Rachael Maskell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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 · 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.

• 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 · 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 · 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?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. In 1777, Bootham Park hospital was given in trust to the people of York. Since it closed in 2015, NHS Property Services has squandered £5.5 million—almost its sale price—keeping the building empty, and threatened to sell it for a luxury complex our city does not want. This much sought-after community space for charities and services would significantly benefit York residents, so will the Prime Minister now release this site so that public land can be used for public good, and we can get Bootham back?

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  I raised the issue of patient trust. We know that over 50% of the public do not have confidence in this system, so they might not share vital health information with their clinicians. As a result, will the Minister include that point in the consultation? He has only 10 months until this first period ends, so can he say more about the public perspective on the Government consultation?

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this excellent debate today. I agree with every word that has been spoken about this US spy tech company, which is now deep into our NHS data and our constituents’ patient data. We have got to take the example of the Swiss Government, who withdrew Palantir’s access to their data because of the risks of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data, the potential loss of national sovereignty and the dependence on foreign specialists. As has been mentioned, we know that Palantir has been used in the US to power up the ICE teams in targeting their actions. I fear what a future Government could do with this data. While I am sure that this Government would not even consider such measures, a future Reform UK Government might use it to target vulnerable people. We know that there are already significant health inequalities in our health system. We can just imagine minoritised groups not sharing vital health information with clinicians for fear of what may happen in the future. That would widen health inequalities and put those individual patients at risk. As a former clinician in the NHS, I know that trust is key. If a clinician does not have the confidence and trust of their patients, that will result in worse health outcomes. In the interests of our constituents’ health, I urge the Government to end this contract. I note that the former Secretary of State for Health who signed the contract, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), has not turned up to this debate to defend his record. That says everything about the lack of accountability on the signing of these contracts. Palantir has eight major footprints across Departments and public services, to the tune of more than £800 million. Palantir is not the only company. Other clients of Global Counsel, such as with the pharma deals, have signed deals and are unaccountable to this House. It comes back to this question: how do we hold the Government to account for the contracts they sign? Often it feels like we are negotiating on legislation, but not on the big decisions, such as the signing of major financial contracts in the NHS.

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Women’s Health Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned around mental health. The strategy highlights that women disproportionately have poor mental health, and I welcome that recognition. However, action 49 says: “we will improve mental health support for women and girls”, but it does not say what the Government will do. Will they produce a strategy for delivering on this, and how will progress against this document be measured, so that we can hold the Government to account?

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

  More

  I really appreciate all the work that my hon. Friend does in this area. I was very moved when a constituent, a police officer, came to me to share the experiences from his force when somebody took their life. The force did not have the tools available to support him, leading to his own mental health challenges, and to those of his colleagues. Therefore, it is really important, as part of this standard, that employers are equipped to identify those pressures—often overwork and stress, or bullying at work and the culture set in the workplace—and to then address the challenges that people face with trauma. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need that holistic approach to people’s wellbeing at work?

