Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for everything he has done in relation to social care and the importance of providing care. He does it with very real human experience, which we all know and we all respect, and no doubt he will continue to champion the issue, as everybody should. He asked me about joining him at Chessington World of Adventures, and I will. Can I suggest 12 noon on the first Wednesday in September? [Laughter.]

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

Q11. Before coming to this House, the Prime Minister and I attended the launch of my uncle’s book. It was entitled “Fine Lines and Distinctions”. Clearly, sometimes we have had those differences, but I genuinely wish him and his family well for the future. But before he places his pen down, I understand that there is a tradition of leaving a note for your successor. In wishing all hon. Members the very best of summers, I ask that he asks his successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), to enact my legislation to license short-term holiday lets and ensure that we can protect our communities from family houses turning into party houses in residential areas and ensure that we keep housing costs down?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not sure about a note for my successor. We left one in 2010 which did not work too well. [Laughter.] I am sure that my successor will look at my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill, and I am proud to have overseen the biggest boost to renters’ rights in a generation. We kick-started the biggest boost to social and affordable house building, and wherever people live, they deserve a safe, secure home that they can call their own.

Historical Forced Adoption

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for her work on the Committee and agree with her that the apology is long overdue; it should have been given a long time ago, in my view. The point that she makes about information is important, and the online resource will be put in place as quickly as possible. It is not a small matter, because this is information that belongs to those who are affected. It is not information that is provided to them out of some service from the state; it is their information. The fact that barriers have been put in the way of those seeking their own information about their own lives and their own identity is an appalling additional injustice, of which there are very many in these cases.

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

I sincerely thank the Prime Minister for his statement. In my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence, he will know that I wrote to him at the start of the year about the importance of issuing this apology. I really thank him for the way that he has done that.

We know that from that post-war era to 1976, 185,000 families—that number is hard to appreciate—were affected by forced adoption, including 404 families in my own city. Will he ensure rapid access to therapeutic support? We know that it is incredibly difficult, both for adoptees and for women and those who were girls who had their babies forcibly removed. Will he consider babies who were brought to the UK from other jurisdictions and who were also forcibly removed from their mothers?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the APPG and for her campaigning, and acknowledge what she has done. As for the number, 185,000 is a shocking figure, but I worry that it may be higher than that. I worry that there are cases that we still do not know about—those where the records are not available and where, as I say, some people feel that they still cannot talk. That rapid access to therapeutic support is hugely important and she is right to highlight it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I know that the hon. Lady is really concerned to ensure that her constituents have proper network coverage. We encourage mobile network operators to use existing infrastructure where they can, but I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Government and Data to get the progress that the people of North Shropshire need and deserve.

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

T5. The broadcasting, entertainment and arts unions all-party parliamentary group heard deeply concerning evidence from writers, journalists, musicians and performers that their work is being scraped, ripped off and stolen by sophisticated AI models for training purposes. When will the Secretary of State introduce laws to protect the creative industries? Will she meet with the APPG and unions to discuss this matter further?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that critical question for Britain’s creative sector. Just yesterday, on British IP Day, I met with the Alliance for Intellectual Property, including artists, authors, publishers, journalists and media organisations, to talk about how our work on digital replicas and transparency will be critical to supporting the creative sector. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the APPG.

MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon]

I must confess, when I have been out and about in my constituency and in others, I have never met anyone who says, “What we really need to do is pay MPs more.” We are already in the top 5% of earners, so I do not think that paying MPs more is the issue. Being an MP is an incredible privilege—an incredibly well-paid privilege. It is second jobs that we want to stop; we do not want to argue for further pay rises for already very well-paid MPs.

We talk about second jobs, but for some MPs there are third jobs, fourth jobs, fifth jobs, sixth jobs and many more. For some, it seems, being an MP is the second job. I am opposed to MPs having second jobs, whether those MPs are Conservative, Reform, Labour or from any other party. I do not say this to make a party political point, but it is a fact that the top 10 includes eight Conservative and two Reform MPs, including Reform’s party leader. Beyond the top 10, looking at all MPs’ outside earnings, Conservative MPs account for around 66% of the total, Reform MPs around 20%, and Labour MPs around 7%.

