Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend and the other Cornish Labour MPs are incredible advocates for critical minerals and their potential in the UK. Projects in that part of the world are essential to our ambitions. We are supporting lithium projects in Cornwall, including through an offer in principle of £9.8 million through DRIVE35 for Geothermal Engineering Ltd, as well as a £31 million equity investment in Cornish lithium through the National Wealth Fund. We will continue to work to ensure that we keep more of that value in the UK.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. If he will take steps to help ensure Post Office provision in every community.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

The Government recognise the vital role that post offices play in communities across the UK. We have committed to maintaining the 11,500 national minimum branch requirement, and the Government’s set access criteria, including the requirement that for 90% of the population, their nearest post office should be within one mile of where they live. We are backing this with up to £180 million in network subsidy funding over the next three years to support the cost of meeting those policy requirements, protecting access to crucial services.

[Rachael Maskell]

When York’s Crown post office closed after 138 years, we were given assurances that through WHSmith, we would have a sustained solution. However, Modella Capital, which has taken over WHSmith, closed the post office yesterday. We only have a teeny weeny post office in the city centre. Businesses, residents and tourists are dependent on it—we need a solution. I have met the Post Office; it says that it will take six months to get a solution. I need a solution now. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that we have a temporary solution before we get our sustained outcome?

[Kate Dearden]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about the availability of post office services in York city centre in the coming months. The Post Office has confirmed that it remains committed to providing a replacement branch, and it has received interest from several potential applicants. While these are operational matters for the Post Office, I will ask it to consider capacity concerns. I will keep my hon. Friend updated, and will ask officials to work with her and the Post Office on finding the temporary solution that she rightly mentions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member and the hospitality sector in her constituency recently. There are a wide range of factors when introducing new tax reliefs, and they need to happen in the usual way. The alleviation that we have already introduced on NIC is making a real difference to young people getting into employment. We will review it in the usual way in due course.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In October, Nestlé announced 16,000 job losses, including 450 in the UK. In the light of the significant impact that this will have in York, will the Secretary of State ensure that meaningful consultation happens with the trade unions, and will he meet them to save those jobs?

[Peter Kyle]

Yes, of course I will.

Royal Mail: Performance

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

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.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Unaccountable power must not hide, privilege must not be protected, money must be accounted for and elite networks of men operating here and overseas must meet their reckoning for dehumanising, subjugating, exploiting and sexually assaulting women—women who must have justice. The web of abuse surrounding Mr Epstein and his associates must be brought to book, and Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, as a known associate, must also be held to account for his role as a special trade envoy and for his associations. We have all been revulsed by the stories that we have heard, and that is why today’s debate must also be about the victims and survivors.

I first raised my concern because my constituency carries the name of York and the Duke of York’s ambassadorial associations with our city were causing much concern in my community. I therefore brought those concerns to the House on 21 February 2022, just days after the settlement of the lawsuit to Ms Giuffre, known to be in the region of £12 million. My city—a human rights city, no less—was clearly disturbed, and as a result of that I sought a separation between the title and the city. Later that year, after working closely with the Clerks, I brought forward a Bill to remove the title, but that still has not been done. I brought forward another Bill just last year on the removal of title, this time bringing in the option of removing the title from peerages as well, but I have still not had a positive response.

The reasons I am speaking in this debate today are: first, that in looking into these issues, I realised that the Humble Address was narrow in its scope; and secondly, to ask what we should do with the information once it has been corroborated. Clearly the police investigation must take its course, and I am sure it will be deep and thorough because it runs so far, but ultimately, if we are just looking at the appointment, we must also ask about that period of time when Mr Mountbatten-Windsor carried out the role and the implications to wider networks. I do not want this to end up in the court of public opinion, or perhaps with the media digging deeper and deeper into more and more stories. But what does it do to this place? What does it do to change the way the systems work?

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I recognise the work that the hon. Lady has done on titles and holding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account. She makes a good point about making sure that we do not have a court of public opinion, but I would like to give my thanks to the many media outlets—it does not matter which one you read or what its political slant—that have done tremendous work, trawling through hundreds of thousands of documents. Does she agree that we owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing to light many of the awful things that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is alleged to have been associated with?

[Rachael Maskell]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I know that journalists have been up through the night poring over the Epstein files and digging deep to hold power to account. Our media have a vital role in this, and long may it continue. Their scrutiny is also important for this place and the work that we do here.

