City Centre Security Measures and Access for Disabled People

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so powerfully, because this is an infringement of somebody’s rights and it is discrimination.

While the UN General Assembly and special rapporteur say that human rights and security are not in conflict, but complement each other, those with a poor knowledge of human rights have set them against each other. Tonight, I want to set the scene in York and say what the Government need to do to uphold human rights while strengthening security, as Labour would.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Lady, who in her time in this House has been an assiduous and dedicated MP? I think her constituents should be very proud of her actions, and indeed of what she is doing here tonight.

Does the hon. Lady not agree that, while we have come on in leaps and bounds in improving disabled access and taking action to legislate for disabled people, there is a need for greater awareness of disability needs? She has outlined this specific case, which I believe shows discrimination and bias. I hope that the Government and the Minister, who I believe are responsive and sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying, will act to ensure that she gets what she needs on behalf of her constituents.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention. We should not have to be having this debate here tonight, but we are, and we are determined to see the ban reversed.

Nice and Berlin witnessed hostile vehicle terrorism in 2016 and Barcelona, Westminster and others in 2017—we will never forget—so, following discussions, the police, the counter-terrorism unit and what is now the National Protective Security Authority believed that York needed protections. The minster was the first out of the blocks, as blocks were literally put around that magnificent cathedral to prevent vehicle incursion. Discussions also suggested that some thoroughfares might present a risk and needed further mitigation. Years passed and nothing happened, so clearly urgency was not apparent. In June 2020, barriers suddenly appeared without any consultation. That was due not to terrorist threats, but to covid and the need for social distancing. No one talked to disabled people. They were locked out by section 18 of the Traffic Order Procedure (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, which provided for a temporary ban for blue badge holders. We were then told by Green party councillors that it was because that was better for the environment, as if disabled people caused climate change and did not also want to save the planet. Then the barriers were for street cafés, to aid covid recovery, as opposed to ensuring that disabled people could spend their “purple pound” in York.

In November 2021, the Liberal Democrat-led City of York Council applied under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for a traffic regulation order, under which a counter-terrorism jurisdiction must

“avoid danger to persons or other traffic using the road.”

Any jurisdiction with any sense would recognise that protecting the environment, the economy, safety and blue badge holder access are not mutually exclusive things, but are complementary. If security was genuinely such an issue, what about all the other inconsistencies, such as the patchwork CCTV, with some cameras switched off, or the commercial vehicle access available when barriers are in place? Why can bollards simply be lifted out of their portals at any time, and why do bin vans sit with engines running? Why do the barriers lift at 5 pm when the streets are crowded, while at 10.30 am, when it is quiet, those barriers are down? I am not questioning the threat; I am questioning the logic.

Before a traffic regulation order is made, a council must comply with statutory requirements set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. Those include a requirement for formal consultation and advertisement, which the council undertook in a short summer consultation period in 2021. More than 200 objections were registered. The local government and social care ombudsman responded, saying that York’s council had failed to respond to the consultation. Instead, the council argued that because 60% of disabled people had responded in support of the plans, that was sufficient to implement them. Not all respondents lived in York, and the nature of their impairment was not clear. Rather than exploring what mitigation the 40% required, the authority homogenised disabled people. Human rights law makes it clear that majority preferences cannot simply override those of minority groups. In December 2021, The Department for Transport’s best practice guide, “Inclusive Mobility”, was published, but those criteria were not met either. We must take a holistic approach to protecting people, not just through hostile vehicle mitigation, but from damaging infringement on human rights.

Snares

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to be able to speak in today’s debate, not least because the petition is signed by 102,616 people, including 216 from my constituency and 418 from York.

Some of the arguments that have been put forward are completely indefensible, and I hope to deconstruct them. Snares are cruel—no ifs, no buts. They cause suffering and must be banned. In July 2016, I announced that Labour would introduce a ban, and here we are, years later, no further forward. We were promised a consultation by the Government in 2021. We are now entering 2023. The delays are just not acceptable. Wales is getting on with the job and legislating. Scotland was consulting and just before Christmas announced that it will proceed with a ban. That is the direction we must follow. Across the EU, there are only four countries left without a ban on snares. We must not be left behind in an archaic age where man thinks he has a right to go and hunt and enjoy the game and sport. Animals should never be our sport. They are precious parts of creation, which we must nurture and care for.

