Water Safety

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on the way he introduced this debate, and I share my condolences with all the families who are grieving at this time.

It is a national tragedy that we come here, year after year, to raise these issues. The bank holiday heatwave must be a turning point for the Government’s approach. These lives matter, as does their legacy. I pay tribute to York Rescue Boat, which does phenomenal work in our city, as we have heard. It has saved 45 lives—as a volunteer force, that is remarkable—and attended 974 incidents in our city, responded to 447 call-outs and dedicated more than 105,000 volunteer hours. It has a simple message: educate, prevent and, when necessary, rescue.

York Rescue Boat’s education programme in York schools is phenomenal for giving young people the opportunity to hear about the risks on the River Ouse and the River Foss. Every weekend it is out protecting the night-time economy and patrolling the rivers, looking for vulnerable people, breaking into conversation with them and going into the water to rescue people. Sadly, so many people enter the water in York because of poor mental health. It is important to acknowledge that and address the issues that challenge people in our society today.

I pay tribute to the parents of Sonny Ferry, who was 19 when he died in York. His parents, Kate and Steve, raised funds for York Rescue Boat to have a fully equipped new boat to bring rescue efforts into our city. I also pay tribute to the aunt of Leah Bedford. Leah was just 16 when she entered the water in 2023. Her aunt’s petition, which attracted 1,428 signatures and which I presented to the House, called for more safety measures on the infrastructure around our rivers: signage, lighting and CCTV cameras. That would make such a difference, but our local authority does not always have the money needed for such measures. Sir Chris Whitty is leading the public health water taskforce; I say to the Minister that it would be timely to introduce drowning and water safety measures into that.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of water pollution. The water in the River Ouse often looks very inviting, but it has seen over 18,500 hours’ worth of sewage release in the last year, with 2,950 sewage releases in York Central. The water is so polluted that people in my city are becoming ill, which is another completely avoidable danger that has been introduced into our water, and another public health response is needed. We are very much hoping to introduce a lido in our city, which will allow people to enjoy the water in a safe, outdoor place, but we must address those real risks in the River Ouse and the River Foss as we move forward.

Fur: Import and Sale

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for all the work that she does championing animal rights in this space. Whereas she spoke about the fur in a bobble hat, I am going to talk about King’s Guard caps and the use of black bear pelts, which the Government have committed to ending. This has been a commitment for decades, and yet we are still seeing the import of black bear fur.

In the past, the Ministry of Defence believed that the black bear fur came from licensed culls; the Canadian authorities have denied that, both at federal and provincial government levels, saying that there is no such thing as licensed culls. We therefore know that trophy hunters are the source—something that this House has campaigned on time and again. We must ensure that, under this Labour Government, we see an end to trophy hunting.

Coming back to the issue of the King’s Guard caps, we know that trade through the work of trophy hunters leads to bears—killed in a random way—often dying slowly and in much distress through blood loss, infection and starvation. The future is perilous for those cubs that lose their mums. We need to ensure that those pelts do not move on to the auction houses from which the MOD purchases them.

Only part of the pelt is actually used—the bit with longer fur. The rest of the pelt is simply thrown away. It is costing us as taxpayers—this is what I find so repugnant: it has cost us £1 million over the past decade. One thousand bears have been killed to put on the heads of soldiers. What on earth is that all about? When there are faux fur alternatives available, which have been developed with great skill, we need to ensure that we use them.

Faux fur mimics, and even outperforms, real fur with regard to waterproofing; it is lighter, it dries more quickly and it springs back into shape. The chemicals and water used in the making of faux fur are recycled, ensuring that it is environmentally friendly as well as ethical. Faux fur has uniformity of colour and fur length, and it can be developed from a bio-based fabric. The MOD must stop placing these pelts on the heads of soldiers. More than 75% of the public support that, so it is an obvious move.

I call on all hon. Members present to sign early-day motion 2907 in my name to ensure that we end the use of this cruel method of both ceremonially parading these dead animals through our streets and having them standing outside Buckingham Palace. I find it shameful; it must end. What steps is the Minister taking to end the use of bearskins, and what discussions has she had with the MOD concerning that? Will the Minister halt the purchase of any further pelts from this point on, pending a review, and will she ensure that we use faux fur as an alternative to bearskin pelts? I am sure that nobody would disagree with such a move, and it would be such an improvement. Doing so would have no bearing on the safety of soldiers, but would restore safety to bears, so that we can take pride in knowing that animals are not being paraded on the heads of our soldiers.

