Rachael Maskell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Poverty Reduction · Hansard source

  More

  Many disabled people are really struggling right now. We know that three in 10 are living in poverty, as I can see in my York constituency, but I was particularly taken aback by the Women’s Budget Group report, which highlighted that three quarters of the people who will lose their personal independence payment and carer’s allowance are women. How will the Chancellor ensure that when fiscal decisions are made, we look in particular at the intersectionality between women, disabled people and other protected characteristics to ensure that they are not pushed further into poverty?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What the hon. Member says is so powerful. I urge all my colleagues to take with them the stories of their constituents. We are here because of them, and they expect us to serve them in this difficult vote. I, too, find it hard, as I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for 30 years, and I know that he comes from a good place, but this Bill is just wrong. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) is absolutely right. If we can afford not to have a wealth tax, not to equalise capital gains and not to draw on the excess profits of corporate greed, we can afford PIP for a disabled person. We must clear the waiting lists, prevent people falling out of work, get physio to the injured, hold employers to account for their failings and make them open their doors. In assessments, we need to look not just at what somebody cannot do but at empowering them to do what they can. We should optimise health and opportunity and take a public health approach with social prescribing and advancing adaptive technology. Why not have a bridge between what we have now and where we are heading at the end of this process, so that nobody falls through the net? When they are managing discomfort, despair, pain and prejudice, are isolated and lonely, or their life has spiralled out of control, disabled people want anything but this Bill. They are already discriminated and dehumanised, so I plead that we do not leave them desperate, too. There is a heavy duty on us all, and it starts with compassion, kindness, safety and support. Disabled people want reform, but not by this broken Bill. My vote weighs heavy on me, as this is a matter of deep conscience, as it should be and will be for us all. As Nelson Mandela said: “May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.”

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House, whilst noting the need for the reform of the social security system, and agreeing with the Government’s principles for providing support to people into work and protecting people who cannot work, declines to give a Second Reading to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill because its provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers; because the Office for Budget Responsibility is not due to publish its analysis of the employment impact of these reforms until the autumn of 2025; because the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade; because while acknowledging protection for current claimants, the Government has yet to produce its own impact assessment on the impact of future claimants of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit limited capability for work and related activity and the number of people, including children, who will fall into poverty or experience worsening mental or physical health as a result, nor how many carers will lose carers allowance; because the Government has not published an assessment of the impact of these reforms on health or care needs; and because the Government is still awaiting the findings of the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review into the assessment for PIP and Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent review into the role of employers and government in boosting the employment of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the reasoned amendment that stands in my name and those of other Members, and—most importantly—in the names of 138 deaf and disabled people’s organisations that backed it and co-produced it, working alongside us. It is about time that we all recognised the ableism within our systems that has made disabled people feel so far away from policymaking. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be looking at changing that—once and for all, I trust. On these big decisions, it is so important that disabled people are involved. My constituent sat in front of me with his gorgeous little girl, who thankfully had headphones on and was playing a kiddie’s game. He said that he would not get through this. He just about manages now—some days he gets up, others not, as his mental health is failing. He cannot work. Everything else has been taken from him, and the loss of this little bit of funding to help them get by—to give him just one ounce of dignity—was more than he could bear. Then the words came: “It would be better that I wasn’t here.” That was also his expectation. He has tried before. He will be safe now, but the one who follows will not. Another constituent felt dehumanised, as they would lose their independence to shower and dress, and others could not balance their books, as Scope’s disability price tag is £1,095 of extra costs every month. They face changes that would switch independence to dependence—dependence on social care, food banks, and pleading for emergency funds or seeking charity. Those with fluctuating conditions who came to see me just do not know where their future lies. These Dickensian cuts belong to a different era and a different party. They are far from what this Labour party is for—it is a party to protect the poor, as is my purpose, for I am my brother’s keeper. These are my constituents, my neighbours, my community and my responsibility, and I cannot cross by on the other side, as one who is better known than the 150,000 who will be pushed further into poverty. As so many of us fear and as the evidence shows, since 600 people took their lives under the Tories’ brutal reforms, the tragedy of this ideology could be worse. I will fight for the purpose of politics—for these people’s livelihoods and for their lives. It is a matter of deep conscience for me to ensure that for once, these precious people are treated with dignity, so that they matter for being and not just for doing. Sixteen million; in the chaos and confusion, where the sequence of consultations on the Bill makes no sense to them, no sense to me and, if we are honest, no sense to any of us, they beg the Government to just stop and start again by listening to their voices. At this 11th hour, I plead for the Bill’s withdrawal, which would be met with relief and praise. Let us consult, co-produce, incorporate the Mayfield review findings and accommodate those of the Timms review first. We should let the voices of older women, whose physical health is declining as they work into later life, come to the fore. Refuge says that disabled victims of domestic violence will not be able to leave to find their place of safety without PIP. They should be heard. The olive branch of grace for current claimants offers no mercy to those who are to come. Disabled people have fought all their lives not to have the ladder pulled up behind them. We are talking about 430,000 people on PIP losing £4,500, 730,000 people on universal credit losing £3,000, and 150,000 people being pushed into deeper poverty. There is a reason that we are a dystopian state of excessive wealth and abject poverty: Governments focus on what they value most, and these people never get the attention. When people are left behind, it pressures services, shortens lives and breaks societies.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House extols the virtue of parliamentary democracy, yet over half of MPs reject the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. We have spoken to our constituents and to organisations representing disabled people. They reject the Bill, because it will cause harm to disabled people. Their voices have not been heard, much though we are trying to amplify them in this place. Will the Leader of the House urge the Cabinet to withdraw the Bill, and instead allow a general debate on how we support disabled people?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Science and Innovation Funding · Hansard source