I want to deconstruct some of the arguments made this afternoon. We have 188,000 snares in operation at any one time, with 1.7 million animals killed. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about foxes, but we must remember that 75% of the animals snared are not foxes. I will come on to foxes in a moment, but that just goes to show that the arguments do not hold up. We know that 33% of the animals snared are hares, which are not predatory animals; 26% are badgers; and 14% are other species. Otters, deer and even horses get caught in snares. Although they have breaks in them, not every animal breaks free. As a result, much suffering is caused. We have heard about the suffering: asphyxiation, laceration, dislocation, amputation, starvation, dehydration and predation.

Much of the debate in this House over the last five or six years has been about animals as sentient beings. They know what is happening to them and suffer mental distress. As a result, we must introduce legislation to catch up with what Labour is doing in Wales and what we are seeing in Scotland.

In nature there is a balance. That balance does not give us the right to exploit wildlife for our own personal gain, which is what is happening. The shooting lobby might be having its say in this debate, but we cannot continue to believe that we have a right and a power over nature. Nature will find its balance, and it is important that we nurture and enable that balance.

I agree that things were worse when there were self-locking snares, but they were abolished in 1981. Four decades later, we have a responsibility to look again.

[Jim Shannon]

I respect the hon. Lady and, although we probably have very different points of view, we agree that the old snares were not acceptable. Humane restraints are the alternative way forward to achieve the balance to which she refers. We will not have any lapwing, plover and curlew if we continue to ignore the predation of foxes and other mammals. How would the hon. Lady set about ensuring that curlew, lapwing and plover are still here for my children and grandchildren?

Moorland Burning

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

Universal Basic Income

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree. I was sympathetic to the really good question that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) asked the Prime Minister yesterday in the Chamber. I am not saying that because he is sitting across from me; I told him it was a good question at the time. It was about the minimum wage. I understand how it works. There are arguments to reduce the working week to four days and to reduce wages, but if someone on a minimum wage loses wages, they have nowhere to go. This is about every penny they have.

I remember the stories that people in my constituency have told me. They managed everything almost to the last pound for that week. Even a small reduction in what they have will mean that they will not be able to pay their rent or their car off. They may be paying off furniture for their property, too. The whole thing becomes a real difficulty. If somebody takes ill, it becomes a real problem. The hon. Gentleman’s question was pertinent, because I could relate personally to what he was saying. I thank him for that.

In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Inverclyde referred to other schemes. I read in the briefing about the Finnish experiment. It is not all about money. I am conscious of time, so I will come to my conclusion fairly quickly. Those who participated in the Finnish experiment

“were more satisfied with their lives and experienced less mental strain, depression, sadness and loneliness. They also had a more positive perception of their cognitive abilities, i.e. memory…and ability to concentrate.”

Giving people that help improves their quality of life, physically and mentally. We have to look at that, because there is cost otherwise. If the Government or others are not able to help, there are impacts on people’s physical and mental health, which then has to be paid for by the NHS. I suggest that although the Finnish experiment may not be the best example, it did highlight that issue.

As I see every day, those who are under financial pressure and who are worried about their future also face mental stress and difficulty. I meet people every day, every week, in my office—my staff do most of that, to be fair—and recently, when universal credit first came in, I remember that there were great problems. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and I have spoken about these things on a number of occasions, and we understand that.

[Rachael Maskell]

That brings to mind another aspect of this issue, which is sickness absence from the workplace. We obviously know the impact that has, but if people have the underpinning of a universal basic income, that will help with their rehabilitation and get those people back into work, whatever form of work that is. It may be volunteering experience or it may be through social prescribing, and therefore having a universal basic income could be a real aid to rehabilitation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is another opportunity?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. That is why I brought up the issue of people’s physical and mental experiences—because if we can get people into volunteering or get them back to work and moving up, that will make the Minister’s job a lot easier as well.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) referred to the five-week period, which turned out to be an eight-week period in many cases. In a way, with all the experiences we had early on with universal credit, we overcame many of those issues, and the Government did as well. I therefore say gently to the Minister that we should perhaps be looking at a methodology for a universal basic income, at least on the basis of a pilot scheme, because with a pilot scheme the Government can perceive the issue, look over it, challenge it and investigate to see whether it is possible. In Northern Ireland, 16% of people—300,000 people—live in poverty, and that is before housing costs, which are enormous. With that in mind, the Northern Ireland Assembly also asked questions on this matter, although I understand that responsibility for the DWP lies here.

