Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I recently spoke at an event in Parliament hosted by that organisation. I am pleased to say that its report said there had been a small drop in the use of food banks over the past year. We have put the household support fund, now the crisis and resilience fund, on a proper basis for the next three years to support those families in the most desperate need.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

Giving sick and disabled people agency and drawing on lived experience sets the only path to getting policy right, so that they can access work appointments and get out of their homes, avoiding worklessness, health decline and isolation, with their mobility support needs recognised through PIP. Further to the Minister’s previous answer, will he ensure that any policy reforms to PIP mobility payments are fully co-produced with sick and disabled people?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the review of the PIP assessment, including the mobility element of that benefit, will be undertaken fully in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. I will be setting out very shortly how the review I am going to be leading will be undertaken.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and I congratulate the Petitions Committee and all the petitioners on bringing this issue forward for debate.

I will home in on the specific issue of self-employed adopters. There is real inequality built into the system, where self-employed adopters are not able to access the pay or even the allowances that parents can. When someone takes a new child into their home through adoption, there are significant challenges, and it is important that they can build stability, attachment and security for that child. But without the resources to do that, many adopters have made the positive choice not to adopt a second child, and others in the process are not able to embark further on the journey. That is denying children access to a family, when we have so many children—over 80,000—in care at the moment. It is absolutely vital that we change the system to ensure that we give those parents, at least, equivalent and sufficient adoption pay.

Therefore, I ask that the Government engage with and listen to the work done on this issue by organisations such as Adoption UK and Home for Good. They have identified that although there are voluntary arrangements at the moment, they are simply not working, and we need statutory arrangements for adopters. Only 10% of adopters had their social workers tell them about the voluntary arrangements to access resources from a local authority, which are given on a discretionary basis. In fact, we found that 34% of local authorities did not even have a policy for how they would give that pay to adoptive parents. It is not for local authorities; we need statutory provision in place, and I trust that the Minister will take on that cause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

We will need to see what comes out of the review, but we are committed to setting out a roadmap to change as a result of the review. I understand my hon. Friend’s point and note his desire, and that of other Members, for action to be taken as swiftly as possible.

I appreciate that parental leave and pay are vital to new mums and dads, giving them the space to spend time together as a new family. The first months and moments are critical in ensuring that a child is happy, healthy and well adjusted. It is something that runs deeper than pound signs and percentage points. Bringing a child into the world or into our home is a major event in anyone’s life. It is one that parents should enjoy free from the stresses of the workplace. However, we know that the current system is not working for everyone.

It is almost 40 years since statutory maternity pay was introduced for working women in 1987. It is half a century since maternity leave was introduced in 1975, and almost 75 years since the start of maternity allowance in 1948. In the years since, the world of work and the world at large have changed beyond recognition. Gone are the age-old stereotypes about men belonging in the workplace and women in the home. The lines between home and work have never been more blurred. As times have changed, there have been tweaks and updates: paternity leave and adoption leave in 2003; shared parental leave and pay in 2014; and neonatal care leave just this year. But, like a road network that evolves over time, the process is no longer as simple to navigate. We need something that is purpose-built for people’s journeys today.

In July, in partnership with the Department for Business and Trade, we launched the parental leave and pay review. It is time to go back to first principles, to work out exactly what the system needs to deliver and for whom—mums, dads and others—and to consider all the options before mapping out a new way forward. That starts with our remembering why maternity pay was introduced in the first place. It was primarily about the health and safety of women and their babies during pregnancy and in the months following childbirth. That is why, as the review progresses, the first objective that we have in mind for the parental leave and pay system, although not the only one, is ensuring that it supports maternal health by making sure women have enough money and time off work to stay healthy—physically and mentally—during the latter stages of their pregnancy and while recovering from birth.

