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.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Child Poverty · Hansard source

  More

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

• 29 Jun 2026 · Child Poverty · Hansard source

  More

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

• 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?

• 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.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to continue. Risks including exploitation can be addressed if we put the right security around a child, so we must move all children out of poverty. A strong correlation exists between children in the justice system and poverty, with over half of children in secure accommodation being eligible for free school meals. The evidence set out in “The Good Society” is powerful regarding why we need to lift children out of poverty. While we are rightly grateful for the steps that have been made, we have more to do. We know that 30% of disabled people live in poverty, and the risk of deep poverty is 60% higher in families with a disabled person. It is right, therefore, that in new clause 2 we seek to find deeper evidence. One reason to look at the benefit cap is that in my constituency we have among the highest costs of living in the country. The cost of housing is holding back families, as they do not have the resources to pay for the basics for their children. That is why I have worked with Citizens Advice in York, and said that I would raise these issues with the Minister. As Pickett and Wilkinson point out in “The Spirit Level”, inequality is the root of each strand of social disadvantage, with the UK second worst in the world. Successive works of academics leading to two reports by Sir Michael Marmot have shown the impact on health outcomes, and whether in education, justice, housing or welfare, or indeed having any agency at all, we have a social and moral imperative to end the inequalities that widened following the 2008 economic crash. I call on the Minister to look specifically at the benefit cap and to move those children forward and lift them out of poverty. We know that if we can turn the tables on their life outcomes, that can make such a significant difference. If we are serious about our society gaining from the economic and social advantage of ending child poverty, we must look further, with a minimum income guarantee as a next step. We must also seriously consider a universal basic income so that no child experiences the deep and pernicious poverty that this place has for far too long held them in, suppressing their life chances and causing such harm.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There could be no greater cause for a Government than to lift children out of poverty, which is why I very much welcome the removal of the two-child limit. However, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has reported that 141,000 children will not see the full benefit of the change and 50,000 children—the poorest of our children—will get no benefit whatsoever because of the benefit cap. We must therefore examine the impact of the benefit cap on these families and how it is holding those children back in poverty. We must strain every sinew to address poverty, looking at issues such as the sanctions in the welfare system; the spare room subsidy, which the Government championed in the bedroom tax campaign; and many more. We know that the impact of growing up in poverty, especially on disabled children, results in a greater cost to the state than were their poverty and destitution to be addressed. Poverty is a source of many adverse childhood experiences, causing multiple disadvantages to children and changing their life trajectories. My work looking into the intersection of child poverty and the 1,001 critical days shows the causal link. When I recently met with a director of midwifery and discussed poor maternal outcomes, she impressed on me how addressing the multiple indices for which poverty is at the root is the most significant step we could take. Low birth rate, domestic violence, substance abuse and intergenerational disadvantage lead to setting a baby, a child and then an adult on to a negative trajectory. When it comes to lifting children out of poverty, we have to look at what is currently holding 4.5 million children in poverty—2 million in deep poverty and 1 million in destitution. The steps that the Government have made are to be celebrated, but there is much more to do. Last week, I had the privilege of launching Kate Pickett’s new book “The Good Society”, so I have spent the last couple of weeks engrossed in statistics and research on the impact of poverty on our society, its causes and the solutions. If the Minister has not read it yet, I suggest he makes it his priority. I describe the book as a manifesto because I believe it echoes our values and provides the evidence base that the Minister needs regarding why holding children down in poverty is a moral ill, when the evidence says that removing the cap will save the Government substantially, and lead to better outcomes for those children in health, education and employment, in the justice system and in society. The Government said that they were going to invest in a decade of renewal and so would reap the benefits within two terms of office were they to remove the benefit cap. The four new clauses before us call for an assessment, which the Government must be keen to make. If we do not, academics will drive out the data and present it to us. Conservative Members are wrong on the evidence base. We need to look at the number of children who have been pushed into poverty over the last 14 years. Life expectancy in our developed country is now ranked 24th out of 38 in the OECD, and our infant mortality is now ranked at 29th. There is a causal link. Whether it is health outcomes, educational outcomes, the impact on families, or the justice system, the roots of the issues can be traced back to poverty in childhood. If we are serious about cutting the social security cost or the prison population cost to the Exchequer, our only path is to invest in ending child poverty and taking our ambition beyond that of the child poverty strategy launched by our Government. The evidence from York, where we have introduced free school meals, is that lifting children out of poverty has significantly enhanced their health and education outcomes.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before the House are four new clauses to the legislation. They set out a pathway through which we can generate data, particularly around the welfare cap, which we know holds back 141,000 children. In the assessments that the Government make, will the Minister draw out particularly the impact of the welfare cap on those children? Will he look to remove it to ensure that those children are not held back in poverty?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Poverty and Welfare Policies · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for today’s debate. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s essentials guarantee sets a minimum that people should receive through the social security system. For a single person, it is £120, which is £28 more than they are receiving; for a couple, it is £205, which is £60 more than they are receiving. That is to achieve a minimum standard. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be looking at the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to ensure that people are lifted out of poverty?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. While the last Government were indifferent to child poverty, this Government’s driving mission must be to eradicate child poverty, and the strategy is a first step on that path. Over the first 1,001 critical days in pregnancy and early years, poverty contributes to malnourished babies, developmental delay, hypothermia and poor life outcomes. That is unacceptable. Will the Prime Minister lift pregnant women and babies in York and across the country out of poverty in this Parliament and ensure that we relieve poverty over the first 1,001 critical days?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On Friday, I learned of an 81-year-old constituent who had had to return to work because of the cost of living in York. Will the Government take a deep dive and carry out an inquiry into poverty in later life, so that we can ensure that we deal with pensioner poverty once and for all?