We have always had the greatest respect for the Minister, as he knows, and I believe him to be a compassionate person who can understand why we, the hon. Member for Inverclyde, and others have spoken on this topic. We believe there is a necessity for the universal basic income to be looked at through a pilot scheme. I believe it will help others, and therefore, along with others, I ask for that as well.

Unhealthy Housing: Cost to the NHS

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this morning, Mr Robertson.

I start by thanking the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings for its report, which is excellent and so needed in the light of the serious housing situation in many of our constituencies. Consequently, I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), is here in Westminster Hall today. I had wondered whether a Health Minister would respond to this debate, but it is really important to get to the root of these problems. We hear that £2.5 billion is the cost of unhealthy housing, which I think is a very modest estimate. If we could shift that money into building and retrofitting homes into a better condition, what a better society we would have.

Of course, I look back to Michael Marmot and the report he produced when he looked at the social determinants of poor health and identified housing within them. The report by Dame Carol Black also emphasised the impact of poor housing. And, of course, we know from living experience the impact of poor housing on our constituents today.

So this is a timely debate and an important debate. We must look not only at physical health. We have heard about respiratory conditions; as a former physiotherapist who worked in that area, I certainly know the impact that poor housing had on my patients. However, we must also look at mental health, which is also incredibly important; I see that every week in my constituency.

We also know that there is the wider issue of affordability, and the stresses and strains that the failed housing market places on our constituents. In York, buying a property now costs ten times the average wage and therefore it is becoming completely inaccessible. People are having to up sticks and make a choice about their career or their living environment. Renting is also completely inaccessible in the private rented sector, and in the social rented sector the amount of stock has been reduced and therefore people’s options are also being reduced.

The quality of housing is also a massive issue. In York, 200 houses have a water course running under them—under the floorboards. As a result, there is damp, particularly at this time of year, which really impacts on the families in those houses. The council has a programme for those houses, but it is taking too long to move people out of their homes and make the changes that are required, which almost amounts to rebuilding the underneath of the property so that residents can move back in. So the quality of housing is a serious issue, including in York.

We have also heard about fuel poverty. I think we are all absolutely stunned into silence when we hear that 51,000 people in our country died prematurely last winter, with 46,000 of them being older people who were unable to afford to flick the switch and put their heating on. Those are unnecessary deaths and it deeply concerns me that we have not redressed this issue; it is essential that the Government put a real focus on it.

I will talk about one or two cases in my constituency that have completely appalled me. I have already shared the information about some of them with the Minister, and they have to do with the behaviour and the conduct of my local authority.

People will remember that a few weeks ago it was bitterly cold, with freezing fog. An 18-year-old woman in my constituency had not complied with all the obligations placed on her as a young person in housing; her complying with them was challenging, both for her and for the authority. Therefore, the authority removed her right to be in housing provision. Putting a young woman on to the streets is one thing; to do so in freezing conditions, when the temperature is minus 6° C, is another. So we really have to consider what was behind that decision. Thankfully, my office jumped in and secured that young woman a placement elsewhere, in the light of our holding up a mirror to that situation.

We also have to think about our homelessness services. I have spoken in many debates in this place about what has happened with homelessness. Again, dealing with homelessness is about the joining-up of services, to make sure, first of all, that Housing First is in place. I know that if Labour were in the administration in York, we would end homelessness within a term of being in charge of the council, because we believe that housing is a human right. We are a human rights city and we believe that it is a human right for people to be able to access a home. We know that not being able to access a home has a serious impact on people, including on their physical health. We know that 41% of the homeless population have serious physical health conditions and 45% have serious mental health conditions. However, there is also the tie-in with substance misuse and other issues that have a serious impact.

