Debate on the Address
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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)
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(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
The documents that fall within the scope of the Humble Address will be made available to the House in the way that I have set out.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It would be very useful to know what proportion of the documents we have already been able to set our eyes on, but also what proportion is being held back by the police, so that we can make a calculation of how much more is to come. But it all sounds too casual, not least when my right hon. Friend talks about WhatsApp messages. We need to ensure that there is proper due process across Government, not least when we are talking about the business associations of Peter Mandelson with the client of his own PR company, Global Counsel. How much more work is there to come that this House will see with regard to what was known about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Palantir?
Darren Jones
It is a reflection of the depth and extent of the work being undertaken by Government to comply with the Humble Address that it is taking some time to be able to process the documents. We moved at pace to publish the first tranche of documents last week and, as I have said to the House, we are going to publish the second tranche as soon as possible.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me a number of questions, which I shall take in turn. The first was on the severance payment. He asked me why that payment had been made, and who approved it. As I set out in my opening statement, Peter Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not as a Minister. That meant that on his summary dismissal by the Prime Minister, he had the right to take a claim to the employment tribunal. As we can see in the documents, Peter Mandelson asked for a much larger sum, with the implied threat that there would be legal proceedings, with associated costs. The Government would not have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson, but they reluctantly agreed to the award, given the contrast between the cost to the taxpayer of employment tribunal legal fees, and the cost of a payment; in the advice, the latter cost would have been higher than the amount that was given. The Prime Minister has since said that Peter Mandelson should either return that money or donate it.
On the question of who approved the severance payment, the House will see from the documents that the request from the Foreign Office was made to the Treasury. The payment was approved, in line with Treasury business rules, albeit reluctantly, and with an express condition that a non-disclosure agreement was not allowed in these circumstances. For the sake of completeness, there is reference in the bundle to that business case requiring my approval. I can confirm to the House that I did not receive that request, or indeed approve it.
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about some of the documents, namely about redactions and a register of withheld documents. On the question of a register of withheld documents, I would need to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan police before I could say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation. I hope that the House is somewhat reassured by the mechanism that we have been able to establish with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has sight of these documents, albeit in a contained and controlled way. Government redactions to the documents are to protect only the names and contact details of junior civil servants, as is the practice. Other redactions that relate to international security and international relations are done with the approval of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Lastly, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about the report from the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister. As I said in my opening statement, the Prime Minister did ask subsequent questions of Peter Mandelson following that report being submitted by the Cabinet Office. His advisers at No. 10 undertook to answer those questions. Although that is a document that we cannot publish at this time, the Prime Minister is very clear that he regrets having believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put before him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s associations bring a real stench to the appointment process, but I want to know about the business associations, and how they are scrutinised in the process. We know that Peter Mandelson’s public relations company, Global Counsel, had as a client Palantir, which has won lucrative contracts from successive Governments. I want to understand whether the papers demonstrate those associations, and the associations that Peter Mandelson then brought into Government.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will see from the documents that are being published today that those commercial interests were raised by the Cabinet Office, and that established processes were in place that meant that new members of the civil service had to remove such commercial interests before taking office. There is some commentary in the bundle about the conversation that was had with Peter Mandelson in advance of his appointment as ambassador to the United States, specifically about that question. Having said all that, part of the review that we are taking forward is another look at the business appointment rules, to make sure that the processes that were applied were robust enough in the situation that we are discussing. If we need to further strengthen them, we stand ready to do so.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will remember, from the statement I gave to the House, that we are reviewing this policy area, as well as other areas to do with transparency and lobbying returns, as well as the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We will come forward with further updates in due course.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The York Central 45-hectare development site will be the most powerful outside London. The Government have twice announced that they will have a government hub there. However, the Government Property Agency has not signed that off. The development is going to planning in May. Can the Minister give me an update on when we will hear the good news for York?
Darren Jones
The Cabinet Office and Government Departments are in the process of concluding their business planning processes before the start of the new fiscal year, so an update will be available very soon.
EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Our duty in this place is to build bridges, not walls, and yet, since the Brexit vote, we have seen our country pull itself apart day by day because the disruptors who caused the Brexit vote have continued to disrupt our communities. Why is that? They have made our country poorer, they have regressed our economy, we have lost jobs and our services are no longer supported in the way that they were.
We have to build our way back and build our way back fast. Rebuilding the relationships is the first step, but we must move forward, as so many have said, to a customs union, to the single market and ultimately to our membership back in the European Parliament, being rule-makers, not rule-takers. That is what my city voted for back in 2016; two thirds of my constituents voted to remain. It is why we need to come together and reach a decision among ourselves on a pathway to hope once again.
Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones
As I have said repeatedly, the process is now for the independent adviser to follow, for advice to be presented to the Prime Minister, and at that point the Prime Minister will make a decision.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We expect integrity from our journalists and we expect integrity from our Ministers. In the light of the fact that 109 MPs received funding from Labour Together, can the Minister say what involvement the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has had, and what advice was given to those 109 MPs regarding reporting the funding they received from Labour Together?
Darren Jones
As my hon. Friend knows, any donations that individuals receive—from Labour Together or from a trade union, Momentum or any other organisation—are for them to declare in line with the rules, and I do not think there has been any accusation that Members have been in breach of those rules.