Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  The use of puberty blockers on healthy children is deeply wrong. Children given those drugs are being locked into their discomfort and put on a one-way pathway to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. All of that leads to a lifetime of sexual impairment, fertility issues, bone density loss and other catastrophic psychological and emotional impacts. No child put on puberty blockers at the earliest stage of puberty and whose natural puberty is blocked will ever have an orgasm or be fertile. That is what anyone in this room cheerleading this trial is supporting. In December, the Health Secretary said at the Dispatch Box: “Am I comfortable that this clinical trial has undergone the proper process and ethical approval to ensure the highest standards and supervision? Yes, I am comfortable about that.” —[ Official Report , 17 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 929.] However, on 20 February, we found out that the MHRA had U-turned and was expressing serious concerns about the current trial. The issues it raised were not new, though, having been raised from the outset by many in this room. Making children infertile and harming bone structure are not minor points of detail, but fundamental safety flaws. That last-minute intervention raises questions about the rigour and diligence of the overall approval process. How did a trial with such potentially catastrophic health impacts make it through the research ethics committee approval process? Having looked through the minutes of the meetings, I can see that the committee members met three times over Zoom; nine out of 12 attended the first, only five attended the second and only three attended the third. What stands out most to me is the REC’s delegation to a sub-committee of approval responsibilities for such a profoundly dangerous trial. Section 4.2.24 of the REC governance policy document indicates that sub-committees can be used when “research proposals…present no material ethical issues”. I am therefore staggered that it took the decision to delegate approval responsibilities in this case.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  A key point to make is that potholes are often a symptom that roads have not been resurfaced at the right time. In reality, we have billions of pounds in community infrastructure levy funds that are sitting across the country, often just earning interest. They are not being invested in resurfacing roads or our drainage system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we can better spend that community infrastructure levy money and ensure that it is put into roads? That often means making sure that—

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I think we can all agree that tackling the rise in youth employment is very important, but I am concerned about the approach that is being adopted for that purpose. We are essentially taking money away from employers and then giving some of them some of it back. Has the Secretary of State considered, for instance, the use of existing levers in relation to employer national insurance? That would be an obvious way to address the issue and ensure that some of our young people are employed.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am incredibly pleased to speak in support of Lords amendment 38, which seeks to raise the digital age of consent to 16. I only wish we had much more time for this debate, as it deserves. For years, parents like me have worried about the harms of social media on our children, and the detrimental impact of excessive screentime. We have tried to manage it as best we can on our own. We have felt the sting when we have been told by others that responsibility fully sits with parents, and that good parents do not need the state to help them get this right, yet no one says that about alcohol, smoking or buying fireworks. In all those cases, it is acceptable for parents to be helped by sensible laws put in place to protect children from preventable harm, yet social media and excessive screentime are just as harmful as cigarettes, alcopops and messing around with fireworks in the street, so why would the state not step in on that too? I have three children, and it is fair to say that they love screentime. If I try to talk to them when they are glued to a YouTube video of someone else playing a computer game, they ignore me, completely engrossed. They do not want to go out in the garden, play with their friends in the street or play with toys. Instead, if given a choice, they would always choose to stare zombie-like at their tablet. Thankfully, I have kept them away from social media, but there is only so long I can get away with that. Staring at a screen for endless hours is not healthy. It prevents children from developing the social and cognitive skills they need in adulthood and is terrible for their mental health. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a mental health crisis, which started at the same time as the mass adoption of smartphones and access to social media. It really should be a wake-up call. What does the future look like if our children’s most important relationship is with their phone? Their brains are literally becoming hardwired to respond to likes and shares, rather than human interaction and connection. Social media is doing exactly what it was designed to do: reeling our children in and feeding them content that often is not in their best interest but is highly addictive. We know this because we all experience it the same. Social media is not for children. We do not need any more time given over to consultation to confirm what we already know—

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response, but I would suggest that in future the appropriate Minister, who can actually respond to our questions, is sent to the House. Here is another straightforward question for him: have the Government declined to give the US permission to use Diego Garcia and other UK bases, including Fairford, to launch strikes on Iran?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to flag that reducing the number of houses being built in London pushes people in London out into constituencies such as mine. The Government say, “We’re building more houses so that children and grandchildren can stay close to their families,” but what happens is that those in London move into other constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not really achieve the aim?