuinely mean that; I am being honest and sincere. I know that when I ask him questions in the Chamber, he always comes back, trying to address the question—I appreciate that; I want to put that on record—so I look forward to hearing what he will say in response today. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet have a vision for our European co-operation. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to this: co-operation is okay, but not when sovereignty is lost, as it seems to be. This vision must have the Northern Ireland scenario in firm focus, with no more double vision: one nation, one relationship, one way forward and one solution that fits the people of Portavogie, Perth, Portsmouth and Pontypridd equally. That is the way it should be.

• 22 May 2025 · National Church Institutions: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for her response. The churches should always be a place for those who seek help, assistance, support and comfort whenever things have happened that are completely against the teachings of the Bible. For those who carry out these heinous crimes, there must be no excuses and no apologies; they must go to court to face the allegations that are made against them, and then when the crimes are proven, they must be sent to jail. The Church’s foundation is God and the teachings of the Bible. Those who carry out those crimes deserve absolutely no help within the Church whatsoever.

• 21 May 2025 · UK Health Security Agency: Porton Down · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I remember him bringing the matter before the House before; we have been in the House for the same amount of time, although he is much younger than me. Does he agree that replacing and modernising the UKHSA’s facilities through the programme is crucial to ensuring that the UK has the capabilities to identify, study and respond to the most dangerous pathogens in the world? Perhaps the way forward is to secure changes and to ask the Government to step in to assist the UKHSA to continue the crucial and excellent work that it already does.

• 21 May 2025 · Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

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

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to business and the economy, we want to ensure that every region in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit. Northern Ireland is the UK’s smallest region by GDP, but it has higher GDP per head of the population than some regions. It is really important that Northern Ireland has the same advantages and opportunities, and to be fair, I think the Minister is committed to that. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to improving business and the economy, my young people in Strangford deserve the same opportunity as those in his constituency or, indeed, in Scotland, Wales or wherever it may be?

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is much appreciated. The forced deportation of Ukrainian children without their parents by Russian forces is a grave violation of international humanitarian law. Indeed, I will go as far as to say that these actions constitute a war crime under article 8 of the Rome statute, which explicitly forbids the unlawful deportation or transfer of protected persons. These acts, targeting the most vulnerable, have torn families apart and have eroded the culture and national identity of Ukraine’s future generations. Article 6 of the Rome statute is also relevant. The systematic and calculated manner of these abductions is evidenced by reports that refer to some 20,000 Ukrainian children. The figures are unknown, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South pointed out. Who knows what they really are? The crimes demand urgent scrutiny to determine whether they meet the threshold for genocide. These children, torn from their families and homeland, are victims of a deliberate campaign by Russian and Belarusian authorities not only to erase their identity and culture, but to erase their memories of their families. This is not just a humanitarian crisis; it is a moral outrage. Forced deportation by Russian authorities during the ongoing conflict has created a stolen generation—a term that is reminiscent of other historical cases, such as that of Australian’s stolen generation, when Government policy saw indigenous children removed from their families and communities to assimilate them into a different cultural identity. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. To steal a nation’s children is to steal its future. The United Kingdom must lead with moral and legal clarity on agreeing a course of action to hold Russia’s feet to the fire over these crimes against humanity. I believe that we must intensify our sanctions on Russian and Belarusian officials, military and other state actors who are complicit in these abductions. We must demand justice through international legal bodies, including the International Criminal Court, to hold perpetrators accountable. The UK must support investigations and advocate for expedited arrest warrants. Justice delayed is justice denied. These children and their grieving families cannot wait. The scale of the tragedy remains unreported by the mainstream media, but I believe that today’s debate amplifies the voices of Ukrainian families, places pressure on policymakers and signals to Russia that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland stands firmly against this greatest act of sheer inhumanity. The forced transfer of children is explicitly defined as genocide under article II of the 1948 genocide convention. The abduction of Ukrainian children is yet another stain on humanity’s already overburdened conscience. By intensifying sanctions, pursuing justice and acknowledging the genocidal nature of Russia’s actions, the UK can be a leader in demanding the return of these children to their families. We cannot stand idly by while their futures are stolen. I therefore look to the Minister, who I believe is of the same mind. We must act with the urgency and the conviction that this crisis demands and remind Russia that good people will not stand idly by.

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for setting the scene. She might be small in stature, but she has the biggest heart in the Chamber—well done. The opportunity to urge our Government to continue to do the right thing and act for the innocent people of Ukraine is the reason why we are all here.

