Rachael Maskell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  I sincerely thank the Prime Minister for his statement. In my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence, he will know that I wrote to him at the start of the year about the importance of issuing this apology. I really thank him for the way that he has done that. We know that from that post-war era to 1976, 185,000 families—that number is hard to appreciate—were affected by forced adoption, including 404 families in my own city. Will he ensure rapid access to therapeutic support? We know that it is incredibly difficult, both for adoptees and for women and those who were girls who had their babies forcibly removed. Will he consider babies who were brought to the UK from other jurisdictions and who were also forcibly removed from their mothers?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Heat-related mortality has taken 10,000 lives in England over the last five years and exacerbated the risk of ill health, from asthma to stroke. With climate degradation, things are only going to get worse. What steps are the Government taking to address this issue and ensure that there are proper facilities in workplaces, homes and communities, to future-proof our society against extreme heat?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have invested £45 million in flood defences in York. That will provide resilience until 2039, which coincides with the ending of the Flood Re scheme. It is important for us to think about how, in the longer term, we will support people with that risk-sharing approach. Will the Minister also consider and consult on the position of leaseholders, who are excluded from the scheme although they have responsibility and pay the costs for their own personal buildings?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. The broadcasting, entertainment and arts unions all-party parliamentary group heard deeply concerning evidence from writers, journalists, musicians and performers that their work is being scraped, ripped off and stolen by sophisticated AI models for training purposes. When will the Secretary of State introduce laws to protect the creative industries? Will she meet with the APPG and unions to discuss this matter further?

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. When he talks about second jobs, I think about my constituents who have to work second jobs to pay the bills. That is where our attention should be focused. On professional qualifications, I recognise that being an MP is a full-time job. As a result, my professional qualifications had to fall, because I needed to give myself to my constituents 24/7. Will he look again at that provision in his Bill? The work we do here must be for our constituents, and we must not be distracted from that, even by professional roles such as the one I once held.

• 30 Jun 2026 · High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate. York is fortunate that two thirds of its high street businesses are independent, but they are really struggling at the moment, not least because of the costs pressing on their finances—particularly business rates, which have gone up incredibly steeply. Does the hon. Member agree not only that businesses are laying off staff, but that they are not recruiting staff, which is vital for the regeneration of high streets? We need the Government to take an overview and make a plan for regeneration, as my right hon. Friend the new Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) made the case for just yesterday.

