Rebecca Paul MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for yet another relevant and important point. I urge the Government to think logically about what they are trying to achieve. We all support the ambition to build more homes and recognise the problem that needs to be solved. However, the way we do it is really important, and it is important that we have those homes in the right places and that we set the targets in a logical and meaningful way. With this policy, and others like it, we are offering the public a clear choice between a party that wants to unlock aspiration and reward the hard work of our young people and a party that clings to economically damaging taxes because its own Back Benchers refuse to make even the smallest concessions on out-of-control spending. We on the Conservative Benches are clear that any significant change to tax policy must be properly costed. The public finances are in a challenging place, and reckless commitments only add to the prevailing sense of uncertainty. That is why it is so important to emphasise that our intention to scrap stamp duty on primary residences is costed, fully funded and fully paid for through our £47 billion savings package. Our plan is clear: it is costed and it is rooted in a belief that home ownership should be within reach of the next generation, just as it was for our own.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s excellent point is pertinent to my constituency as well, which is full of amazing and beautiful green-belt land. We are suffering from what this Government have done on housing targets, which have doubled in Reigate and Banstead while going down in London. That means that we are building more homes, but not for local people and not for the children the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned, who want to stay close to home. It is for people living in London who then move out to Reigate and Banstead.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent point. This is proper Conservative policy. This is the kind of thing everyone in this country is clamouring for—[Hon. Members: “More!”] This party is delivering that under our new leadership. For too long, stamp duty has been a dead weight on the housing market, a tax on aspiration and a barrier to the kind of home ownership that gives people a genuine stake in their community. It is time that we abolished it on primary residences. Surely we can all agree that our housing market is not working as it should. Far too many young people feel locked out, priced out and increasingly disillusioned. The average age of a first-time buyer in England is now 34, up by nearly a decade from where it was 40 years ago. In London, it is even higher, and across the country 20% fewer 25 to 34-year-olds own a home today than was the case in 2000. I have skin in the game: I have three children and I want them to be able to buy a house without coming to mummy and daddy to help them out.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises an important point. We have this situation where a lot of young people are forced to go elsewhere; indeed, the area where I live is very expensive and I am worried that my children will be forced to look elsewhere. That is why it is so important that we now focus on the future.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my colleagues for their enthusiasm. It is a great pleasure to contribute to this really important debate. So many people—particularly young people—are desperate to get their foot on the housing ladder, but they feel—

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Going back to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), we need to take this seriously. We can either look back the whole time, or we can look forward and think about what policies are right for the people of this country and deliver for the people of this country.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I should declare that interest. This amounts to an economic failure, but also to a social failure. Home ownership gives people stability, autonomy and long-term security. It encourages saving, it strengthens families and it fosters pride and a sense of genuine community in our towns and villages. Abolishing stamp duty will save families thousands of pounds and put the many benefits of home ownership back into reach for the next generation.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I will make that exact same point later in my speech, and I completely agree that that is a relevant change that will come from this policy. I clearly see in my constituency the way in which stamp duty chokes and distorts the market as it penalises those who move, creates a disincentive for older people to downsize and deters growing families from upsizing into more suitable family homes. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has put it, in a crowded field, stamp duty land tax is “the most economically damaging tax in the UK.” I cannot disagree with that. My constituents feel that acutely. Stamp duty is all the more painful in an area where the average house price is now above £490,000. The young families I speak to, who have made the move out of London and settled in towns such as Redhill or Reigate, have been hit with eye-watering up-front costs that made those moves extremely challenging. Many more will have found it impossible. That is why our policy matters. We intend to strip away one of the fundamental barriers to family life in this country. Eliminating stamp duty will save the average first-time buyer in the south-east around £4,000 and as much as £18,000 in London. Unlike the Labour party, we will not punish those looking to move further up the ladder with frozen thresholds and stealth tax hikes. I would, of course, be expected to paint a suitably positive view of the proposal, but what do the experts think? Zoopla’s Richard Donnell has rightly said, “More home moves would support economic growth and the ambition to build more homes.” The Institute of Economic Affairs went further, calling this “the single best reform any government could make to Britain’s tax system.” Indeed, the case seems so strong that one has to wonder why the Government oppose us on this. The truth is that Labour has always been the party of higher taxes on homes. It reversed the Conservative policy that raised the first-time buyer threshold to £425,000. It is freezing stamp duty thresholds in real terms, dragging more and more people into paying this punitive tax each year. While it talks endlessly about house building, its actions tell a different story. Not only is it on track to miss its self-imposed housing targets, but the Housing Secretary tried to block 237 new homes in his constituency despite promising to “build, baby, build”. By contrast, the Conservatives have delivered 2.8 million homes over the past 14 years, including nearly 750,000 affordable homes, and we pledge to go further.