The case that perhaps shocked me the most was that of a woman whose partner had moved out of their home, for certain reasons. Initially she was left in the property, but because of the change in the tenancy she was then forced out of her property. A relationship breakdown is stressful enough for somebody, but being told that they have to leave their property because a tenancy—an arrangement—has changed, and having to move into another property, was incredibly stressful for my constituent. She became seriously ill: she lost two stone in weight; she developed anxiety and depression; and she became extremely ill. In fact, she could hardly speak, because the stress on her was so great that she could hardly talk. Her mental health was in a very poor place, and yet the council pursued her and continued to move her from her property. She lost her business, she lost her work and she ended up on benefits, and was finally forced to move over the Christmas period.

That kind of behaviour by our local authority is contemptible, and I say to the Minister today that we must have mechanisms by which we can put the impact of housing policy and housing policy decisions, not only on people’s physical health but on their mental health too, at the heart of decision making, because that situation with my constituent should never have arisen. As soon as she started becoming ill, the council should have started to pull back, but it did not.

I have seen that with another tragic case in my constituency. A young man has support needs. He had been living with his parents, but sadly one of his parents died and then the other. However, the Government policy about successor rights for property meant that this young man, whose home was his place of safety, was turfed out of his home and then placed in hostel accommodation. In that accommodation he lost his security, his surroundings and the neighbours who had kept an eye on him, and he ended up walking the streets during the day. He found that incredibly difficult. He was dealing with the double trauma of losing his parents and then his home. We need to put compassion back into housing policy, because not doing so makes people ill.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her significant contribution. She has reminded me that in my office we have had three cases of homeless people over the past month, and the last one she referred to is very much in my mind. We seem to have people who slip under the microscope, with complex issues regarding health and losing their homes, contacts and friends. As the hon. Lady said, we need a better way of dealing with those issues. One way to ensure that those people do not fall under the radar would be to mark up any early-recognised physical or mental issues as a priority for the officer.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A home is not just a physical structure of bricks and mortar; it is a whole environment in which someone lives and probably spends most of their time, whether asleep or awake. It is a security, a setting, and a place where the family is based, and it affects someone’s wellbeing.

We must take a more humane approach to housing, and York, as a human rights city, is determined to see that. Housing is a major issue in the city; we have a massive supply problem. Every time the Government say they are building more homes, I say, “But not in York”. Our council has completely failed on that front, and it now looks like the local plan, which has been prevaricated over, is in real danger of falling because sites are pulling away. We have overcrowding because we do not have the housing supply we need, which means we have families who have been living on sofas for months on end. I received a letter just this last week about a gentleman who is not well and has been sleeping on the sofa for three months. The council has not intervened in that kind of case. It is right that we get a local plan to build the housing the city needs to address future accommodation needs—not all those luxury apartments we see going up everywhere.

My final point concerns my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people, and the provision we are making for our older people, ensuring that we have the right environments for them to live in. Increasingly, older people live in the private rental sector, which provides insecurity in later life. Others in the sector also face that insecurity, but it is compounded in the later stages of life. It is really important to build secure housing for older people.

We know that isolation and loneliness have a massive impact on wellbeing, but it is also about the place and the environment in which people live. I urge the Minister to look at some of the impressive projects in the Netherlands, building villages that are safe environments for older people. In Hogeweyk, a dementia village, people have their independence, which keeps them on their feet, which then keeps them healthy, and they can move safely around a village environment while at the same time having a few people keeping an eye on them. Three or four people, at various stages of dementia, live in each house. There is a shop and a hairdressers on the complex, and other places that people can go, but it is a closed environment that keeps people safe. There are some good models out there of how we can build proper homes for life and ensure that people do not have the stress—we all know that moving home is stressful—of having to move at a fragile point in their life.

There is so much more we can do with this agenda if a real aspiration is there to change how we look at the complex dual issue of health and housing. Should Labour come into power in York in May, our plans are to build transformation, ensuring both that we have private rental sector licensing to drive up standards, and that we build the homes that people need in a healthy environment, place making as we go, so that everyone can enjoy the place where they live.