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

The power of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) must resonate around Whitehall and warn the City, developers and all who seek to profit from our natural habitats.

Today, I want to talk about York. York is described as a humane city and the Strays of York are green fingers that reach into its heart. Walking along the river, we barely see bricks and mortar. We have our own biometric marker, the tansy beetle—an iridescent, beautiful beetle, about a centimetre in length. It is known as the jewel of York, and yet it is the barometer of all that is going wrong. Flooding caused by the grouse shooting up on the moors is destroying its habitat. We are left with so few beetles in the country, because we will not find them anywhere else. Yorkshire Water has failed to manage our water system, and drought is causing the tansy beetle’s habitat to dry and the tansy plant, the only one on which it lives, to wither. The pollution coming down the River Ouse is also causing real strain.

The tansy beetle has its own action group to conserve this precious jewel. In 2016, 46,000 of the beetle were found. The group’s work raised that to 91,000 by 2023, and yet today the beetle is at risk. We cannot let those who profit from our system and destroy our natural habitats rob us of these precious parts of our nature. It is so important that the Government take action. We need not a national security assessment, but a nature security assessment.

Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing the debate. We inherited the most dysfunctional water system imaginable. The governance was not there and there was no accountability in the system. Labour came in to put that right. Although we have gone so far on that journey, and I congratulate the Minister on the legislation we have passed and the legislation to come, there is clearly so much to do.

My city of York is based on two rivers that flood and, with all the pollutants in the water, it is a crisis when that occurs. In 2023, there were 16,357 hours of sewage releases on the River Ouse and another 3,254 hours on the Foss. We now know that the Foss has the worst levels of pharmaceutical pollutants—which we have not heard about in this debate—of any river in Europe. I draw the Minister’s attention to the work being undertaken by the University of York in its Ecomix project, which is looking at 1,000 different chemicals—whether from agriculture, pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, personal care products or things like tyre additives—in order to raise standards. We have to know what is in our rivers so that we can address the issues.

Although we have come so far with the excellent report by Sir Jon Cunliffe, there is clearly more to do. I again draw the Minister’s attention to the work of the University of York—it is such a leader in the field—and its action for quality aquatic environments project, which is drawing citizens into the science project to detect chemical and biological pollutants in order to put things right in the future. That mass community research enables communities not only to own their rivers but to press for change. They pressed me to take part in this debate, and I am grateful for that.

We must move forward. This country had the reputation of being the “dirty man of Europe”. That changed, particularly under the last Labour Government, and yet standards have slipped back so much over the last 14 years that we are getting that reputation again. It is important that we maintain those standards, and we should be adopting the principles of European legislation—the urban wastewater treatment directive—into our legislation, ensuring that we close that gap on pollutants and move forward so our water can be safe again. We must also move to ban the dangerous forever chemicals that are finding their way into our waterways. There is too much flexibility about the chemicals that people have been using, and keeping our waterways safe is really important.

I want to raise the issue of our infrastructure and modernising our sewerage system, which is predominantly still based on the Victorian infrastructure of the past and does not segregate rainwater from sewage. That is causing so many problems. We need those investments to come at pace. We need to ensure that, locally, we are measuring and reporting the scourge of what is happening in our waterways.

As has already been mentioned, Yorkshire Water has failed. Bills have gone up and accountability has gone down, and the chief executive is taking eye-watering sums of funding. We need better governance and, with all these failing contracts, we need to move water into public ownership again.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the 102,000-plus petitioners on signing the petition, including the 185 from my constituency, and I join them in opposing the badger cull. I am so glad that it is this Labour Government that are looking at the evidence and the science in order to support farmers, the whole community and of course badgers, with better biosecurity, testing and, if necessary, vaccination.