• 30 Jun 2026 · High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is being incredibly generous. He has talked about infrastructure and agencies. It is also important to ensure that we have facilities such as public toilets and good seating on our high streets, but the disinvestment in our local authorities over a long time has prevented that. Will he support my call for investment in local areas so that we have seating for the elderly and play areas for children on our high streets?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  This debate should have taken place long before a deal was signed, and the fact that we are having it months afterwards shows that there is still no transparency. Last December, the pharma and health tech deal was signed, and it was made clear that money would have to be taken out of the Department of Health while the Government were trying to solve a Treasury problem. As we have heard, that problem was the trade deal with the US and the wider relationship. The big question that has not been answered is this: if we are going to take money out to fund this deal—we have heard that from 0.3% to 0.6% of GDP will be spent on pharma—where are the cuts going to fall? Research shows that excess deaths will result. We also know that at the same time as paying more, we will get a lower rebate—down from 25% to 14.5%—so VPAG will be more expensive. As a result, we will be paying more for our drugs and getting less back. In developing countries, which benefit from the way the health system works, the toll will be even more significant. As NICE changes its relationship and its function, and of course does not have the independence it was set up to have, there will ultimately be more flexibility for Ministers to make determinations about drugs. Not only will there be a cumulative cost of £2.6 billion by the end of 2028, but that is estimated to go up to £44.7 billion. That is why we need to see the impact assessment—so that the Government can prove to us that that is not the case. Of course, for every £1 billion cut from budgets, £118 million is cut from social care. That leads on to the excess deaths, which will depend on where those cuts fall. We obviously want the Government to be transparent with us, because this is about the lives of our constituents. The data shows that there will be 229,000 excess deaths by 2033. That is almost double the number of deaths during covid. However, putting everything together, the figure could be as high as 291,000 excess deaths. Exactly which of our constituents are going to pay the price for this deal? NICE itself predicts that the benefit will bring only between two and five additional drug approvals annually, so for very little gain we could be paying an exceedingly high price. One of my biggest fears is that the ratchet of the focus of the US on the NHS, which it has always had, will draw the drug companies in even closer, and if another party gets control of our NHS, it could well fall into the hands of the US. We need that impact assessment, we need transparency and we need to protect lives.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  This decision looks like the politics of the past, not the future; a decision made in Whitehall, not in our communities. In 2022, RAF Linton-on-Ouse was deemed unsuitable as a site, because the drainage and sewage system would need major restoration, there would need to be an upgrade in the power capacity, and there are no amenities near the site—and the site has deteriorated further since that decision. The inadequacy of public transport, and other forms of transport there, also stands out. In my human rights city, we rejected the proposal last time, and we worked cross-party in order to put forward that case. People from Linton-on-Ouse contacted me over the weekend, restating those reasons for rejection. Will the Minister listen to local residents and local authorities? City of York council, which I spoke to this afternoon, has said that it has not been offered any resources, planning or engagement regarding the decision, yet Linton-on-Ouse faces York and there would be major implications for the city. Will the Minister ditch this plan, work with MPs and find an alternative way forward?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Child Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  Lifting children out of poverty will be this Government’s greatest legacy. However, we know that around 4 million children will remain in poverty, so it is really important to go further. Last year, the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a levy on the gambling and betting industry to raise £3 billion and lift another 500,000 children out of poverty. Will the Minister ensure we do even more so that we have a greater legacy and ensure that the lives of those young people are changed forever because of the decisions of this Government?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Child Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  11. What progress he has made on reducing levels of child poverty.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When we think about a nationalised rail service, we often debate the governance, which is vital. It was a real honour to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on putting together the blueprint that has set this train in motion. However, we must also remember the staff, and I therefore refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I raise a number of issues that could really impact their experience of working for our railways. On 1 November last year, a horror unfolded on the east coast main line on a southbound LNER train. It was a chilling reminder of the incredible skills of rail staff in keeping us safe. It is our duty in this House to ensure that we keep the staff safe. My amendments 56 and 57 seek to do just that. Rail workers, whether on board, at stations or in our ticket offices, face an unacceptable level of violence and abuse. The industry recognises this, and how changes in working practices such as driver-only operation and lone working increase risk, and supports the changes I am proposing. Amendments 56 and 57 would extend GBR’s function to include an assurance for the safety of all rail workers, including from assaults. They would also secure safe staffing levels to achieve that aim. Let me provide some examples. One rail worker was physically assaulted after trying to prevent a member of the public from climbing on to the train tracks, with trains due into the station imminently. Another rail worker had a hot drink thrown over them after charging an excess for an invalid ticket. Another was punched when they asked to see a ticket, resulting not only in him losing a tooth and requiring extensive dental treatment, but in the long tail of a mental health impact that ended in him leaving the service. Others have been threatened with knives. The level of violence is on the rise, with the British Transport police’s latest figures showing a 24% increase in violence against rail workers compared with the previous year. It is staggering. I have raised this in Parliament many times. We need strong legal protections for public transport workers against assault at work, mirroring new provisions the Government have introduced for retail workers via the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and previously for emergency workers. Transport workers need equally strong protections. This is a devolved matter, and I understand that the RMT has made significant progress in Scotland, with the Scottish Government committing to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting or abusing a public transport worker, not least as many have an enforceable element to their role. Once that legislation is enforced, it will create two tiers of legal protections where rail workers in Scotland, including those working on GBR cross-border services, are afforded strong legal protections, while those working on GBR services in England and Wales are not. It is really important that we move to a single system to protect staff from assault. The Minister has been very helpful in engaging with me on this, and I hope that we can make real progress so that the safety of our staff who serve us day and night is put first. I appreciate that we have CCTV, bodycams and the British Transport police, but we need safe staffing levels and consultation on any changes. On the wider issue of safe staffing, it is really important that we strengthen passengers’ right to be consulted on changes to staffing levels. Amendment 58 seeks to achieve that. This issue is particularly important for disabled people too. The passenger watchdog has consistently shown that properly staffed trains and stations are not only important for passenger safety, security and accessibility, but safer for staff. Removing guards from trains and cutting staff from platforms, gatelines or ticket offices should be subject to consultation before any decisions are made. Finally, I have tabled an amendment on open access operators. If they fold, we need to ensure that a process or mechanism is in place whereby staff can be TUPE-ed across—or the equivalent—into GBR, so that they are not left without a job. We need to retain their skills and experience and ensure that they continue to be employed on our national rail service as we move forward.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is really important that that scheme includes people who worked at British Rail Engineering Ltd, who were then privatised and lost their passes as a result. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that BREL is also included in that meeting?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Healthwatch · Hansard source