• 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 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have met the academics behind the University and College Union reports on the prison education service, which highlighted the real challenges around the wellbeing and mental health of educators, as well as their safety, especially with the racism they have been experiencing. Will my hon. Friend look at carrying out a complete review of the prison education service to ensure it is fit for purpose and able to do the job it was designed for?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. We have had 20 contributions to the debate, with 12 excellent speeches from Back Benchers; I have to say that it has been a debate of the highest calibre. I heard so clearly such praise for the staff working in palliative medicine right across the country—in Scotland and in England—and I thank them myself, too. I particularly acknowledge the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who talked about the loss of their mothers, with very contrasting experiences. That demonstrates the inequity across palliative medicine, and it cannot be right that people are not getting the care that they absolutely must get. I wanted to ask the Minister a follow-up question about how the transition takes place. If we do not frontload the funding, we will never see the development of community provision, because we will not be able to pull people out without the resourcing in the community. The challenge really arises from the whole model, which was the emphasis of my speech. I trust we will look very carefully at enabling the flow of patients into the community and getting care in the right place, but also at the sufficiency of funding, as so many hon. Members said, to ensure the excellence of the care itself. We also heard about the challenges that all hon. Members have had, whether for child or adult services, and we need to ensure that we train the workforce and have a sufficient workforce in the future. We need to get the commissioning right, and address those very pertinent issues. Above all, we must invest in the time and the compassion that is needed to give families and patients excellence in palliative care. As a clinician, I have witnessed working with people at the end of life. In such special moments, the whole workforce crowds around the patients, and supports them and their families. It is so moving, and today I also heard my hon. Friends’ moving reflections, which is what the debate is all about. It is about ensuring that we have those really special moments at the end of life, and we should really invest in that time so people can have those memories and cherish everything they possibly can. We have debated assisted dying so much in this place over the last year or so. I have heard so many examples of poor care, where I know that specialist palliative medicine could have made such a difference to the individuals. That is why today’s debate is not only timely, but necessary. We must really invest so that everyone has the opportunity to receive that amazing care, love and support at the end of life, and so they do not have to even contemplate assisted dying. I think we have a responsibility to put this front and centre. Let us move on from the debate on assisted dying to make sure we get care right for everyone. I want to close by saying a huge thank you to everyone here; I really do appreciate it. I should put on record that I am the co-chair, with Baroness Finlay, of the all-party parliamentary group on dying well. I invite all hon. Members to join us as we really try to advance this debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House notes the findings of the Independent Palliative Care Commission; calls on the Government to implement its recommendations in full, including to establish a comprehensive and specialist palliative care service that is equally accessible to everyone and properly funded, as well as a new commissioning framework that secures a service across all settings and is available from the point of a terminal diagnosis, the advancement of a life-limiting illness or latter stages of a chronic condition; and further calls on the Government to have a focus on workforce planning and training, to provide a comprehensive palliative care service, and to ensure that patients are empowered through future care plans to articulate what they want to happen towards the end of their life, while also establishing bereavement services for all.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House notes the findings of the Independent Palliative Care Commission; calls on the Government to implement its recommendations in full, including to establish a comprehensive and specialist palliative care service that is equally accessible to everyone and properly funded, as well as a new commissioning framework that secures a service across all settings and is available from the point of a terminal diagnosis, the advancement of a life-limiting illness or latter stages of a chronic condition; and further calls on the Government to have a focus on workforce planning and training, to provide a comprehensive palliative care service, and to ensure that patients are empowered through future care plans to articulate what they want to happen towards the end of their life, while also establishing bereavement services for all. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate on the future of palliative care. Although I applied for it last summer, it could not be more timely, as the Government consider their modern service framework. Dame Cicely Saunders said: “How people die remains in the memory of those who live on.” By addressing what she called “total pain”—physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual and social pain—palliative medicine could transform not only the way we approach death, but how we embrace life. Her legacy has since driven palliative medicine, with dedicated teams delivering care. Someone told me in York that they did not know “that such outstanding care was even possible.” Every complexity is embraced and addressed. In 2024, 532,000 people died in England. Marie Curie evidence published two weeks ago showed that one in three people fail to get the interventions they need. Despite requiring specialist palliative care, over 100,000 people received none. Demand is rising, and will grow by 42% in a decade. Where someone dies, on what day or at what time determines the care that they