Rachael Maskell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department for Education · Hansard source

  More

  I am really grateful for the work of the Education Committee, which is excellently chaired by my hon. Friend. Does she agree that cutting the value of grants to families from the adoption and special guardianship support fund will put more pressure on children’s social care and leave children without the vital support they need?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. With 800,000 people not going to be in receipt of PIP by 2029-30, we have to be honest in this House. We all know, don’t we, that many of those people are just not able to access the healthcare that they need, such as for mental health, neurodiversity and physical health? As a result, they will not be able to work, but they will be pushed into poverty because of these reforms. Will the Secretary of State please, please, please pause these reforms to ensure that those people, who have desperate health needs, are not forced into poverty?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  The diagnosis is wrong and the treatment is no cure; all these cuts will do is to displace the cost and displace the problem. It was not disabled people who broke the NHS waiting lists. It was not disabled people who removed the access to mental health services. It is not disabled people who are experiencing a healthier life expectancy. It is the system, which has failed them for 14 years, that has done that to them—which is why we must change direction and not progress with these cuts. Above all, employers have a major responsibility. Of course Access to Work is not working when people have to wait 85 days to get the support they need. When life spirals out of control, people need a state behind them. The sequencing is wrong, the proposals are wrong and ultimately the outcomes will be devastating.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether the hon. Member has yet had time to read the report from the independent commission on palliative and end-of-life care, which goes into how pain and symptoms can be palliated. Ultimately, the problem at the moment is poor care and poor provision of specialist commissioned palliative care services. Will she read that report to understand the difference that palliative medicine can make for all the examples of poor care we have heard about in these debates?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No time. There is a lack of consistency of approach and data across jurisdictions on the substances used, how they are titrated and the dosages administered. While ingestion can be a factor, absorption varies according to frailty, metabolism, diagnosis, body mass index and drug reactions. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are complex. However, it has been my discussions with toxicologists that have been most alarming. They highlight the high risk of acute pulmonary oedema. This is backed by research showing that 84% of cases using pentobarbital on death row have flash pulmonary oedema. The drug disintegrates the membranes in the lung tissue, filling them with fluid, causing shortness of breath and a sense of drowning. As a clinician, I have supported many people on intensive therapy units with such a diagnosis. High concentrations of the drug cause an acute assault to the cardiopulmonary function. If paralysed and conscious, a patient may look peaceful but is anything but. Such physiological distress needs research. It is unclear how the Government will identify data, process and safety. The risk to those handling toxic substances also needs to be examined, and in the light of the Government identifying that a pregnant woman could opt for an assisted death, that clearly needs examination. There is no formulation for safe titration or dosage. If pentobarbital is to be used, as it is in Australia, the Government’s impact assessment did not examine it, so it needs revision. Also, the drug is not an approved substance for humans in the UK, licensed or unlicensed. The MHRA and NICE have a role to play. We are increasingly hearing that professional bodies are withdrawing their support from the Bill, because they know that the regimes that have been set out are just not safe, so it is our duty to examine the evidence.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to my amendment 27. The insufficiencies of clause 25 and new clause 13, and the mechanisms for substance approval, have attracted much criticism as they defy safe process. I have therefore undertaken extensive research with leading academics, toxicologists, anaesthetists, pharmacists and others to understand the safety concerns over pharmacology, prescribing and dispensing. Normally, the MHRA would undertake research and trials to secure safety, quality and licensing. The British National Formulary focuses on dosage and side effects, and NICE or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group focuses on showing that drugs work and are cost-effective. That safety regime underpins the reputation of UK pharmacology. So can this House assure itself that without due process, someone will have a safe and peaceful death? Let us look at the evidence. First, the data is poor. The Health and Social Care Committee visited Oregon. We know there are varying times for how long it takes for someone to die—up to 137 hours. The research cites nausea and vomiting in 10% of cases, seizure, oral muscular burning, regurgitation and regaining consciousness.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Spending Review: Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has demonstrated the difference that a Labour Government make to our NHS, and to the people of our country. As she mentioned, reform is needed. May I draw her attention to the report by the independent Commission on Palliative and End of Life Care? Around 100,000 people cannot access hospice care, and too few people are able to access specialist palliative care. The report demonstrates a new system of end of life and palliative care that will transform people’s end of life experience. To go alongside the reform agenda, will she ensure that we invest in that precious time in people’s lives, and deliver a comprehensive palliative care service?