We need a process of learning from this, and I believe that there should be a judge-led inquiry to ensure that the multiple strands of this global network of power are brought to account so that we can learn and hold to account in this place with regard to concerns about how these associations are formed and the depth to which they infiltrate places like this, the Government and international networks. As we have learned over the last few weeks, sensitive financial information has been shared, and this can impact on our constituencies, markets and trade. That in turn has an impact on the very people we are here to represent.

No longer can these powerful men swan around the world having these conversations, gaining more power and exploiting whoever crosses their path without being held accountable. We therefore need to understand how to create even deeper transparency across all institutions, including all areas of Government, just as we try to do in this place each and every day. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) says, this inquiry must be far-reaching and it must pursue all these issues.

I recognise that many Departments have been missed out in the Humble Address. We need to understand, for instance, how transport has been used, and not just civil transport but military transport. We need to see the missing logs to find out who was on those planes, where they were going and where they had come from. We also need to understand the expenses system that ensued and to find out how signing off for massages became a duty of the taxpayer. Individuals questioned this, as we have heard, but the reality is that people did not feel empowered to blow the whistle and raise those concerns. We need to institute processes where people can raise concerns wherever they see them, but at the moment we do not have the confidence that that was undertaken within the systems. How are we going to institute that?

There are also questions about visas—we know that 90 people came in and out of the country during the period that we are looking at today—and of course there must be rigour in appointment processes. Much has been heard about that over the last few months, and it lies at the heart of this Humble Address. We need to ensure that all these appointments are transparent. I heard what the Minister said today, but we have 32 trade envoys and I have never seen one post advertised. I am not aware of the expertise that those individuals have with regard to trade or to their relations with a particular country. What do they actually add? What value do they actually bring, and how can we assess that from this place? I therefore ask for a proper review of all these appointments to assess what they bring, because surely we should have better accountability.

I also want to mention the intelligence services. I cannot believe that our intelligence services were not aware of some of the movements of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor. How do we bring that to account, to ensure that that information is also in the public domain? Where are the minutes of all those meetings? What do they say? How do we find out? There are so many questions in response to the Humble Address being put today, but we have to think about what we want to do from this point on as well. This must not be about just holding and examining the information and commenting in the tea rooms and the corridors; we must ensure that power is held to account, and that those with privilege know that they are answerable for the responsibilities that they hold.

As the light is shone deeper into the darkest networks of the elite’s exploitations, and as the systems are overhauled and reviewed, may the police do their job well and extensively and may we in this place always focus on the women who were exploited, gaslit, traumatised and left broken as we seek justice and seek to hold that power to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I spoke earlier, so I need to be sure that the House is happy for me to speak again. I am not going to speak at great length. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have united the House twice today. That is a great comfort to me.

First of all, may I commend the Liberal Democrats on the debate that they have held and on bringing this issue to us? Members on both sides of the House have made very powerful speeches, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara), for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). I appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), is not able to be here; he sent me a kind note to explain why.

As I said right at the beginning of my opening speech, it is the Government’s intention to comply with the motion as soon as is practicable and possible within the law. As I have said from the beginning, my only caveat is that my Department and the whole of Government will work towards maximum transparency and timeliness, but I have to say that where documents may speak materially to the offence of misconduct in public office or any other offence that may be considered by the police, we will have to follow the advice of the prosecuting authorities. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. It is a different point from some of the other points that have been raised in relation to other humble addresses, but I think it is an important one.

I hear the calls that have been made by several hon. Members for a public inquiry. One of the other things in which I was engaged in 2011 was a big row about phone hacking at the News of the World, and we demanded a public inquiry. We ended up with a two-part public inquiry, and the second part was not going to happen until the police had completed their investigations. Of course, it never happened, because so much time had elapsed, so I am somewhat cautious about seeking multi-part public inquiries in relation to this issue. I want the police to be able to do their work as effectively as possible.

I will issue another word of caution. I was in the House when Members, understandably, used their privilege to talk about Sir Leon Brittan. It turned out that many of the things that were said at the time were completely and utterly untrue, and people had been misled by somebody. We always have to be cautious about the way we use our privilege in this House, and I will come on to the bigger point about what others have referred to as “negative privilege” in a moment.

We are very keen to work with the prosecuting authorities as fast as possible, but the timetable for that is set by them, not us. We want them to do their job without fear or favour. The one message that we have sent today to the whole of society is that the prosecuting authorities must proceed without fear or favour. Nobody is above the law.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful to the Minister for what he has said. Although the prosecuting authorities will clear up the criminal matters, the implications go way beyond that. What thought has the Minister given to how they are dealt with—for instance, the closing of the loopholes around our airports, access into the country, visas, and obviously the privileges held within decision making at the heart of Government?