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this really important debate. In my experience, nothing erodes public confidence in the planning system faster than development that is delivered with the promise of appropriate infrastructure that never materialises. People are often accepting and understanding of new homes being built if it is done in a thoughtful and considered way. What they are not willing to accept is development pushing local residents out of catchment areas for schools, it becoming impossible for them to see their GP, their homes starting to flood regularly, and no longer being able to get a seat on the train on the way to work. In my constituency, we face huge amounts of development with an absolutely ridiculous doubling of housing targets, all while London’s target comes down. Unfortunately, I see no signs of adequate investment in our local public transport to accompany this ludicrous target. As Members will be aware, the Government’s draft revised national planning policy framework is heavily tilted towards encouraging development around stations. I understand the logic to that. If we want to reduce car dependency and create opportunity, we have to build near public transport. To maximise the use of existing infrastructure, we have to build in more urban areas that are already well connected. If we want to protect high-quality green belt, we have to densify close to existing settlements. Those are sensible propositions, but the NPPF is too broad brush and does not discern between those bits of land close to stations that fit with these objectives and those that do not. Let us take Kingswood station in my constituency, for example. There is high-quality green-belt land nearby, yet the train service is far from ideal, there is no timetabled bus service and there are plentiful other brownfield sites and, indeed, greenfield sites that would be much better to build on first. I recognise the good intentions behind that change, and I support looking at land close to train stations first, but additional parameters are required to act as an appropriate filter to protect villages such as Kingswood. If the planning system is going to prioritise developments near stations above all other considerations, it must also be accompanied by extra investment and funding in transport capacity. If the infrastructure is not there or not credibly planned, the answer should be no. That approach would enable growth at genuinely suitable hubs while protecting small villages. On Gatwick expansion, I am concerned that Gatwick airport has been given the green light to operate a second runway without sufficient thought being given to what that means for surrounding public transport. Reigate station sits on a busy community artery, yet the Department for Transport has said nothing about the impact that millions of extra passengers heading down to Gatwick will have on the line or the station. The most transformational improvement for Reigate station would be achieved by extending its platform to allow additional and more efficient services. Back in 2020, a Network Rail scheme proposed the creation of a 12-car turnback platform to allow Thameslink trains to stop at the station and avoid the need for splitting and joining of trains at Redhill. I ask the Government to reconsider that project in the light of Gatwick expansion. Redhill is impacted, too, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what plans are in place for these stations and lines to meet the need for additional capacity and more frequent and reliable services. This is also a good opportunity to ensure that the facilities at those stations are fit for the 21st century and fully accessible, so that everyone can use them. On the topic of accessibility, I would like to raise the plight of Earlswood station. It serves a growing area, and one that could come under even greater pressure if the planning system encourages heavier development around it, yet Earlswood’s infrastructure is already creaking. Things have got so bad that the underpass was recently badly flooded and had to be pumped out. People are literally taking their shoes and socks off to get the train, and those with buggies, older residents and disabled passengers are effectively blocked from travelling. I am pleased to see that Network Rail has now replaced the pumps to help to address the situation, but there is still more to do in the long run. In closing, if the Government want public support for housing growth, they must improve support for public transport as well. Those two things must go hand in hand.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The key concern I hear from parents and carers in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages is that they fought for years, or are still fighting, to get support. Can the Education Secretary reassure my constituents that they will not lose the hard-fought-for support that they are entitled to?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) on a refreshing, measured, fantastic speech. Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I expected a slightly different topic, but it was pleasing to hear so much about the importance of strong families. Maybe we can do this debate again and I will write a slightly different speech. Between us all, we will cover various aspects that are relevant and important. I would also like hon. Members to know that I, too, am watching season 4 of “Bridgerton”—a classic Cinderella tale—which is very enjoyable. Healthy relationships are underpinned by respect. In most cases, the way we would wish to be treated ourselves is probably a good place to start our relationships with others, but we continue to see high levels of violence against women and girls, as well as other kinds of abuse such as coercive control, with no real signs of reduction. That suggests something is going badly wrong, and the Government have rightly set challenging ambitions to address this huge societal problem. We very much welcome the Government’s recently published VAWG strategy and their ambition to halve such violence, and we hope it will build on the work undertaken by the previous Government. The Conservatives elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that policing leaders must treat as a national threat, and we committed over £230 million to the tackling domestic abuse plan from 2022 to 2025. That included quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, and it complemented the £300 million investment in the 2021 tackling VAWG strategy as part of the goal to drive down the prevalence of domestic abuse. The previous Government also created two new offences: stalking and stalking involving fear of violence, serious alarm or distress. That made it easier for victims to hold stalkers to account. On top of that, we also outlawed upskirting to further protect women and girls, criminalised revenge porn and deepfakes, and introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and, accordingly, domestic abuse protection notices and orders. We are clear that robust action against offenders is vital in the fight against VAWG. Although relationship education in schools can go only so far in addressing male violence against women and girls, it nevertheless plays an important role in educating young people on what positive and healthy relationships looks like, and the importance of putting in place clear boundaries. Those skills are vital in navigating relationships, recognising potential abuse, including coercive control, and knowing how and when to seek help when needed. Relationship education was made compulsory in all primary and secondary