City Centre Security Measures and Access for Disabled People

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

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 Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

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 Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

Universal Basic Income

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Jim Shannon

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.