Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Marsha De Cordova and Rachael Maskell

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)]

Churches nationwide provide chaplaincy and grief counselling services to hospices, patients and their families. Many modern hospices started off as Church-affiliated institutions thanks to the pioneering work of Dame Cicely Saunders. They are largely now affiliated to Hospice UK, which supports over 200 hospices across the UK, including the Royal Trinity hospice, near my constituency of Battersea. Only a third of adult hospices in the UK receive funding from the state. The rest rely on charitable support, and there is considerable concern that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill may divert much-needed funds from frontline care.

[Rachael Maskell]

Hospices have charitable aims to provide palliative care at the end of life, but these could be compromised by the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which comes before the House tomorrow. What consultation and impact assessment of this measure has there been with hospices that have a faith foundation? I am hearing that some hospices need an exemption, or they might close.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I do not believe there has been consultation with any faith-connected organisations, and I do not believe that an impact assessment has been carried out. However, Hospice UK, the body to which most Church-associated hospices are affiliated, has surveyed providers, staff and practitioners, who have expressed concerns about the Bill’s implementation. They are concerned about the following: who will qualify; the impact on those working in hospices, palliative care and end of life care; the ability of providers and staff to opt out; the practical operation of a conscience clause; the financial impact on the future funding of hospices; and the lack of public awareness of end of life care and the available choices.

City Centre Security Measures and Access for Disabled People

Debate between Marsha De Cordova and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to have been granted the opportunity to have this debate. The centre of York is a special place. It is one that my community really values, with its amenities and services, its heritage and its friendships. Imagine someone being told that they are no longer allowed entrance. Why? Because they are a disabled person. Disabled not by the debilitative impairment that they have learned to live with, but “dis-abled” because the new security barriers prevent them using the blue badge access on which they depend. For some, alternatives may be found, but if their vehicle is their only means of transport and Motability alternatives do not work for them—or if it is where they store their medicines or equipment, such as a nebuliser, or it is their safe space—then being denied entry takes away their human rights and dignity.

We had these debates decades ago, resulting in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We understand the social model of disability, which is about the barriers—in this case, literally barriers—that prevent people from living their life without detriment. People are now locked out of their city not because they have an impairment, but because of intransigence within the local authority or authoritarians within it not recognising their basic human rights. As if life was not hard enough already, that one moment in the week when they go to the bank or post office, meet a friend for a coffee, or go to church or the cinema is now forbidden. Even the St Sampson’s centre, a specialist social space for older people, is cordoned off. It is discrimination.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent opening to her speech. Does she agree that a local authority seeking to ban disabled people from being able to access the centre of York amounts, pure and simple, to direct discrimination? It is a breach of their civil and human rights, and if the local authority were to rethink this, it would lift that ban and remove the barriers so that disabled people can freely access the city within which they live.

[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.

Independent Review of Children’s Social Care

Debate between Marsha De Cordova and Rachael Maskell

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell]

This has been an incredibly powerful debate and the quality has been of the highest standards of this place. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, including my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, and the Minister for setting out her proposals.

It is disappointing to hear that we will have to wait until the new year to hear about the Government’s implementation plan, but I trust it will come with strength and fortitude when it comes. Certainly we look forward to seeing that, scrutinising it and pushing the Minister further to make sure that it goes the furthest that it can.

We are indebted to Josh MacAlister for the careful consideration he has given to the future of children within the care system. We are also indebted to all those who step up, day in, day out, to care for children—be they social workers and other professional staff, charities and local authorities, parents, adoptive parents, foster carers or kinship carers. For the children who are dependent on us, we cannot let them down. We cannot give them second best. I trust the Minister will do her utmost to make sure we see the real transformation that those children deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The rules of this House are very clear: should any hon. Member be visiting another Member’s constituency, they are to inform them in advance and in good time. The ministerial code is also very clear that any Minister undertaking an official visit should do the same. Today, the Secretary of State for Education visited a school in my constituency but sadly failed to inform me of the visit. I am concerned, because she is the third Minister to visit my constituency in the space of six weeks without informing me. My making this point of order is becoming a regular occurrence and something I should not have to do. May I just seek your guidance on how to ensure that everybody adheres to the rules of this House?