Secondly, the approach needs to promote economic growth. When we give more new parents the freedom to stay and progress in work, it is not just mums, dads and kids who benefit; employers, too, benefit from keeping parents’ skills and experience. At present, just over half of new mothers go back to their old job following the birth of their child. We want to build a system in which every mother feels supported if they make that choice. New figures show that five years after a first birth, the average mother’s earnings will have dropped by more than £1,000 a month. Mothers deserve better.

Our third objective is to help children to get the best start in life by giving new parents the resources and space to give the care and attention their new arrivals need. Fourthly, we need to support parents’ childcare choices so that parents can balance care and work in a way that works for them, enabling co-parenting and reflecting the realities of modern work. Ultimately, we want a system that is fairer and easier to use, and that works better for parents and employers.

[Rachael Maskell]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The health transformation programme that I mentioned will allow the introduction of a modern digital service, which is certainly not how the existing arrangements could be characterised. It is a big job—the programme will run until 2029—but the outcome from it will be a process that is simpler and easier to understand, which I hope will reduce the stress to which the hon. Member has rightly drawn attention, and shorten decision times.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

Over the summer, I have been doing a deep dive into children with special educational needs and disabilities, not least the transition points between education and work. As part of the Timms review—the Minister’s own review—will he ensure that that interface is looked at, so that there is a smooth transition for young people, as opposed to the cliff edges that many of them face when making the transition into work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The review will look specifically at the PIP assessment, but one proposal in our Green Paper published earlier this year was increasing the age of transition from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18. I think that that change could assist with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. We are looking at the consultation responses that we have received.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I respect her a great deal. She will be aware that under the last Conservative Government millions more disabled people came into the employment market. Around 2.5 million—possibly as many as 3 million—more disabled people entered the employment market and had the dignity of work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no credible plan to get our economy growing. Hard-working families in Beverley and Holderness and right across the country deserve better than another Labour Government chasing short-term headlines at the cost of long-term economic growth and stability.

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

Last week’s chaos and climbdown has been overshadowed by events of the last 48 hours. The impact assessment published last night shows that £2 billion is still to be stripped from up to three quarters of a million sick and disabled people by 2029-30 through the slashing of the health element of universal credit in two. By the end of this Parliament, some people will lose around £3,000 a year because of these reforms, including those with fluctuating conditions.

If that was not bad enough, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has waded in to protect disabled people where this Labour Government have not. I believe that international laws and conventions must be upheld, but this Government are now under investigation for breaches. No matter what the spin is, passing the Bill tonight will leave such a stain on our great party, which was founded on values of equality and justice. The only way out is to withdraw clauses 2 and 3 so that breaches of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities are not upheld.

The UN’s contention is my contention; sick and disabled people have not been consulted. If someone with a fluctuating physical or mental health condition such as multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis or a recurring musculoskeletal condition had a period of remission and worked but then relapsed and returned to universal credit, unless unequivocally stated otherwise in the Bill, they would return on to the pittance of £50 a week for their health element.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates at 17%, and many of my constituents receive the universal credit health element. Does the hon. Member agree that if they were to be stripped of financial support, that may have an enormous impact on their mental health, which would cause a further drain on the NHS?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We know that when people’s mental health declines because of stresses and strains, it pushes them further away from the labour market, which is not the objective of “Pathways to Work” or this Government. It would be detrimental to people and our ambition.

That pittance of £50 a week will hit the budgets of individuals who have so little given that we have rising energy and food prices and housing costs. This is the difference between struggling and surviving. All they could expect is poverty to bite harder, stress to spread wider and hope to fade faster. For many with fluctuating conditions, stress exacerbates symptoms. What a way to live.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful and compassionate speech. I recently knocked on the door of one of my constituents who suffers from fibromyalgia, and it happened to be the day that she received a letter telling her that she was expected to up her working hours by six hours following an assessment. She was broken by this news, and exactly the kind of mental distress that the hon. Member is referring to was evident to me. Does the hon. Member agree that whatever reforms we introduce must put compassion and care for individuals at the heart of the assessment system, so that people, particularly those with fluctuating conditions, do not experience the kind of distress that I witnessed that day from my constituent?