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I gently say to the hon. Member that I have not really got into the flow of my speech yet, either. I will finish the first sentence before I take any interventions. People feel that that vital first rung is utterly out of their reach. I remember when I bought my first property. It was the most amazing feeling in the world when I first walked through that door, with those keys. It was really hard to earn enough to secure the mortgage that I needed and to save up the money for the stamp duty and the deposit. I managed to do it, but I would have been able to do it sooner without that stamp duty cost. That is why I am delighted that the Conservatives have come forward with a clear, coherent and aspirational plan to abolish stamp duty land tax on the purchase of primary residences and to open up the dream of home ownership to the next generation.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Most young people referred to gender identity services are same-sex attracted, neurodiverse and/or traumatised. Looked-after children are also over-represented in this cohort. Is the Secretary of State really comfortable with children being given puberty blockers, which essentially chemically neuter them, for the purposes of the PATHWAYS clinical trial?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister obviously feels very deeply about this issue. I think we all agree that anyone who was involved in these awful and horrific crimes must be held to account, and we must shine a light on anyone who turned a blind eye and ensure that it does not happen again. Can the Minister provide a commitment that the inquiry will not be politicised, particularly after multiple local authorities have attempted to block investigations? That is a really important question, because we see that happening. Everyone needs to be investigated on this—it does not matter which party they are from; this is too important.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Member and I will just have to disagree, because I do not believe that legislation is the solution to these things. What is much more powerful is societal attitudes and norms, and education. That is how we get the change that we want. That is also how to ensure that the spirit of the ambition is met. As soon as we try to legislate, there will be loopholes and grey areas where it is not quite clear what something means. We have got ourselves mixed up in a whole host of issues and trouble as a result of trying to define something that is common sense. All of us in this Chamber undoubtedly share the same ambition. We want everyone to be treated fairly; we just disagree on the way to do it. I do not think that it is possible to prescribe in legislation how people should act decently. There will always be some loophole or difference in interpretation that means that the law can be misused. I believe that it is absolutely right to move away from thinking that legislation is the silver bullet to all our ills. We should actually put faith in the behaviour of the people of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford says, we dealt with these things before and we have the mechanisms to do this. Most people in this country are well-intended and trying to do the right thing. Let us have some faith in this country and not just tie ourselves up in knots. Let us get back to delivering for our constituents and residents. They do not want us tying ourselves up in knots, effectively looking for social injustice the whole time rather than cracking on and sorting out our NHS so that everyone gets the treatment they need, and ensuring that our schools are giving the best education for our children. Let us get back to the priorities of the British people and stop wasting our time with all this stuff. Right: back to my speech. I think I have summed it up in my response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), so I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. It has been a good use of our time to debate how effective the Equality Act and its various provisions have been. I hope that we will continue this important conversation.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Surrey county councillor. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing today’s debate. For all the reasons that he so ably laid out, it is now well overdue that we honestly assess the impact of the Equality Act on people in the workplace and wider society and consider whether there is need for change. It is best practice to always reassess and measure outcomes, rather than assuming that something is working as intended. I wish to focus on the public sector equality duty in the Act and on its broader impact on our public institutions. It was undoubtedly a well-meaning clause. However, as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The public sector equality duty in section 149 imposes a legal burden on public bodies to “have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity…and…foster good relations” between people with different protected characteristics. That all sounds rather wonderful, but the reality is that it has become a powerful, often unaccountable force that we see distorting public priorities and fuelling ideological dogma. We see local councils that are more concerned with ensuring that residents are anti-racist than with ensuring that bus services to schools and colleges are adequate. We see them painting rainbows on our roads rather than fixing them, and speaking warm words about the importance of accessibility for disabled people while failing to cut hedges back or adjust bus stops. We all undoubtedly support the ambition that everyone—no matter their protected, or indeed unprotected, characteristics—be given the same opportunities, be treated fairly and have the chance to thrive and prosper through hard work and talent. However, looking at the impact that the public sector duty has had, I believe that it was a mistake to think that that was the answer. If anything, it has highlighted difference, undermined meritocracy and, in some cases, pitted groups against each other. It is now often helpful to someone’s career or studies to be oppressed in some shape or form, leading to the absurd situation in which some of the most talented people are blocked. That does no one any favours, and certainly not our country. EDI, or DEI as some people call it, has become a lucrative industry. Every public body, from local district councils and hospitals to police forces and schools, is now required to evidence, audit, review and