Prevention of Drug Deaths

Debate between Jim Shannon and Rachael Maskell

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the prevention of drug deaths.

I thank all Members for being here at this well-subscribed debate. With that in mind, I will try to work to a certain timescale to ensure that everyone gets in, as I understand that there are nine speakers. Preventing drug-related deaths is an issue that touches communities across all four nations of this United Kingdom.

It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) in her place, and I look forward to her response. I said to her beforehand that there is another debate in the main Chamber, but even I cannot be in two places at the one time; it is impossible. This is the priority, and that is why I am here.

Over the last decade, drug deaths have increased by 85% in England and Wales, 122% in Scotland and 42% in Northern Ireland. It is an unacceptable situation by any measure. Northern Ireland has the second highest drug-related death rate in the UK, nearly five times the European average. Each one of those deaths represents a profound tragedy. The tragedy is not just the person who dies; it is also the families who are affected.

I stress that each and every one of those deaths is preventable, and the situation demands urgent action. Recent data from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency paints a deeply concerning picture. Drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland have risen again, albeit after a slight decrease in previous years. Behind the numbers are human beings—fathers, sons, mothers, sisters, daughters. Those are the people affected. Most alarmingly, young adults aged between 25 and 34 are dying at the highest rate. Even more stark is the fact that people in our most deprived communities are five and a half times more likely to die from drug-related causes than those in our least deprived areas.

My constituency of Strangford has not been immune to this crisis, but we have managed to stay resilient in the face of it by maintaining lower drug-related death rates compared with any other area in Northern Ireland. That is no accident; it reflects the dedication and compassion of local drug treatment service providers who, despite limited resources, tirelessly support our most vulnerable citizens. I put on the record my sincere thanks to them for their perseverance and expertise. Without their dedicated efforts, countless more lives would have been lost.

Frontline drug treatment providers in Strangford speak passionately about the daily challenges they face, and there are three key areas I wish to highlight as priorities for action. First, drug treatment service workers in Strangford stress the urgent need to integrate mental health support with drug treatment services. Drug misuse often masks deeper issues of trauma, anxiety or depression. In Northern Ireland, with our 30-year conflict, history has left a lasting impact on the current generation.

The problem is pervasive across the United Kingdom, however. Research indicates that 70% of people in community drug treatment have reoccurring and co-occurring mental health needs. An investigation into coroners’ records of people who died from drug poisoning found that a mental health condition was noted in at least two thirds of those cases, yet only 14% of the individuals were in contact with mental health services. A quarter had a history of suicide attempts, rising to 50% among those whose deaths were classified as suicide. Mental health is the No. 1 issue when it comes to drug deaths across this great United Kingdom.

The healthcare system and local authorities share a clear responsibility to provide comprehensive support. Far too many who suffer from both mental health issues and substance misuse are excluded from vital services. It is deeply concerning that mental health services often turn away individuals because of their substance use— I put it on the record that I think that is wrong—while drug and alcohol treatment services cannot accommodate those who are deemed to have mental health conditions that are considered too severe.

The cycle of exclusion disproportionately impacts people with serious mental illnesses, leaving some of the most vulnerable trapped between providers and unable to access the care they desperately need. The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) made a similar point three years ago in a Westminster Hall debate that I attended. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I understand it is her third Westminster Hall debate as responding Minister. What progress has been made since that debate was held three years ago?

The other critical barrier is stigma. Stigma surrounding drug use isolates people, silences their cries for help and deters them from engaging with essential services and reintegrating into society. That compounds mental health struggles and prolongs their suffering. Let us not stigmatise drug users; let us help them—that is my big request. It is crucial that we challenge harmful attitudes in our communities, in our health services and, indeed, in the Houses of Parliament, among hon. Members and the Government, who have a responsibility. Addressing stigma means recognising that addiction is a health issue and not, as some people might think, a moral failing. I am not being disrespectful to anyone, but that is how I look at it and I hope that others will too.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. The last Government published a paper on this subject, “From harm to hope”, but it fell short of the vision set out by Dame Carol Black for how we get on top of the significant harm that people experience. Does he agree that alongside a public health approach to substance misuse, we need harm reduction units so that people who are drug users can access the care and support that they need to make their first contact with professional services?

[Jim Shannon]

I suspect that the hon. Lady and I agree on many things, and on this point we are also on the same page. I will come to Carol Black’s report and some of its recommendations. The hon. Lady has pre-empted me, but I thank her for setting the scene.

