Points of Order
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ahead of last week’s debate considering these strikes, I sought counsel from the Standards Commissioner about the declaration of Member’s financial interests. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her very reasonable point of order. There has been some confusion as to what is required. She read out advice and rules from the Standards Committee. I believe what she said is absolutely correct, and it is useful for the House to hear that.
I cannot judge here and now, without having had a while to look at all the circumstances, exactly what any individual hon. Member should do when they have received in the past, are receiving, or might receive in the future, any financial help. There is, however, a very simple principle that transparency and honesty is always best. I know the hon. Lady will agree with me on that, and if any Member has doubt as to whether or not they should disclose anything about their own financial situation, I suggest that they think about what is the honourable thing to do, and what is the transparent and reasonable thing to do, rather than ask exactly where the line would come were it to be challenged in a court of law or a committee. If we all stick to principles, rather than the exact black and white of the rules, we are likely to have a Parliament that works best. I honestly think that the vast majority of Members act honourably in this respect. Does that answer the hon. Lady’s question?
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members may be aware that early editions of Saturday’s Times included a story regarding the conduct of the Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary. The piece alleged that the Prime Minister attempted to appoint the then Carrie Symonds, now Carrie Johnson, as his chief of staff—a taxpayer-funded role paying a significant salary—at a time when their relationship was not public.
I have particular concerns regarding the disappearance of the story from The Times. A Downing Street spokesperson has confirmed that they did contact The Times and asked it to retract the story, and it has been alleged that the Prime Minister attempted to take out an injunction. Following the resignation last week of the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, there is now no mechanism by which any investigation under the ministerial code can be undertaken into the Prime Minister’s conduct, other than at the behest of the Prime Minister himself. While the ministerial code remains a matter for Government, Members will remain concerned by the standards and conduct of those in Downing Street. Can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on ways in which Members of Parliament such as I might be able to make assessments of the Prime Minister’s conduct in relation to standards following the adviser’s resignation?
Points of Order
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is absolutely right that it is a sensitive matter. He has been quite ingenious in raising it in this way, and we must proceed with sensitivity. If he were to table questions for ministerial answer in the Chamber, there could be difficulties, because questions are based on ministerial responsibility, and there is no obvious ministerial responsibility for the expenditure of public funds in the way that he suggests. It might therefore be best if he were to write to Ministers for the assurance that he seeks. I hope that that helps him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on raising the matter of the removal of a title when it impacts on a geographical location, such as my city of York.
The understandable restrictions set out in paragraph 22.15 of “Erskine May” prohibit the discussion of matters appertaining to the sovereign or the royal family, except for those concerning costs to public funds of royal events or palaces. This matter does not concern those. The reason why this is relevant to Parliament is that the removal of a title, such as that of duke, can be achieved only by passing legislation. According to the Clerks of the House, this was achieved in 1798 in respect of a certain individual through legislation, and in 1917, under the Titles Deprivation Act, in relation to treason.
The sovereign does not have powers to remove a title unless Parliament confers such powers on them. Nor does Parliament have those powers, except under specific legislation that is very limited in its application. In order to make such powers available, new legislation would need to be introduced, which appears to be impossible under the rulings of “Erskine May”. This is a matter that 88% of my constituents have asked me to pursue, and I therefore seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how the removal of a dukedom can be achieved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. She is correct that questions cannot reflect on the sovereign or members of the royal family, but she rightly said, there are other means by which the matters she has raised can be brought before the House. She rightly says that the issue that she described can be resolved by legislation, and she knows that there are ways in which she can introduce legislation to the House—by a private Member’s Bill and under the ten-minute rule procedure. I am quite sure that if she were to ask the advice of the Clerks, they would guide her on how she might take this matter forward.
Covid-19: Education Settings
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
We will try to come back to the right hon. Member as soon as we can.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As the data show, in York infection rates are soaring, particularly in school-age children, people are poorly, and as a result we are seeing major disruption in young people’s education. So as we see infection rates soar across the country, it means that education will be further disrupted, and I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that. How would he ensure that effective testing is put in place, working with our public health teams on the ground locally, to mitigate against that spike in infections and ensure that young people and their families are supported when they have to isolate and miss school?
