City Centre Security Measures and Access for Disabled People

Debate between Julian Sturdy and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. As a neighbouring MP, I support every point she has put forward. She is right to raise the point about the social isolation this is causing for people with disabilities who need access to our great city and its centre. Does she agree that there is also huge discrimination against rural communities? People from those communities with blue badges who need access to the city centre cannot access it at the moment because they do not have the required public transport. A lot of small rural communities are being left behind because of this policy.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that disabled people are more likely to experience loneliness—13% more likely—and because York is both urban and rural, the people living in communities in his constituency will also experience detriment. As we look across York, we know that security risks need to be addressed, but so do people’s human rights.

We live in a troubled world. Risks present themselves every day around the globe and here at home, and we must do all we can to keep our communities safe. There is no point in saying “if only” at the inquest when we had the chance to rechart the course of history. I understand risk and I want my city to be safe for all who enter. Mitigation must be proportionate and effective. But let us be clear: disabled people are not terrorists, yet they are the ones being excluded.

Imagine a sign saying “No disabled people”. Yet that is what York has sunk to: denying dignity to the 60-plus people who every day depend on their blue badge to access the city. My plea to the Minister is that blue badge holders need his help. In York, the council is clearly out of its depth. Some places have got this right and others horribly wrong. This is a very specialist area of policy, and central Government need to provide the specialism that localities do not have.

Barricades around our ancient city are nothing new. The centre already has the world-renowned wall, which makes for an enjoyable walk for those who can access it. There are 8 million visitors a year and just over 200,000 people living in York, and 34,592 residents identified as a disabled person in the 2021 census and around 7,000 have been issued with a blue badge, granting access and parking to reach shops, services, open spaces and entertainment across our city centre and beyond.

We have a heavy responsibility to ensure safety, but also to ensure that disabled people are not denied their rights. The latter has been poorly understood. A Labour Government would ensure that every town and city is safe and secure, and reverse the ban in York. I have been talking to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), who says that it does not have to be this way. Access for blue badge holders has been facilitated there, overcoming the very issues that York has railed to grasp. Chester, the first British city to win the coveted European access city award for balancing safety and access, provides for access at barriers, which close only when risk is identified. Essential businesses and blue badge residents are on the list for access, and even visitors can apply in advance. Its infrastructure provides safety and access, and Chester understands the importance of involving and working with disabled people in planning.

Great British Railways: Headquarters

Debate between Julian Sturdy and Rachael Maskell

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, based on which I consider that he might have had sight of my speech, because I will come on to that point. He is absolutely right: we have to link the past with the future. York has an amazing rail heritage and the railway museum is at the heart of that. I will touch on that further. York has an amazing opportunity going forward and I want to touch on some of the sites—the York central site—that really can deliver for York, but also for our future rail centre.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for securing the debate. Does he agree that it is about not just the past, but the future? Indeed, York has the engineers, the operators and the skillset needed for advancing digital rail in the future—the very skills that are needed by Great British Railways.

[Julian Sturdy]

I thank the hon. Member—I was going to call her my hon. Friend—and neighbour. I think she might have seen my speech as well, because I was going to touch on skills. She is absolutely right that the skills in York have been developed not only through the Network Rail centre, but through our colleges and universities, which are at the forefront of the future. That is why York, for me, is undoubtedly the first choice for the location of the headquarters of Great British Railways.

York has always been an important staging post for those travelling between London and Scotland, which is reflected in its prominence on the east coast mainline. It also has another role as the interchange between the east coast mainline and the trans-Pennine line, connecting northern industrial heartlands, such as Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire with the east coast, the east of England and the north-east of England. If, as I believe to be the case, the Government are truly committed to levelling up and spreading prosperity to areas outside London and south-east, then they should look no further than York.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

Automation, yes. I thank my hon. Friend for putting me right on that. The University of Leeds is currently developing the new state-of-the-art Institute for High Speed Rail and Systems Integration. That work was enabled by collaboration between key sectors in the fields of railway engineering, signalling and software development, many of which are based in York or have major offices there. I hope I have persuaded you, Mr Efford, of York’s credentials as a railway city and perhaps the UK’s pre-eminent railway city.

