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.

Budget Resolutions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). His constituency is a tourist destination, much like York. The hospitality and tourism sector certainly faces its challenges, and I look forward to studying the proposals from Government.

This clearly is the last Budget of this Parliament and, after today, this Government. They have had 14 years, and the Tories are leaving the country with record debt, public services on their knees and households floundering with the cost of living, high rents and mortgages, utility, food and fuel bills up. Rather than repairing the economy, which is now in recession, the Chancellor has forgotten how his predecessor crashed the economy and left the nation’s pensions hours away from collapse, and how it will take a generation to recover. Households are now £870 worse off under the Prime Minister’s tax plans.

The Government are extending the household support fund—I have long campaigned for that—but by just six months, when so many families in our constituencies are hanging by a thread. As a rich country, Britain should not need such measures, but when many people have so much, we see how entrenched inequality is. The very safety net that should keep people safe has been slashed, and people are falling through it. Nearly 4 million people are living in absolute destitution, with 1 million on universal credit requiring budgeting advances, as the Chancellor said. We hear what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is saying. Its research shows that social security is simply not enough for the essentials; it needs to be paid at a rate of at least £120 a week for a single person or £200 for a couple. Scope has said that disabled people fare even worse and need an additional £12 a week to keep themselves afloat. Of course, the cap put in place so that people get support for only two children means that children are left in poverty, too. It should be scrapped.

There was nothing for local government, and that will be ringing in the ears of councillors up and down the land. The Local Government Association says that one in five councils are facing bankruptcy. Since 2015, the City of York Council has seen a 53% real-terms cut in its settlement. National Government are stripping local government.

Where is the housing we need, not least the social housing? Why are people still waiting to see an NHS doctor or dentist? Why are people left languishing on the wards of our hospitals? It is because they cannot get social care because people are not paid enough to do that job. Crime is up, the justice system is dysfunctional, our schools are squeezing their budgets and our youth services have more or less disappeared—cut by 87% in York.

The Government have squandered 14 years. The consequences of running the economy poorly are stark, as I turn to the world’s poorest. We think about those right now in Darfur and in Gaza, where there is no food, no medicine and no hope. Failed economics means that overseas development aid has been slashed and people are left hungry and sick. That is why we cannot afford this Government.

Do not get me wrong—some people are doing incredibly well. They have profited from dodgy personal protective equipment contracts and dodged tax altogether. Now that the Prime Minister is planning his exit from Parliament—and, no doubt, Britain as well—he is reforming the non-dom status from which he has personally benefited. After 14 years of virtually no productivity and bouts of recession and economic volatility, with working people’s heard-earned taxes gambled and burned, the Budget has proven that the Government have failed to put people above party.

It will be tough for Labour—our inheritance has been squandered—but we will stabilise, invest in and reform the economy. We must do so, rebuilding with fundamental Labour values that determine economic competence and stability and address the scourge of inequality. We will invest in future industries and jobs, innovations, entrepreneurs, and science and technology, not least on climate mitigation, with Great British Energy decarbonising the grid. We will double onshore wind, triple solar power and quadruple offshore wind, bringing down energy bills for the benefit of all.

I was greatly disappointed that York and North Yorkshire’s green new deal did not get a mention. It has the opportunity to create 4,000 green-collar jobs. BioYorkshire will be a game changer for our region and for the climate. We need to ensure that we elect David Skaith as Labour’s first Mayor for York and North Yorkshire, because he will bring that project to life.

As we reform, we need to bring about change. We need to build the houses that the next generation need and this generation are desperately crying out for. We need to retrofit millions more homes to secure green homes for the future.

There are a few things from today’s announcement that I welcome, including the funding for the National Railway Museum as it expands as the world’s largest rail museum. I encourage hon. Members to come and visit as it opens its new doors. I welcome the changes to taxation on short-term holiday lets following my campaign and private Member’s Bill to stop landlords flipping their homes, but reforms that would ensure the housing we need have not come forward. I am disappointed that the Government will give grandfathering rights to existing properties, meaning that 2,000 family homes in York will not be returned, or have the opportunity of being returned, to families who desperately need them.

I am interested in what the Government had to say about the £3.4 billion investment in the NHS following the Health and Social Care Committee’s report on digital transformation. I look forward to scrutinising the plans.

As we celebrate International Women’s Week, I must highlight that women are always losers under Tory Budgets. With childcare costs rising and social care collapsing, the burden falls on women. We need to see change. Our first Chancellor in the new Government will be a woman, and I encourage her to introduce gender budgeting, in which every decision is stress-tested to ensure that it levels women with men. Fiscal policies, political choices and administrative procedures must address gender inequality, so that the economic output of women is recognised and equality is achieved, and we get better economic stability, better growth and greater productivity gains. That is working elsewhere, and I want it introduced in the next Parliament.