Covid-19 Update
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Do we have the sound working for Mr Clark? [Interruption.] I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. We appear to be hearing the sound engineers. Perhaps we will leave that for a moment and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. Meanwhile, we will go to York, hopefully, to Rachael Maskell.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The evidence shows that the Government’s approach to easing the lockdown before Christmas meant that crowds of people came to York despite my warnings, spreading infection in the retail, hospitality and transport sectors because they could travel to a lower tier and were off guard in my community. The result has been devastating. It was completely unsafe and completely avoidable. Will the Prime Minister commit not to return to a tiered system where people can freely move the infection from one place to another? What steps will he take to avoid this catastrophe from happening again? Can I meet one of his Ministers to discuss York’s tragic experience over Christmas?
The Prime Minister
As soon as we were informed of the extra transmissibility—50% to 70% faster—of the new variant, we took all the action we could. I would just remind the hon. Lady that the best thing we can do for the people of York now is to ensure we keep the virus under control with the tough measures we have and ensure we all come forward for the vaccine. I urge her to get her constituents to come forward and take that vaccine. They are going great guns in Yorkshire. My memory is that in Yorkshire I think they have taken more vaccine than virtually anywhere else in the country. I congratulate the people of Yorkshire on what they are doing. We are now coming into the last furlong of the JCVI one to four and it would be great to get 100% of the people of Yorkshire in the course of the next few days.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the exchange we just had, I was not asked whether I wanted to press my amendments to a vote or to withdraw them. Is that within order?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Yes. I listened to what the hon. Lady said during her speech, and she did not move her amendments. It would be normal that, if the hon Lady—if I had read the debate in such a way as to think that the hon. Lady wished to call a separate Division on one of her amendments, I would have made sure that that could happen. I took advice on whether the hon. Lady intended to ask for a separate Division on one of her amendments, and the advice was that Opposition Front Benchers did not intend to put any amendments to a vote. It is now too late to change that. The hon. Lady looks askance, but perhaps the message from her Front Bench, through other Front Benchers, to the Chair was not clear.
Madam Deputy Speaker
If the hon. Lady would like to make a further point of order, I will allow her to do so, but we cannot change what has happened.
Rachael Maskell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can see the hesitancy with which you are providing this ruling. I just want to clarify that, at the beginning of my speech in this debate, I did move amendments 4 and 5 formally. I want to put that on the record so there can be no doubt about it.
Budget Resolutions
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which just yesterday said:
“The possibility of ‘no deal’ is real enough to”
justify planning for it and that not to plan would be a mistake and constitute a serious “dereliction of duty” by the present Administration. That is your Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. No, it isn’t. It is the Foreign Secretary’s Select Committee.
Rationing of Surgery
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the rationing of surgery. The reason this is such an urgent issue is threefold: first, it is causing detriment to the health of the people of York; secondly, it is discriminatory; and, thirdly, the policy now reaches beyond York.
I am sure the Minister will set out how, under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, matters of clinical decision making were devolved to clinical commissioning groups to make decisions about local need, but this matter is so serious that I urge him to take action, as the Secretary of State said he would. I have exhausted all routes to getting the policy reviewed, so I am now appealing, through this debate, for a complete review. NHS England has previously been clear that even time-limited bans on particular groups of patients receiving treatment is inconsistent with the NHS constitution. In the light of that, I trust it will commit to withdrawing its support for rationing now that evidence of its detriment is coming through.
The Vale of York CCG determined to delay surgery to patients who smoked or had a body mass index of more than 30. The policy came into force on 1 February 2017. It was first proposed in September last year, but then withdrawn and reintroduced in November. The reason: to delay immediate spend on surgery. However, it is a totally false economy, and although it may delay CCG spend now, in order to meet imposed spending restrictions, the Royal College of Surgeons says that it may actually increase NHS costs if patients develop complications while waiting for surgery. The college has been clear that rationing policies, such as those implemented by the Vale of York CCG, are unacceptable.