[Chris Bryant]

I hear the points that my hon. Friend makes, and of course I sympathise with them. However, it is remarkably difficult to disentangle some of those from possible offences on which prosecutions may be brought, so I am somewhat cautious in this area, as she will hear. She will know that I can sometimes be as vociferous as her on these issues, but at this particular moment I want to be cautious.

I want to talk about the issue of negative privilege, which several Members have mentioned. I fully understand the point, which I myself made back in 2011, when I had a bit of a row with Speaker Bercow about it. I fully understand the point that Members have made, and I do not think we should have excessive deference. Of course, it is a matter for the House, for Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and for the Procedure Committee and others, whether we want to change the accepted conventions of the House. It is a Back-Bench Committee, and if Members want to take such issues to the Procedure Committee, they should do so.

However, I do not think we should overstate the case, because if at any point any of the political parties had wanted to bring a substantive motion to the House, whether in opposition or in government, anybody would have been able to do so, but the truth of the matter is that all of us chose not to. Whether that is because of deference, I cannot judge, but it is certainly true that using a substantive motion is available to us to consider such matters.

Sale of Fireworks

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the 636 constituents of mine who signed the petitions. Guy Fawkes hailed from my constituency; in 1605, he came to this place to set the building alight. That sort of antisocial behaviour is what we are talking about today—the harms, not the goods, that come from fireworks. There are two key areas: impact and safety. The whizz, the crackles, and especially the bangs have an impact on animals, people who are neurodiverse and those with mental health challenges or trauma. We have heard about the consequences of that in this debate, and putting in restrictions to safeguard people’s and animals’ wellbeing is a logical step. I welcome set dates, reducing fireworks’ decibel volume from 120 dB to 90 dB, and ensuring that only licensed public events put on displays, to safeguard all our communities.

Having personally experienced a firework being lobbed at me when I was cycling home from this place one night, I certainly believe that we need to ensure that they are placed in the hands only of those who hold a licence. However, I want to turn to another event: the new year tragedy at Le Constellation bar in the ski resort of Crans-Montana in Switzerland, in which 40 young people lost their lives and 100 were hospitalised. It demands a response from this place too.

Over the weekend, I read the research from Professor Ed Galea, who identified 38 similar fires that have claimed about 1,200 lives since the year 2000. Fifteen involved some form of pyrotechnics, and 13 involved the acoustic foam that was present in the Switzerland case. That places new questions on our regulations on using fireworks indoors. We see a sparkler on a birthday cake, someone flambéing food or special effects at theatres as perfectly innocent occurrences, but the events of new year’s day must cause us all to question whether our regulations are fit for purpose for the future.

Although we have pressed on outdoor fireworks in this debate, it is also important that we press on the use of indoor fireworks—it clearly takes just a spark to ignite a building and cause tragedy. Therefore, I ask the Minister also to consider the use of fireworks indoors—perhaps it is time we say no to that—and the consequences surrounding that, and the wider safety measures needed around indoor venues. Exit routes have always been highlighted in these tragedies, as well as the use of foam and cladding—of course, we remember debating that so much in this place—and the human response. Often, people stop to film these events rather than respond; instead of fleeing, they freeze in the face of a fire. We need to ensure that people have the right psychological plan when entering venues.

Of course we understand the impact of outdoor fireworks on our communities, but I ask the Minister to include in her wider consideration the impact and potential risks of indoor fireworks for our communities, and to review the regulations to ensure that we never experience a tragedy like the one that families in Switzerland sadly experienced on new year’s day. Will the Minister look at the use of indoor fireworks as well as those in public displays?

Employment Rights Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

Absolutely, and no decent employer should fear any of these measures. Rogue employers were warned that exploitation and arbitrary dismissal would end, but under the compromise, a bad employer may still dismiss someone without reason or justification.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The point that my hon. Friend is making is that this is not about fair dismissal, but about unfair dismissal. Does he agree that the people who will experience the most discrimination will be disabled workers, young workers and ethnic minority workers?

[Andy McDonald]

That is absolutely right, but under this compromise, a bad employer may still dismiss someone without reason or justification. A worker could leave secure employment in good faith, only to be summarily dismissed with no protection or explanation, months into a new role.