I have been debating the badger cull since I was the shadow Environment Secretary. At the time, I pored over the science and came to the clear conclusion that the badger cull was not the way forward. We needed to cull the cull and ultimately to put in place the right measures. I am so glad that, since that point, when just Gloucestershire and Somerset were involved in the culling experiment, further science has been developed. Today we know that about 250,000 badgers have been killed, which is around half the population of badgers. In some areas, that amounts to about 70% of the population. Badgers are now becoming an endangered species in our country. They are crudely killed, and many, of course, are not carrying the TB virus at all. Indeed, this places an increased risk on farmers and their cattle.

As we have heard, 94% of transmission of bovine TB is from cow to cow, but the poor badger is being scapegoated. Bovine TB is present across our environment, and we have heard many examples of that already. It is recognised that farmers and Government want to stop the spread of this disease, and we need to do that by following the right methodology. To facilitate that, we must take the money being spent on the cull and ensure that it goes to farmers. Indeed, there also needs to be additional support to ensure that we get on top of this disease.

Bovine TB follows the same pattern as human TB and other communicable diseases. We need testing, isolation of the disease and, where necessary, vaccination. We need only think about covid to know that the same methodologies that were recommended to us need to be applied to TB in cattle. Controlling the movement of cattle and putting in place more rigorous testing—the right testing—can make such a difference to livestock, stopping cross-infection between herds.

This is all about good public health, which we are so familiar with. We practise that worldwide, so why be different with this community? It is seriously letting farmers down. Scapegoating and slaughtering badgers does not aid farmers in managing the disease.

The culling has been condemned as inhumane. Up to 22.8% of badgers shot while free-roaming were still alive after five minutes. That demonstrates significant levels of suffering, yet monitoring of culling is at an all-time low. The evidence should make the Government determine that the cull is the wrong measure. Professor Rosie Woodroffe’s research, which dates back to 2007, has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the badger cull, because of the way TB is transmitted. She has described it as the

“largest manipulative ecological experiment ever conducted”.

If anything, the risk of transmission from cattle to badger is far higher than the converse. Consistent DEFRA research shows that culling has no impact on bovine TB, yet culling continues. When I asked the then Secretary of State a question before the summer recess, I was told that Labour is now serious about looking at the science. I welcome that, but the cull has continued for two seasons under our watch, so it is really important that we bring it to an end.

I, too, met the team from Gatcombe farm when they came to Parliament before the summer. I probed the farmer and the vet deeply for about an hour to understand the science and the methodology. I spent time hearing about the impact and about how a farm that had once been ridden with TB was now free of bovine TB. Surely that is the outcome that we want for all our farmers.

We have to look at the testing regime. The traditional skin test will only show the presence of the disease when sufficiently loaded with reactor cells. By that point, the cow could have had advanced TB in its lungs for some time and could have managed to spread the disease to other cattle. A more advanced screening polymerase chain reaction test can identify the disease at a far earlier stage, so deploying that is a better approach. We all know that we can scale PCR testing, as we did over the covid pandemic.

Research at Gatcombe, recognised elsewhere, showed that an accumulation of slurry led to a concentration of disease. Untreated and infested, the slurry is spread on to fields; it is then ingested by snails, slugs and other animals, and moves into the badger food chain. The risk of cattle-to-badger infection is incredibly strong, as PCR testing has proved. Further research has shown that intensification of farming increases the risk. Cattle wading through their own faeces, and that of other cattle, means a greater risk of cross-infection. It is far less likely where cattle graze in the open, as they eat the grass between the cowpats.

We often think about TB purely as a respiratory disease, but we see lesions in other organs as well. It is now recognised that farming intensification and poor hygiene are the route of disease transmission; that is a basic thing that we learned through covid. Good biosecurity, testing and removal of cattle are the way to address this. Again, that is something that we practised during covid.

The Gatcombe strategy works and should be adopted. The question is therefore not “What should be done?”, but “How will it be done, and how will the Government support it?” We need to use sensitive testing to identify the pathogens in faeces and blood, cut off the routes of infection, identify disease before cattle become infectious, ensure scrupulous hygiene and removal of faeces at pace and test new cattle before integrating with existing livestock with a more sensitive Actiphage test.

The TB-infested farm has become a TB-free farm, all without killing a single badger, just by removing infected cattle. No badger vaccination was needed. In fact, it was proven at the time that the highest risk of infection comes from the most intensely farmed cattle, which are not free to graze.