The York CCG’s ability to make rationing decisions comes direct from the 2012 Act. The duty on the Secretary of State for Health to “provide or secure” the health service was removed from section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, thereby removing his responsibility, and replaced by a duty to make provision for the health service. The list of services that the NHS had to provide—a principle that had been embedded in the NHS since its inception—was also removed, meaning there no longer had to be a universal list of service provision, and that each CCG could determine its own. In other words, it became a complete postcode lottery: where someone lives determines the healthcare they can access.
Nevertheless, I was encouraged by the Secretary of State’s response to a question on rationing from the Health Committee on 18 October 2016. He said:
“When we hear evidence of rationing happening, we do something about it…we are absolutely determined to give people the clinical care that they need.”
In response to the Chair of the Committee, he said:
“When we hear of occasions when we think the wrong choices have been made, when an efficiency saving is proposed that we think would negatively impact on patient care, we step in, because, challenging though it is, our responsibility to the public is to make sure that we continue to make the NHS safer and higher quality and that it offers a higher standard of care”.
Minister, it is time to step in.
Early on, the Vale of York CCG hit the headlines and became unstuck when it rationed interventions such as in vitro fertilisation treatments—a decision that was reversed—so this CCG has form. As we saw from yesterday’s health and social care debate, the NHS financial model has failed. Not only does the funding formula fall short of real need, but the NHS now has the wrong financial drivers in place, resulting in a demand- led approach to health provision and uncontrollable spend.
I could talk more on that, but the Vale of York CCG introduced a delay on surgery as a direct result of its failure to contain its spend within budget; it now has special measures bearing down on it. The CCG receives around £1,150 per patient, when demand seriously exceeds that. CCGs just down the road are receiving 50%-plus more. York has an ageing population demographic and areas of serious deprivation. I urge the Minister to look again at NHS funding, because it simply is not working and our CCG is being penalised for that.
The Vale of York CCG took the decision to ration surgery for up to a year for those overweight and up to six months for smokers. Having worked in the NHS as a clinician—I was a senior physiotherapist—I am all too aware of the risk factors created by people smoking and being overweight, not least when it comes to surgery, and I do not need the Minister, as a non-clinician, to spell them out to me today. I would see patients pre-operatively to provide advice, and would also treat them post-operatively to address the risks through respiratory therapy and mobilisation. All clinicians understand the risk factors, which is why it is so important that money is invested in public health services—something that the Government have failed to do.
A child receives, on average, 12 minutes a year of school nursing, which includes child protection work. That means that they get only a few minutes a year of advice on diet, exercise, smoking and sex education. Clearly, that is not enough, especially as PE has also been cut. Yesterday, I met local school nurses who set out how their service was being cut, and how school nurses are being downgraded and de-professionalised to make savings in York.
When the Government switched public health back to local authorities, which have had their grants slashed, public health services also suffered. The irony is that York’s council completely cut funding for smoking cessation services and for NHS health checks. It also cut the health walks programme, which was a service to help people exercise more and lose weight. Therefore, public health measures to address smoking and weight were cut first, and then patients were denied surgery because they smoked or were overweight—you could not make it up. It again shows how fragmentation creates health detriment.
GPs are now actively writing to patients to ask them whether they smoke—not that they have a smoking cessation service to refer them to. They say that it is just “for their records”. Patients who are seen by their GP and who are considered to be in need of an assessment by a specialist for surgery fill out a form. They have to declare their smoking and weight status. One would think that the surgeon would receive a letter, highlighting the risk, and then would make a clinical assessment of that risk—but no. The referral is diverted, and the patient is sent a standard letter and a leaflet, which does not reflect on their own personal circumstances, but tells them that they smoke or are overweight and therefore need to change their ways. As a penalty, they are denied surgery. The specialist never gets the opportunity to assess the patient and make clinical judgments accordingly.
I am sure that the Minister will recall the narrative, which enticed some in this House to support the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We heard that doctors will be at the heart of the NHS and that they, not bureaucrats, will be the ones making the decisions. Then there was, “No decision about me without me.” Here we have a system where clinicians are being undermined by diktats from bureaucrats; patients and clinicians have no say; and clinical evidence is left wanting.