  More

  York and North Yorkshire is a national leader in the bioeconomy. BioYorkshire will create 4,000 jobs, as well as start-ups and spin-outs. It requires £67 million to build its facilities over the next decade, but it will return £215 million back into the economy. When will the science plan recognise the economic and scientific impact of the research base? Can we have a meeting to talk about the brilliant BioYorkshire project?

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  York Central, our biggest brownfield site, will release 12,500 new jobs in advanced and digital rail and the digital creative sector, as well as in the bio-economy mentioned in my right hon. Friend’s brilliant industrial strategy. Will he, however, ensure that innovation hubs at the centre of these cluster developments are able to come on-stream and get the funding they need to unlock these sites?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I had the pleasure of hosting people from York Foodbank, one of many food banks in my constituency. It told me that last year it handed out emergency food parcels to 8,700 people in my constituency. That number has doubled since covid, and numbers continue to rise, yet the food supply does not. The assessment is that as a result of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, about 400,000 adults will be pushed into further poverty, so will the Leader of the House ensure that food banks have the support that they need to support our communities?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. This just goes to show the extent to which our public servants put themselves in harm’s way, often running towards danger on our behalf. When people are serving us—our constituents—day in, day out, they deserve the protections that we are aiming to introduce in this legislation. Let us look at the scale of the abuse our transport workers are facing. Transport for London says that 10% of workers are physically assaulted, with 90% verbally abused and 60% experiencing violence at work, and that is just in the last 18 months. In fact, 10,493 TfL workers had incidents of violence or aggression perpetrated against them. More widely, the British Transport Police highlighted in 2024 that 7,027 offences were committed, and just in the last year there were 7,405 crimes, with 3,650 violent crimes. And there has been a 47% increase since 2021. Out transport workers will not be safe unless more measures are included in this legislation. We are also hearing from other groups of workers, so we need to look holistically at the threats they are facing and how we can put those protections in place to ensure that specific measures are available to help keep them safe. That would also be better for the public. We should also look at the work the RMT has done. It has surveyed its women workers, and 40% of transport workers who are women have been sexually harassed in the last year, and that, too, is on the rise. Two thirds of RMT members have experienced abuse, violence or antisocial behaviour, but 40% have not reported it as they are not confident that they will get the recourse they need. This is having an impact on their health and wellbeing. The level of post-traumatic stress disorder experienced by transport workers is double that of the general population. That is why they are calling for legal protection for all public transport workers—because of the scale and the prevalence. Moving forward with this will also deter perpetrators and support workers. It will improve action and response times and the support that is available. We in this House need only think back to the covid pandemic. Belly Mujinga was spat at while working at Victoria station and, sadly, lost her life. She was there serving faithfully as a sales clerk during that period. Her union, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, has said: “While we remember Belly today, our union continues to fight for safe and healthy workplaces for all of our members.” That is why I am here today: to fight for them alongside the trade unions, the British Transport Police, the rail industry bodies, the Rail Delivery Group, Network Rail and all of the transport unions—standing together, saying they need more measures to keep workers safe on our transport systems. We often hear about other safety risks that transport workers place themselves in, but today it is about their own personal safety, and I am sure this House will hear it. So I am asking for clear support for new clause 11, but of course I am willing to meet the Minister to discuss how we can advance the cause of transport workers and hope that, if we cannot make these amendments today, we will be able to do so in the other place.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The York Central development site at the heart of my constituency has been found to be a rich source of deep geothermal energy. Will the Minister meet me to look at how we can bring this on stream to heat the 2,500 homes and support the 12,500 jobs there will be on that site?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people, I really do welcome the reinstatement of the winter fuel payment for 9 million pensioners, but since the announcement to remove it, the energy price cap has gone up £281, so will the Minister take a look at the value of the winter fuel payment and perhaps turn to the industry, which over the last five years has profited by £207 billion? Perhaps it can make a greater contribution to help our poorest pensioners.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I note that York did not feature in the Chief Secretary’s statement. However, I recognise the outstanding connectivity in York. Today is about creating jobs, and adjacent to York station, the York Central development—the gateway of the economy of the north—will create 12,000 jobs. Will he ensure that there is proper investment in York Central to unlock those jobs and give people in my city and the region the opportunities they deserve?