• 21 May 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for raising this issue. As Members are well aware, I have been a vocal opponent of the changes to PIP, and I will concentrate specifically on PIP issues, how they affect people with Parkinson’s, and why it is important that the Government are careful about what they do with the PIP benefit and money in relation to those who have this disease. When we consider the care that is needed for those who suffer from Parkinson’s, it is a perfect example of those who might well miss out on the care that they need the most. The hon. Gentleman set the scene well in relation to the problems that come with Parkinson’s, and others who have spoken also referred to them. We can all rightly understand how the personal independence payment costs may overstretch local authorities and providers—the NHS on the mainland and our underfunded trusts in Northern Ireland. The entire purpose of PIP, of course, is not to compensate for the illness in some way; it is to help someone live with the practicalities of the illness. That is the purpose of PIP and why I support it. I am really concerned about what might happen. PIP is not a supplement to keep people off work. It can help people in work, which is part of what the Government say the purpose is. PIP exists to help offset the cost of being sick or disabled and, as such, is an effective health intervention. A recent freedom of information request, however, found that 36% of people with neurological disorders were at very high risk of losing out on PIP. That could be even higher for people with Parkinson’s, as even if someone has scored four points previously in a “daily living” category, the rapidly fluctuating nature of the condition means that it is not guaranteed that that will be scored again. We need to understand what Parkinson’s is, what it delivers and the importance of it. Without the financial support needed to help with the additional costs of sickness and disability, and with many households losing passported carer’s allowance, unmet need will likely transfer to local authorities, as part of their statutory obligations. I am concerned about the scenario the Government could find themselves in if they remove or reduce personal independence payments, and take away the carer’s allowance. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said during Prime Minister’s questions today that a family could lose £12,000 a year; other calculations that indicate it could be £10,000 a year. The financial impact will be ginormous.

• 21 May 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  That sums up the thrust of my comments. I am really concerned by what the Government are pursuing and the impacts that it will have. This is coming from the people on the frontline—I would call them the people on the coal quay—who understand exactly what it means. Equally, if people with Parkinson’s are no longer able to afford the extra heating needed to help with their debilitating muscle spasms, they are more likely to have a fall. That will increase hospital admissions and stays, as well as social care support for fractures and joint replacements that could have been prevented by making sure that people retain their moneys and do not see corners cut in their care. It is not just individual health outcomes that will be affected. With a quarter of councils in England saying that they are on the brink of bankruptcy and other providers across the UK being stretched, this policy could have devastating impacts on local services. I will conclude with this point, because I want to keep to time, Chair. When we think about care for Parkinson’s patients, we must think of the effect of removing PIP from those people. I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I ask that he convey the concern that has been expressed in the debate to the relevant Minister in DWP and fight the fight to ensure that these people have the care that they need in the most cost-effective way possible.

• 21 May 2025 · Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister of State for all she does on her visits to encourage people across Northern Ireland, especially women, ladies and young girls. What we really need in Northern Ireland is legislative change, longer sentences and more people convicted. What discussions has she had with the Minister responsible for police and justice in Northern Ireland to ensure that, legislatively, we are moving fast to try to stop violence against women and ladies in Northern Ireland?