A 2022 YouGov poll found that two thirds of Britons believe that Government do too little to address addiction in our society. I respectfully believe that the Minister and the Government have an obligation to do something about this, because 66% of the nation want something to happen. Perhaps more tellingly, 49% of Britons—almost half—see addiction as a mental health issue that calls for compassionate, health-centred responses. That is very clear. In contrast, only 19% think that addiction should be treated as a criminal matter. That is something to think about. Without addressing the stigma underlying mental health conditions, we cannot hope to tackle drug dependency and its harms effectively. We must end harmful practices; we must ensure that integrated support is available to everyone who requires it; and we must ensure that our mental health care and drug treatment service systems are properly equipped and working with a joined-up approach.

That brings me to my second point, which will be quick, because I am conscious of time. Current practice is ineffective. It prevents services from planning ahead, denies them the security necessary to retain their staff and undermines the long-term progress of their clients. I am not being disrespectful to anyone—that is never my way of doing things—but before this Government came into power, the previous Government took an approach that involved short-term stop-gap budgets. We need something long term, with the continuity necessary to recruit and plan strategically. That is what we should focus on.

An National Audit Office report notes that short-term funding causes

“delays in commissioning services and recruiting new staff”,

leading to service gaps and workforce instability. Those workforces are on the frontline—on the coal quay, as we call it back home—the first person you meet, the first person you see and the first person you need help from. This instability, described by the NAO as a

“de-professionalisation of the treatment workforce”,

damages the quality of care. The NAO identified under- spending of £22 million, with 15% across the treatment and recovery stream. We really have to fix that.

Dame Carol Black’s review called for improved funding and rebuilding of the decimated drug treatment workforce, following the 40% real-terms reduction in funding that we witnessed from 2012 to 2020. She referred to disjointed approaches, struggling staff, increasing costs and decreased funding. Given those challenges, it is no wonder that services are unable to provide the quality that is needed. We must shift to a model in which people feel welcomed and cared for in drug treatment services; in which interventions foster engagement and trust between clients and key workers; and in which we uphold promises to reduce harm, lessen pressure on the health and justice system and ultimately strengthen our communities, helping those whom we represent.

Harm reduction is an essential lifeline for individuals and communities across Northern Ireland, and indeed across this whole great United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, it is evidence-based and compassionate, and it places people at its very heart, meeting them exactly where they are by providing accessible, low-barrier support services. Harm reduction saves lives by preventing overdoses, reduces the spread of infectious diseases—that happens with those who use needles—and significantly improves both physical and mental health outcomes. Harm reduction does not enable drug use; it enables the saving of lives, the restoration of dignity and the reconnection of people to their communities. That has to be our goal, through the Minister.

The harrowing statistics that I have laid out demand that we revisit the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which is now more than 50 years old and has never been formally reviewed. It is time we had a long, hard look at where we are and where we need to be, and moved forward with professional and compassionate methods. The Act restricts many harm reduction interventions that international evidence has shown to be effective, but that we cannot fully implement here. We must ask, in the face of an ongoing and real rise in drug deaths and the undeniable potential for more, whether this legislation remains fit for purpose.

Before the election—I say this respectfully for the record, because hon. Members will know it is not my form to attack anyone—the Prime Minister indicated on the campaign trail that he would not make changes to the drug policy. The point I want to make is that I think it is time we did. I have the utmost respect for the Prime Minister, but I think it is time we had more flexibility and meaningful change to adapt to a changing drug market.

In recent years, the UK has seen a surge in synthetic opioids, a dangerous and highly potent substance peddled by unscrupulous organisations that rob families of fathers, brothers and children. They must be stopped, and we need a drugs policy in place to do just that. It has become clear that simply classifying substances in higher categories or imposing longer sentences is not enough. If it is not enough, we must look at a different way.

Nitazenes, which are up to a thousand times more potent than morphine, have already claimed the lives of hundreds in the UK, and their presence in the illicit drug supply is rising. According to the latest drug-related death statistics, opioids were the most common drug associated with drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland, and I believe those figures are replicated on the mainland as well. If we do not act now, the statistics will only become more devastating.

Dame Carol Black’s review on drugs made some progress, so let us not be churlish. There have been advances and steps in the right direction, but have they gone far enough? I do not believe they have, and others will probably confirm that. The Government recently legislated to expand the provision of the lifesaving drug naloxone, which is used to reverse opioid overdoses. I welcome those changes and understand the need for them, but they are not enough. I am sorry to say that, but we really need to have a new look at the issue. We are falling behind our international partners in tackling the crisis, failing to safeguard our constituents and allowing criminal organisations to profit immensely from their illegal drug trade.

Harm reduction should not be controversial. It is simply about saving lives and mitigating the harms associated with drug use. Historically, the UK led the world in harm reduction, with Liverpool being the birthplace of efforts to reduce drug-related deaths and infectious disease. Every 90 minutes in the UK, someone dies a drug-related death, meaning that during this debate, at least one life will be lost. Only 10 years ago, the figure was one death every two and a half hours. The situation is becoming incredibly serious. We must act now if we are truly committed to ending the crisis, and we must go beyond the medical and behavioural solutions that some have suggested.