revise policies in the light of how they impact protected groups, regardless of the outcomes that those policies deliver. A 2022 Policy Exchange report found that major public institutions are spending tens of millions of pounds annually on equality, diversity and inclusion roles, as well as training and compliance measures, all to ensure that they tick the right boxes against the public sector equality duty. The issue is not just the cost. What makes the public sector equality duty potentially damaging is the way in which it enables particular ideologies to seep into institutions and spaces that ought to be wholly neutral on such issues. Because the duty is so broadly framed, and because it requires anticipatory rather than reactive compliance, it has given rise to a culture of pre-emptive overreach. Public bodies feel compelled to insert themselves into questions of speech, behaviour and belief that ought to lie outside their remit. More and more, we see a move away from facts and evidence towards fashionable beliefs within institutions that should be impartial. We see that in councils demanding that their staff include pronouns in their signatures, in police forces being trained to detect unconscious bias, and even in the Welsh Government, where they have pledged to make the country anti-racist. There is nothing neutral or impartial about such choices. They reflect specific world views, and by embedding them in policy and practice, the public sector equality duty is demanding adherence to such ideas as a precondition for working in the public sector or using its services. That cannot be right. It is little wonder that public confidence has been eroded. More in Common’s “Shattered Britain” report tells of swathes of the public who now view public institutions with mistrust, partly because within such institutions a narrow set of values now dominates, and any dissent is smacked down as bigotry or even dismissed as far-right. Like all Members present, no doubt, I have heard accounts from my constituents of what that looks like in practice. I have heard from people who feel baffled and confused by all the focus on diversity, unconscious bias and pronouns, rather than on things that actually affect their day-to-day life in a meaningful way, such as fly-tipping and potholes. My central point is that the public sector equality duty does not just waste taxpayer money; it actively distorts how services are delivered and allows ideology to permeate them. We have seen NHS trusts wasting fortunes on a parade of diversity-focused roles. In the case of NHS Fife, the bureaucratic machinery was brought to bear against a nurse for objecting to a biological man entering her changing room. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire police felt that it would be a valid use of £4.5 million to send their entire workforce away to be lectured for two days on the slave trade. We can only wonder if that time would have been better spent trying to solve some crimes. I am of the view that we should reconsider whether the public sector equality duty is fit for purpose, and whether a return to a model under which equality means equal treatment for all would have better outcomes.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the Minister on maintaining his role during what some have described as the purge of the Home Office. It is therefore appropriate to thank him for his remarks about the legislation, and pay tribute to his staying power. Turning to the draft regulations, the periodic updating of codes of practice is a regular occurrence for Governments. With the codes last altered in 2023, it has been deemed necessary to provide further clarification. The regulations we are debating today appear to present proportionate clarification to the existing system, while maintaining the powers necessary to question individuals. As the Government have stated in their documentation, the changes should not alter the original intention of the legislation. Furthermore, steps appear to have been taken to ensure that the powers within the Acts remain usable under the new guidance. The response of the independent Office for Police Conduct illustrates the broad agreement that these powers will continue to be used appropriately by the authorities. On the broader point, measures that ensure transparency and improve communication—for example, ensuring clear notification—should be welcomed, provided the powers remain effective. The steps on examinations appear proportionate. However, they will also make the process more effective and quicker. I recognise that the clarification relating to public order policing is somewhat limited. However, I note that the amendment to the code explains that the examples of changes provided are illustrative, not exhaustive. Given some of the recent debate around the relationship between protests and terrorism, I ask whether the Minister has had conversations with the police to ensure that those using this power have a sufficient understanding of the changes, so that officers can accurately identify those who may be involved in the instigation of acts of terrorism, and avoid incidents such as those in the past that have prompted these changes. I am aware that many of the changes are in line with recommendations from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. On that point, I would like to ask the Minister about the changes to the code of practice concerning schedule 7 and Northern Ireland. Given the ongoing challenges with terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s code of practice set out the continuing use of the 2000 Act. However, that appears to contradict the recommendation of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who proposed abolishing the power under schedule 7 on the basis of its lack of use. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could outline how he envisages the power being used in future, and whether it still has a role to play in stopping the heinous acts of terrorism that we unfortunately continue to see in Northern Ireland. Stopping terrorism is a responsibility of the Government, which Members across the House take with the utmost seriousness. It is therefore right that we support measures that improve the system.