Business Rates: Small Retail Businesses

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Low Emission Zones

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. I do not have a large contribution to make. Usually I am a man of many words, but on this issue I will be a man of few words. Nevertheless, I want to contribute to the debate if I can. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for calling for this debate. I very much look forward to the responses by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), and by the Minister, who always brings a flair to his responses, so I look forward to hearing him. I remember the Adjournment debate in which he fiercely defended the lion as the national emblem of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I live in and represent a largely rural constituency, Strangford. I am fortunate that when I get up in the morning I can breathe the fresh sea air of Strangford lough. I live in the countryside and because of that I have never had to deal with the emissions referred to by the hon. Member for Bath. I have been very fortunate to have always lived in the countryside, and I thank God for that. My constituency is not directly affected by the problems arising from high levels of emissions, but neighbouring constituencies experience a lot of congestion, and when I join those queues of cars, as I do when I go through Belfast or to the airport—wherever it may be—when I am sitting in the car, with the traffic nose to tail, I understand what it means to have all those emissions around. Even if the windows are up, this is the time of the year when heaters are going, drawing emissions into the car.

There is pollution from cars, but also from the large volume of air travel. Perhaps the Minister can give his thoughts on that. It seems to me that there is an understanding of the issue of emissions from air travel. Some of the planes that are being built now would help to address that, but until the transition to those new planes, we have to deal with the issue as it is, as the hon. Member for Bath said. Pollution brings with it the ultimate effects on the climate, which we cannot ignore, as well as the negative effects on public health, particularly in places close to where emissions are emitted. We have a duty to our citizens when it comes to public health, and we must address that.

The Minister will reply within the scope of his departmental responsibility, but there are other responsibilities, and perhaps he needs to work with other Departments. When he responds, I would be interested to hear about his relationship with, for example, the Department of Health, and about how he will work alongside other Departments to make things better. It is through no fault of their own that citizens come into contact with or are subject to dirty air as a result of emissions. They should not have to suffer the consequent negative impacts on their health. More needs to be done to protect people from the detrimental health effects of being around dirty and polluted air. We have moved on a great deal. We can all remember those grainy images on TV in the 1950s and 1960s—well, I am not sure whether everyone can, but I can—where smog just enveloped everyone, and they had to live in and breathe it. Thank goodness we have made gigantic steps to stop that.

The aim of low emission zones should be welcomed, and such zones could achieve real results if implemented properly. As always, though, we need to be mindful of the potential unintended consequences. I wholeheartedly support what the hon. Member for Bath said, but there is a cost factor, and we should be very cognisant of that, and of what it means. It is all right for many of us, including me, to say, “Let’s take the steps and make the difference,” but if we add in the cost factor, perhaps people’s zeal might be tempered slightly.

[Rachael Maskell]

In York, it has been estimated that every year 82 people die prematurely as a result of emissions. Surely that cost should be put above other costs.

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree. I am here to support low emission zones, but, if I can, I want to put into the debate the cost factor, because it has to be addressed. At the end of the day, we all pay for these things. I agree with the hon. Lady: if 82 people die in York every year because of emissions, let us do something about it. But I am asking who is going to pay to make that happen and how it will work. Will it be local councils, direct funding from Government or something else? We need to look at that. I am not saying that we should not do anything—we should—but I want to be told where the funding is coming from. That is the issue.

Might low emission zones negatively affect economic activity, particularly small and medium-sized businesses? Of all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland has the largest number of small and medium-sized businesses, which could be directly affected. Large businesses will be able to replace vehicles that fall short of the targets with relative ease compared with SMEs, and local, indigenous businesses will be hit hard if they are hindered in their ability to operate as a result of the introduction of low emission zones. I support the purpose of the debate, but make that point because we have to be honest and realistic about what is achievable. How do we achieve the goals that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) wants, that I want and that everyone else present wants? Perhaps we could alleviate concerns by introducing an exemption system or some sort of assistance for SMEs, particularly indigenous businesses.

We need to take action on this issue. The cost to the climate is too much, as is the cost to our quality of life.