Before I progress, let me turn to this letter that patients are sent. First, it is generic and has no personal advice about the patient’s own clinical circumstances. By the time a patient reaches the third paragraph, they are told how obesity is costing the CCG £46 million and smoking £7.2 million a year, as if that is an issue for the patient who needs surgery. The penalties are then set out. Those who are obese have to lose 10% of their weight or reduce their BMI to under 30, or wait 12 months. Those who smoke have to stop smoking for eight weeks, or wait six months. Enclosed with the letter is a leaflet entitled “Stop before your op” and a web address so that people can find out how to get support. I went through this and the convoluted website. Any public health practitioner would tell you how inappropriate and ineffective this whole system is. There is no real help available.
The Royal College of Surgeons states that denying or significantly delaying access to NHS treatment does not help patients to lose weight or stop smoking. Now those being denied surgery are paying a heavy price. I have spent much time talking to GPs and surgeons about this matter, as well as to patients. I have also talked to the CCG, which knows that the system is totally wrong, but because it is in a financial hole and NHS England has waved it through, it is just complicit. It is not standing up for patients in York.
One more point on the process: in York, patients who were referred for surgery, ahead of this policy being introduced, had their referrals sat on. The first thing that they received was their refusal letter. It is shocking that those patients’ surgery was delayed by the CCG even though their referral was made before the policy came into effect. So what is the impact on patients? Well, it is devastating. We already know that waiting times for surgery are going up, and delay in itself creates detriment. It is true that some patients are exempt—I am talking about those needing urgent care, the removal of a tumour, or trauma surgery. However, if someone requires a joint replacement because they have not mobilised well for some time due to osteoarthritis, is in pain, and, as a result of not mobilising, have put on weight, things are very different. With a new joint, they will be back on their feet. A 12-month delay in being referred will exacerbate their problems. A year of degeneration, pain and not being able to mobilise, an initial clinical assessment and then the wait for surgery will result in a surgeon presented with a more complex operation, and a physiotherapist with a patient who is less mobile and weaker, needing more input and possibly longer in rehab. Bang!—there go all the savings from rationing and more, all at a cost to the patient and a risk that the long-term clinical outcomes will be worse.
The British Orthopaedic Association said:
“There is no clinical, or value for money, justification…Good outcomes can be achieved for patients regardless of whether they smoke or are obese”.
If someone were 20 stone, they would have to drop to 18 stone before having surgery, but if they were 18 stone, they would have to drop to 16 stone 2 lbs. One person asked why surgery is safe at 18 stone in one case, but not the other. I ask the same. A patient has presented to me who was prescribed medication that had a side effect of weight gain. They were on drugs that risked weight gain, required surgery and were denied by the same GPs who gave them the drugs.
I have had a patient who is active and works full time, but is over the weight threshold. She needs surgery to enable her to conceive. She is not young. Surgery is needed now, as recommended by her GP. However, it was denied and could result in her never having a family. A patient with hypothyroidism, a chronic condition that leads to weight gain, needs surgery for gastrointestinal abnormalities but, despite their condition, will be restricted. One patient was a very fit body builder, but was refused surgery because of their high BMI. The case for delay has not been evidenced.
From talking to epidemiologists and reading academic papers on the issue, we know that there is a strong correlation between smoking and obesity, and social and economic deprivation. As the British Medical Association said, this could also be seen as rationing on the basis of poverty. Those with mental health challenges have a higher propensity to smoke, and those with chronic conditions are more likely also to have elements of depression and possible weight gain. Many people find it difficult to lose weight or give up smoking. Minister, you know the figures. This policy is totally discriminatory.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I am quite sure that the hon. Lady did not mean to address the Chair, but means to ask the Minister whether he knows the figures.
Rachael Maskell
Indeed that is the case.
This policy is totally discriminatory and is having further detriment for those with co-morbidities. It is creating problems, not solving them. All surgery carries a risk, and it is for clinicians to assess that risk. As the Royal College of Surgeons says,
“It risks preventing a patient from seeing a consultant who can advise them on the best form of treatment, which may not be surgery. Surgery may be needed to help someone lose weight.”