Today, there will be headlines; tomorrow, reality will hit. We will not forget these last 14 years. With the general election on the horizon, and the prospect of an economic reset under Labour, we must move forward with Labour’s values, which we have held for 124 years, and use our common purpose for the common good.

Children’s Mental Health Week 2024

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on securing the debate and on all the work that she has contributed in looking at mental health and, in particular today, children’s mental health.

I believe that no one has the monopoly of wisdom in this area—every day we are learning how to move forward—but key components need to be put in place. We know, and have heard in the debate, the role that trauma plays and its impact on children’s mental health. We also know that the environment to which a child is exposed can trigger and escalate the challenges they face.

We have heard about the shortfalls in the number of professionals required in the services. We need greater investment, not just through ringfenced and protected finance and funding, but to ensure that the NHS long-term workforce plan focuses on the mental health workforce that is needed now and into the future. As we have heard, whether workforce issues are due to the impact of covid or other factors, they will have a significant impact; and unless we make the right interventions early, there will clearly be consequences.

I particularly want to focus the Minister on the issue of leadership, because in an ever more complex health system—we have heard again today about the challenges of trying to navigate local authority and health systems—we need to have very clear leadership in this area. I urge the Minister to go back to the major conditions strategy and to pull out mental health, specifically looking at children and young people’s mental health, and to develop a 10-year strategy, not just for mental health in general as was originally planned, but for children and young people’s mental health, so that there can be not only a laser focus on the interventions that are needed but so the strategy can be held up to scrutiny, which is what this place needs to do.

I also urge the Minister to co-ordinate cross-departmental work to ensure that that strategy is robust and that the inter-relationships between different Departments work, because we recognise that the issues we are discussing today have impacts in so many different areas, whether we are talking about the environment, housing, poverty—as we have today—or indeed education. We need to ensure that we pull all that work together. I urge her to take that work forward and to respond to the debate.

In particular, I also want to focus on the intersections with children from the care sector—care-experienced young people—and the additional traumas that they have. Just last Thursday, we heard powerful evidence in this place when Adoption UK put forward its latest report, which discusses how the education system itself needs to change. I would be really interested to know what discussions the Minister is having with Education Ministers about creating a trauma-informed approach to schooling, particularly addressing some of the behaviour codes that are in place, and the processes of isolation and exclusions, which are bearing down on young people who, as we have already heard, have faced significant challenges since covid and before. It is incredibly important to ensure that such an approach is put in place, in particular for children with autism and children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.

Those children are having an adverse experience in the education system, which will be costly in the long term. There are too many children in that situation. I met an Education Minister this morning and highlighted the number of children who are not in school. We cannot just say that children are refusing to attend school with no reason and we also need to ensure that the school environment is safe for children.

I welcome the presence of health professionals in schools. I have to say that relying on teachers to lead on mental health in schools is the wrong approach, because teachers have so much to do already that they need back-up. Teachers are scared that they will miss something because they have not had the training that mental health professionals have. However, the roll-out of those teams of health professionals in schools is far, far too slow. I appreciate that there is a workforce challenge, but we need to expedite that work.

I will close by drawing attention to the work of Healthwatch York, which has really dug deep into children’s mental health issues in our city, and to the work that I have been doing and a recent meeting that I have had with parents from across our city. Systems seem to be impossible to navigate, there are long waits and ultimately services are overstretched and under-resourced. It is not just the young people themselves but their parents who need support, so I trust that the Minister will ensure that there is a parents strategy in all the work she does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

The £28 billion that Labour is proposing has no plan behind it, and we are not told what hard workers across the country would have to pay to fill that black hole. Labour has asked for a transition to green steel. It would want us to protect steelworkers and obviously would want to protect advanced manufacturing in the UK. Customers want cleaner steel. Port Talbot could no longer function with its ageing blast furnaces, and our package will save 5,000 jobs at Port Talbot.

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

15. What steps she is taking to help support the growth of co-operatives and social enterprises.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

This week, I spoke to a conference attended by building societies about how we can increase presence on the high street to help with access to cash and finance facilities. The Government provide extensive business support to all businesses, including social enterprises and co-operatives. The British Business Bank’s recovery loan scheme and start-up loans improve access to finance to help those kinds of businesses to invest and grow.

[Rachael Maskell]

Co-operatives and social enterprise businesses provide a fairer way of doing business, involve members in greater business decisions and provide economic growth for local areas. However, they are being held back by financial and regulatory constraints. Will the Government match the Labour party’s and the Co-operative party’s ambition of committing to address those challenges and doubling the size of the co-operatives sector?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Personally, I am a big fan of co-operative movements and the regional mutual bank system in Germany, which I have spoken about many times in this place. Of course, the Government supported the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023, which helps to maintain the status of co-operatives. Social enterprises and co-operatives can also access support via the business support helpline as well as help through our websites and our network of local growth hubs.