Trade Union Workplace Access

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decline in trade union penetration of the economy is consistent with the stagnation in wages. If we are to turn the issue around, these recognitions and collective bargaining processes have to be given their full voice.

The Bill also acknowledges the need for facility time for union representatives, providing paid time for duties. The Business and Trade Committee welcomed the statutory right of access, but urged that it explicitly include digital channels. It also endorsed the GMB’s call for template agreements to speed up negotiations.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his incredible work to advance employment rights, but for securing today’s debate; I refer to my entry in the register of interests, having spent many an hour on street corners trying to get information to workers about trade unions. Does my hon. Friend agree that digital access needs to be directly with the worker—not via the employer, who could oversee it—and that any reciprocal communication with the union needs to be free from the scrutiny of employers?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that she has in mind the Amazon debacle in Coventry, where that issue was at play. I thank her and all my hon. Friends for their consistent application to this agenda over many years. It is now bearing fruit.

Concerns remain about the enforceability of access, as some employers may refuse to comply with CAC decisions, creating incentives to disrupt legitimate access. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has called for the CAC to be adequately resourced. Labour pledged to act to ensure that union members and workers are able to access a union at work. In a written ministerial statement in March 2025, the Government said that they would implement

“a fast-track route for achieving an ‘off-the-shelf’ access agreement where certain conditions are met, alongside a mechanism to ensure there are robust penalties in place for non-compliance.”

Access rights will mostly be detailed in secondary legislation.

Future regulations must genuinely deliver the Government’s promise of a meaningful right of access. That includes ensuring that the right is enforceable, as union-busting employers and their lawyers will exploit any gaps. Unions want to ensure that provisions are as strong as possible. Face-to-face communication remains the most effective way for unions to recruit and organise. Robust penalties are needed so that employers cannot price refusal in. Far too often, we have seen employers pricing in the breach of provisions as simply the cost of doing business. We cannot permit that.

Debates in Committee and wider parliamentary discussions have reiterated those points. Witnesses stressed the importance of digital access, reasonable notice, clarity over dwellings and enforceable CAC determinations. Amendments clarified that only independent trade unions certified by the certification officer could exercise statutory access rights, preventing employers from using non-independent sweetheart unions. The CAC is empowered to adjudicate disputes, but unions still bear the cost of pursuing penalties through the employment appeal tribunals, and fines are payable to the Government, rather than the union. That creates a risk that enforcement will remain weak.

Trade union experiences illustrate the stakes. The GMB’s efforts to engage with Amazon, Harris Federation schools and Teesworks highlight the fact that lack of access can hinder collective bargaining, prevent timely health and safety oversight, and reduce wages and protections. Access to care homes will be critical as fair pay agreements are rolled out to ensure that low-paid workers gain union representation and negotiate fair terms.

I tabled a new clause to amend the Bill on Report to address enforcement and clarify gaps. It would have established a clear statutory right of access for independent trade unions. It would have broadened the Bill’s purpose to include recruitment, representation and bargaining. It would also have set reasonable notice requirements, with provision for urgent cases, and defined access conditions guided by Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service codes.

The new clause would have clarified access to dwellings by allowing suitable alternative arrangements. It would have introduced a genuine enforcement mechanism by allowing CAC orders to be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and it would have established transparent penalty-setting criteria based on the gravity and duration of non-compliance. Finally, it would have integrated the new rights with existing law and ACAS guidance. Had it been adopted, it would have significantly strengthened the Bill and created a practically enforceable framework. I urge the Government to adopt similar measures to ensure that statutory access rights are truly effective across sectors.

It is very welcome that Matthew Taylor has been appointed to chair the Fair Work Agency. His knowledge of workplace relations informed the new deal for working people. We must ensure that the agency is adequately resourced and empowered to monitor, oversee and enforce union access effectively. Without sufficient funding and staffing, statutory provisions risk becoming symbolic rather than operational.

Historical international context underlines the stakes. In 2006 and 2008, the International Labour Organisation’s committee of experts noted that the UK did not consistently uphold convention 87, the global standard that protects workers’ freedom to form and join trade unions of their choosing, and that ensures unions can run their affairs freely. A constant theme of this debate is just how far removed the United Kingdom has been from its ILO obligations. I trust that this Government will not overlook them in the way that previous Governments have.