That point was also made by a patient who was able to mobilise after a joint replacement. This is why clinical decision making is needed. Patients have to be part of this too.
Public health programmes need restoring so that patients can properly engage with people to help to optimise their health. The passive approach of the CCG is setting patients up to fail. David Haslam, chair of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, said that rationing of surgery concerned him. He says that the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines make absolutely clear that decisions should be based on discussions between patients, clinicians and surgeons, and that issues such as smoking, obesity and so on should not be barriers to referral. These are the experts.
The Vale of York CCG has gone down this route, and others are now following, with 34% of CCGs looking to ration on the basis of obesity or smoking. Harrogate and Rural District CCG and East Riding of Yorkshire CCG target smokers and those who are overweight with a six-month delay. Wyre Forest, Redditch and Bromsgrove, and South Worcestershire CCGs ration on the basis of pain impact. South Cheshire CCG requires a BMI of less than 35—not 30—as does Coventry and Rugby CCG. The policy is spreading. Although York is the worse example of rationing, every clinician knows that it is wrong and contravenes their professional duty of care.
I am blowing the whistle on this today because the policy is directly discriminatory, clinically contraindicated and financially perverse. I would be the first in this House to advocate health optimisation programmes supporting smoking cessation or providing help to improve diet, exercise, wellbeing and lifestyles, but to leave someone in pain or without a child brings our NHS into disrepute.
This evening, I have made a clear case for why the rationing of surgery must end. As the Secretary of State said to the Health Committee, it is time to step in.
Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Interventions have been far too long. It is simply not fair for the hon. Gentleman to take the time of other Members who are waiting to make speeches. It is simply not courteous—no matter how important his point might appear to be.
Rachael Maskell
We see yet again the lack of certainty being given, so a valid point has been made.
Let me raise a further point, about apprenticeships, with the Secretary of State. I am sorry, but apprenticeships are not about simply filling unskilled labour gaps; they are about sustaining people in skills development and training in their field, so that they can have a career ahead of them. The suggestion that they will fill the posts that 80,000 workers currently hold is not appropriate and not what apprenticeships are for.
Farmers need real solutions, so why not reintroduce the seasonal agricultural workers scheme? I know that the Government scrapped it in 2013, but it would provide a lifeline to farmers now and would be far better than leaving fruit and veg rotting in fields this summer. On behalf of all farmers, especially those who may be watching and listening to us speak here today, I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State finally provides a solution to this issue.
We also have a wider biodiversity system to protect. Farmers are the great conservationists of our nation. They, along with many non-governmental organisations, are the ones investing in and restoring our natural habitats, levering in environmental sustainability. With more support, they will go further still. We know that there is far more to be achieved. We cannot return to being the dirty man of Europe; nor can we stand by and sign trade deals with nations that pollute on our behalf, having no regard for soil, air or water quality. As responsible global stewards, we must stem pollution and drive forward progressive environmental standards. If the Government are pinning all their hopes on a deal with the next United States Administration, I urge them to think again.
As we debate rural communities, we cannot ignore all the other needs that they are still calling on the Government to address. As the Secretary of State said, access to broadband is an important issue, as is mobile connectivity, and rural communities are among the 5% of the population who have no access. Access to jobs, housing and transport are essential, as well as good public services. However, our ambition must go further. We must aim to halt the urban drift and rebuild rural communities, sustaining rural business and investing in new businesses, so that we pull ourselves back into the countryside and take the unsustainable strain from urban Britain. All those aims are important, and Labour Members understand how vital investment in rural communities is. No one will see a Labour Government cutting the budget for our national parks by 40%, as this Government have.
So what will the Secretary of State do? It is a shame that the Government amendment fails to recognise the unique needs of rural communities and the central role of investment in strengthening the wider economy. The huge challenges faced by rural economies require clear interventions, not complacency, and the shocking disparities between rural and urban environments must be addressed.