receive. Some 42% of all deaths occurred in hospital, 28% at home, 21% in care homes, 5% in hospices and 4% in other settings, such as prisons. According to Sue Ryder, just 50% died in the place of their choosing. I have had the sheer privilege of working with leading academics and clinicians, health leaders, international experts, charities and people with lived experience, in establishing, with Baroness Finley, the independent commission on palliative and end-of-life care, which is chaired by Professor Sir Mike Richards. We sought solutions to establish equitable access to high-quality palliative and specialist palliative care. I am beyond grateful; I have been inspired and I have learned much. I am also indebted to Professor Fliss Murtagh from the Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre at the University of Hull. I make particular mention of Professors Katherine Sleeman and Irene Higginson of King’s College London; Oxford consultant Professor Bee Wee; Hospice UK; Marie Curie; Sue Ryder; the Association for Palliative Medicine; Together for Short Lives; my local hospice, St Leonard’s; and so many more. We held 10 evidence sessions and eight roundtables, received 506 written submissions from experts, and spoke to 129 witnesses. We then presented our report to the Minister. Now that the Government have progressed to the modern service framework, they must commission a single pathway across all settings, focused on excellence, crisis prevention and investing in the community. We found that early identification for access to high-quality specialist interventions was transformative for patients. At the point of terminal diagnosis or increasing frailty, a serious illness conversation undertaken by well-trained clinicians—as recommended by Professor Sir Chris Whitty—injects an honest understanding to ensure the best patient-centred care, while capturing the patient’s wider social needs, priorities and goals. It facilitates good clinical planning. Co-produced, personalised and optimal care is supported with palliative medicine. In York, the frailty hub brings all sectors, clinicians and services together. When that is intersected with palliative care, crisis admissions are avoided. Emergency services do not escalate without cause; rather, medicine integrates with the hospice at home team—one team, one set of records, one plan. Avoiding the need for crisis management avoids distress. In the last three months of life, however, almost half of people visited their emergency department, and one in eight spent more than 30 days in hospital. Placing palliative care professionals in emergency departments furthers the model, and allows patients to be triaged to the right service. Clinicians at the back door discharge into community palliative care teams. On the wards, hospital specialists connect with patients, introduce palliative care where appropriate, and seek to discharge to the community, hospice or special hospital unit, reducing hospital deaths and improving disease management. As our bodies fail, high-stakes interventions add little to the quality or quantity of life, yet they carry risk—as do hospital stays—through infection, deconditioning and disorientation. In a far cry from what happened on the Liverpool care pathway, the focus is on enhancing life, not hastening death. GPs have a significant role, and I ask the Minister to review the retiring of the palliative care register, which focuses GPs on identifying patients for palliation early, so that interventions can be considered. Can she set out how she will still achieve those aims? People are identified far too late for palliative support—just 56 days prior to death for cancer, and 27 days for non-malignant disease, like respiratory, neurological, renal or cardiac disease. Those with conditions like dementia are rarely ever referred. While there has been a move away from prognostication of life expectancy, due to its unreliability and often significant inaccuracy, recognition of palliative needs early is key. Marie Curie’s “Better End of Life 2024” report identified that 40% of families had no conversation about deterioration or possible death; 20% were alerted in the last three months of life, and 15% in the last week. Its report, “Measuring unmet need for palliative care”, highlighted that one in three people do not receive specialist care. Its post-bereavement survey in 2024 showed a doubling of unmet need, compared with the 2015 VOICES—views of informal carers: evaluation of services—post-bereavement survey by the Office for National Statistics, which should be reintroduced. That highlights the fact that there is higher demand and poorer access. Furthermore, we know that those from low socio- economic and ethnic minoritised communities are significantly disadvantaged, and face late identification of needs and poor palliative care access. Without agency and advocacy, outcomes are worse, and that is also the case for those with physical and intellectual disabilities. Such injustice demands change. Variation exists across integrated care boards. The responses to Hospice UK’s freedom of information requests showed that spend ranged from just 23p to £10.33 per person. The National Audit Office’s report on this subject shows the inequity, too; figures range from one hospice bed per 2,900 patients to one per 54,300, yet provision is mandated by the Health and Care Act 2022. At night and over weekends, 75% of the time, the availability of advice and interventions available to relieve distress, difficulties and discomfort is inconsistent, although 24/7 services are needed. By day, a single point of contact is essential, as the Association for Palliative Medicine has impressed upon me. Specialist palliative care from highly trained professionals must be commissioned to manage complex pain and symptoms through effective drug titration and interventions like palliative radiotherapy, nerve blocks and neuromodulation, which are often not available. The commission advised rapid escalation of complex cases to specialists, to improve outcomes across all settings. Psychological support is pivotal, yet only 19% of hospices can access clinical psychology. Early assessments can palliate depression or anxiety and their consequences. Young people with life-limiting and life-threatening illnesses must have equal access to care. Paediatric palliative care differs from adult care but is as ambitious in driving excellence. Tailored, age-appropriate care is needed, and expert