Can I just say—because it needs to be said—that I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), the leader of Reform, is not here? On Monday, I wrote to him publicly, inviting him to come and explain why MPs should be allowed to rake in vast sums from second jobs. Yesterday it came to light that he has been getting paid £22,500 per hour promoting a gold dealer, which takes his second job earnings to approaching £2 million in just two years since the general election. That is more than £22,000 per hour for a man who last year argued that a minimum wage of £10.85 per hour for young people in his constituency, my constituency and constituencies across the country may be too much. Some man of the people! It is all very Donald Trump.

We hear a lot about why second jobs are acceptable, but the public know that when an MP can earn more for a couple of hours’ so-called work than a nurse earns in a year, there is something deeply broken in our politics and change is needed. There is no doubting the scale of the problem.

In 2022, I presented the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of Second Jobs) (Motion) Bill, a private Member’s Bill for a total ban on MPs’ second jobs. I hope that can become law under the new Prime Minister. I welcome the steps taken by this Government to restrict second jobs, but so far they go nowhere near far enough. We need a proper ban. The key principle of my Bill is straightforward. Being an MP is a well-paid privilege. The nearly £100,000 a year salary places us in the highest 5% of earners in the country, so being an MP should be a full-time job. The public elect us to represent them, to fight their corner and to devote our time to their concerns. They do not elect MPs to spend their time lining their pockets. When MPs do that, they short-change the public who pay them and they undermine our democracy. We even have 18 MPs who have been paid more from their second jobs than from their MP’s salary. For them, it seems, that being a Member of Parliament is a second job.

If someone wishes to pursue a highly paid private sector career, they are entitled to do so. But if that is the MP’s priority, they should resign. Our democracy would be better for it. We do not need MPs here chasing ever more cash. Another obvious reason to ban MPs’ second jobs is that they create real conflicts of interest. An MP should have one loyalty—loyalty to the people who sent them here. The moment other employers pay an MP tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or in some cases even well over a million, divided loyalties arise. People rightly ask, “Who comes first: the constituents who elected them or the company paying them?” No one can serve two masters.

Even if people claim there is no conflict of interest, it is clear that second jobs fuel a growing sense that politics is becoming detached from everyday life. Politics should be about public service, not personal enrichment. So many families across the country are under massive financial pressure, struggling through no fault of their own. They work long hours, struggle with rising bills and worry themselves sick about making ends meet. Is it any surprise that people are angry when MPs get more from their second jobs than ordinary workers earn in a year?

I have campaigned against second jobs for many years. When I do, one argument always gets raised. We are told that second jobs provide valuable real-world experience. Frankly, that argument is laughable. Highly paid second jobs do not bring MPs closer to the real world, because real people do not live like that. Huge second salaries are the experience of a tiny elite, not of the vast majority of constituents we are here to serve.

It is funny that the MPs who claim to want real-world experience never seem to find it doing the jobs of ordinary workers, such as stacking shelves, driving buses or caring for the elderly in a care home. I did not find too many of those jobs in the list of MPs’ extra earnings. The reason is obvious: it is really about getting money, not real-world experience. If MPs genuinely wanted real-world experience, they would seek it where real people actually work, not in corporate board rooms. When people say that Parliament should benefit from a diverse range of life experience and professional expertise, I totally agree; but that should be from the experiences they gained before being elected, not from corporate contracts secured because they are MPs.