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) on his presentation of this debate on subject matter that some, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), have personal experience of. Others, including me, have staff members who have had this condition, and some have family members who have had it—I understand that my friend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) has experienced that. This is an opportunity to speak on behalf of sufferers in my constituency of Strangford and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The NHS estimates that some 14 million people in the UK experience some form of urinary incontinence. That figure is expected to rise because of an ageing population with often very complex health issues. That is a fact of life. Those of a certain age—I am one of them—find that their health issues are multiple. That is the nature of age; it takes its toll. Inadequate continence care can lead to serious complications, with urinary tract infections among the most common and concerning outcomes. NHS data showed that there were more than 1.8 million hospital admissions involving UTIs between 2018-19 and 2022-23. The majority involved patients aged 65 or older. The admissions include both those directly caused by UTIs and those for other reasons but where a UTI was also present. As a leading cause of emergency admissions, UTIs place substantial strain on NHS resources, while diminishing patients’ dignity, experiences and outcomes. I wish to highlight that this issue affects both men and women, as well as children. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to a three-year-old girl, so children are affected by chronic UTIs. A member of my office staff, one of our young girls, came to work with me when she was 16. She has been there for a long time, so I must be doing something right; she has not left me to go elsewhere where the money is better. Perhaps the conditions and the time off are better as well. I understood the chronic pain that my staff member had, but also the need to be flexible at times—whenever she was not well, she obviously needed time off. She attended a fair few hospital appointments for a chronic UTI, and it was a very difficult time. She was on antibiotics for six months. I wondered, “Is that possible?” But in this case it was, because the infection was so chronic. Ultimately it cleared. Also, on 1 January this year she got married, so her life is going in the right direction now—thank goodness for that. The issue was exacerbated at the time by the difficulty of getting GP appointments and specialist referrals. The chronic pain just seemed to exist forever, even with the help of antibiotics. Eventually she got to the end of that six-month period and she is now in much better health. I want to mention what we are doing in Northern Ireland, because obviously that will be part of any debate in which I speak. In Northern Ireland we have something, and perhaps the Minister will say to me in a few minutes, once I tell her what it is about, “Well, we’re already doing that.” If they are, that is good. I was very relieved when Northern Ireland rolled out the Pharmacy First scheme, especially as the scheme covers advice and treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in the local pharmacy, so without having to wait for a GP appointment. If the Minister tells me that the Government have not done that yet, can I say that it is another Northern Ireland first? And if the Minister is not aware of it, may I say, to be helpful in this debate, that perhaps it should be done here as well? The pharmacist may test the patient’s urine to help to determine whether a UTI is present. How does the scheme work? What happens when a person goes to their local pharmacy in Northern Ireland? In some cases, self-care advice may be all that is necessary. In other words, they will get a bit of advice. The pharmacist will find out what the symptoms are and explain the situation to the person, and perhaps will be able to respond fairly quickly. As I said, in some cases self-care advice may be all that is necessary, but the community pharmacist is also able to supply the patient with medicines to relieve pain—in some cases there can be chronic pain—and, if applicable, antibiotics. In all cases, women will be advised on what to do if their symptoms worsen or do not resolve. The Pharmacy First UTI service means that women can be assessed and treated much sooner, without having to wait for a GP appointment—like the young girl in my office—for a month, two months, six weeks or whatever the case may be. Not only will patients not need an appointment, but community pharmacies are more likely to be open after normal working hours, at weekends and on bank holidays. Newtownards, my major town, has a number of pharmacies, which take turns staying open at the weekend; there is always access to a pharmacy in Newtownards and, indeed, other major towns in the Province. The UTI management service expanded to more than 400 community pharmacies in 2024-25, following positive evaluation of the pilot, which involved 60 pharmacies and started in July 2021. That success convinced the Northern Ireland Department of Health to make the pilot bigger and showed that we could do more. Between March 2022 and April 2023, 3,500 women in Northern Ireland used the pilot service. Following assessment, more than 85% were diagnosed with a UTI and received appropriate advice and treatment from a pharmacist. That is positive, but for those with chronic UTIs, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, the pharmacy does not cut it and the GP can only do so much. There are different levels of response: community pharmacies in Northern Ireland provide an automatic response to those who have a urinary infection, rather than a chronic UTI, but sometimes things are much more complicated. The waiting list to be seen for a UTI in Northern Ireland is long, and the average waiting time for urology appointments varies significantly, depending on the health and social care trust and the urgency of the case. For example, in the Belfast health and social care trust, the wait in a red flag case—the most urgent—might be nine weeks, which is more than two months and far too long; a non-urgent case could wait 76 weeks, and a routine case could wait 180 weeks. Those are horrendous and completely unacceptable waiting times. Throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there needs to be access to specialised care, innovation, new and modern technology, and new ideas, rather than a six-month course of antibiotics and a hope for the best. Men, women and children need more, and it must be provided. I look forward to the Minister’s response. She responded positively to last week’s debate, and I am sure that today she will again indicate her wish to make lives better. This debate gives her the opportunity to do so, and to help those who have been waiting so long for an end to their health issue. We can do better—and we must.

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  This is a difficult subject for those who suffer from this condition. I will give an example in my speech, as one of my staff members suffers from it. We are deeply indebted to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for bringing this forward. It is important to hear personal stories from sufferers, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and that they are given the opportunity to express themselves on the importance of this issue to them personally and to all our constituents.

• 21 May 2025 · Roadworks: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  Back home, we have had the very problems that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but those doing the roadworks have found a different way of responding to exceptional circumstances. The Sydenham bypass in east Belfast in Northern Ireland is a main thoroughfare for traffic. It was closed down for the Saturday and Sunday and contractors worked solidly for those 48 hours to get the work done. It was then reopened on the Monday morning so that the commuter traffic could continue. In my constituency of Strangford, the Portaferry road was closed from 7 pm to 7 am so that all the work could be done at night; the next morning, the traffic was able to go about its business. I mention that by way of being helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Is that something that the road service in his constituency has considered?

• 20 May 2025 · School Buildings: Northumberland and Newcastle · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this matter for debate. I spoke to him this afternoon to seek his permission to intervene on him tonight, and he has given me that opportunity. He is right to highlight the issue of schools and their importance. The most important thing about schools is the children—the pupils—as he has clearly outlined. When a school is only eight or nine years old, there should be a warranty that covers all eventualities. The hon. Gentleman might be coming to that and to telling us where the warranty works and does not work. I would expect, as I am sure he would if he had a house with a warranty on it, that there would be substantial cover to ensure that the school could be repaired and that the children could get back there—because that is the most important thing: the children.