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

Will my hon. Friend recognise how the Bill protects people in exactly the situation that she describes? Those who receive the universal credit health premium at the moment will be fully protected, and once they go into work they are likely to continue to receive universal credit, so their protection will carry on. If their income exceeds the universal credit level, there will be a further six months when they are earning at a significant level when if they come out of work afterwards they will come straight back on to the position they were in at the start. There are very strong protections for exactly the people she is describing.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister. This is where this gets incredibly technical. There cannot be an assumption that all of those people are on low wages. Many of them have worked all their lives as their condition has developed and are therefore in the later stages of their career, so their salary perhaps does exceed the thresholds. With many of the conditions I have listed and many more, someone could have a period of remission for eight or nine months, or even more, and they would therefore not be able to continue with the six months of support. They will exceed that and would be seen, according to our previous discussions, as a new claimant, and would drop to £50 a week rather than remaining on £97 a week.

My amendment will protect those people. It will also protect people with cancer, who could recover, go back to work and then receive the news that the cancer has returned or metastasised. If they then lose their job, do they go back to £97 a week or £50 a week? Can they eat or not eat? As if life was not hard enough for them, they may then receive that shattering news. My amendment would be a remedy for those people and for the many who need this support.

I worry that without such a guarantee—and with the single assessment, to be co-produced by the Timms review, according to “Pathways to Work”—we do not know either whether the eligibility criteria for qualifying for the UC health element, because of its association with PIP, will be more or less stringent than they are now; the Bill does not say.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, whilst noting the need for the reform of the social security system, and agreeing with the Government’s principles for providing support to people into work and protecting people who cannot work, declines to give a Second Reading to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill because its provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers; because the Office for Budget Responsibility is not due to publish its analysis of the employment impact of these reforms until the autumn of 2025; because the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade; because while acknowledging protection for current claimants, the Government has yet to produce its own impact assessment on the impact of future claimants of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit limited capability for work and related activity and the number of people, including children, who will fall into poverty or experience worsening mental or physical health as a result, nor how many carers will lose carers allowance; because the Government has not published an assessment of the impact of these reforms on health or care needs; and because the Government is still awaiting the findings of the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review into the assessment for PIP and Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent review into the role of employers and government in boosting the employment of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.

I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the reasoned amendment that stands in my name and those of other Members, and—most importantly—in the names of 138 deaf and disabled people’s organisations that backed it and co-produced it, working alongside us. It is about time that we all recognised the ableism within our systems that has made disabled people feel so far away from policymaking. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be looking at changing that—once and for all, I trust. On these big decisions, it is so important that disabled people are involved.

My constituent sat in front of me with his gorgeous little girl, who thankfully had headphones on and was playing a kiddie’s game. He said that he would not get through this. He just about manages now—some days he gets up, others not, as his mental health is failing. He cannot work. Everything else has been taken from him, and the loss of this little bit of funding to help them get by—to give him just one ounce of dignity—was more than he could bear. Then the words came: “It would be better that I wasn’t here.” That was also his expectation. He has tried before. He will be safe now, but the one who follows will not.

Another constituent felt dehumanised, as they would lose their independence to shower and dress, and others could not balance their books, as Scope’s disability price tag is £1,095 of extra costs every month. They face changes that would switch independence to dependence—dependence on social care, food banks, and pleading for emergency funds or seeking charity. Those with fluctuating conditions who came to see me just do not know where their future lies.

These Dickensian cuts belong to a different era and a different party. They are far from what this Labour party is for—it is a party to protect the poor, as is my purpose, for I am my brother’s keeper. These are my constituents, my neighbours, my community and my responsibility, and I cannot cross by on the other side, as one who is better known than the 150,000 who will be pushed further into poverty. As so many of us fear and as the evidence shows, since 600 people took their lives under the Tories’ brutal reforms, the tragedy of this ideology could be worse. I will fight for the purpose of politics—for these people’s livelihoods and for their lives. It is a matter of deep conscience for me to ensure that for once, these precious people are treated with dignity, so that they matter for being and not just for doing.