The other argument we always hear is that a ban would be too difficult, but it would not. My Bill shows exactly how it can be done. It would prohibit MPs from holding paid second jobs, while allowing sensible exceptions. The Bill is not about stopping a genuine public service. A doctor or nurse treating patients is serving the public; sitting on a corporate board for large pay cheques is not. My Bill would not stop someone doing the limited hours of work needed to maintain professional qualifications, nor would it stop someone working out a short notice period when unexpectedly elected to Parliament.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. When he talks about second jobs, I think about my constituents who have to work second jobs to pay the bills. That is where our attention should be focused. On professional qualifications, I recognise that being an MP is a full-time job. As a result, my professional qualifications had to fall, because I needed to give myself to my constituents 24/7. Will he look again at that provision in his Bill? The work we do here must be for our constituents, and we must not be distracted from that, even by professional roles such as the one I once held.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important point. The details of the Bill could be debated and amended in the House and at Committee stage, if it were taken forward, as I invite the next Prime Minister to do. I was trying to make the point that, if someone needs to do a handful of hours per year to remain on a professional register, I would have no objection. Perhaps the Bill can be enhanced and improved, including by my hon. Friend, if it progresses further. Beyond the limited exceptions that I have outlined, the practice of second jobs should end.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I look forward to engaging with the right hon. Gentleman in the general debate on Wednesday, in which, of course, I commit to the House that I will do my best to answer questions that are put to me. On the Prime Minister’s communications, I point out to the House that Prime Ministers do not sit at computers, sending emails from Outlook. They have officials who action their decisions on their behalf, and that is what is represented in the disclosure.

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

It seems that Mr Mandelson’s business interests permeated every aspect of government. This afternoon, we are to debate the Health Bill and the federated data platform. Palantir, a client of Peter Mandelson’s, will clearly have a specific interest hardwired into the Bill, and we are expected to vote on it without seeing the full documentation, or having time to digest it. What exactly was the relationship between Mr Mandelson and Mr Thiel, and was that disclosed in the interview process?

[Darren Jones]

I am afraid that I am not at the Dispatch Box to speak on behalf of Mr Mandelson, and I was not in the developed vetting interview process; nor have I seen that information, so I cannot answer the specific questions that my hon. Friend has asked me. What I can do, though, is point her to the relevant comments in my statement: the Government have gone to lengths to ensure that references to Palantir have not been redacted in the documents, other than in line with normal commercial processes, given the level of interest in that company in the House.

Debate on the Address

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate His Majesty on delivering the Gracious Speech, and I concur with the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that investing 0.7% of GDP in international development aid will bring greater stability and increase our ability to secure greater diplomacy, as well as development. I think that should be our focus. I also thank him for the work he does on the Public Accounts Committee.

The intersection of crises bearing down on our planet, our nation and our communities demands a bold response in this parliamentary Session. I recognise the current bind, but as we move into the next chapter of Labour’s story, there is one consideration that I want the Government to take through this legislative programme: how we bring our communities, our country and our fractious planet together. Such vision and policy must be the thread that gathers and inspires us.

Against the backdrop of fast-paced change, this planet is breaking. The grotesque inequalities, climate degradation and conflict are driving people apart. At home we have had 14 years of austerity, whereby the harder someone works, the tougher it gets. That is why I have called for a new economic orthodoxy, as neoliberalism preys on the working class and exploits all who want to get on as much as those who cannot. As people are fleeced, the energy giants and water bosses profit, despite putting carbon in our air and sewage in our rivers, such as the Ouse in York—the second worst in the country. The clean water Bill must pull this service back into public hands and public accountability.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s call to take water back into public ownership. Does she agree that in setting the share price at which we buy it back, we should take account of the cost of pollution, of the money that is being paid to distant shareholders with no investment or interest in this country, and of the inconvenience caused to so many of our residents by constant leaks and the waste of water? Shareholders should pay the price of it, not our constituents.

[Rachael Maskell]

I do agree. It is daylight robbery, and people should not be profiting from our natural resources. We should not see the levels of pollution that exist in our rivers, which should be pure and clean. I have a sewer running through the middle of my city, and it is not acceptable. It is right to legislate, but also to ensure that we are not adding carbon to our natural environment. On airport and road expansion, we should ensure that we bring down levels of carbon, and I fear that might not be the case with airport expansion.

The draft commonhold and leasehold Bill is welcome, as is freezing ground rents, but as developers extract all they can and people pay extortionate rents and management costs, we need to see good-quality housing as a right and to rethink the model. As I have witnessed in my constituency, co-operative housing is a powerful antidote that is worth investing in, alongside a new generation of council-built housing for the common good.

