Rachael Maskell

Topical Questions

In October, Nestlé announced 16,000 job losses, including 450 in the UK. In the light of the significant impact that this will have in York, will the Secretary of State ensure that meaningful consultation happens with the trade unions, and will he meet them to save those jobs?

Spoke in debate: Business of the House

Parliamentary appearance by Rachael Maskell

Voted NO on: Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading' (68-242, defeated)

Spoke in debate: Topical Questions

Parliamentary appearance by Rachael Maskell

Voted NO on: Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading' (68-242, defeated)

Business of the House

The levels of congestion on Wigginton Road are unacceptable. Residents’ air quality is affected, people are late for their hospital appointments and our whole city is snarled up because the hospital does not have a sufficient transport plan. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Secretaries of State for Health and Transport the need for hospital transport plans, and can we have a debate in Government time on hospital-induced congestion?

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

Rachael Maskell voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

Rachael Maskell voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)

Rachael Maskell voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Debate on the Address

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 communit

Spoke in debate: Debate on the Address

Parliamentary appearance by Rachael Maskell

Debate on the Address

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 th

Debate on the Address

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