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  Rather than the synthetic outrage from the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who served in a Government that brought cuts to schools, I really welcome that the Government are serious about addressing the regression teachers faced in their pay, as well as the fact that support staff were pushed on to the minimum wage. I trust that in the statement there will be sufficiency in the funding for schools, but will the Minister also get a grip of escalating chief executive pay, which is doubling, meaning they have six-figure salaries? It is really important that they are not taking more out of the funds that should be invested in children’s education.

• 22 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I do take a word spoken at the Dispatch Box as a commitment, so I really welcome what the Secretary of State is saying. Will he ensure that, beyond transparency, there will be accountability? That is the missing element in the Lords amendment in particular. We need accountability for those businesses and platforms that go on to make profit out of our creatives’ work. They should be held to account as the Secretary of State approaches this issue in a more comprehensive way, working with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.

• 20 May 2025 · Vulnerable Families: Tax System Support · Hansard source

  More

  This is not an issue on which to make a party political point. The reality is that a 40% cut to the adoption and special guardianship support fund will be deeply impactful for young people who have experienced significant trauma—abuse, neglect and so much more. Given that our mental health services are not fit for purpose at the moment, it is imperative that we make the right investment so that those young people are not denied a life course opportunity if that fund is cut. Will the Minister review the decision and ensure that we have the proper funding that young people need?

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  The bottom line is that there is insufficient money for specific therapeutic interventions for those young people. Will the Minister commit to go back to the Treasury and make the case for ensuring the full funding of therapeutic interventions so that no child misses out?

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on her speech. This is difficult: because of the Minister’s professional background, I know that she will know everything we are going to say to her in this debate. I know that she cares deeply about this issue. In fact, I know that she will do everything she possibly can to ensure that children who have care experience, whether that is through a special guardianship order or adoption, get the holistic support they need. I know that she wants every child to have the therapeutic interventions that will make a difference to their life course and their future. I know that the Minister understands the importance of the fund and the transformational difference it makes not only to children but to their families, siblings, parents and environment. I know that the Minister understands that the life course of these children will be different if they do not get that vital intervention as early as possible. I know that she understands the issues associated with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, trauma, abuse, violence and neglect. I know that the Minister cares deeply about this issue, yet there was a cliff edge between the last fund and this fund. It was only at the eleventh hour—in fact, it was gone midnight—before we saw the confirmation that the fund would continue, but it was not until two weeks later that we learned it had been slashed by 40%. The outcomes of those young people will be deeply affected. Drilling into the data, the average amount spent on therapeutic support for a family was £3,335 last year. That is the average, so many need more. As a result of the changes, the average will not even be reached and those specialist assessments will not be there. It would be fine if we had these services available in our public sector—I would welcome that—but we simply do not. Those families need vital access. I suggest to the Minister that she stamps her feet at the Treasury’s door, and that she demands that the Treasury does not play games, like it did this morning during Treasury questions, but actually delivers the money, because it will cost the Treasury far more if it does not. I also suggest that the Minister addresses the big challenge that we are seeing: that the number of children in our country in care is rising. That is where the solution is—getting that early help to make a real difference. I am proud that my city is reducing the number of children who are care experienced, but we need to see this fund restored first.

