Rachael Maskell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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 · 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 · 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 · 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?

• 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?

• 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.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. I am interested in the costs. We know about the £75,000 payout, and obviously a police inquiry is incredibly costly. There are the costs to his Department in complying with the Humble Address. Will he publish the costs? Will he also publish the costs in relation to Global Counsel? Its clients included Palantir, with which the Government have £800 million-worth of contracts. Will he publish how much money Global Counsel had been able to procure from the Government for being able to advance Palantir’s business interests at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Academics in York, a human rights city, drew my attention to the Government consultation, “Family Returns: Reforming Asylum Support and Enforcing Family Returns”, which seeks to extend the use of constraints, including physical restraint, to children. This is extremely chilling. The consultation is ongoing but closes soon. Will the Leader of the House speak to the Home Secretary about withdrawing these extreme measures, as academics have highlighted how physical restraint traumatises children?

• 14 Apr 2026 · National Suicide Prevention Standard · Hansard source

  More

  In 2003, the last Labour Government introduced a programme called Dignity at Work. It looked at bullying in the workplace, which we know is significant, and there are a lot of parallels we can draw on. A partnership was formed between trade unions, Government, businesses and public sector bodies to implement a programme of work to address bullying in the workplace, and it was incredibly successful. Will the Minister look at the Government being more interventionist on this standard and perhaps adopting a similar programme of work?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Short-term Holiday Lets: Registration · Hansard source