  More

  Replacing Healthwatch will mean that, ultimately, patients will not have confidence in the commissioners. We have just heard one example, and I can offer many examples from York. Healthwatch York, which is phenomenal and is led by Siân Balsom, has produced reports that have brought about change. I plead with the Government to review clauses 64 and 65 of the Health Bill to maintain Healthwatch. It should not be an either/or. We need commissioners to engage with the patient voice, but we also need Healthwatch to have the independence to advocate for patients.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. We know that over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza, and 21,000 have lifechanging injuries. We made a commitment that will bring around 300 children to the UK to have urgent surgery to aid them. Last week, I met two of those children. They had two specific pleas. First, we should expand the scheme and bring over the 4,000 children who are waiting and need our medical care. Secondly, children can bring only one parent; they want both their parents to be with them. Having their family around them will help with their healing. Can we ensure that their families can come too, so that those children are safe, mentally as well as physically, as they get the support they need?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Water Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on the way he introduced this debate, and I share my condolences with all the families who are grieving at this time. It is a national tragedy that we come here, year after year, to raise these issues. The bank holiday heatwave must be a turning point for the Government’s approach. These lives matter, as does their legacy. I pay tribute to York Rescue Boat, which does phenomenal work in our city, as we have heard. It has saved 45 lives—as a volunteer force, that is remarkable—and attended 974 incidents in our city, responded to 447 call-outs and dedicated more than 105,000 volunteer hours. It has a simple message: educate, prevent and, when necessary, rescue. York Rescue Boat’s education programme in York schools is phenomenal for giving young people the opportunity to hear about the risks on the River Ouse and the River Foss. Every weekend it is out protecting the night-time economy and patrolling the rivers, looking for vulnerable people, breaking into conversation with them and going into the water to rescue people. Sadly, so many people enter the water in York because of poor mental health. It is important to acknowledge that and address the issues that challenge people in our society today. I pay tribute to the parents of Sonny Ferry, who was 19 when he died in York. His parents, Kate and Steve, raised funds for York Rescue Boat to have a fully equipped new boat to bring rescue efforts into our city. I also pay tribute to the aunt of Leah Bedford. Leah was just 16 when she entered the water in 2023. Her aunt’s petition, which attracted 1,428 signatures and which I presented to the House, called for more safety measures on the infrastructure around our rivers: signage, lighting and CCTV cameras. That would make such a difference, but our local authority does not always have the money needed for such measures. Sir Chris Whitty is leading the public health water taskforce; I say to the Minister that it would be timely to introduce drowning and water safety measures into that. Finally, I want to raise the issue of water pollution. The water in the River Ouse often looks very inviting, but it has seen over 18,500 hours’ worth of sewage release in the last year, with 2,950 sewage releases in York Central. The water is so polluted that people in my city are becoming ill, which is another completely avoidable danger that has been introduced into our water, and another public health response is needed. We are very much hoping to introduce a lido in our city, which will allow people to enjoy the water in a safe, outdoor place, but we must address those real risks in the River Ouse and the River Foss as we move forward.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. Academics, professionals and environmentalists have experienced dozens of arrests and yet no charges have been upheld. At a recent vigil for the trees, there were more police than protesters. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the over-policing of my constituents, who are literally standing up for nature, and ensure that we see off these draconian Tory policies, which over-egg the policing needed for environmentalists?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  In York, 410 young people are not in education, training or employment, and we know from Alan Milburn’s report the causes of that. I particularly want to focus on mental health, and the fact that we do not have the right support in place for young people much earlier than the point at which they seek employment. Will the Minister work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we have systems in place to identify young people who experience mental health challenges, in particular children with adverse childhood experiences, so that they can be set on a stronger path and build more resilience throughout their childhood, enabling them to be prepared for work?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  It seems that Mr Mandelson’s business interests permeated every aspect of government. This afternoon, we are to debate the Health Bill and the federated data platform. Palantir, a client of Peter Mandelson’s, will clearly have a specific interest hardwired into the Bill, and we are expected to vote on it without seeing the full documentation, or having time to digest it. What exactly was the relationship between Mr Mandelson and Mr Thiel, and was that disclosed in the interview process?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened very carefully to my constituents who identify as trans. One thing that is very clear is from the EHRC guidance is that it will cost organisations a significant amount to put on additional services and facilities if they are to become inclusive organisations. What discussions have taken place with the Treasury to ensure that organisations are supported to build an inclusive society?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The national must determine the “what”, and bringing NHS England into the Department is therefore the right decision. However, as many Members have said today, it is the “how”—how we do this at a local level—that determines the outcomes we see. Given the huge inequalities in our constituencies, which we have all spoken about today, the question of how we deliver, in particular, the third shift to prevention, is really important. The right integration, the right systems and the right focus will bring our health service together at a local level. I agree that the accountability processes are not in the right place under the Bill, and I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) about the need to ensure that we in this place have that connection to the national and the local, while also integrating with those held publicly accountable in our councils and combined authorities. But the focus also needs to be there. It is because there is no coterminosity between commissioners and providers that people are looking in both directions in trying to bring about a system that cannot have the capacity to deliver in such ways. We need to see that bringing together of services to focus on a “population health” approach, but the Bill does not do that. We need to think about what the outcomes that we want to see. I have lived through so many reorganisations, and I know that it is not reorganisations that ever deliver the satisfaction outcome. Given that ICBs have now been stripped back to such an extent—unable to communicate with us, as MPs, and not having the resources to make decisions—I fear that that delivering the “how” will become harder under this model. However, we also need to ensure that local accountability comes from our communities—and that leads me to the issue of healthwatch. What we called community health councils were abolished in 2003. We replaced them with public and patient involvement forums, and replaced those with local involvement networks and then with healthwatch, which is soon to be scrapped. If it did not exist, we would invent it, because it has the independence that the new structures do not have, giving patients and people confidence in a system that enables them to raise their voices, and to be sure that their voices will be heard and systems will be held to account. I therefore oppose clauses 64 and 65, with the respective schedules 9 and 10, and ask the Government to reconsider and also to take on board the questions that have been raised about the systems that make it possible to hold investigations. HSSIB has done that well, and I think that its role should continue. Given what has happened over a decade of raising concern in the House, I welcome the commitment of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to a public inquiry, but we do not have a chair and we do not have terms of reference. It is therefore really important that we put in place the right structures to hold the system to account.