• 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?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. Dr Lade Smith, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, could not have been clearer, and academic research says the same: when someone is in receipt of a terminal diagnosis, there is frequently an episode of depressive disorder. Dr Price said in evidence: “Those who had a wish to hasten death were 18 times more likely to also feel suicidal”. –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 275, Q359.] They say that mental disorders are treatable. The spike in suicidal ideation and action is highest in the first few months following terminal diagnosis and then dissipates with time or intervention. Again, that is evidenced. People change their mind and no longer want to die. As with other aspects of the Bill, poor care, poor pain management and poor symptom control—or the fear thereof—are reasons why people seek to end their life. That can be palliated. Colleagues must recognise the paucity of mental health provision given to somebody when they receive a terminal diagnosis. Often there is no psychological aftercare. People are failed, but that should not be a reason to die. I ask for a panel, which would include a social worker, to assess the psychological needs of a patient. They are experts in detecting coercion, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, and understanding people at their most vulnerable with a fusion of complex emotions, anxiety and fear. Solutions can be found by them. There would also be a psychiatrist. Depression, anxiety and fear are natural responses to trauma, but they can be treated with the right interventions, if detected at the point that somebody expresses a wish to die, and a person can have a wish to live. The travesty of getting it wrong is unconscionable. There would be a palliative care consultant who is registered on the GMC’s specialist register. They would understand the actions that could alleviate someone’s suffering. Evidence to the Bill Committee from Sue Ryder showed how poor provision led to someone considering an assisted death. Likewise, the president of the Association for Palliative Medicine, Dr Sarah Cox, said: “We know that effective palliative care can change a terminally ill person’s point of view from wanting to die to wanting to live.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 70, Q84.] That is evidence. It is a point I have heard from all leaders on the Commission on Palliative and End-of-Life Care. These are the specialists who know how to palliate the physical, psychological, social and spiritual problems of a patient, and they have techniques that many people have not had access to, because of poor provision. The palliative care commission reported on Tuesday and I urge hon. Members to read its evidence-rich report, which draws on best practice. We reported that excellence in end-of-life provision is achievable, but that too many people are not getting access to it. Without that, I fear that the Bill only leads the patient down one route—to die. This is not a choice at all, but a path to an assisted death.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendments 26, 45 and 46, which stand in my name and the names of other Members. I am grateful for their support. On amendment 26, hospice care is not a formulation of care, but a clinical setting where palliative care is delivered, so I trust that the House will accept my amendment in the interests of accuracy. On amendment 45 and consequential amendment 46, the literature points to complex clinical decision making—which the subject of the Bill is—being safer if it happens in the context of multidisciplinary teams, as was advocated for by the professional bodies at the very start of the process. Such a context screens out unconscious bias and provides for clinical accountability with robust interdependency. It demands a deliberative process and it safeguards clinicians and patients with more secure outcomes. I have talked extensively to the professional bodies and clinicians, and I have read the academic evidence. In drawing on best practice, this amendment would provide such safeguards and ensure that the patient is at the heart of the process. Members will know from the evidence given to the Bill Committee that the initial assessment is the most important part of the process, and clinicians and professional bodies do not understand why psychiatrists and social workers are being placed in a quasi-judicial role, rather than being used for their clinical and social expertise. The process makes the wrong assumptions. Without the amendments, there is a predication towards an assisted death, rather than the Bill recognising the insecure position that someone with a terminal illness finds themselves in and the safeguards that are required. There are many reasons for suicidality, and they should be explored. In clinical practice, should someone determine that they want to end their life for whatever reason, a clinician would seek to ensure that the right professionals were involved in the care of the person, with exploration, diagnosis and, where necessary, therapeutic and pharmacological interventions.

• 12 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State about what assessments she has made of the impact on public services, particularly adult social care, of the move to change personal independence payments. In my local authority, the director has said to me that she is deeply concerned about the additional costs and about moving people into dependency, as their independence is removed. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment has been made and provide figures to demonstrate that?

• 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 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  A suggestion to the Minister would be to integrate the staff working in hospices into the NHS payroll. It would be that simple to exempt them from those national insurance increases.

• 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.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Prevention of Drug Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. The last Government published a paper on this subject, “From harm to hope”, but it fell short of the vision set out by Dame Carol Black for how we get on top of the significant harm that people experience. Does he agree that alongside a public health approach to substance misuse, we need harm reduction units so that people who are drug users can access the care and support that they need to make their first contact with professional services?