There is no such thing as a single, monolithic rural economy in the UK. There is great diversity, not just between communities but within them. I have focused much of my speech on farming, because that is where the challenges are most pressing, but we must remember that there is more to life in rural and coastal communities than farming and fishing alone. If the Government truly intend to deliver for rural communities, that will require a far more sustained effort than simply addressing immediate, short-term challenges in isolation. We need a proper, cross-Government strategy. This Government’s abolition of Labour’s Commission for Rural Communities and their establishment of the much-diminished policy unit in its place has weakened rural communities through a lack of both capacity and expertise.
Many of the issues that are being raised today are long-standing and cannot be blamed on the EU alone, but the turmoil that the Government are now creating through uncertainty is causing an escalating risk for this sector. Those who work across the rural landscape, or who fish in our seas, felt left behind by a Tory Government who failed to invest in their industry and their communities. That must change. With Labour, people would be confident that it would, and that farming would become far more stable, secure and sustainable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Community Pharmacies
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs given notice of whether she intends to make a statement to this House in the light of today’s High Court judgment, which found against the Government for the second time on the matter of being in breach of air quality standards and putting in place an inadequate air quality plan? I am sure that you will appreciate the level of interest in the outcome of those proceedings, given that between 40,000 and 50,000 people in our country die prematurely each year as a direct consequence of the Government’s failure to reach those air quality standards.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I understand the hon. Lady’s concern about the matter and thank her for raising it, but she and her colleagues will understand that it is not a matter for the Chair. If she wishes a Minister to come to the House, the correct procedure is to submit a request for an urgent question. I am sure that if the hon. Lady believes that she has sufficient grounds for asking for an urgent question, she will submit a request and Mr Speaker will give it due consideration.
Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am not having any more long interventions. There have been far too many.
Rachael Maskell
I have grasped the point of my hon. Friend’s intervention. House prices have escalated out of control since the Bill was originated. The reality is that we are dealing with a different situation and a different world from when the Bill was put together. I therefore believe that we should not proceed with the motion today, but call a halt and go back to the drawing board to address the real problems we have heard so much about.
I want to touch on some of the issues that have not been addressed today about the consequences of the Bill. The reality is that there will be so many unintended consequences. I asked questions earlier, which were not answered, about the financial modelling and the financial risks that may arise.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Talking about housing tangentially to the Bill, because it has an effect on property and the owning of land, is in order. Having a debate almost entirely about housing and the provision of social housing is not in order when discussing the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
I very much take on board my hon. Friend’s point. There are real questions left hovering over the Bill. My hon. Friend refers to the Housing and Planning Bill, which relates to the use of land. That is the issue that concerns Labour Members: what will the land be used for? We highlighted the use of land and what kind of housing will be built on it. Clearly, there is concern about infrastructure and other possibilities, even use for business and other modelling on land in the future. The Bill does not specify a certain type of housing. The limited partnerships model proposed does not list the scope of use of the property and the development in the future.
I would like to return to my initial point before I close, which is the ageing of the Bill. We have seen very clearly that the world has changed so much since it was first drafted. What is the Bill’s relevance to the modern economy? We have heard much about the structure and direction of our economy. The Bill will build more of an asset-based economy than one that is social-based.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We are not discussing academic economic issues; we are discussing transport.
Rachael Maskell
The Bill is about more than transport and that is why it is a real concern. It is about an organisation in charge of running our transport expanding its business opportunities into other areas, largely property development on its land. We would like TfL to focus on addressing the needs of constituents’ stations, about which we have heard so much today, but the Bill goes far beyond that.
Twenty months after the Bill was last debated, it is now clearly out of time. It is time that this House agreed to pursue another route to use vital land in London.
Recruitment and Retention of Teachers
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rachael Maskell(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the reasons people are leaving the profession is work-related stress—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that hon. Members are new to the House, but the hon. Lady must address the Chair. You cannot turn your back on the Chair; you are not addressing the hon. Lady.
Rachael Maskell
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does my hon. Friend recognise that people are leaving the profession due to the high levels of work-related stress? We know that 83% of teachers are experiencing work-related stress and 67% are experiencing mental and physical health problems due to excessive workloads, the target-driven culture, and over-burdening inspection regimes.