The system is rigged against ordinary people, as it was 126 years ago, when trade unions came together to form the Labour party. It is our duty in this Parliament to once again set the ambition to drive transformation for our communities, address the grotesque inequalities that drive people apart, and rewire the system to bring us together. That is our purpose. As the unions fought for common terms and better pay, Labour reimagined a society in which everyone can get on, a welfare state for those in need, and an NHS in which Bevan positioned the duke and the dustman as equals. Not understanding a collective, cohesive society puts all this at risk, as Opposition parties seek to exploit opportunity and people, sell off our common assets and sow division. That is why Labour has an immense obligation to be bold and ambitious, not for those who take all they can, but for those who serve, work and play their part—and to take away the stigma and barriers for those who cannot. I implore the Government to maintain the rights of those with indefinite leave to remain, as new communities work alongside established communities. When it comes to restraining traumatised children, on which the Government are consulting, I simply warn them: don’t! I will not support that. All children must be treated with dignity—nothing less.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

On indefinite leave to remain, on the journey down from my constituency today, I spoke to the private hire driver. He is on a visa that requires renewal every two and a half years. He will have to do that renewal four times before he is eligible for indefinite leave to remain. He is not really complaining about that, but about the council not allowing him to continue working when his visa is up for renewal and he sends away his documents to be processed. Would the hon. Member agree that that should be looked at, and that there should not be any unintended consequences of that process?

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Member has put that well and truly on the record. We need to reform the system. It is really prejudiced against so many people who are working hard in our society. We should not increase the time taken to get indefinite leave to remain, because our word should be our bond, and we should honour the agreements we make.

That brings me to Labour Members’ ambitions for reforming the special educational needs and disabilities system. We need an inclusive approach, so that every child finds their place and reaches their level. More inclusion means rewiring the culture to be therapeutic and trauma-informed, with new pedagogies; mapping out learning styles for children; and ending harsh discipline and the single channel of exam-based assessments. Instead, we must include children and bring out their best. I urge the Treasury to invest the funding needed to help raise this generation and future generations, by supporting parents and babies with the right foundations during the first 1,001 critical days, and by providing the wraparound support that teachers, health professionals and support staff need, so that our SEND system is fixed once and for all. The benefit of that investment will show in the years to come.

As we support our young people into work, we must recognise that state neglect under the last Government caused so much harm. We must be compassionate and work with, not against, our young people, as they struggle to navigate their way and transition into independence and work. Society and our communities should be brought together.

Our centralised system is failing; decisions are made far from the realities of the regions and nations. That is building a sense of remote dystopia, and of not being in touch with the daily challenges that are being experienced as the cost of living weighs heavy, while others live profligate lives. Today, we need a radical devolution of power, finance and opportunity to help people see themselves as having agency and purpose. We should recognise the diversity of all our communities, and our common bond. It will not be found in the idealisms of some, or the toxic divisions of the right, which, believe me, will set community against community, while its crypto-backed leaders sow chaos and division, ripping up our NHS and our welfare state—our incredible inheritance that has glued our society together through generations.

In the King’s Speech, we have so much to celebrate, and I will sew in the voices of my community in York as we progress. I want to ensure that the Railways Bill protects the wellbeing of all who work in the sector. Having championed the Removal of Titles Bill in the last two parliamentary Sessions, I hope that we can move fast on cleaning up our politics. I welcome the move to tackle antisemitism, as antisemitic graffiti has been found in my community this week. It brings such shame, and we must move fast on that. Improved relations with the EU will help to build the bridges we need.

York is a visitor and tourism hotspot, so I will work carefully with the Government on the overnight visitor levy. I trust that businesses will not pay a penalty, and that our city will get the reward. The draft taxi licensing Bill will really help to bring licensing back under control.

I trust that we will do more on the climate crisis. As the national emergency briefing highlighted, we do not have the luxury of time. The UK is in the bottom 10% of countries in the biodiversity intactness index, and one in six species is at risk of extinction. While our planet burns and our icecaps melt, we need to invest fast. Finance should be invested to hasten decarbonisation, and projects such as BioYorkshire should be funded to ensure that we hasten agricultural resilience, preventing the low yields and crop failure that are escalating the cost of food. That is why I am really glad that we are moving to independence in our energy market, too. We need a second employment rights Bill to capture the single status of worker, extend collective bargaining, and improve the wellbeing of workers.