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As always, my right hon. Friend makes his point well, and I completely agree. The reality is that Mauritius is not a reliable or neutral guarantor of our security interests, and it is staggeringly naive for Ministers to suggest otherwise. To put it plainly, if the transfer proceeds, there can be no guarantee that our interests will be protected. As has already been raised multiple times, what will happen in 99 years is of significant concern. On top of all that, we are not just giving away one of the centrepieces of our global security posture, but paying extortionately for the privilege. Hard-working taxpayers—my constituents—will be left footing the bill for the next 99 years, paying £35 billion or perhaps £47 billion for the lease that the Government have agreed. In Britian, we have faced cruel cuts, harmful tax rises and economic gloom under this Government. By contrast, the Mauritian Government have now begun celebrating their shrinking national debt and announcing a series of planned tax cuts, all as a result of the billions that we will send them. Countries have lost wars and gone on to be offered treaties with more generous terms than this one, yet those on the Government Front Bench come to this House and call the deal a triumph. The UK will be weaker and poorer as a result, and it is shameful that the Government have brought such a damaging, insulting and senseless document to this House. By moving forward with this, the Government are failing in their first duty to ensure the safety and security of our citizens and nation. This day will go down in the history books as the day that the United Kingdom was diminished by dangerous fools.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in this debate, particularly following some of the incredibly insightful speeches, certainly on the Opposition side of the House. Today is a hugely consequential day. The House is not being asked to debate in abstract, and neither are we considering ordinary legislation that can be repealed should its effect turn out to be unfavourable. We are being asked to endorse the permanent and irrevocable surrender of British sovereign territory. There is no way back from this, and I cannot support such action. My opposition is shared by Members on this side of the House and, I suspect, by more Labour Members than may be prepared to say so publicly. We have heard the point before, but it bears repeating: the British Indian Ocean Territory is of immense military, security and geopolitical importance, and this Bill will give it away forever. It does so at a time of heightened instability and threat around the world. It does not take an expert on defence or foreign affairs to know that this is a terrible decision. It is one that puts virtue signalling before the national interest, plays into the hands of our enemies and ultimately puts this country and our citizens at risk, which is unforgiveable of any Government. If what we are presented with today is indeed to be the final settlement of the issue, it is a settlement that satisfies neither the strategic nor the political doubts that have been raised. My first concern is the implications of this handover for our defence and security. For decades, Diego Garcia has played a critical role in the collective security of the United Kingdom, the United States and our broader network of allies in the region. The base serves as a launchpad to defeat our enemies, to prevent threats to our nation and to protect our economic security. It directly contributes to Britain’s strength at home and abroad. In practice, the facility, known as Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, fulfils multiple essential military roles. It supports approximately 15 key military tasks, including logistics, communications and intelligence gathering. The base acts as a prepositioning hub, hosting vessels carrying armoured vehicles, munitions, fuel and even mobile field hospitals for rapid deployment to wherever they are needed. It is equipped with a deep-water port capable of docking nuclear submarines and naval vessels, as well as runways accommodating strategic bombers, aerial refuelling operations and pre-launch operations across the Indian ocean. Diego Garcia remains indispensable, but we are now being asked to jeopardise it. In truth, Parliament has been shown nothing of real substance that addresses the concerns that have been raised by Conservative Members. This House is being asked to vote blindfolded on the future of one of our most strategically important overseas territories. This matters because, despite what Ministers seem to have convinced themselves to be true, the Republic of Mauritius is far from being a passive actor in the geopolitics of the region. Mauritius has repeatedly aligned itself with states hostile to our own strategic interests. It voted against the UK in the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice over the future of the Chagos islands in the first place. It maintains close diplomatic and economic ties with China, and China’s use of slave labour and expansionist agenda against Taiwan are well documented. More to the point, Mauritius has signed up to the global security initiative proposed by Beijing, which has been described by many regional experts as China’s attempt to displace US-led security partnerships. These concerns have repeatedly been brushed aside by Ministers keen to remind us that Mauritius is in fact an ally of New Delhi, not Beijing.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Government Debt Interest Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for that response. This year, interest on debt is expected to total £111 billion, which is 8.3% of total public spending. What are the Chancellor’s plans to rebuild confidence in the gilt market, and how confident is she that we will not be reliving the worst bits of the 1970s?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Government Debt Interest Payments · Hansard source

  More

  5. What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of levels of Government debt interest payments on public finances.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. First, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this incredibly important debate about support for some of the most vulnerable children in this country. The adoption and special guardianship support fund, set up under the Conservative Government in 2015, has, for many years, provided much needed therapeutic support to adopted and special guardianship children who were previously in care. I pay tribute to all the adoptive parents, foster carers and kinship carers out there who step up and welcome a child into their home: you are amazing, and I am humbled by the sacrifices you make and the love you give every day. I know it is not always easy. Some of these children, who have often suffered neglect, abuse and violence, have complex needs and can be challenging to care for. There will be days when it feels difficult and never-ending, when you feel alone and unsupported. But you keep going, and are continually there for your child, loving, protecting and supporting them. Given all that you do, in extremely difficult circumstances, the least that can be expected is a reasonable level of support from this Government for you and the child in your care. The adoption and special guardianship support fund is an important part of that and, frankly, the way that cuts to the fund have been handled beggars belief. It is unacceptable to leave families for months on end without certainty about the funding they rely on and then, at the very last minute, to confirm a 40% cut to the therapy fund from £5,000 to £3,000, the removal of the entire amount for specialist assessment and the cessation of match funding for the most complex cases.