There is another reason that York would be a sensible, if not the best, choice for locating a major public body in the form of the Great British Railways. As the Minister will know, York is currently home to one of the country’s largest brownfield sites, which is also a regeneration project. It covers some 45 hectares of disused track and railway depots, adjacent to York station and right in the heart of the city. York Central promises to be of a similar scale and ambition to the highly successful redevelopment of King’s Cross. The project promises to provide more than 2,500 new homes and, crucially, 112,000 square metres of high-quality commercial office space. Work has already started on clearing the site, following a successful bid for £77 million of Government funding for the enabling infrastructure.

As the Prime Minister would say, this is an oven-ready proposition for Great British Railways, providing a unique chance to build the new headquarters on a city-centre brownfield site in which Network Rail is a major partner and landowner. Surely there is a certain appeal about this: the new Great British Railways being based on a regenerated railway site. That the site happens to be located next to the National Railway Museum, one of the north’s major and main interchange stations, and the offices of several major players in the national rail industry makes it an option that is impossible for the Government to ignore.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Member makes a very powerful case for York. The location of Great British Railways would also be next to the rail operating centre, which is the flagship of digital signalling and contains advanced skills. Is that not why this particular location is so important for the future of our railways?

[Julian Sturdy]

Absolutely. The location is perfect, with the brownfield regeneration site that interlinks with the Network Rail headquarters and all the skills around there, as we have touched on. Those new skills are so important to the future of our railways. That is what we, as well as the region, can deliver in York. The location is ideal, but this is also about the skills that the whole region can deliver. That is so important and it is what makes the case for York so strong.

Legal Guardianship and Missing People

Debate between Julian Sturdy and Rachael Maskell

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered legal guardianship and missing people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I want to put on the record that all our prayers and thoughts across the House are with those affected by the horrific events in Brussels yesterday morning.

It must be devastating when a loved one goes missing without any explanation or reason. We can only imagine the trauma and turmoil that brings to their families and friends. It is the sort of life-changing event that can be truly understood only by those unfortunate enough to experience it first hand, like my constituent, Peter Lawrence, whose daughter, Claudia, went missing on her way to work in York way back in 2009.

The uncertainty of a loved one going missing for weeks, months or even years on end is in itself devastating, but the practical implications cause unnecessary stress and challenges to their families. At present, when someone goes missing there is no legal authority in place to support families in dealing with their loved one’s affairs. Ownership and control of their property is effectively left in limbo until they are found or declared presumed dead, which happens only after seven long years.

In its current form, the law dictates that a person is presumed alive until proven otherwise and they retain direct accountability for all their property and affairs as if they were not missing. There is no assumption that they have lost capacity to manage their estate. Clearly and sadly, this is not the case in reality. As it stands, the law has some very serious consequences when it comes to managing a missing person’s financial affairs. For example, families are left unable to make mortgage payments, risking repossession, and cannot cancel direct debits or ensure that creditors are paid.

If the missing person has dependents, this further complicates the matter and, as I am sure you can appreciate, Mr Owen, it is incredibly distressing to watch helplessly as the financial affairs of a friend or family member are ruined. That happens at a time of complete turmoil for the family. Understandably, third parties such as banks and other financial institutions require direct consent from their customers before they will act on their behalf. The fact that someone is missing clearly makes this impossible. We need greater clarity for families and third parties in managing these issues. I am pleased that this view is widely accepted by all parties and the Government.

Many people will be aware that last week marked the seventh anniversary of Claudia Lawrence’s disappearance, making this debate timely and an occasion to remember her and the thousands of other missing people in the UK. Claudia’s father, Peter Lawrence, has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of all families who suffer from having a mother, father, daughter or son go missing, and I think his work should be commended.

We still do not know what happened to Claudia, but Peter’s campaign to change the law to help families who find themselves in such an incredibly difficult situation is inspirational. He is in London again today, campaigning for the change. With the assistance of the Missing People charity, Peter played a key role in pressing the Government to consult on creating a new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of missing people back in August 2014. I, with other Members of Parliament, interested groups and members of the public, contributed to the consultation.