• 27 Mar 2025 · PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I have the highest respect for my right hon. Friend, but I am afraid he is not right on this policy. As a former physiotherapist, I know that many people will not be able to claim carer’s allowance. Now that we have had the impact assessment, we have seen that nearly 400,000 disabled people will be pushed further into poverty, including 50,000 children, and that 150,000 carers will lose the lifeline of carer’s allowance. We do not have a social care system to replace it; besides, social care is more expensive. Today, I want to speak truth to power. Sometimes Governments get things wrong, and I ask the Government to seriously reflect on these policies. The first half of Pathways to Work is good, but the second half will let a lot of people down. Please reflect, and please withdraw this policy.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  One in three hospital admissions occurs in a person’s last year of life, and 43% of people will die in an NHS hospital. Clearly, that is not acceptable when people are at their frailest. What is my right hon. Friend doing to invest in virtual wards so that we can keep those people at home, and in the district nurse workforce to ensure that district nurses have a proper career structure and that theirs can be a profession of choice once again?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Down’s Syndrome · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. The Down Syndrome Act is simple, but brilliant—but it is powerless without the guidance to accompany it. That is why this debate is timely. I also call it timely because the elements of the Act determine the very structure that can support a child through to adulthood, from birth through to work. The Act depends on three main pillars, the first of which is healthcare. At this time, we are putting in place a 10-year NHS plan, putting together the NHS of the future, and looking at how we can keep ourselves well; we are putting in early intervention measures and ensuring that we have the workforce needed in the future. If this guidance is to have effect, we need the workforce and the structures to support individuals and their families. Now is the time to look at that and to put in the additional screening and support that a person with Down syndrome needs to optimise their health and keep well throughout their life. The second pillar is that we are having a massive review of the education system at the moment. We are looking at curriculum change, recognising that the broadening of the curriculum will be much more inclusive. As we review SEND and the whole education system, it is timely to bring in this guidance. It cannot just be guidance around Down syndrome looking in; it must be looking out at other Departments. Again, the time is now. Look at the data: the figure of 80% of children with Down syndrome attending primary school drops to between 25% and 37% in secondary school. That deficit in itself indicates that we need significant change in our education system. We need a schools system that is nurturing, therapeutic and integrated, so that no child feels on the outside of the education they are rightly entitled to. The third pillar is the place of work. We need to ensure that there are more opportunities for people with Down syndrome to engage in the labour market. Just yesterday, the Government published their plan “Pathways to Work”, which I see as a plan in two halves. The first half will enable more people to access the labour market, to follow the career of their dreams, and to have their skills and talents recognised. We need to ensure that everybody with Down syndrome has that opportunity where it can be afforded—if not in a formal workplace, by volunteering in the community or being able to have the most life-enhancing opportunities available to them. When I talk about the second half of the plan, I have deep concern for people with Down syndrome, looking at the proposed thresholds for personal independence payment in which people will have to score at least four points to meet the threshold to access vital funding to keep them independent —the key word in personal independence payments. We need to ensure that we feed into that debate. When we get this right, it will be for the benefit of the whole of society. In York, I think of those people who work in West Offices, where the café is run by United Response and provides real work opportunities, and of the Once Seen theatre company, where I see such talent on display. We must get this guidance—

• 13 Mar 2025 · NHS England Update · Hansard source

  More

  We must remember that NHS England came out of the Tory Government’s reforms that were intended to privatise the NHS. I want to thank NHS England staff for their work. I am sorry about the way in which they have heard this announcement, because it is their jobs that are being put at risk. We have to ensure, however, that we are not replicating NHS England across the ICBs of our country, and that ICBs are also reformed to transform the NHS through the three shifts that will be placed on them with the publication of the 10-year plan. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have the machinery to hold the system to account, but also to put those reforms in place?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Unaccountable power carries significant risk, as we have seen in this place and across our public services, but when it is in the NHS it can lead to the death of patients. The complaints systems in the NHS are not functioning: they are defensive and they are not trying to solve the issues. Can we have a debate about NHS complaints to keep our constituents safe?

• 20 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme Review · Hansard source

  More

  I am really glad that my right hon. Friend has a grip on the hospital building programme and has developed a pipeline for scheduling the new hospitals. York is not on the list, but given that it was one of the cheapest hospitals to build, it will certainly need to be there in 10 to 15 years. How will my right hon. Friend review hospitals that are not on the list and schedule them into future programmes?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Next week, the commission for palliative care and end of life care will start taking oral and written evidence, and I really hope that Members will ask their specialists and their constituents to participate in that. Will the Leader of the House ensure that, when the commission reports, we have a debate on its findings so that we can optimise palliative and end-of-life care?