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is spot on. In a written statement, the Government said that “we are in a challenging fiscal climate and are having to make tough but fair decisions across the public sector”. —[ Official Report , 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 31WS.] Minister, how is this fair? Of all the things that this Government could cut, they chose to cut funding to the most vulnerable of children. If they want to be fair, might I suggest that they look elsewhere for efficiencies? If they are looking for suggestions, they might want to cancel their plans to give away the Chagos islands while paying Mauritius £35 billion for the pleasure. Might that not be a more acceptable way to make savings? No one wants to see a Government balancing the books off the backs of the most vulnerable children in our communities. This decision really is one of the most disappointing things I have seen from this Government. The fund is actually quite small in the scheme of things. These cuts do not move the dial on this country’s financial position in any meaningful way, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have proceeded in this manner. They could have protected it or even boosted it, but they have chosen to spread it more thinly. Labour always talks a good game on supporting the most vulnerable, but actions speak louder than words. If the Government continue on this path, they need to take responsibility for this short-sighted decision and the impact that it will have. More children with special needs will not get what they need to flourish. That will put even more pressure on adoptive parents and kinship carers, who are already at breaking point. Ultimately, fewer people will put themselves forward to look after these children. That is an absolute tragedy, and one that will end up costing this country more in both human and financial terms, as my right hon. Friend has highlighted. Mark my words: we will see more of these children going back into care because of this Government’s cuts to the fund. In a letter to the Education Secretary dated 22 July 2025, stakeholders including Adoption UK, Family Rights Group and Barnardo’s said: “We have heard from families who are in complete crisis because of the abrupt changes that have taken place…including families who have…been torn apart.” They continued: “The thousands of adopted children and eligible children cared for under special guardianship or child arrangements orders, including kinship care, affected by delays and cuts to the Fund have faced unimaginable barriers in their first years of life. They are almost all care experienced and share a childhood characterised by trauma, loss and disruption. These are children who need more from their government, not less.” In 2024-25, of the nearly 20,000 approved allocations of funding for therapeutic support, 9,000—or 46%—were for an amount of more than £3,000, which suggests that at least 9,000 children will be worse off following these cuts. I, too, have heard from many residents in my constituency, from across Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, who will be impacted by the cuts to this fund. One story that really hit home is that of a couple who took out a special guardianship order on twins, both of whom had additional needs, significant trauma and attachment issues. When they were looked-after children, they were entitled to all the support they needed, so before taking out the SGO the couple rightly and responsibly sought reassurance that the SGO would not reduce the essential support that the twins were receiving. In typical fashion, they were putting the children first. They were promised that the funding would be there, so they went ahead, but that funding has now been reduced—a promise broken, a placement now at risk. How many SGOs or adoptions will now not go ahead because the support just will not be there afterwards? I know that the Minister cares deeply about these children and this issue, and that it is likely that the Treasury has driven this decision. But I ask her, as part of this Labour Government and as someone who bears collective responsibility, to fight for these children, reconsider the decision to cut per-child funding, and reinstate both the £5,000 fair access limit and the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessment and match funding. I was going to ask the Minister to provide the certainty needed by families about funding beyond March 2026 so that families can plan for future changes, but I am pleased to welcome her statement today on this matter. However, I ask her to provide more information on the planned public engagement process in the new year with respect to delivery of this fund, as it again creates unwelcome uncertainty. Just as families breathe a sigh of relief about securing next year’s funding, they have to hold their breath again about March 2027. Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for securing this debate. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach and ensure that our most vulnerable children get more from Government, not less. If a change in direction is not forthcoming, I fear that more children will remain in the care system, locked into poorer life outcomes, rather than being welcomed into warm, loving homes where they can flourish and thrive. There is still time for this Government to do the right thing for these children. We all implore them to do it.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Support for Trans People · Hansard source

  More