parents need recognition for their advocacy, too. I particularly note the concerns about transition into adult services; special attention is needed to get that right. I turn to training. Family carers provide £28.7 billion-worth of care annually. They need training and support, to be listened to, and, above all, space to love, be and spend time. In addition to training and accreditation of the whole palliative health and social care workforce in domiciliary and residential settings, hospices and hospitals, we need a workforce plan for the whole pathway. All undergraduate programmes must have palliative care content. Specialist training to support GPs aspiring to consultant status needs dual accreditation, and the commission heard that overseas-trained staff need specific orientation to palliative medicine, as each jurisdiction approaches death differently. Across the whole service, we need high standards and united objectives. In 2024, the cost of dying in England was £24,222. The total for England was £12.8 billion, and 78% of that was spent in hospital settings. By contrast, just £1,017 is spent per person on specialist palliative provision, and £862 on community nursing. Research published today shows that specialist palliative care can save the NHS £7,908 per patient when delivered at home, and £6,480 per patient in hospital. That would save around 1.5 million bed days, or £817 million. Funding for hospice provision—essential healthcare—can no longer depend on bake sales and parachute jumps. Two in five hospices are making cuts, and 380 beds have been lost in a year, according to Hospice UK. Staff reductions and redundancies have occurred. Paediatric palliative care faces a £310 million shortfall, and there has been an overreliance on charitable funding, which is inherently inequitable.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for her speech, but we have heard throughout the debate that 100,000 people are not getting the care they need. One in three people needs additional support. By maintaining the financial cap, how are we going to build enough capacity to ensure that everybody has access to excellent care at the end of life?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right, and we know how much palliative care, including specialist palliative care, costs. That must be built into the commissioning process at population level, so that we see equity. I am sure that many in his constituency will see certain demographics in his community excluded from being able to access that specialist care. We must drive the model, and if we do not have the funding, resources or staffing, it will be very difficult to deliver the comprehensive service that everybody deserves at the end of life, should they need palliative care.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes such a powerful case. We are talking about essential medicine. We would not do this in any other field of medicine, yet we are dependent on charities, which do phenomenal work to fund essential healthcare. We must ensure that we fund it properly. I will come on to make a few suggestions about that. Although I recognise the dedication of St. Leonard’s hospice in my constituency, and the whole community around it in York, which is both generous and caring, it receives less than 24% NHS funding. This year, it got just a 2% uplift from the integrated care board. To invest in equipping it, in staffing in the community, and in building the capacity to meet need, funding will be needed, and there is already a significant shortfall. Without that funding, transition will slow and the model will fail. The sector agrees. ICBs have no transition funding, and without a health transformation fund, how will the Minister be able to deliver proper care for everyone? If patients are moving into domiciliary or hospice settings, funding should follow. Clinical staff, pharma, capital, utilities, and other essential costs should be covered by the NHS, since patients are now transferred from secondary care into the community. The modern service framework is due for publication in a matter of months, and implementation is due in April 2027. It requires a strong framework of accountability and governance, and it would be helpful for the Minister to set out how the MSF will be evaluated, and how outcomes will be measured.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  There is a pattern with Palantir: its £1 covid contract with the NHS expanded to a £330 million contract under the last Government, and its Ministry of Defence contract tripled in size to £240 million, without due process or competition. As we have seen, the links with Global Counsel are now on the record. Will the Minister ensure that all contact with Global Counsel from his Department and across Government—Palantir has a total of 34 contracts with public sector bodies—are published, so that we can understand the revolving doors around Peter Mandelson, Global Counsel and this Government?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the Government for bringing forward this cancer plan. I visited York Against Cancer’s Leveson centre last Friday, and I really welcome the holistic care it gives to cancer patients. I want to highlight prevention. We know that four in 10 cancers are preventable, and the right interventions can be transformative, particularly for people from low socioeconomic communities. Will the Minister talk a little bit more about the public health approach that will be taken? In York we have seen a 30% cut in our public health budget over the past 10 years, which means less resource is available to prevent cancers.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate. York may have a purple flag, but the feeling of security is certainly not spread across my community. There are particular areas of crime where we have great concerns, such as bike and shop theft—I welcome the measures that the Government are taking on that—and personal safety across our city. We have already heard about the challenges people face with substance misuse. We have to drive that public health model to ensure that there are safe places people can use, and that they get the help and public health support that they need. We also need to go upstream and ensure that we are addressing the waves of county lines, which come into the city of York and cause much disturbance. We must ensure that we have early intervention and a seamless approach to youth services in our city. I called two meetings—