Sixteen million; in the chaos and confusion, where the sequence of consultations on the Bill makes no sense to them, no sense to me and, if we are honest, no sense to any of us, they beg the Government to just stop and start again by listening to their voices. At this 11th hour, I plead for the Bill’s withdrawal, which would be met with relief and praise. Let us consult, co-produce, incorporate the Mayfield review findings and accommodate those of the Timms review first. We should let the voices of older women, whose physical health is declining as they work into later life, come to the fore. Refuge says that disabled victims of domestic violence will not be able to leave to find their place of safety without PIP. They should be heard.

The olive branch of grace for current claimants offers no mercy to those who are to come. Disabled people have fought all their lives not to have the ladder pulled up behind them. We are talking about 430,000 people on PIP losing £4,500, 730,000 people on universal credit losing £3,000, and 150,000 people being pushed into deeper poverty. There is a reason that we are a dystopian state of excessive wealth and abject poverty: Governments focus on what they value most, and these people never get the attention. When people are left behind, it pressures services, shortens lives and breaks societies.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I am proud to put my name to the hon. Lady’s reasoned amendment. Does she agree that we have a decision to make in this House today? Do we stand alongside some of the most vulnerable—people who feel that politics cannot deliver for them? Surely we have a moral duty, across this House, to stand with those people, to pause and to show them that we care.

[Rachael Maskell]

What the hon. Member says is so powerful. I urge all my colleagues to take with them the stories of their constituents. We are here because of them, and they expect us to serve them in this difficult vote. I, too, find it hard, as I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for 30 years, and I know that he comes from a good place, but this Bill is just wrong. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) is absolutely right.

If we can afford not to have a wealth tax, not to equalise capital gains and not to draw on the excess profits of corporate greed, we can afford PIP for a disabled person. We must clear the waiting lists, prevent people falling out of work, get physio to the injured, hold employers to account for their failings and make them open their doors. In assessments, we need to look not just at what somebody cannot do but at empowering them to do what they can. We should optimise health and opportunity and take a public health approach with social prescribing and advancing adaptive technology.

Why not have a bridge between what we have now and where we are heading at the end of this process, so that nobody falls through the net? When they are managing discomfort, despair, pain and prejudice, are isolated and lonely, or their life has spiralled out of control, disabled people want anything but this Bill. They are already discriminated and dehumanised, so I plead that we do not leave them desperate, too. There is a heavy duty on us all, and it starts with compassion, kindness, safety and support. Disabled people want reform, but not by this broken Bill. My vote weighs heavy on me, as this is a matter of deep conscience, as it should be and will be for us all. As Nelson Mandela said:

“May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Welfare Reform

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

This change will be fully funded, and that will be set out in the normal way at the next fiscal event, as I am sure all hon. Members will appreciate.

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

I welcome progress, but I cannot countenance sick and disabled people being denied support to enable them to be independent in the future, and 150,000 people being pushed into deeper poverty. Nor can disabled people across our country support these measures. It is a matter of conscience. Will the Secretary of State set out why we are voting on these matters tomorrow, when the Timms review means that there could be real changes to the criteria used in assessments for people to score four points? It feels like signing a blank cheque.