  The Equality and Human Rights Commission has confirmed that at least 19 public bodies, including organisations across the policing, education and health sectors, are misrepresenting the law on single-sex spaces. That is a breach of the Equality Act 2010, as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court ruling. Has the Minister been told which bodies they are, and how can women and girls have any confidence in them if they are knowingly and deliberately breaking the law?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to raise a few issues, all of which I know are very much on my constituents’ minds. First, I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring that boroughs such as Reigate and Banstead, which have been managed well and are not loaded with debt, are not left footing the bill for the failures of other councils that have been less prudent with their finances. Reigate and Banstead borough council has a commendably strong record of financial prudence, so please will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that protection will be put in place to safeguard our community assets, such as the Harlequin theatre, and our community and leisure centres? On the Harlequin theatre specifically, I emphasise how important the asset is to the people of Redhill and beyond. It has now been closed for more than two years, following the discovery of RAAC, and residents and community groups—notably, the Harlequin Support Group—have been resolutely campaigning for its repair and reopening. I am delighted that, under the leadership of Councillor Shelly Newton, who is one of the most tenacious local councillors I have ever come across, it has now been confirmed that the £4.5 million needed for repair has been allocated. All being well, the theatre is expected to reopen by Christmas 2026. I mention that because my constituents would appreciate hearing directly from the Secretary of State and Ministers that the local government reorganisation will not hamper such projects, which have been agreed but will take some time to complete. I also make the point that the reorganisation is not the only challenge faced by Reigate and Banstead borough council, which has just had its housing target more than doubled by this Government, at a time of great uncertainty and transition—a recipe for disaster. I want to focus mainly, however, on the future of the civic mayoralty in Reigate and Banstead. Reigate has had a mayor since 1863. Great history and tradition is associated with the role, and the importance placed on it can be seen physically in the mayoral robes, the chain of office and the mace, which are still very much in use. The Government have been clear that their intention with the Bill is to provide a consistent model for how local government will be structured across England. What is rather less clear—I hope that the Minister or Secretary of State will be able to provide clarity—is what that means for boroughs such as mine, where a borough council is intermeshed with a long-standing tradition of civic leadership in the form of a borough mayor. Unlike metro mayors, the mayor of the borough of Reigate and Banstead is no kind of political executive. The role is that of a civic figurehead, non-partisan, ceremonial and community focused. We have a truly outstanding mayor, Councillor Rich Michalowski, and, before him, Councillor Eddy Humphreys was another dedicated and hard-working public servant. In the past civic year alone, the mayor responded to more than 350 engagement requests, hosted 25 town hall tours for schools and community groups, and oversaw 32 civic and charity events attended by nearly 1,500 people, not including the thousands more who attended Remembrance Sunday. The position of borough mayor does real, practical good. Their attendance at an event brings that extra sparkle, which residents so appreciate. Through the mayor’s trust fund, 38 families in my constituency have already been supported with grants this year. A single funding workshop led by the mayor’s team unlocked more than £50,000 for local charities. Through sustained community engagement, the mayor helps connect employers with jobseekers, donors with good causes, and schools with mentors. They promote local artists, support care homes, champion the armed forces covenant, and offer practical help to residents in crisis. I hope that Ministers will agree with my constituents in recognising the great value of a borough mayor, and that they will provide clarity on whether such roles will be preserved under the Bill and, if so, how in practical terms that will be achieved.

• 17 Jul 2025 · RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this fantastic debate. It is a great honour to rise to pay tribute to one of the most remarkable and least widely recognised units that contributed to the allied victory in the second world war: the RAF’s PRU. Formed on 24 September 1939, the PRU carried out some of the most daring and vital operations of the entire war. PRU airmen flew unarmed and unarmoured aircraft deep into enemy territory, often alone. Over the course of six years, the missions captured more than 26 million images that would shape allied strategy and save countless lives. Intelligence gathered by PRU flyers informed decisions in the Cabinet war rooms, supported the success of the Dambusters raid, and provided the data and insight needed for the D-day landings—enabling the precision planning that helped to turn the tide of the war in Europe. We are used to hearing of daring feats by heroic fighter pilots and dogged bomber crews, but the PRU operated under uniquely harrowing conditions. Flying alone with no weapons to defend themselves and no escorts to offer assistance, their only defences were altitude, speed and luck. They took to the skies with nothing more than a camera and a sense of duty. Indeed, the death rate in the PRU was among the highest of any allied aerial unit: life expectancy was on average two and a half months, and more than 500 men died serving in the PRU. That sacrifice was felt across the length and breadth of this country, including in my Reigate constituency. Among the many who served in the PRU was Flight Lieutenant Douglas Adcock, who lived in Redhill. Douglas joined the RAF alongside his older brother, Reginald, and quickly qualified to fly the legendary Mosquito aircraft—a plane almost tailor-made for the PRU’s daring missions. He flew out of RAF Benson with 544 Squadron, conducting dangerous reconnaissance operations in support of the allied advance into occupied Europe, including missions ahead of the D-day landings. On 11 August 1944, his Mosquito failed to return from one of those missions. Some days later, his body washed up on the shore in Belgium, where he is buried today. For all the sacrifice of brave men like Douglas, there is no national memorial to the PRU—no permanent site to honour their legacy and acknowledge their vital contribution to our victory. I strongly support the excellent work of the Spitfire AA810 project, which has campaigned tirelessly to establish a fitting memorial to the PRU. The recent announcement from the Minister that we will be getting such a memorial is much welcomed. The way that history is remembered is shaped in large part by choices made in rooms such as this Chamber. Who do we raise memorials to? What do we teach our children about the past? Which major historical events do we commemorate each year? Our answers to these questions give shape to our national history, and thus far the history that we have made has not done justice to the PRU. We rightly commemorate the fighter pilots, bomber crews, sailors, submariners and soldiers of the second world war. We remember codebreakers, spies, scientists and even politicians. It is entirely correct that we will now find a place, too, for the quiet heroism of the PRU: the men who flew alone, unarmed and without fanfare, to gather the intelligence that made victory possible. I reiterate my thanks to the Spitfire AA810 project. I urge that we move as quickly as possible to complete the national memorial that these men deserve. We owe them our thanks, we owe them our remembrance and we owe them a place in our national story. Let us make sure they get it.