Union officials cannot always access workplaces to support members in disciplinary or grievance hearings, and recognition ballots offer only limited access. The Employment Rights Bill attempts to remedy that by granting broader statutory rights but, as the Bill is drafted, an employer can still veto entry, leaving unions and workers without recourse. ILO recommendation 143 makes it clear that union representatives who do not work for a particular company should still be allowed to enter the workplace to meet and represent union members. Those messages have to be communicated to employers who seem to want to resist that on occasion.

The only effective way to honour the commitment in the new deal for working people would be a free-standing right of entry, underpinned by injunctive relief to secure entry in cases of unreasonable refusal. Where that is not possible, CAC orders should at least be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and penalties should accrue to the union—I cannot stress enough the importance of that happening. Such measures would align the UK with international labour standards and strengthen the practical impact of statutory access.

The Employment Rights Bill is an important milestone, but it must be part of a wider strategy to raise living standards and restore labour’s share of wealth. Trade unions are central to that mission, providing the infrastructure through which workers can secure better pay, safer workplaces and a stronger voice. The Bill’s success depends on ensuring that access rights are clear, enforceable and adaptable to modern workplaces. By empowering unions with enforceable rights, reasonable conditions and clear penalties, the Government can equip the trade union movement to deliver real improvements. This is not simply procedural; it is a question of economic justice and social equity.

As we look forward, the Labour Government’s task is to reverse decades of declining real wages, expand union influence and ensure workers share in the benefits of productivity and growth. Statutory access is not an end in itself; it is a tool for delivering broader goals. With proper enforcement, digital provisions and resourcing, unions can represent members effectively, negotiate fair pay and improve conditions across all sectors. By doing so, we will ensure the recovery from austerity and the reversal of the erosion of labour’s share of wealth in a way that is meaningful and sustained.

Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp).

Next year will mark 125 years since Seebohm Rowntree’s report into poverty. It was that report that sparked Seebohm and Joseph Rowntree to use their family business to institute rights for workers in my constituency: paying decent wages; introducing pensions and good terms and conditions; and providing welfare, education and leisure. Sickness levels fell, productivity boomed and workers were better off.

Concurrently, in the crucible of industrialised Britain, the trade unions were making a case for similar rights, often to less amenable employers. They organised, they fought, they spoke up and they succeeded in winning their battles. They wanted those rights for all workers, so they found their political voice and founded the Labour party. At this point, I will refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a trade union official for 17 years and a national officer for 12 years, and I have worked across many industrial sectors.

In response to the speech by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I would say that if we have strong partnerships between trade unions and business, or between trade unions and the public sector, we have the opportunity to hit a sweet spot. We will therefore not see the industrial action that he talked about and that we saw in spades under the last Government. We will also advance the interests of businesses and workers side by side, which is a strength, and where economic power comes from having strong employment rights.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Was the hon. Member affected by the tube strikes the other day?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I was not, because I walk or cycle through London, which I recommend to everybody. Those strikes did not have an impact on me at all.

Good industrial relations are important for business, because when employers are in touch with their workers, business can boom. Ultimately, the people with the most vested interest in the success of a business are the people whose jobs depend on it, so when they are included in the industrial environment, the opportunities come.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne referred to employees’ talent. If employees are brought into the fold, so their imaginations run free and their creativity flourishes, that opportunity really strengthens business. That is why the measures that Labour introduced this week are good for workers and good for business. I congratulate the Labour Government on bringing forward what I hope will be just their first Employment Rights Bill. Instead of causing the fragmentation that we are seeing across our country, good workers’ rights are good people’s rights above all. They address equality and bring fairness, not only in the industrial setting but across wider society as well.

Too many workers have been left feeling insecure, however, such as those in the gig economy, the self-employed and the bogus self-employed. We have a duty to close those loopholes. Indeed, the hon. Member said that employers will seek more loopholes, but of course, we will close them if labour is being exploited. The picture of business for far too long has been about workers getting less of the wealth from business while contributing more. We have to restore such values in the workplace.

Yesterday, I was filled with real pride as we went through the voting Lobby—I think we went through 12 times. I am proud of the legislation, which will provide day one employment rights, giving people real security in employment; improve statutory sick pay; give greater flexibility to workers while ending abusive fire-and-rehire practices and exploitative zero-hours contracts; and strengthen collective redundancy rights.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

My constituents tell me how important it is to strengthen statutory sick pay, particularly for lower-paid workers who cannot afford to take time off work without it. Does the hon. Member agree that, contrary to the views of Opposition Members, that is a particularly important employment right?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning that. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights, we really fought for that right, not least during covid. What a difference it would have made to workers then, and it would have kept our country safer. Of course, we need to look after people when they are sick, so I dispute what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said about a menopause plan costing business—women generally would also certainly dispute that, because having a plan would be better for business and better for women at work.