Exactly a year ago, in March 2015, the Government published their response to the consultation. They expressed their strong support for this new legal status and committed to introducing primary legislation as soon as possible. That was welcomed by all at the time and was seen as a huge step forward in the campaign. None of us thought in March 2015 that we would be at the same point a year on. It is deeply disappointing that no significant progress has been made.

In January, I received a letter from Lord Faulks informing me that

“work is progressing on developing the draft legislation”.

That is all we have been told and we are not seeing any action.

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

Claudia Lawrence lived in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. As the Member for York Central, I am pleased to see her father in the Chamber today. He has been a real campaigner for missing people.

Would it not be expedient, as the forthcoming Queen’s Speech is so imminent, to bring in legislation on guardianship? We would love to see that in the Queen’s Speech to bring relief to families in sorting out the financial and property affairs of missing people.

[Julian Sturdy]

I agree entirely with my honourable neighbour, who is absolutely right. The debate is timely because we are six or eight weeks away from a Queen’s Speech, and that would be an ideal opportunity to see some progress on this important legislation.

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

It is simply not good enough that, a year after promising action as soon as possible, we still have nothing to show the families who desperately need our help. Families continue to be unable to protect their missing loved one’s finances and property. It is unacceptable that no action is forthcoming and I call on the Minister today to commit to a clear parliamentary timetable for introducing this Bill.

When Claudia went missing in 2009, Peter soon discovered that he was powerless to act on behalf of his daughter. He was defeated by needless obstacles at every turn. The creation of a new legal guardianship status would allow families to act in the best interests of the missing person and give third parties the legal assurance that they need to help to resolve ongoing issues that are currently constrained by contract and data protection. The consultation paper proposed a system that is overseen by the Office of the Public Guardian and administered by the courts. Clearly, that will require detailed legislation that will need proper scrutiny before the House.

Bootham Park Mental Health Hospital

Debate between Julian Sturdy and Rachael Maskell

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the closure of Bootham Park mental health hospital.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. It has taken four months to secure today’s important debate about the circumstances surrounding the sudden closure of Bootham Park hospital. I am still waiting for the round table that I requested with the Minister, and for the vital independent investigation into what really happened at Bootham. Although City of York Council and NHS England are carrying out an operational review, but not a strategic review, we must remember that NHS England is not independent of what happened at Bootham.

Today, I will describe the story behind the headlines of how the system failed mental health patients in my constituency and put their lives at risk, why the issues cannot be ignored any longer, and how what happened at Bootham has national implications. Without urgent change, the problems could be replicated anywhere in the country. Two successive Care Quality Commission inspections in 2013 and 2014 highlighted risks at the 240-year-old hospital, including the line of sight around the quadrangle wards, ligature points and doors that presented suicide risks, and not enough staff. Those issues should have impressed upon all involved in the service that the setting was not safe and urgent action should have been taken, but even with the CQC report, inertia followed.

First, too many bodies were involved at Bootham Park. NHS Property Services Ltd owned the site. The commissioning was done by Vale of York clinical commissioning group. Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust was the provider. York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust provided maintenance. English Heritage—now Historic England—had an interest in the listed buildings. Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust—TEWV—became the new provider from 1 October 2015. By the end, other bodies, including City of York Council’s health overview and scrutiny committee, NHS England, Monitor and the CQC, had a role in proceedings but, strangely enough, the safeguarding board did not.

The problem with the system was the unbelievable scope for too many organisations to blame one another for the lack of progress in addressing the CQC’s safety demands. I do not have the time today to run through each authority’s lack of action, but their cumulative inaction put lives at risk. There should be one authoritative body and one controlling mind, not different jurisdictions with different lines of accountability and different interests that do not relate to one another as they need to. They did before 2012. There must be a place where such matters can be settled. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 gives scope for confusion, which is admitted by those involved and evident from what happened. There are conflicting authorities, so there must be one clear and authoritative oversight of decision making in the NHS, so that everyone knows where responsibility lies. If clarity is needed, it should be quickly and easily established. This is about good governance.