Another related issue is the serious concern of death by suicide. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), who had an Adjournment debate on Monday night, referred to suicide in his constituency. In Northern Ireland, 70% of the suicides are by men, and the majority of them occur in deprived areas. The very thing that the hon. Gentleman talked about in his Adjournment debate is happening in my constituency and across the whole of Northern Ireland. A new standard, BS 9988, has been drafted by people with expertise in the policy area, and comprehensive guidelines will be brought forward to support organisations in developing an effective suicide prevention strategy.

Those are some of the things that I wish to say. I am coming to the end of my speech; I am conscious that nine people wish to speak, and I want to give every one of them the chance to make their contribution.

In Strangford, a local drug treatment service and prevention programme has been designed specifically for the friends and families of people who use drugs. It provides a vital space in which they can support each other, learn from each other and realise that they are not alone—it is important that people are not alone, thinking that the whole world is against them and that they have to try to get through it themselves. It also trains the loved ones in naloxone administration so that they can save a life if necessary, and discusses the risks of drug use and how to mitigate them. Most importantly, it brings the community together in a team effort so that they can put their arms around people. That shared purpose enables them to care for those they hold dear and support them through the challenging journey of addiction. I am told that the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

I tell that story because, despite the darkness of what this debate is about, we also have to see that a light can shine and take us to somewhere we can be better. That is what I want to do. As a country, we must do the same and act collectively with compassion and purpose.

Drug-related deaths are not inevitable; they result from choices made—I say this with respect—in this House. The United Kingdom has the expertise and evidence, domestic and international, to act decisively. We have a moral obligation to safeguard our communities, reduce pressure on our strained healthcare system and spend money responsibly.

I call on the Government and the Minister—the responsibility for responding to this debate is on her shoulders, but I know she will not be found wanting—to prioritise the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, protect the healthcare system, act preventatively against drug-related deaths and commit to a fully funded, evidence-based harm reduction approach. This debate can be the first step in moving us forward, and if we do that I believe we will have done an honourable job on behalf of our constituents.

We must discuss the very difficult issue of drug deaths across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are too high, and they have to come down. We need a new strategy and a new way of looking at it. I have suggested some things from my constituency that we can do in Northern Ireland, and I very much look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions.

Winter Fuel Payment

Debate between Jim Shannon and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Winter Fuel Payment.

I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Charities, medics, academics, economists and constituents have evidence showing why the Government must ensure that mitigation is in place to protect pensioners in fuel poverty this winter. Winter fuel payments have provided a layer of protection, with £300 for the over-80s, which is insufficient for some, but excessive for those who need no energy support. Housing costs, food prices and energy costs have exacerbated the situation, leading to the hardest of choices for the 2.1 million pensioners in poverty—a legacy of the last Government. However, once people secure their home, they have to ensure that they can eat and keep warm, and we need the Government to provide an assurance that pensioners will have the help they need to stay warm and well. I know that the Government are working hard, but in 20 days the energy price cap will rise, and people are looking for answers, as am I.

Governments do not choose their inheritance, but they can determine the future. On discovering a £21.9 billion legacy deficit, the Chancellor was right to protect the economy and to prevent interest rates and mortgage rates from soaring in the way they did during the Truss-Kwarteng experiment. However, the winter fuel payment is in a different league.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward, and I suspect there is no one here who does not support what she has said. Does she agree that the way this change is being foisted on our constituents, with no time for them even to save towards winter fuel bills, is reminiscent of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign scandal, which the ombudsman said was a failing? Does she agree that the Government must consider putting off any changes until winter 2025, and that any changes should be targeted at those who can afford to lose the winter fuel payment?

[Rachael Maskell]

A Labour Government must always protect the poorest in our society.

The total saving for this year—£1.3 billion—is 0.1% of the total Treasury spend. However, when only 1.6 million pensioners not on pension credit need energy support, that drops to 0.04% of the Government’s budget, assuming that all get the top rate of £300, although most will get less. If we add in additional health and care costs, the saving shrinks again.

City Centre Security Measures and Access for Disabled People

Debate between Jim Shannon and Rachael Maskell

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 Jim Shannon and Rachael Maskell

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 Jim Shannon and Rachael Maskell

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

Universal Basic Income

Debate between Jim Shannon and Rachael Maskell

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 Jim Shannon and Rachael Maskell

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 Jim Shannon and Rachael Maskell

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 Jim Shannon and Rachael Maskell

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.