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I will just press on. If DWP data and NHS data are in the wrong hands, social security will become insecurity; if Home Office data contains someone’s location, then the ICE teams will find them. This could be our future. Behind our screens, the datasets that researchers use for good will be used by others for ill. Of course there is interest in digital ID. We see the revolving door of those from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and people from his former office; there is Larry Ellison of Oracle; after all, he already has 185 contracts with the Government. He recognises the power, the money and the opportunity, which is why we cannot afford to go there. We have already heard about the scale of the money. However, I must say that the interest in this project will only expose us all to the risks of future Governments and what they might do with our data. It will not then be just about each one of us individually, but about that knowledge being used to determine each one of our futures, including our mortgages, our social security, our health and our economics. Let us not forget that the insurance companies are also eager to lay their hands on this data. Technology may be agnostic, but it will have behind it people who most certainly are not and will be using its power, augmented for their own gain and opportunity. This House cannot go into this space. Parliament needs to wake up to the reality that it is not about what is on our phone, but about the data behind that and how it will be misused in future. I beg the Government to stop. The fact that this was not in the manifesto is enough to tell us all that it does not have public consent and therefore should not proceed.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I like drilling into the data and getting to the facts. You can see a correlation between the rise in people claiming social security and the rise in waiting lists in the NHS—they map identically through all Parliaments, whether Tory or Labour. Will the right hon. Member look at the data before making assumptions? Getting waiting lists down has got to be our objective.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Indifference to poverty, as we have just heard, marks out the political divisions of our time. The task of restructuring our economy to ensure that those who serve and work hard are not exploited by profiteers and the powerful is our mission. Today, it is clear which side Labour is on. Leveraging resources from accumulated wealth, not simply income, must be the economic pivot that this Parliament determines to make. We should hold wealth accountable, not just the fruits of hard labour. That is why I welcome measures such as the surcharge on council tax. As John Maynard Keynes said: “The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones”, such as the notion that the success of growth will trickle down to provide economic security. Generations have failed to receive that. Unlike the economic engineering we have seen today, economic neoliberalism has been a failed experiment that holds people back and holds people down in poverty. Some 14.5 million people now sit below the poverty line, and 4.5 million children sit in poverty. Tonight, 180,000 children will not sleep in their own bed, and 1 million children are in destitution and dependency, not given dignity or decency. We inherited that shameful legacy from those on the right. Today is monumental: 450,000 children lifted out of poverty, 1,650 of them in my constituency. Scrapping the two-child limit is the right thing to do—it is the Labour thing to do—but we must go further. Another 80,000 are held back by the Tory benefit cap, and I trust that the child poverty strategy will ditch the cap and the ideology behind it. When a baby comes to York hospital with hypothermia, and when a mother begs me for formula because she has no milk, we must recognise the impact of pregnancy and baby poverty. It causes low birth weight, malnutrition and impeded development. From cold and damp homes, we get poor lung health. I therefore urge the Government to look specifically at women during pregnancy and at their babies, and to say that we will prioritise lifting them out of poverty, because it will make a difference to their life course. As we seek to abolish child poverty here at home, I plead with the Government to recommit to 0.7% of GNI for overseas development aid. Every child’s life must be of equal worth, no matter where that child is born. Cutting aid will be catastrophic for infants, and we must not contemplate it. Instead, we must restore our commitment to 0.7%. The moral injustice of the social determinants of poverty must be addressed. After a decade in this place, I have concluded that holding power and wealth in Westminster and Whitehall fails to realise the opportunities across the towns and cities of our country. A pound spent by a Government has a limited reach, but when infused with partnerships and people in localities, it stretches further and deeper into the solutions that can transform lives. The Government must trust our communities and invest to return better health, better education, better employment and opportunities for all. Today I challenge them to embark on a radical devolution of the nation’s resources to our communities, making finances work harder and reach further, restructuring services with transformational local partnerships and relationships. I urge the Government to review the broad rental market area. Housing injustice is a major cause of poverty in York. The local housing allowance has fallen far below rental costs, to nearly 50%, and a review is essential, while more social housing is a priority. We must examine this issue. Enabling local revenue-raising is also critical, and after years of lobbying hard for it I welcome the tourism levy, which, at just the price of a cup of coffee, will raise £7 million for York. I urge the Chancellor to look at cities such as York, because we are struggling. Our city may have an affluent core, but much is extracted, leaving it with a very high cost of living and a low-wage economy. Eight communities in York sit in the lowest quintile nationally, and the Government funding formulas are failing us across the board. We receive the lowest funding of any unitary authority but we are far from the most affluent, with one of the lowest settlements for health, schools, special educational needs and disability, police and fire. The cumulative impact has caused significant impediment. School heads who come to York cannot believe the inequity. We have far less than other areas for health and care, we need more police on our streets, and our brilliant Labour local authority is on its knees. Combined with decades of fiscal oversight, the cumulative impoverishment has driven a cultural change in York, and, sadly, the new fair funding formula is just not fair for our city. We are experiencing disadvantage, and I want the Government to look into this inequity in order to understand why the matrices are not working economically for our city and others like it and how the Treasury can rebalance them. I trust we can have a meeting to discuss that. I believe that Labour can build a safe and secure economy, nationally and in my city, working for all. Addressing poverty, its causes and effects, must always be our driving force: keeping the elderly warm, giving disabled people dignity, and ensuring that child poverty is consigned to history. Today resets the moral purpose of politics, powerfully showing Labour on the side of families and communities, using our socialist roots to collectivise revenue to work for the common good. Poverty, in all its forms, destroys the hope that we long for and the opportunities that we need. Labour must always recognise that ending the injustice of poverty and inequality is our moral purpose, and the route to a strong economy.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Two-child benefit cap · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition on the two-child benefit cap. Tomorrow we all trust will be a turning point for children living in poverty, as the third child and subsequent children in a family have been denied vital support since 2017 unless proved to be conceived by rape. To lift 540,000 children out of poverty with the removal of the two-child limit and a further 80,000 with the removal of the benefit cap is something 578 of my constituents have called for through a paper and digital petition against the hardship which they endure. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty.” Following is the full text of the petition: [T he petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central, Declares that the Two Child Benefit Cap results in parents of families with three or more children born after April 2017 can only claim benefit for the first two children, unless they prove that further children have been conceived by rape; and further that this is a major reason for child poverty, causing larger families hardship, and that this has impacted on 1.6m children since its introduction. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003137]