Secondly, there was an issue with making things happen. Why did years pass without the CQC recommendations being implemented? How was that allowed to happen? The CQC stated the necessary improvements, but then the very bodies criticised are the ones who have to implement the repair plan. The lack of external oversight of the work meant failure and delay. External leadership must be provided, to ensure that the right solutions are expedited. Assignment to NHS Improvement would seem the obvious choice. The CQC’s enforcement policy is clearly not working, and who polices it? The CQC has powers, including when there are repeated breaches and when action has not been taken to remove risk, but they were not used. If an effective system was in place, there would be no slippage, confusion or blame, and patient safety would be at the forefront.

Thirdly, the service was to be recommissioned. There was clear dissatisfaction with the provider’s performance and an alternative provider was selected. However, a board member at the time has reported that the Leeds and York partnership trust did not invest in the required upgrades

“in case it did not win the contract”.

In other words, the contract interests of the provider outweighed patient safety, the problems were not addressed expediently, and the hospital was left in an unsafe condition.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady, who is my neighbour, for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. I agree with what she has said so far. Does she agree that the Leeds and York partnership not only failed at that point, but had failed for many months down the line? That is why we have to get to the bottom of how it behaved throughout the whole system at Bootham Park.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We need to get to the bottom of why there has been continual failure not only at Bootham, but in the general delivery of clinical services.

The board member’s revelation was shocking and demonstrated that the current system allows for interests other than that of patient safety to be put first. Leeds and York did not invest in mental health in York, which was noted by staff and patients alike, and let the service be deemed unsafe by the CQC not once but twice, and then a third time, following a third inspection, which I will come on to later. It is also clear that the other bodies involved were not able to accelerate the inactivity. It is not that nothing was happening; discussions were ongoing, and the CQC and the Department of Health knew that a plan was slowly being drawn up by the CCG-led Bootham Park hospital programme board to address the CQC report’s findings, but “slippage” was evident. However, it is clear that frustrations existed between the bodies and blame for inaction was passed from one to the other. People hid behind jurisdictions and clear leadership was lacking once again, which is why there must be external oversight.

How can we have a health system in which there is scope for other interests, lack of focus, delay, lack of enforcement and blame, and in which CQC findings are not managed as a priority? We are back to poor governance and poor frameworks, which is what this debate is really all about. Leeds and York lost the contract to provide mental health services for the Vale of York CCG to TEWV. The trust appealed the decision to Monitor last June. Leeds and York then ran a highly public and politicised campaign that showed it was not interested in improving patient safety at Bootham, only in contractual matters, as I witnessed when I met with its chair. Monitor rejected the appeal and TEWV became the new provider. However, TEWV understandably wanted to inspect the plans for the building from which it would be delivering its services. I stress that the Bootham Park hospital upgrade could only ever be a temporary step, as I outlined in my maiden speech on 2 June 2015. The only safe solution will be a new build.

The CQC made an unannounced inspection on 9 and 10 September 2015. I have been unable to ascertain if this was at their instigation or that of Leeds and York partnership, but it is clear that the 20 weeks’ notice for Bootham to be removed as a suitable location was shortened due to the Monitor appeal process requested by Leeds and York, which the CQC told me impacted on its processes. However, as soon as it was clear that Monitor had turned down the Leeds and York appeal, the CQC knew that the trust would deregister, and that TEWV would have to be registered. The CQC also knew of the safety risks at Bootham, and that repairs had not been made. The CQC therefore knew that it would not be able to register Bootham as a location for TEWV to deliver services. That prompts two questions. First, why did the CQC leave the inspection until September, which then led to a rapid closure? Secondly, why did it then wait over two weeks to announce the inspection’s outcome? A longer run-in would have given more time for transition. We must keep remembering that mental health patients were put at serious risk.

The third inspection found a worsening situation. In addition to the safety risks already identified, staffing levels were worse and unsafe, record-keeping was poor, the water was found to be at a scalding temperature, and the kitchen, lounge and activity rooms gave access to an urn, electrical wires, scissors and knitting needles. A long-standing leaky toilet was leaking urine and foul water to the ward below and there was a risk of Legionella. There were other poor maintenance issues—as the CQC’s inspectors were assessing Bootham, a piece of masonry fell from the ceiling.