We must reset the relationship with trade unions, which is why establishing a Fair Work Agency and championing engagement around equality are important. I look forward to the future for businesses with a traditional Labour agenda that benefits businesses and workers by bringing better security and better productivity, and providing the green shoots of rebuilding the economy.

I recognise that businesses are in a fragile environment. Over the summer, I held business summits for the daytime and night-time economy. The attendees are looking forward to engaging with me as we set out our plans for our city together: resetting the climate, realigning workers’ rights and giving businesses a boost. The voices of businesses are really important. The Living Wage Foundation notes that 87% of employers say that paying the living wage improved the reputation of their business, and two thirds said that it improved recruitment. A letter about the Employment Rights Bill from leading economists and employment lawyers, published by the Institute of Employment Rights, says:

“The emerging consensus is that labour laws do not, on the whole, have negative economic consequences, and may well have positive ones.”

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to assess the economic impact and consequences, which we have seen over a number of years, of low pay and insecure hours, and how they have contributed to high turnover and sickness absence in businesses? I believe that those problems are substantially addressed by the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully and brought that observation to the attention of the House. Low productivity was also a major feature of the last Administration.

The letter goes on to highlight how worker protection positively impacts productivity, how investment in skills improves the competency of workers, and how collective bargaining raises wages and stabilises employment. Over time, that positive investment will spill out to the wider economy and Government, so that there can be investment in the public services that have been so broken. If workers have more in their pockets, they are more likely to spend in the local economy, and wage disparities will be addressed so that wealth is more evenly spread, boosting local business. We also still have parts of the Taylor review and its 53 recommendations to implement to help small employers and those in irregular work.

[Lincoln Jopp]

A few months ago, The Times invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address its CEO summit. Just before the Chancellor was called up to the stage, the host reminded the audience that the Chancellor had promised that this would be the most pro-business Government ever. The host then invited the chief executive officers—I think there were 200 of them—to say how many of them, having seen the Labour Government at work, think that it is pro-business. Not a single hand went up. Is the hon. Member aware of that?

[Rachael Maskell]

In the first of five years, we have had to repair the economy. That has been our focus, but as we move forward, businesses will see the vision that Labour has for rebuilding the economy. In my constituency, I see the vibrant boom of entrepreneurs and their business concepts coming to fruition. People want to start a business and see its success. We will certainly build the wider infrastructure needed for that.

There is much more that we need to do to advance the rights of workers. Sector bargaining is a must, with standards and terms to boost economic sectors across the economy, address labour shortages and provide sector security. I would like to see workers on company boards, co-producing with businesses and seeing the success of workers. A single status for workers is really important as we move forward. That is an issue that I have worked on for many years.

On changing the culture in workplaces, I want to ensure that workers no longer have to fear negative behaviours at work. An issue close to my heart, and one that I have worked on for many years, if not decades, is bullying at work. In two different parliamentary Sessions, I have introduced a Bullying and Respect at Work Bill, addressing negative cultures in the workplace. Bullying costs business £18 billion, and 17 million working days are lost.

We need a legal definition of bullying, a route to an employment tribunal and a positive duty to prevent, as in Australian legislation. I hope the new Minister, who I welcome to her place, will be willing to meet me and campaigners to discuss such legislation to ensure that we can introduce such a measure on one of the biggest issues blighting business today.

If workers are not subjugated and their wages are not extracted, we will build a more equitable society, a strong economy and flourishing businesses. A cohesive society is certainly something that I know working people long to see under this Labour Government.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Questions are far too long and the Secretary of State is far too generous with his responses. Let’s try to nip that in the bud.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last Saturday night I had the opportunity to go out in York with the police. It was incredibly interesting and I am so grateful for the work that they do, and it gave me an opportunity to speak to employers. We know that, as employers, our traditional pubs are really struggling because the pubs code is not working properly. Will the Minister meet me and the Campaign for Pubs to discuss how we can improve things for those businesses?

[Gareth Thomas]

I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. I know from talking to pubs that they are also very worried about the rise in antisocial behaviour and crime in our high streets and town centres. She and the pubs and other members of the night-time economy that she works with will, I hope, be reassured by some of the measures that we have taken in the Budget to begin the process of cracking down on antisocial behaviour.