Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Giles Watling and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

7. What recent steps she has taken to increase capacity in NHS dental care.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. What progress she has made on introducing a dentistry recovery plan.

Suicide Prevention and the National Curriculum

Debate between Giles Watling and Rachael Maskell

Monday 13th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is humbling to be called to speak in today’s debate. Every step breaks taboos; every mile tells a story; every day hearts are joined in grief and healing as sons and daughters are mourned and celebrated. But the void they have left is beckoning with not only questions but answers. As three dads are traversing our nation, they are tearing down the stigma of suicide that too many are wrestling with. They are creating safe spaces to talk; they are ensuring that Sophie, Emily and Beth are heard. They have brought us to this place, through their petition to seek change.

Andy, Tim and Mike, we are indebted to you. Today, it is their pleas that must be heard, and I sincerely thank them for all they are doing. Having had the privilege of meeting them last week, I know how much this debate means to them. I am sure that the Minister and shadow Minister will not only listen, but advance their calls. Their mission is to reduce the number of young people who take their own lives, by shattering the stigma surrounding suicide and equipping young people and their communities with the skills to recognise and respond to emotional distress. Across our nation, people are struggling with their mental health. Let us be honest, we all do, in different ways and at different times. For some, the night passes quickly, while others spiral into a dark and enduring place, where the echoes of despair resonate louder than any hope.

Papyrus knows better than any charity the scale of the problem, and I sincerely thank them for their work. Our mental health services cannot cope. Child and adolescent mental health services are struggling, and with mental health receiving just 8.6% of the health budget, there is no parity of esteem to speak of. We know that with early intervention only a few would ever need to call on the NHS for care. That is the call that must come out of this debate. Young people talk extensively about mental health, but when the moment gets hard—in the silences—it is the toxicity of TikTok that is sucking them into the algorithms of despair, drawing them to make the wrong choices. From self-harm to suicide, children are accessing content that takes them down some very dangerous paths. As adults, parents, teachers, youth workers and politicians, let us acknowledge that, and take the necessary steps to keep our young people safe.

As we have heard, suicide is the biggest killer of under-35s in our country, with over 200 school-age children taken every year.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for bringing forward this very important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) was saying, the internet has some dark places. Surely, in schools we must be warning about online harms, and we must also make those platforms take more responsibility. I welcome the Online Harms Bill, but should we not also be addressing the platforms on this?

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that the online space continues to be unsafe for too many people. There is so much more that needs to be done to aid our understanding of new initiatives online and to ensure that everyone can be safe online at all times.

Of course, we are not talking about numbers, but about people who are struggling. According to the ONS, 5,583 suicides were registered in England and Wales just last year, with a ratio of men to women of almost 2:1. It is the young people we often think about. They need the skills and resilience to manage the very worst of their emotions. We know that talking is powerful, but, without young people knowing who to talk to and how to talk to them, and without parents and teachers actively reaching out, we are leaving our young people in danger. We need a greater therapeutic approach to our education system. We locked up our young people through covid, which proved tougher than anyone could have imagined. A generation is really struggling. They do not need brutal academic stress and harsh disciplinarian regimes, such as those that I discussed this morning at a local school in York. The behaviour in schools guidance needs serious revision.

The need for talking is there before us. Who can help young people to work through their anxieties, stresses and depression? They need space to explore and explain. Mums and dads need tools and skills to support and listen. Teachers need help too; they need training to talk about suicide. We cannot shy away or soften the words, for suicide is real. Adults need to catch up with young people and recognise that. As politicians, we cannot be squeamish or in denial, because we are losing our sons and daughters, and sadly mums and dads, too.

Life is really tough. People have not got enough money, and home is not always a safe place. Some young people carry a heavy weight. Life never turns out as we hope. Bullying is rife, there is a loneliness epidemic, and toxic social media is ever judging and tormenting, yet we do not talk about suicide and when that starts to play on the minds of its victims.

Minister, it is time to teach and time to talk to every child in every school. We start with the teachers, who need Government backing. We need every teacher trained so that they are ready to talk to their students, whatever age or context, knowing how to check in and reach out as well as guide and care. Every school needs to be a safe place for parents to learn and ask those questions that are never aired, for we can no longer hear the cries of “Why didn’t anyone tell us?”. We must also teach every child. For younger children, it is about mental health first aid—having safe conversations when they feel sad. As the years grow, children need to know who to talk to, how to talk and how to keep themselves safe. If we do not talk to our young people about suicide, it will find them. But if they are taught resilience, they will have the skills for life that they need to stay safe and well.

The pilgrimage of Tim, Andy and Mike has brought them to this place, to the Minister’s door. They are not here to beg or plead, because for them, this has come too late. Instead, they are here to tell us what it means to lose their beautiful daughters and how the tears of other parents need never be shed. This will probably be the most important debate of the Minister’s time in this place. It is time to open the door to open minds and open hearts. Let us listen and learn and ensure that all is done to keep our young people safe. It is time for walking to turn into talking.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Giles Watling and Rachael Maskell

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

What plans he has to move civil service jobs to York.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

What steps the Government are taking to deliver civil service jobs outside London.