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to be closing this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I thank colleagues from across the House for their passionate contributions, and I am going to attempt to list them all: my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and the hon. Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I also have it on good authority that the MPs from Staffordshire hunt in a pack, and after today I can confirm that they do indeed. Before I begin my speech, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Ensuring that every child, regardless of their background or circumstances, has the opportunity to thrive is something that cuts to the very heart of why many of us were drawn to politics in the first place. We know that in those crucial early years the foundations of health, learning and wellbeing are laid for life, so it is right that we ensure that those foundations are as solid as can be. I want to first reflect on the Conservative record on early years and families, starting with childcare. It was Conservative Governments who introduced and expanded free childcare entitlements, not just for parents of three and four-year-olds but for parents of younger children. It was a Conservative Government who launched the family hubs and start for life programme, investing £300 million across 75 local authorities to provide parenting and breastfeeding support to families when they need it so that problems can be addressed before they escalate. We fully recognise that stable and secure families ensure the best start in life for children. That means ensuring that support is more broadly targeted than just at the child. Family hubs are a vital part of achieving this. For 14 years, our model was to have targeted investment, early help and a determination to move away from a system where postcode determines life outcomes. Nowhere is that approach more vital than in the first 1,001 days of a child’s life—from conception to age two. The science is clear: a child’s brain develops more rapidly in these years than at any other point in their life. Attachment, stimulation, nutrition and the emotional environment during this time all have lifelong implications for learning, resilience and health. Interventions in these early days can literally change life chances, and we know that failure to act compounds over time. I pay tribute to Dame Andrea Leadsom for all her excellent work on this subject. Earlier this month, the Government published their “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy. The House will be aware that the strategy’s name, scope and substance owe much to the work begun by the Conservative Government. There is much to celebrate when a new Government build on the good work of the previous one—and as the old saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The strategy identifies the very early years as a priority for the Government, which is welcome, but I must echo the Institute for Fiscal Studies in suggesting that this strategy is a first step, not the finished article. The Government’s approach to family hubs is a good example of what I mean by that. It is welcome that the Government are continuing the programme, with a further £69 million announced in the autumn Budget and £57 million in Start for Life funding for 2025-26. The goal of rolling out Best Start family hubs in every local authority is certainly ambitious and something to be welcomed, but there is one important point I want to make. Even with this new funding, spending on integrated early years services will be remain at less than one third of what was spent on Sure Start at its peak. Family hubs are being asked to do more, serving children up to the age of 19, but with far fewer resources per child. If this Labour Government want it to be Sure Start 2.0—and I truly hope they do—they may need to be more ambitious with their funding plans. If the Government want to build on the solid foundation they inherited from their Conservative predecessors, they must guarantee long-term investment, retain high-quality staff and ensure that hubs are universal in reach but suitably targeted in mission. Before I move on from hubs, I welcome the fact that each one is promised a SEND-trained staff member who can deliver practical and well-informed help to families navigating what is a complex system. As we in the House all know, SEND is a big issue. I am all too aware from casework in my constituency that the families of SEND children are too often left fighting against the very system that should be fighting for them. Early identification of SEND is still inconsistent, and when that diagnosis is eventually made, EHCP needs assessments and much needed support are often delayed too. Disappointingly, Ministers have refused to rule out scrapping ECHPs outside special schools, despite over 300,000 children currently relying on them in mainstream settings. That has triggered real fear among families and professionals alike. More than 110,000 people have signed a petition opposing these changes, yet to date Ministers have offered no firm reassurance that no child will lose the legal right to the support they need. