National Policy Statement: Airports

Debate between Barry Sheerman and Andy McDonald

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I hope shortly to be able to address in some detail.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I must confess that I am a waverer on Heathrow expansion. I do not like the air quality dangers we face or the Government’s target to do something about air quality by 2040, by which time 1 million people will have died. People in the north of England, in Yorkshire and in Huddersfield want to know what investment they will get. This is yet another massive investment in London and the south-east.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend raises two significant points about air quality and investment across the United Kingdom. I hope to address them in great detail as I proceed with my speech.

Rail Franchising

Debate between Barry Sheerman and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

Indeed. That point is entirely consistent with the issues I am putting before the House.

Labour would not have let Virgin-Stagecoach off the hook on the east coast franchise. To return to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, did the Secretary of State consider taking the east coast franchise into the public sector following the default—yes or no? Does the Secretary of State not worry that, because he refuses to use a public sector operator even as a last resort, struggling train companies now know he has no option but to bail them out in the event of a failure?

Such failures are not confined to the east coast franchise. Today’s National Audit Office report highlights a litany of errors in the Government’s planning and management of the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise. Those blunders have caused misery to millions of people, and it is the Government’s disastrous handling of the franchise that led to industrial action on the line.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that this morning’s report was scathing about the dreadful performance of Northern rail? My constituents are not as dependent as I am on the east coast franchise to get up and down the country, but the local franchises are how ordinary people get to work.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully.

Disabled Students Allowance

Debate between Barry Sheerman and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for securing the debate.

I start by saying to the Minister that it is reprehensible that we are here talking about a backwards step for disabled people’s access to education. I thought we were supposed to be in the business of making life better for people, not worse. It simply cannot be right for the Minister to abdicate his responsibility to universities and say, “You get on with it. It is your duty to provide access to education and observe the principles of the Equality Act.” Surely to goodness that responsibility rests with Government as well.

The National Union of Students has reported that 59% of disabled respondents to their “Pound in Your Pocket” survey are worried about not having enough money to meet the basic living expenses of university, while 55% are considering leaving their course. Putting another barrier in their way is certainly not going to help. Such financial challenges only add to the multitude of barriers already faced by disabled students. They are more likely to drop out than their non-disabled counterparts and less likely to be able to access postgraduate degrees. Disabled students also face reduced choice when deciding which university to attend. Many students take the opportunity to travel away from home, but for disabled students that might not be an option. Students with special care needs may require support from parents or assistants, and their choices are dictated by accessibility.

Receiving the disabled students allowance massively improves disabled students’ experience and success while in higher education. Research has shown that students receiving DSA are more likely to achieve the very highest degree classifications than those who do not. The decision to remove DSA funding for standard specification computers, software and associated instruments compromises disabled students’ ability to get ahead and make the very best of their time in university.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental difference between us and the Minister is that he does not understand that the direct payment was the emancipation of disabled people, allowing them to see going to university as a right?

[Andy McDonald]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That principle has been enshrined, and we should treasure it.

It is not good enough to suggest that everyone owns a laptop or that computers are now ubiquitous among students. They are not cheap, and it simply cannot be assumed that everyone from an area like mine has one. For those from a well-heeled background, where these things are easily provided, that is fair enough, but it is not the case for families from other backgrounds.

The changes to DSA also fail to recognise the needs of the up to 98% of disabled students who require specific software to help them with their studies. The Government have suggested that cheaper tablet and notebook devices might be suitable for disabled students, but such machines are simply not equipped with the power or memory to support specialised software alongside standard office and internet programs, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) so eloquently explained.

My second major concern is about moving responsibility for providing non-medical support from the Government to individual institutions. The reforms assume that disability is evenly distributed, but that is not the case. There are smaller institutions where disabled students make up a higher percentage of the total number. How will those institutions cope with the changes? Some higher education institutions might be deterred from actively recruiting disabled students, simply because of the cost if they attend. Indeed, Teesside university in my constituency has warned that it might cost up to half a million pounds to replace any funding elements that are withdrawn.

Universities currently have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for their students, but they are largely undefined and open to interpretation. I am greatly concerned that if institutions are unable adequately to provide for disabled students, there will be limited means to raise the issue. Confusion and uncertainty will undoubtedly affect the level of applications from disabled people and the subsequent willingness of disabled people to seek the support they need to progress and attain qualifications.

Many disabled students in Middlesbrough would suffer as a result of the changes, and I recently met the NUS welfare officer at Teesside, who provided some key examples. A student in computing and digital forensics suffering from—I hope I pronounce this correctly—visual stress/Irlen syndrome required ClaroRead software and modified glasses to enable her to read without undue hindrance, but she would not have been able to purchase those essential tools without DSA. We can all cite many such examples, and they will be repeated all over the country, but I will bring my comments to a close. These individuals are not seeking to cheat the system or to get something for nothing; they simply want their right to succeed in education. The punitive changes to DSA will undoubtedly limit the ability of disabled students to fulfil their ambitions and their potential. It is simply incomprehensible that legislators in a wealthy, modern country are looking to withdraw support from those who require it simply to get an education.