The CQC reported more than two weeks later, on Friday 25 September, that Bootham Park hospital must close because of the ongoing safety risks. The need for closure by midnight on 30 September 2015 was because the CQC could not re-register the facility against the new provider as being safe, because it was not. However, if the current provider were to continue to deliver the service, other options would be available.

The Leeds and York trust chief executive said on that same day that if the Vale of York CCG at the eleventh hour did not transfer over the service at the end of the month and let Leeds and York continue to provide it, it could keep the hospital open as it would not have to re-register. He said it was important that that was achieved for months until repairs were addressed. Even as patients were being cast out of their beds and out of our city, contractual issues were being placed above patient safety. The hospital was given five days—including a weekend—to close.

The CQC fulfilled its registration remit, but that meant that the building’s registration was placed above the unsafe environment that sudden closure and relocation would place service users in. That highlights how process was the factor that closed the hospital. Patients were put at risk. There was no scope for review of the decision, no one to assess the balance of risks and transitioning arrangements and no one to agree more time despite the clinicians, patients, families and their MP all highlighting the risks.

Let me mention some of those risks: the closure of the place of safety, section 136 suite, so people in a crisis have to travel at least to Harrogate for an assessment and then on again for a bed for their own safety; the closure of acute beds, with in-patients moved as far away as Middlesbrough, creating a huge risk and insecurity; patients moved away from their support networks and families to strange environments; and the moving of 400 people engaged in out-patients’ services to new locations. I heard how one service user’s condition became so exacerbated on hearing about their move that they became seriously ill, and that is not the only story.

I have heard from a parent how their child totally withdrew—from food and from them—because he was very frightened, and they were fearful for him. I have since supported frightened service users and family members. Out-patients who were suddenly discharged were confused and one senior clinician said it would be a miracle if someone does not die.

The situation continues. We have the place of safety back and we hope that out-patients will also be back in the near future. The acute in-patients’ service will be placed in temporary accommodation from the summer, all being well. However, serious risks resulted from the decision and the deterioration of service users’ mental health occurred. Safety was put after process, with some of the most vulnerable service users placed in an unsafe situation. There was no one in the NHS under the 2012 Act who had the authority to weigh up the balance of risk and decide, when greater risk to the lives of service users could occur with the sudden move, that an alternative call could be made, such as properly planned transition. No intervention was made, not even by the Minister—in other words, no one has overarching responsibility for patient safety in the NHS. That was confirmed by all the bodies. This must change immediately.

The reason I am so vexed is that four months have passed and nothing has been done about the system. Lives remain at risk, were such events to happen elsewhere. My constituents ask me, and I ask myself: is it because we are in the north? Is it because it is mental health? Or is it because the Government are too proud to admit that their Act has created that risk, as before 2012 there was someone who made such decisions?

I know that the circumstances at Bootham Park are exceptional and I trust that this will not happen again, but it could. The lives of my constituents were put at risk, and harm to their health occurred. The system failed them. That is why I and my constituents are focused on the need for a fully independent strategic investigation. Through my work and the health overview and scrutiny committee’s processes and now their operational local review, issues have come to the surface, but an independent review must occur. Lessons must be learnt of the failures in the way that health bodies relate to one another, and the problems that there are with governance. My constituents deserve to have answers.

Serious risks to patients were created in the NHS, and that cannot be ignored. No one died, but do we always have to wait until it is too late for someone before problems are taken seriously and situations are investigated? Agreement to an independent investigation is overdue.

In closing, I want to thank the service users and their families and carers for their continual pressure to get answers as to what happened to their services. They have been extraordinary in these very difficult times and deserve a confirmation that their concerns about the system will be addressed. I again invite the Minister to meet them. I also want to praise the outstanding efforts of all the staff involved in trying to support this unnecessary crisis, and in particular Martin Barkley for providing the leadership as the chief executive of TEWV. After 40 years of working in mental health, Martin is standing down, but I trust that his legacy will be a new, state-of-the-art mental health facility on the Bootham site for York by 2019.

Minister, four months is too long to wait to meet, too long to wait to undertake an independent review of the situation, and too long for my constituents to get the answers they deserve. Lives were put at risk and harm occurred. I trust that we can move the situation forward today.