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to provide some clarity and reassurance to those worried parents. Looking at the Government’s approach in the round, the “best start in life” strategy contains much that the Opposition welcome in principle, such as more family hubs, the expansion of funded childcare to 30 hours a week for working parents of children from nine months old, thousands more nursery places and the development of a digital offer. However, if we are seeking to ensure that every child has the best start in life, a key ingredient must be the provision of high-quality education: the very provision that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill seeks to sabotage. Far from ensuring that schools can serve as a foundation for success in the early years, Ministers have led an attack on school standards by undermining the academies that have led the way on school improvement for decades. If the Government get their way, academies will no longer be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status from non-traditional backgrounds and will be forced to follow the same national curriculum as other schools. Those measures will risk the progress made during three decades of cross-party consensus on academies. It is nothing less than educational vandalism. If any Member of the House doubts that fact, they need only pay a visit to Labour-run Wales. After 26 years of Labour in power, Wales finds itself at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the UK in maths, English and science. The Government cannot even bring themselves to ban smartphones in schools—something so simple yet so effective in improving a child’s wellbeing and educational outcomes. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) introduced a Bill that would have done just that. I applaud him for doing so and for the strong cross-party consensus he built up. It is shameful that much of his work was undone by a Government who insisted on watering down his Bill and burying their heads in the sand to the harms. A Government who refuse to act against that danger give me cause for concern about their commitment to offering children the best start in life. I will conclude by making an observation on nurseries, which face extreme financial pressure because of decisions taken by the Government. The lack of compensation for the employer national insurance contribution increase is forcing nurseries and childcare providers to either hike fees, opt out altogether from offering funded places or close down entirely. I ask the Minister to ponder what use any number of policies aimed at supporting nurseries and increasing funded places will be if the Treasury is driving nurseries into the ground with tax hikes before those policies have even started.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because of the time—we all have lots of questions for the Minister that we want to get through. The statutory override was due to end in 2026, but the Government have decided to extend that accounting trick for another two years. I cannot emphasise enough to the Minister that we are on the brink of a financial disaster in local government. Accounting fudges only delay the inevitable and make the problem even worse—and it will not just be SEND services impacted when local authorities are issuing section 114 notices; it will be all local authority services. Before I put some questions to the Minister on her proposed changes to the SEND system, I want to address some of the issues raised about Surrey county council specifically. Members have already laid out clearly some of the challenges experienced by Surrey parents trying to secure SEND support for their child. I too share their concerns and agree that that is unacceptable. Like them, I have spent much time grappling with the council to ensure that it delivers the right support to children in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, so I have seen at first hand deadlines being missed, information being withheld, decisions being delayed and essential support not being provided. Although I recognise the challenges and pressures on the council from an insufficiently funded and less than optimal system, the fact is that the law is clear on support for children with SEND. I thank parents and groups that have fought hard in recent years to shine a light on the issues both in Surrey and beyond. I want to make special mention of the Let Us Learn Too campaign, whose founder, Hayley Harding, is one of my constituents. That important campaign started in 2021 and has sought to raise as an issue the difficulties that disabled people and young people have been experiencing in accessing education. It is important to say that they were extremely disappointed at the lack of detail coming out of the hearing of the Education Committee on 1 July about the forthcoming changes. To return to the situation in Surrey specifically, I welcome the recent appointment of Councillor Jonathan Hulley with a specific focus on addressing the issues and delivering a better, more effective SEND service. One of his first actions has been to propose boosting the future annual SEND budget by 42% in order to substantially increase staff. As part of the plans, the number of caseworkers will be increased from 81 to 111, resulting in caseloads being reduced from over 200 per staff member currently to 150. Also, 30 new assessment officers will be put in place to support families during the 20-week process, and a mediation and dispute resolution officer team will be established to support early resolution of cases where mediation or a tribunal has been requested. The proposals will increase SEND staff by 103 permanent positions—an 80% overall increase in SEND staff. That is all very positive, and I welcome Surrey’s actions to address the issues raised, but we are still in the dark about national reforms and how they might impact plans such as those at local authority level. Without firm information, we see speculation starting. Last week, the future of SEND support was splashed across the front pages of three national newspapers. Despite the off-the-record briefings from the Department, Government Front Benchers have failed to give parents any reassurance on their plans. Parents are rightly anxious about what any change could mean for their child and the support they are entitled to. I have a series of questions for the Minister. When will we finally see the White Paper? Does she anticipate a change to the Children and Families Act 2014 as a result of the Government’s proposed reforms? Can she confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed as a result of her planned changes? Will EHCPs be part of the plan going forward? Will there be any new capital funding for new special schools, or does the Department plan to build capacity in mainstream schools? Is the Department engaging with parents, schools, colleges and local government leaders ahead of the publication of the White Paper to ensure their support? Will the White Paper include reforms to school transportation? Is work under way in the Department to look at early identification, and what role will support staff and access to specialist interventions, such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists, play? Given that any changes will be a worry to many constituents up and down the country, can the Minister confirm today that MPs will be given a chance to vote on any proposed changes? I will now allow time for the Minister to go through that list of questions.