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. My word is my bond, and when we break our word we break our bond—not just with those people who have trusted our country, given up their lives and come to serve us, but across society as a whole. It is a particular challenge at this time, so we have to build trust. That starts with how we respond to this White Paper. The problem at the heart of the White Paper is the wrong diagnosis and the wrong prescription. Prescribing the wrong medicine makes a patient sicker, and that is exactly what will happen. We have a serious skill shortage across our country. Our health and care systems are creaking. We cannot get the right care in the right place at the right time. For our children, we need teaching in our schools, we need a generation’s worth of houses built and we need infrastructure across the country. If we put skills at risk and create insecurity, our economy will not function, our public services will continue to crumble and our society will be worse off, causing more pain across those communities that desperately look to Labour to find solutions. I therefore say to the Government that the only place where this policy belongs is in the bin. It has completely misread what the country is saying. Having gone through the detail—I will be putting in a submission to the consultation—around the earned settlement, I have to say that it is gendered. It is built on a premise that we know to be biased against women. It is built on the patriarchal belief that someone with higher pay or status is worth more. Instead, we should be thinking about justice and fairness for everyone, no matter how much someone earns or what language they speak—of course, the report does not once mention our second English language, British Sign Language. It should not matter what contribution someone makes. For some disabled people who come here, just being is being part of our communities. Of course, the paper then gets into the prejudicial rhetoric around recourse to public funds. We must be a country that shows our standards, compassion and morals, and this paper certainly fails on each of those criteria. In response to this paper, I say to my constituents that my word is my bond. If these proposals progress, I will vote against the Government and ensure that many of my colleagues join me in the Lobby, because this is not a Labour policy.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for chairing the debate, Mr Western. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for representing his constituents so well in this debate, and in particular, given the horror story that he shared, I express my condolences to Sara’s family. Colleagues may have heard York’s story, but those who have not are about to hear it. The hon. Member for Woking was right to say that York moved from the position of “requires improvement” to “outstanding” in one go. I have to point out to the Minister that our local authority has the lowest level of funding per capita after the fair funding review, which does not seem fair at all because we are not the most affluent place by far. The catalyst for the change in York comes down to two people: Martin Kelly, the director of children’s services, and his deputy, Danielle Johnson. I pay tribute to them. If hon. Members want to learn about York’s journey and the outstanding achievements that have occurred, the director and his deputy are open to dialogue. At the heart of the change was a new practice model with a committed workforce. We moved from 45 agency staff to zero, on the basis that if someone was not committed to the service and the children, they had no place in the authority. A pioneering approach puts children at the heart, builds on co-production, innovates for change and evidences practice. Through reform, costs have been cut by £7 million. Through co-ordination across services, the local authority has built stability and made a difference to every child. We are desperate to do more—to reshape services, drive change and press ahead with transformations. The model moves from transactional to relational, risk avoidance to risk management, safe certainty to safe uncertainty—that is just about being honest about risk—and short-term interventions to long-term outcomes. Every decision has the child at its centre and considers the long-term implications of each decision, developing resilience all the time. Its strength-based approach seeks out every opportunity for the child and is summed up, “Our children belong in York, connected to the people they love and supported by the network around them.” But the journey does not end there. A child or young person’s holistic needs should be met in one place, so here are my asks of the Minister. Mental health services must be integrated around the child, not separated in the child and adolescent mental health services, which is failing all our young people. We have a SEND hub in the city where all children can gather, along with parents and professionals, in an integrated way, but we need CAMHS as part of the conversation. That will remove the need for a diagnosis, because a label does not describe where a child is on multiple spectrums. We must have fully integrated support around a child’s needs. We need to start young, so I urge the Minister to put the investment into the 1,001 critical days. We know that in the case of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, for instance, we need to ensure at the very start of life that we have got the right interventions around the parents, including during the nine months of pregnancy. We will then have a stronger opportunity to prevent care orders in future and ensure that there is appropriate antenatal care, as well as comprehensive support for the family. We also need funding in York. I mentioned how low our funding is. We have eight areas in the lowest quintile of deprivation in our city. Everyone, including Ministers, talks about how York is a beautiful city, about the Vikings, and about the walls and the Minster, but that does not make a child safer. In fact, many of the children have never seen those assets, and many are struggling because we simply do not have the resources we need. When it comes to per capita funding, York is in the lowest 25 for schools and 23rd for higher needs funding. Our city needs more funding, because a child in York is worth as much as a child in Camden, and yet we have about a third of the funding to do things. More than that, we want to be able to push our model further, provide more services for parents and ensure that we can keep the family together, which is our objective as we seriously reduce the number of children in social care. We also want to drive our model of good practice further, so that we can draw on the world’s best practice and bring it into York, particularly in the early years—those pre-school years—to support parents on their journey as well. We must work with a child’s developmental pathway, not against it. We therefore need to ensure that we have the right pedagogies in place. I was disappointed earlier in the week in the debate on play in education. To work with children we really need to understand the way that the mind develops. My plea to the Minister is to look through a prism of poverty. We have significant areas of poverty in York, and yet if we put in the right investment, we know that we can make a difference to our children. We are ambitious in York, and I am proud to showcase all that we have done, but we desperately want to go further. We know we can do it—in York, we have always been a laboratory of social change, a pioneering spirit built within all of us—and therefore I urge Government to work with us to deliver more not only of the Government’s objectives but of our own, for our children.