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to represent this country’s only human rights city, where everybody is welcome and every life is of equal worth. Our economy depends very much on our universities, and our universities depend on international students—in fact, employers come to our country because of the diversity of our students. Will the Home Secretary properly consult the higher education sector—the second biggest export from my constituency is higher education—to ensure that we do not harm our local economy and the opportunities for both international and home students?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Higher Education Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Over half of UK universities, including the University of York, are again consulting on academic and staff redundancies. In line with the University and College Union’s “Stop the Cuts” week of action, does the Minister agree that we need an urgent review into higher education funding and visa arrangements for international students and their dependants, and that we need to protect students from poverty, to safeguard our world-class universities and, ultimately, drive research, innovation and their economic output?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Tomorrow, we would have been debating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. However, we have not seen the impact assessment, which I understand has been prepared but not published. Many of us have serious concerns about the safety of the legislation. Significant advance notice of what is in the impact assessment is really important for us, so that we can scrutinise it. Will the Leader of the House say when the impact assessment will be published? Now that it has been prepared, will she ensure that we can see it immediately, and that it is not withheld?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. As we prepare ourselves for Easter, it is right that we turn our eyes to those persecuted around the world for following Christ, so I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones). It has been poignant and humbling to listen to the speeches by Members today, as it is sobering and challenging to read the reports of those who share the same faith as me but whose experiences are so different. Today, around a third of the population, and growing, share the Christian faith in the far reaches of the world, but for many their experiences are so different. As we ruminate over the census of decline here in the UK, we see the persecution of Christians around the world, and the sharp intolerance and violence that their faith often draws. The Open Doors world watchlist, Aid to the Church in Need, overseas organisations and charities, among many, expose the deep scale of persecution on the basis of faith. Most conflicts and war crimes are also associated with faith, and we know that about 380 million Christians across our planet are killed or experience high levels of persecution because of their faith. We see suppression and imprisonment of people, and the destruction of churches. If there is not such sexual or physical violence against Christians in the west, persecution can often show itself as psychological or spiritual suppression of the all too few who dare to speak the name of Jesus freely—even in a place like the UK, where there are no bounds but people still dare not speak his name. There are three policy areas that I will touch on briefly. One is covered by the Home Office—ensuring that we have safe and legal routes for people who experience persecution to come to the UK. We talk about such routes, but the reality is so different, and because I represent a human rights city, that is a vital point. The second area is covered by the Foreign Office. ODA has an incredible impact, ensuring more security and greater resilience, and it is so important that we return to 0.7%. Even in a world where our global economy is so disrupted, we must find space to restore ODA to 0.7%. Thirdly, on trade, I think about China, as I always do. It is 15th on the Open Doors world watchlist, yet we have just signed a trade agreement with it. How much emphasis was put on the need for freedom of religion and belief in China alongside the ink that marked that agreement? We think, of course, of the suppression of the Church and its leaders in China, and of the public denial of the sacraments to Jimmy Lai. It is so important that we review our policy. We said when we left the EU that we would put human rights at the heart of our trade agreements, but we have work to do to achieve that. This week, I was listening to a sermon ahead of Easter, which reminded me of persecuted Christians around the world. It talked about coming to the end of the road, where there is no hope, as the Israelites came to the Red sea and the disciples came to the cross. It marked so much as the end. In a nation and world in chaos and crisis, it is hard to find hope. For many persecuted Christians, who are imprisoned and tortured or living in fear, it is hard to find hope. There is such little hope in politics, on our streets or across the world. Yet the sermon went on to say: “and then there was Jesus”. That spins logic, and everything else, on its head. The Red sea opened. There was resurrection Sunday. For all of us who put our trust in Christ, we know that there is eternal hope. It is with that hope that we see the most incredible witness of those who are persecuted. Their hope and their unfathomable joy reminds us all that no regime can suppress the cast-iron security that the Easter message brings. Such hope could not hold Jesus in a grave. It enables persecuted Christians, and all of us, to know that no matter what we face, Jesus is always with us and always will be. As we invest in Him, we invest in ourselves, and have such certainty that the hope in this broken world, including for those who are persecuted, will never be destroyed and can only be found in Him.