My final point is this: if we are to bring a diversity of voices to Parliament and ensure that they are heard, this place must change. Governments have been destabilised in recent years due to too much power being held by the Executive, and too little power being invested in Parliament. If that does not change, the discourse of distrust between Parliament and the people will continue. Our voices, representing the diversity of the country, must be heard, and must impact the programme of government. I want all Bills to go through in-depth consultations with MPs, who would input the experiences of their communities. Just running artificial intelligence across consultation responses is not good enough. I want full pre-legislative scrutiny, so that we can ensure that Bills are robust, unifying, and do everything possible to improve the lives of those we represent. Without that, I fear that we will let down the people we were sent here to represent. It is time to include all; the mission is too great to be for just a few. This parliamentary Session must be like no other, connecting communities, unifying society and transforming our future.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the Government’s agreed process with the Committee stands.

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

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. I am interested in the costs. We know about the £75,000 payout, and obviously a police inquiry is incredibly costly. There are the costs to his Department in complying with the Humble Address. Will he publish the costs? Will he also publish the costs in relation to Global Counsel? Its clients included Palantir, with which the Government have £800 million-worth of contracts. Will he publish how much money Global Counsel had been able to procure from the Government for being able to advance Palantir’s business interests at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment?

[Darren Jones]

My best answer is to refer my hon. Friend to the contracts finder tool, which publishes all public procurement contracts and their value. In relation to questions of the internal cost of processing the Humble Address, I cannot commit to give a round number; essentially it involves lots of hours of civil servants’ time across Government. They are working very hard to be able to publish these documents as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to the vigils and the campaign, and I acknowledge those who are here in the Gallery today. I will make sure that this is looked at to see what further we can do, and that any relevant meetings are set up.

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

Q14. In 1777, Bootham Park hospital was given in trust to the people of York. Since it closed in 2015, NHS Property Services has squandered £5.5 million—almost its sale price—keeping the building empty, and threatened to sell it for a luxury complex our city does not want. This much sought-after community space for charities and services would significantly benefit York residents, so will the Prime Minister now release this site so that public land can be used for public good, and we can get Bootham back?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the site is of huge significance to the people of York, and I understand that the site is under offer. Ministers are happy to work with the council and my hon. Friend to find the right deal for the site, taking into account the points she has made.

Security Vetting

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I did ask him, and I did not accept his explanation. That is why I sacked him.

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

At the beginning of February 2026, we learned from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown that Peter Mandelson had shared highly sensitive Government information with Jeffrey Epstein. At that juncture, if I had been in the Prime Minister’s shoes, I would have been forensic in recognising a security risk and wanting detailed answers. What is not adding up for me is why we are now getting this information in mid-April, and why the Prime Minister did not drill down to ensure that we had the security information that we have learned Peter Mandelson clearly breached.

[The Prime Minister]

It was at that point that I ordered the review of the security vetting, because I was concerned that it had failed. In fact, because of information I was not given, it had not failed; it had actually given the recommendation that clearance should be denied. The fact that when I ordered a review of UKSV, senior officials in the Foreign Office did not, at that stage if at no other stage, bring to my attention the information they had not told me is astonishing, because I was ordering a review of the process, which looked as though it had failed when in fact it had flagged the relevant concerns.

Middle East

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Resorting to violence does not achieve anything, but it has left 2,000 Lebanese dead and 1.2 million displaced. As the Prime Minister is demonstrating, bilateral and multilateral dialogue is the way forward to get progressive change. Instead of just looking at increasing the defence budget, will he also look at increasing investment in diplomacy and development, which is crucial in this increasingly destabilised world?

[The Prime Minister]

The work that we are doing with other countries has to start with the political and the diplomatic. Of course we are looking at military planning, but you cannot have military planning without diplomacy. It is absolutely clear to me that the strait of Hormuz will not allow for safe passage until a ceasefire is in place. All the sectors involved in vessels going through the strait are clear that they will not be putting their vessels through until that is the situation, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right about diplomacy.