An infected cow produces about 500 times more faeces than a badger. Badger hygiene is also known to be far more fastidious, and badgers are likely to concentrate in one area. The risk of badger-to-cattle infection is minuscule. It is the other way around. Studies have shown that badgers do not approach cattle, so airborne infection via a badger breathing on a cow is so unlikely, if it is ever encountered.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I hear Member after Member talking about badgers sneezing on cows and breathing on cows, but badgers can spread bovine TB to cattle through urine and droppings. Bovine TB costs this country £150 million a year, yet currently the Government have invested only £40 million. I urge the hon. Member and the Minister to agree that we should significantly increase that investment to ensure the effective vaccine roll-out that we keep hearing about.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, but it is important to understand the scale of the deposits from cows wading in their faeces compared with those from badgers, which have a far more fastidious hygiene regime. The risk of infection from badgers is very much reduced. If we were not putting the faeces from cows into the badgers’ food chain, badger faeces would be TB-free. The science speaks to that. We should stop putting untreated slurry on our fields, so we can take the TB out of the badgers’ food chain.

Two steps now need our focus. The first is allowing the testing of herds to show that they are free from infection before they become infectious. We need to do that early, routinely and assuredly, with the right testing. That is for the Government to scale. Secondly, we need to make sure that we treat slurry before it is placed on our fields. Anaerobic digestion is one solution.

Let us stop the cull, engage better with testing, control movements and put in place the biosecurity measures that will make improvements. As with all communicable diseases, we must always ensure high levels of hygiene. That is one of the basics of public health, and it should be applied here. Above all, we know that it works: it benefits farmers, it reduces their stress and anxiety, and ultimately it will save not only cattle and farms, but the badger.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call Perran Moon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes. It is to deal with a TB hotspot that appeared. By the end of this season there will be no cull licences in any high-intensity or edge area.

Everybody has said in their own particular way that we all agree that we have to reduce the incidence of and eradicate bovine TB, and we also want to stop killing badgers, so we have to do more on cattle, which is exactly what the Government wish to do. Cattle measures are the foundation of our eradication programme. That means there should be regular testing, both routine and targeted, using the highly specific skin test, supplemented where appropriate by the highly sensitive interferon-gamma test. We also have robust rules on cattle movements and slaughterhouse surveillance, and tools like the ibTB map to help farmers to make risk-based and informed decisions when they buy or sell stock.

But more can be done to strengthen our cattle testing programme. The DEFRA-funded TB advisory service and the TB hub are the go-to advisers in supporting farmers to implement practical biosecurity measures. Simple things such as raising water troughs, securing feed stores and keeping wildlife out of buildings are simple, low-cost steps that make a real difference. Yet I recognise the Godfray panel’s view that more must be done to strengthen biosecurity across the board, so we will focus on what that might look like.

One of the most exciting developments in a generation is cattle vaccination. The cattle BCG vaccine, used alongside a new test that can tell the difference between vaccinated cattle among infected animals—the so-called DIVA skin test—is being trialled on farms as we speak. If marketing authorisations are granted by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, we could start using those tools in the next few years. These things are annoyingly slow, but I will see whether there is any way to ensure a speedier way to get those things used. Vaccination is clearly never going to take off if one cannot tell the difference between an infected or vaccinated animal, so it is clear that we have to make progress on that.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful for all that my hon. Friend has said, but I am reminded of what Kate Bingham said when she talked about the scaling down and scaling up of our capability in responding to the pandemic. Will my hon. Friend look at the methodology so that we are able to respond not only to this particular crisis but, as the shadow Minister highlighted, to the future risks that farmers face?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am well aware of the increased risk of disease and issues suddenly emerging, having lived through the last outbreak of foot and mouth in this country, albeit not quite in the way that the shadow Minister did. It can be catastrophic, so it is very important to think about how we can be ready to scale up surveillance very quickly.