  More

  The scale of short-term holiday lets in York continues to heighten our significant housing challenges and affect our public services and the economy, while residents have to put up with antisocial behaviour on their doorsteps. That registration scheme will be helpful—it would be good to know when it will be introduced—but will the Minister commit to working with MPs who deal with the significant challenge of Airbnbs in rural, coastal and urban communities, and embark on a consultation for licensing in the next parliamentary Session?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Resorting to violence does not achieve anything, but it has left 2,000 Lebanese dead and 1.2 million displaced. As the Prime Minister is demonstrating, bilateral and multilateral dialogue is the way forward to get progressive change. Instead of just looking at increasing the defence budget, will he also look at increasing investment in diplomacy and development, which is crucial in this increasingly destabilised world?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  In York, we are ambitious to see modal shifts that get people out of their cars and on to buses, but we have an affordability problem. The mayor has a very generous transport budget, but only 6% can be spent on revenue. Will the Minister look at the ability to transfer capital funding into revenue, so that we can really boost our buses?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Proposed Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for bringing forward this debate. I have long campaigned for a visitor levy. York itself sees 1.7 million overnight stays—6.2 million visitors to our city—and as a result we recognise the cost of tourism to our local authority. Whether it is about tidying our streets, putting infrastructure in place, cleaning our city or making additional provisions, the pressure of tourism on our public services is being paid for by local residents. There is an equation where local residents feel that they pay into the system and tourism gains, but that tourists are not making their contribution. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member; he talked about the money, the taxation and the benefit that goes into the national funding pot from the taxation system but is not being invested in local communities.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Proposed Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  I was coming to the point the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) raises, because I believe that the levy should be collected by local authorities. If the mayor collects it, it should be hypothecated to local areas so that they can determine the spend of that resource. Certainly I would propose that half the money be spent directly on tourism, through work with the industry, but there is also the opportunity to invest back into our communities and in local projects. I would put in place exemptions for children; I think that would be appropriate. I would exempt certain forms of accommodation, camping and hostel accommodation, because we know that those are used for budget holidays. Of course we need to respect the cultural need of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people for overnight stays in different areas, but I certainly would include in a levy scheme short-term holiday lets. I just met the Minister to raise again the issue of short-term holiday lets, and the proper licensing system that we need in that respect. I believe that this should be a flat-rate levy. I have always said that the price of a cup of coffee could be the benchmark—people would not think twice about going and getting an extra coffee. If it were something like £4, we would bring £6.8 million into our city and that would help our local economy. We will struggle to support our tourism industry otherwise, so I would encourage that factor. We could use the money to promote the local tourism offer, from which the industry would gain, and could gain substantially. I am talking about putting on events, ensuring that we have better facilities and better infrastructure in our city, and supporting our bid to become a UNESCO world heritage site. All that would benefit not just York, but North Yorkshire and the wider region. It could include putting on projects such as Wild in Art and so on, to draw in even more tourism. I believe that a measure such as that could be seen as an investment in our future.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I am sure she will agree that our biggest concern is the intersection between poverty and food and energy price hikes for our constituents. As she looks ahead, will she consider a warm homes prescription to protect people’s health by keeping their homes warm, which would also save money, and will she ensure sufficiency in the crisis and resilience fund, so that local authorities can invest in those in the greatest need?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you Mr Twigg, for chairing today’s debate. What started with a pension deficit led to corporate excess, and then of course, the Lib Dem-Tory coalition escalating the risk to the Post Office with their Postal Services Act 2011. And now we see business failure with obscene consequences: a two-tier workforce, with wages below the real living wage, conditions falling, and the price of stamps increasing to the point of unaffordability. We know that the billionaire leader of the company is now striving to cut the universal service obligation. This is a failed business that the Government must pick up and drive forward. I commend York’s posties for the incredible work that they do. I met with them recently to hear their stories. One said to me: “I’m bringing to your attention the dire state we find ourselves in due to the business not caring about customers’ mail. Mail gets left every day in our office, birthday cards, hospital letters, everything. The staff here are exhausted as we keep getting unachievable work loads.” We know from the workforce that they have got the solutions in their hands. They know how to drive the business forward. The CWU and Unite, as their unions, will be able to work with the business and help the Minister to ensure that it thrives again. Recruitment challenges because of the unmanageable workloads have resulted in 27,000 staff leaving since 2022. As with rail, we know that the best efficiency and value would come from the Government bringing Royal Mail back into public hands for the public good, and keeping its public commitment. Let us be bold and brave, and let’s have it back.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate. I have to say to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes): I do not know who he thinks is working in our NHS and in our care sector, providing the skills, or who he thinks the engineers are who are coming here and building our houses in order to support our economy, but we certainly need immigration to support our economy and public services, which have been so severely under-invested in over the past 14 years. We know our world is challenged. It is stretched and stressed, as we have seen with climate change displacing communities and war springing from that. We are seeing floods and famine across our planet, and as a result people are moving so that they can experience some dignity in their life. Some people come to our shores because they want dignity, and I have to say to the Government that the dehumanisation of fellow citizens of our planet is a complete disgrace and it is not in my name, and it is not in the values of our party. Our party was built on solidarity between communities. The responsibility of a Labour Government is to bring those communities together, as we always have in our tradition, through the trade unions and through our party, to ensure that we are investing in those communities and bringing fantastic integration, as we are seeing in York, where we recognise the dignity in one another and bring it to the fore. The Government seem to have lost their way, and as a result they are losing support. They have certainly lost their beating heart, which must be re-found. The draconian policies that are coming out of the Home Office are deeply damaging to our party and our future, as well as to our country, and I plead with the Government to change course. We know that Reform is not interested in the agenda—Reform Members just want power and have not even turned up for this debate today, so why follow them? Why not put a different stake in the ground with a different tune, which talks of different values—the values that we hold deep, the values that we place in those people, including the care workers who are serving our parents’ generation to ensure that they have dignity in later life? I say to the Government: change course. Change course, as well, on our universities. The policies that have been brought forward for our universities are forcing them into financial ruin. International students have choices, and they used to choose to come to British universities; they are now going overseas. I know from the two universities in my constituency the consequences of the policy. Remove the international student levy, which they should not be paying, and remove the NHS surcharge, which clinicians revile. Ensure that instead we give universities the opportunity to be more inclusive and to have more home students, which the policy clearly rails against. We have heard about already in this debate the impact of leaving the EU on migration levels. We need to recognise the risk-sharing opportunities of working with our European colleagues in a much more cohesive and comprehensive way. We used to be under the Dublin agreement, and we knew the rules. Since leaving the EU, we have not been part of that expression and working together with other countries. We cannot do this on our own, and we have seen the consequences of that. As imperfect as the asylum and migration management regulations are, at least they put risk-sharing at the heart of the agenda. We should be part of that too.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  It would be very useful to know what proportion of the documents we have already been able to set our eyes on, but also what proportion is being held back by the police, so that we can make a calculation of how much more is to come. But it all sounds too casual, not least when my right hon. Friend talks about WhatsApp messages. We need to ensure that there is proper due process across Government, not least when we are talking about the business associations of Peter Mandelson with the client of his own PR company, Global Counsel. How much more work is there to come that this House will see with regard to what was known about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Palantir?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s associations bring a real stench to the appointment process, but I want to know about the business associations, and how they are scrutinised in the process. We know that Peter Mandelson’s public relations company, Global Counsel, had as a client Palantir, which has won lucrative contracts from successive Governments. I want to understand whether the papers demonstrate those associations, and the associations that Peter Mandelson then brought into Government.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Fur: Import and Sale · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for all the work that she does championing animal rights in this space. Whereas she spoke about the fur in a bobble hat, I am going to talk about King’s Guard caps and the use of black bear pelts, which the Government have committed to ending. This has been a commitment for decades, and yet we are still seeing the import of black bear fur. In the past, the Ministry of Defence believed that the black bear fur came from licensed culls; the Canadian authorities have denied that, both at federal and provincial government levels, saying that there is no such thing as licensed culls. We therefore know that trophy hunters are the source—something that this House has campaigned on time and again. We must ensure that, under this Labour Government, we see an end to trophy hunting. Coming back to the issue of the King’s Guard caps, we know that trade through the work of trophy hunters leads to bears—killed in a random way—often dying slowly and in much distress through blood loss, infection and starvation. The future is perilous for those cubs that lose their mums. We need to ensure that those pelts do not move on to the auction houses from which the MOD purchases them. Only part of the pelt is actually used—the bit with longer fur. The rest of the pelt is simply thrown away. It is costing us as taxpayers—this is what I find so repugnant: it has cost us £1 million over the past decade. One thousand bears have been killed to put on the heads of soldiers. What on earth is that all about? When there are faux fur alternatives available, which have been developed with great skill, we need to ensure that we use them. Faux fur mimics, and even outperforms, real fur with regard to waterproofing; it is lighter, it dries more quickly and it springs back into shape. The chemicals and water used in the making of faux fur are recycled, ensuring that it is environmentally friendly as well as ethical. Faux fur has uniformity of colour and fur length, and it can be developed from a bio-based fabric. The MOD must stop placing these pelts on the heads of soldiers. More than 75% of the public support that, so it is an obvious move. I call on all hon. Members present to sign early-day motion 2907 in my name to ensure that we end the use of this cruel method of both ceremonially parading these dead animals through our streets and having them standing outside Buckingham Palace. I find it shameful; it must end. What steps is the Minister taking to end the use of bearskins, and what discussions has she had with the MOD concerning that? Will the Minister halt the purchase of any further pelts from this point on, pending a review, and will she ensure that we use faux fur as an alternative to bearskin pelts? I am sure that nobody would disagree with such a move, and it would be such an improvement. Doing so would have no bearing on the safety of soldiers, but would restore safety to bears, so that we can take pride in knowing that animals are not being paraded on the heads of our soldiers.