Elder Abuse

Debate between Giles Watling and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Giles Watling]

I agree that there should be financial support, and I also agree about CCTV—I shall come on to those points a little later.

We clearly have a lot to make up for in Parliament, and I hope that today’s debate will prompt some constructive action and, at the very least, go some way towards raising awareness at national level.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the need to raise the issue. I, too, have had constituents who have experienced elder abuse. As people grow older they become more isolated, so the risk of abuse increases. Does he agree that safeguarding adults boards should have a specific focus on older people, and should assess the risk to them and come up with prevention plans?

[Giles Watling]

I could not agree more. Those boards should have a key role in ensuring that our older people are safe and secure—that is what this is all about.

I am the MP for a constituency where more than 32% of residents are aged over 65—including me, incidentally. That is the highest percentage of any constituency in the country, so it is hardly surprising that I am leading this debate.

A120 Dualling

Debate between Giles Watling and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank all hon. Members for their considered contributions to this important debate, and not least the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) for initiating it. I think we can agree that the case made by all hon. Members was very compelling. The link between the port and airport serving Essex is at the heart of the economic strategy presented today. The economic opportunity that such an enterprise corridor could deliver, in terms of real growth in the region, has been cited by some to be worth as much as £1.3 billion, I have read, and all for a cost of £555 million in its creation. It is clear that domiciliary development is occurring, and that brings an opportunity to see industrial investment to provide jobs for those communities as well as the wider economy. Clearly, where such development takes place, there has to be well developed transport infrastructure, but that certainly is not currently the case, especially at some of the pinch points on the A120 route where there is significant congestion.

[Giles Watling]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not only industrial development—manufacturing and so on—that would benefit from this scheme and that there is a massive tourism offer? I am thinking of the wonderful beaches of the east coast. At Parkeston Quay, we have so many cruise ships that come in every year. It is a pity that the people who arrive there have to struggle with our dreadful infrastructure to get to other parts of the country such as London and across to the central midlands.

[Rachael Maskell]

I agree that tourism is a really important consideration when we are looking at infrastructure investment. It should be at the heart of the wider discussions and seen as an economic piece all by itself.

The debate on how the A120 can be improved to alleviate much of the congestion has been a long time coming. Five options were originally presented. I appreciate that those have been whittled down to four, and option D has been favoured by Essex County Council as the preferred route for the new A120. I also note that option C, interestingly, would see approximately one third of the route bifurcating Bradwell quarry and therefore would relieve some of the environmental impact should that scheme go ahead. We must also note the importance of farmland and agribusiness. In the Government’s planning of development, whether rail or road, they should take on board the need to ensure fertile land is maintained for the purposes of growing our food. I know there is much debate on that point.

The second compelling case made by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) was about road safety. With 53 fatalities and 325 serious injuries on this stretch, it is clear that not intervening would allow those risks to continue. That is a serious consideration.

It is worth saying, however, that we cannot look at road improvement without looking at intermodal and alternative modes of transport, and seeing the improvements that can be brought in from other schemes—particularly our rail, but also other forms of transport—in serving communities. While I understand that all hon. Members are trying to promote their local scheme for RIS2, I say to the Minister that we need to look at intermodal options before we look at road. It appears we have shifted to a road-first policy, as opposed to looking at public transport as the preferred option. Evidence from Newbury, Blackburn, Lincoln and other similar cases has shown how induced capacity is having a serious impact on their local economies, so we have to be careful as we make these decisions and look at them in an integrated-transport way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Lady is again taking my words and not using them in the way they were said. We will look at intermodal first and at the wider options of ensuring properly integrated transport. Any Government should do that, to ensure that we have the most sustainable and usable rail, bus, active travel and road system that there is. Intermodal integration will give us the best transportation system. Talk to anyone across the transport sector: they would agree with that approach, as do many Government Ministers, who say that they want to see an intermodal shift, too. I have heard such words many times from the Government. I am sure they would agree that is also important, if they are looking at proper economic and residential investment, such as is being suggested by the scheme presented today. That is the approach Labour would take.

We need to ensure that improvements made today do not call for further improvements and widening just a few years down the road, as has happened in many of these schemes. We need long-term solutions and investment put in place, to ensure there is not chaos in the future.

[Giles Watling]

The hon. Lady is being gracious in giving way. Is she suggesting that people would give up taking their cars to their holiday destination? That is an essential part, in many cases, of a holiday in the UK, so that people can explore the countryside.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am not suggesting that at all. I am talking about intermodal choice, which is important. Going forward, people need to have real options in how they travel, whether for work or leisure. We want to see those choices expanded. Many people at the moment, as I highlighted, have such limited choices that they have no option but to use the car. If we truly are to make the intermodal shift, we need to see more options being made available for commuters and people travelling for leisure.