In her contribution my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the battle against covid that we all lived through a few years ago and compared it with this battle. Even though the repayment method will be long, money was no object then; in this instance I am afraid that finances and money have to be an object. We have to try to get our surveillance and ability to respond quickly in the best place we can within the resources we have, so there is more of a constraint than there might have been in some of the examples that my hon. Friend used.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I join him in commending the Dinsdale family for the work they do. I have spoken to a number of farmers who would very much like to do that. Of course, there is significant cost involved, and we are working with farmers to try to get the circular economy that we all want to see.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

The depletion of soil health, the risk of disease and climate change threaten our food security for the longer term, and yet we need biotechnologies and sciences to ensure that we have a future in farming. Would the Minister be willing to meet the BioYorkshire project, which brings together Fera Science, the University of York, Askham Bryan College and others, to ensure we have the research and the translation and scaling of that to protect the future of farming?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I assure my hon. Friend that I have had numerous conversations with leading academics in her great city, and I would be happy to have further conversations along those lines.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask that question. As I just referenced, the bluetongue issue has been serious and difficult. We have made a sensible decision for England, and the approach we have taken has managed to control the spread. The decision in Wales is obviously a matter for the Welsh Government, and I am sure that he would understand that I respect that decision. We are talking about how we can resolve the difficult issues that he has raised.

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

I am deeply distressed that the Government are planning to extend the badger cull, because the evidence shows that with good testing and biosecurity, we can bring down rates of tuberculosis. I heard what the representative from Gatcombe farm said when they visited Parliament just a couple of weeks ago. Will the Minister look at the evidence? Before moving forward with a badger cull, will he look at biosecurity measures that could ensure that we really get on top of bovine TB?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not extending the badger cull. We have a clear commitment to ending the badger cull in this Parliament, and I will visit Gatcombe with others in the weeks ahead. We are taking an evidence-based approach. We also have to make sure that we help farmers tackle a distressing and difficult disease.

Trail Hunting

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

I think it is absolutely right that all voices are heard, but that science is followed. Legislation should be based on evidence and science, and the evidence and the science suggest that the cruelty to the animal being pursued far outweighs the pleasure the hunt will give human beings. However, I am really happy for all voices to be heard in this debate.

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

The law must also be followed. The fact that 46% of registered trail hunts end up chasing a fox proves that the law needs tightening up and that we need tougher sentencing. Ultimately, this Labour Government will deliver that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a priority?

[Perran Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I do agree, and I will be coming on to that later.

Flooding

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman is always welcome to urge me to do many things. His proposal on how the Environment Agency works with local parishes is an interesting one, and I would be happy to hear more of his thoughts on it. To reassure people about new homes, we have committed to building more high-quality, well-designed and sustainable homes, and to ensuring that they do not increase flood risk and are not at risk of flooding. If alternative sites are not available and developments need to be in locations where there is a risk of flooding, they must be flood resilient and resistant for their lifetimes, and must not increase overall flood risk.

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

I put on record my thanks to City of York council workers, as well as to the Environment Agency, for protecting our city over the new year period. Many businesses in my city flood periodically. Will the Minister think again about a review of the insurance system for businesses, so that they have resilience and confidence moving forward?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for joining the call that we held with all the different organisations on the Friday. I anticipated that I might be pushed on that question, and I have to admire her persistence on it. Of course, I understand the importance of Flood Re and of businesses having insurance. The Flood Re scheme was originally designed in a very specific way, but I am always happy to take further representations from my hon. Friend.

Storm Bert

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

There is a programme to improve the maintenance of coal tips, which is underway through the Welsh Government. As I said, this is the first Government to allocate funding to tackle that risk and its very serious implications for people and communities living in affected areas.

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

I am grateful to the Environment Agency for protecting much of my constituency. However, businesses still continue to flood. Could the Secretary of State say what he is doing to review the remit of Flood Re, so that businesses, leaseholders and properties built after 2009 can be covered by the Flood Re scheme, which really does help people through times of flooding?

[Steve Reed]

As I have indicated, the Minister for water, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), has already chaired a roundtable with insurance providers, including Flood Re, to look at what more can be done to provide support. As things stand, 99% of the most high-risk households can get quotes from over 15 insurance providers, and four out of five homeowners with claims have seen a 50% reduction in their insurance premiums. We are looking at what more can be done for businesses through the British Insurance Brokers’ Association.