• 12 Nov 2025 · Public Bodies: Governance and Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  I take a real interest in these matters, and my right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. I believe it is ultimately about unaccountable power, and we need to find ways to hold these institutions to account. I can give the example of Bootham Park hospital in my constituency. It closed 10 years ago and is in the hands of NHS Property Services, which has paid nearly £2 million to keep the building empty while waiting for a developer to come along, when we could really use it. Is that not another example of how these bodies are hoarding our national assets, as opposed to using them for the benefit of the community?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech. Will he ensure that there is a matrix over the Government’s objective that measures inequality in family life and ensures that we close the inequality gap so that parents experiencing the greatest deprivation benefit the most from the policy?

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

  More

  The hon. Member advocates powerfully for his constituent and all those with fluctuating conditions, who never know how they will fare, perhaps because of the season of the year. Some people may develop more chest infections over the winter while being well for the rest of the year, yet they will be receiving a health element of just £50 a week, not £97 a week.

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

  More

  I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister. This is where this gets incredibly technical. There cannot be an assumption that all of those people are on low wages. Many of them have worked all their lives as their condition has developed and are therefore in the later stages of their career, so their salary perhaps does exceed the thresholds. With many of the conditions I have listed and many more, someone could have a period of remission for eight or nine months, or even more, and they would therefore not be able to continue with the six months of support. They will exceed that and would be seen, according to our previous discussions, as a new claimant, and would drop to £50 a week rather than remaining on £97 a week. My amendment will protect those people. It will also protect people with cancer, who could recover, go back to work and then receive the news that the cancer has returned or metastasised. If they then lose their job, do they go back to £97 a week or £50 a week? Can they eat or not eat? As if life was not hard enough for them, they may then receive that shattering news. My amendment would be a remedy for those people and for the many who need this support. I worry that without such a guarantee—and with the single assessment, to be co-produced by the Timms review, according to “Pathways to Work”—we do not know either whether the eligibility criteria for qualifying for the UC health element, because of its association with PIP, will be more or less stringent than they are now; the Bill does not say.