• 21 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In October, Nestlé announced 16,000 job losses, including 450 in the UK. In the light of the significant impact that this will have in York, will the Secretary of State ensure that meaningful consultation happens with the trade unions, and will he meet them to save those jobs?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The levels of congestion on Wigginton Road are unacceptable. Residents’ air quality is affected, people are late for their hospital appointments and our whole city is snarled up because the hospital does not have a sufficient transport plan. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Secretaries of State for Health and Transport the need for hospital transport plans, and can we have a debate in Government time on hospital-induced congestion?

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate His Majesty on delivering the Gracious Speech, and I concur with the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that investing 0.7% of GDP in international development aid will bring greater stability and increase our ability to secure greater diplomacy, as well as development. I think that should be our focus. I also thank him for the work he does on the Public Accounts Committee. The intersection of crises bearing down on our planet, our nation and our communities demands a bold response in this parliamentary Session. I recognise the current bind, but as we move into the next chapter of Labour’s story, there is one consideration that I want the Government to take through this legislative programme: how we bring our communities, our country and our fractious planet together. Such vision and policy must be the thread that gathers and inspires us. Against the backdrop of fast-paced change, this planet is breaking. The grotesque inequalities, climate degradation and conflict are driving people apart. At home we have had 14 years of austerity, whereby the harder someone works, the tougher it gets. That is why I have called for a new economic orthodoxy, as neoliberalism preys on the working class and exploits all who want to get on as much as those who cannot. As people are fleeced, the energy giants and water bosses profit, despite putting carbon in our air and sewage in our rivers, such as the Ouse in York—the second worst in the country. The clean water Bill must pull this service back into public hands and public accountability.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree. It is daylight robbery, and people should not be profiting from our natural resources. We should not see the levels of pollution that exist in our rivers, which should be pure and clean. I have a sewer running through the middle of my city, and it is not acceptable. It is right to legislate, but also to ensure that we are not adding carbon to our natural environment. On airport and road expansion, we should ensure that we bring down levels of carbon, and I fear that might not be the case with airport expansion. The draft commonhold and leasehold Bill is welcome, as is freezing ground rents, but as developers extract all they can and people pay extortionate rents and management costs, we need to see good-quality housing as a right and to rethink the model. As I have witnessed in my constituency, co-operative housing is a powerful antidote that is worth investing in, alongside a new generation of council-built housing for the common good. The system is rigged against ordinary people, as it was 126 years ago, when trade unions came together to form the Labour party. It is our duty in this Parliament to once again set the ambition to drive transformation for our communities, address the grotesque inequalities that drive people apart, and rewire the system to bring us together. That is our purpose. As the unions fought for common terms and better pay, Labour reimagined a society in which everyone can get on, a welfare state for those in need, and an NHS in which Bevan positioned the duke and the dustman as equals. Not understanding a collective, cohesive society puts all this at risk, as Opposition parties seek to exploit opportunity and people, sell off our common assets and sow division. That is why Labour has an immense obligation to be bold and ambitious, not for those who take all they can, but for those who serve, work and play their part—and to take away the stigma and barriers for those who cannot. I implore the Government to maintain the rights of those with indefinite leave to remain, as new communities work alongside established communities. When it comes to restraining traumatised children, on which the Government are consulting, I simply warn them: don’t! I will not support that. All children must be treated with dignity—nothing less.