[Liz Kendall]

I know my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues, but no existing claimant will be put into poverty as a result of the changes in the Bill. The figures that she is giving are about notional future claimants, and they take into account none of the record levels of employment support that we are putting into the system. We have published very clear evidence that proper support programmes can get sick and disabled people into work and to stay in work, making sure that they can improve their incomes and their lives. We have absolutely committed to co-producing the Timms review; indeed, we will be working very closely with disabled people on our reforms to access to work, and how we ensure that the pathways to work investment gets the best results for disabled people and their families. That work will take time, but we will implement the decisions as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Nine out of 10 people who are on PIP when the changes come in will be unaffected by the end of this Parliament. Anybody who is affected will keep that benefit for three months—that is, I think, one of the longest transitional protections ever and certainly three times as long as when we move from disability living allowance to PIP. The important Access to Work fund is there precisely to help anybody who needs that sort of support to get into work. We will guarantee that during those three months, anyone who is affected and who uses their PIP for work will get access to an adviser who will help them to apply for Access to Work, because it is so important that we support them.

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

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

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend will know that this Labour Government are investing billions extra into the NHS precisely so that we can drive down waits for vital operations and increase the number of people getting mental health treatment. It is also the case that good work is good for physical and mental health. There is very clear evidence on that, and that is one of the things we know that we can achieve with the £1 billion extra a year in employment support.

Disabled People in Poverty

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

The diagnosis is wrong and the treatment is no cure; all these cuts will do is to displace the cost and displace the problem. It was not disabled people who broke the NHS waiting lists. It was not disabled people who removed the access to mental health services. It is not disabled people who are experiencing a healthier life expectancy. It is the system, which has failed them for 14 years, that has done that to them—which is why we must change direction and not progress with these cuts.

Above all, employers have a major responsibility. Of course Access to Work is not working when people have to wait 85 days to get the support they need. When life spirals out of control, people need a state behind them. The sequencing is wrong, the proposals are wrong and ultimately the outcomes will be devastating.

Winter Fuel Payment

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and his welcome for this change; he called it the right change. He asked about different treatment of single and couple households; I can explain that in a bit more detail. Single households will receive the entire household’s winter fuel payment to the one individual, whether that is £200 or £300. If the individual’s income is below £35,000, they will keep that in full, and if the individual’s income is above £35,000, that will be recouped by HMRC unless they choose to opt out. With couples, the situation for those not receiving means-tested benefits will be as it was before July 2024, which is split payments, half to each member of the household, and then they will be individually tested against the tax system.

I thank the hon. Member for giving me the chance to clarify that point. I also entirely endorse his statement about pension credit. The reason we want to see higher rates of pension credit take-up is not because of winter fuel payment per se, because that is small relative to the financial gains that come from people who are entitled to a pension credit receiving it. We absolutely must maintain the progress on pension credit take-up in the months and years ahead. As I said in my statement, I welcome the work of MPs in their constituencies, and of local authorities and charities, in driving up those rates.

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

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people, I really do welcome the reinstatement of the winter fuel payment for 9 million pensioners, but since the announcement to remove it, the energy price cap has gone up £281, so will the Minister take a look at the value of the winter fuel payment and perhaps turn to the industry, which over the last five years has profited by £207 billion? Perhaps it can make a greater contribution to help our poorest pensioners.

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is right to raise questions about energy prices—an issue for households of all ages that have been living through the cost of living crisis of recent years. The good news is that the energy price cap will be coming down in July, although I think everybody across the House would like to see it fall significantly further. This Government have been taking steps over the last 11 months to make sure that more households are getting support with their energy bills. Members will have seen the consultation on the doubling of eligibility for the warm home discount, the work to significantly increase the spending on warm home insulation—over £3 billion this year—and the extension of the household support fund. Right across the piece, for households of all ages, not just for pensioners, we do need to make sure that this is a country where more people can afford to heat their homes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, and I would really like the hon. Lady to send in that information and we will go through it with a fine-toothed comb.

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

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

[Liz Kendall]

Our objective is to give disabled people more independence by ensuring that those who can work have the support to do so. We have clear evidence that being in work is good for people’s health: good work is good for people’s physical and mental health. We are investing extra money into social care, including an additional £3.7 million this year, on top of the £26 billion extra for the NHS. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further, as I know she is passionate about ensuring that people have the help, care and support that they need and deserve.