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Before scheduling legislation on the “Pathways to Work” changes, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is proper consultation with disabled people on the fiscal elements of the proposals, and that the Government publish the transition arrangements in full and their response?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and thank him for participating in this debate and bringing his experience. The referendum was nine years ago, and the country was in a very different place then. We must address that, but also look at opportunities to put funding into the sector. It is clear that the funding model is broken. We know that students cannot continue to pay higher tuition fees, and nor should they. The funding model needs to shift. I support a progressive taxation system, because whether someone earns more money because they are a graduate or through other means, I believe the more they earn, the more they should put into the system. In York, where the cost of living is exceedingly high, students are breaking. They are working more hours than they are studying, and as a result some are not even able to complete their course. That is not the kind of education system that we want, so we must revisit the funding model. Tweaking around the edges is not enough. We are missing opportunities for the economic future of our country. In York, there are the bioeconomy, digital and advanced rail opportunities, safer automation and the digital creative sector. They need these graduates and academics, and we need our universities to remain.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. There is a real mismatch between the Chancellor’s growth agenda and the policies impacting the higher education funding landscape that we inherited. As has been highlighted, every £1 of public investment into university research generates £14 in economic output—but scale up, add in the direct, indirect and productivity overspill, and we are talking about £15.2 billion returned to the Exchequer from a £2.49 billion investment. The N8 Research Partnership universities have an economic impact greater than the whole of the premier league. We know that this is of significant value, and we must honour that. If £1 billion is deducted from UK Research and Innovation investment, we are talking a 42% fall in that return. That is poor for the economy and the UK industry, and catastrophic for universities and students—22,000 jobs could be lost. That must not happen. We also must be aware that the demands of UK industrial ambition far exceed the supply of graduates that we are currently producing. We are all alerted to the falling roll that will hit higher education by 2030—another 11 million graduates will need to be found to fuel our economy into the future—yet last year we saw 5,000 jobs cut in the academic year. This is a real challenge. If we are going to realise the knowledge and scientific, innovative and technical opportunity that this country presents to the world, we must have a global outlook on the investment we must make into higher education. There have been many factors impacting universities, many of which we have heard. On international students, I urge the Minister to make representation to the Home Office to ensure that dependants can accompany academics and students as they come to this country, and that we look again at visa costs and NHS surcharges. That will enable people to come our country to put in to it and bring benefits—including the economic benefit that we know has been deeply damaged with the change in visa rules. We also must address our relationship with the EU, which we got so much out of. We must address a deeper relationship with Horizon, look at Erasmus again, and ensure that we are getting the very best academics, researchers, staff and students from across the EU. We must also give our students the opportunity to travel overseas and make it more attractive to engage in higher education. The pain has been felt in York. There are two universities in my constituency: York St John University has removed 70 vacant posts and deleted 30 posts, while the University of York has already seen 273 leave. I know from talking to the unions just last week that the pressure is there once again. It is having a real impact on staff and academics as well as students. We know about the mental health challenges and the stress that people are experiencing, and those workloads are going up.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I clearly welcome today’s announcement, but it is a tragedy that many services have closed and people’s therapy has been stopped as a result of this funding hiatus. Will the Minister ensure that those impacted by the gap in funding will have additional support for the trauma that it could have caused to those young people? Will she ensure that the Treasury signs off funding ahead of deadlines when the funding ends?

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate membership of the EU. We know about the economic benefit of membership in securing trade, but does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time of real global instability, political union is also important?