schools in 2020. It has several core objectives: to foster pupil wellbeing, to develop resilience and character, and to ensure that pupils are happy, successful and productive members of society. In spite of that, shockingly, nearly three women every single week are killed by men, and many, many more are raped and abused. The risks and harms arising from the online world are feeding this problem. Pornography is available online at the touch of a button on smartphones. Let me be clear: this is harmful stuff that depicts strangulation, rape, violence and degrading acts such as spitting on young women. Any young man seeing such misogynistic content day in, day out will inevitably view women and girls differently. They will be more likely to see them as an object to use and degrade. By comparison, the relatively trivial amount of time spent learning the opposite in a classroom cannot hope to offset that. The single best thing we can do to stem the tide is to introduce a ban on smartphones in schools for under-16s and increase the age limit for social media to 16. That will not address the whole issue, of course, but it will massively help. The Conservatives have backed it all the way, and I ask the Minister to do so too. The Government’s proposal to ban strangulation content is welcome and a positive step forward. I am concerned that our strong desire to eradicate VAWG has led to boys and men being unnecessarily demonised. There is a difference between calling out abusive behaviour and labelling a whole set of masculine attributes as toxic. Masculinity is a wonderful thing—the yang to femininity’s yin—and it is certainly not toxic in the great majority of cases, particularly when it is not fuelled by online porn. Our answer to a genuine question about the abuse of girls has been to tell a generation of boys, “You are the problem,” and then we are surprised when that approach, instead of nurturing healthy relationships, creates resentment and pushes more young men towards the very online subcultures that feed off grievance and rejection. Instead, we need to positively embrace what being a good man, a good partner and a good father look like. Fundamentally, boys need positive role models from which to learn and model their own relationships. That is why fathers and other male role models are so important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that. When it comes to education on healthy relationships, we have seen an ever-growing load of subject matter covering issues from relationships to mental health. Good RSHE can be a protective factor when it is age-appropriate, factual and taught impartially, but it is also important to recognise that schools should not try to replace the education that should be the family’s role. There is a careful balance to be struck. As well as confident, self-assured boys, we need confident, self-assured girls who are clear about their boundaries and what behaviours they are willing to accept and not accept. That means not telling them that selling their bodies is empowering, not expecting them always to be kind, and not telling them that the feelings of men are more important than their safety. On that point, I hope we might hear something today about the Government’s unresolved approach to gender-questioning guidance for schools and the release of the long-awaited code of practice on single-sex spaces following the recent Supreme Court ruling. The Government cannot claim to support healthy relationships so long as they leave schools to navigate the issue without proper guidance. It is incumbent on this Government to reinforce rules that entitle our girls and women to privacy from males when they are getting changed—that is basic safeguarding. We received the draft non-statutory guidance on gender-questioning children back in December 2023, but two years later, schools and parents are still waiting for it to be published. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see both the gender-questioning guidance and the revised code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission? My final point is on the need to be honest about where the deeper formation of relationships happens. Schools matter and good teachers can be life-changing, but let us not lose sight of the fact that children spend most of their time outside the classroom. The attitudes that shape relationships are forged primarily at home, as well as online and in peer groups. If we want healthy relationships, we cannot pretend that a curriculum document can substitute for a loving and nurturing family structure. Families can come in all different shapes and sizes, but the important thing is that they are loving, nurturing and respectful. Children learn how to interact with others from their main caregivers. What are the Minister’s plans to support strong families, given that it is likely to be the most impactful way a Government can ensure healthier relationships?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Jardine—twice in one afternoon; a treat for both of us! I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing today’s debate, and I have listened with huge interest to the points that have been made. We are all no doubt proud of what Britain makes, and I certainly agree that we should do all we can to create the environment for businesses to flourish and produce more here. The harsh truth, however, is that production is often offshored due to the UK not being competitive on cost. With sky-high energy costs, labour costs and taxes and all the regulatory burden, we cannot be surprised to see many of our manufacturing businesses packing up and moving elsewhere. However, the good news is that we can still compete when it comes to quality and speed, with many businesses where cost is not the driving motivation choosing to source from the UK—knitwear being a good example. Despite the challenges, the fashion and textile industry in the UK is significant and important. UK Fashion and Textile Association research commissioned from Oxford Economics found that the wider sector supported a £62 billion contribution to UK GDP, 1.3 million jobs and more than £23 billion in tax revenues. That same work underlined how geographically spread those jobs are—from London to the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the south-west, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and how important the sector is for younger workers and women. Many different services and skills are needed to transform fabrics into finished garments. Designers, technicians, machinists, graders, pattern cutters, fabric technologists, dye houses, finishing plants, logistics and aftercare all play an essential role. I saw that at first hand just before I entered politics, when I worked for the retailer Jigsaw, which is also very much known for its knitwear—that seems to be a theme today. We are not going to get to a point anytime soon where every button and zip can be made in this country. Frankly, without a cheap energy plan, we will not even see garments made here either. Warm words are not enough to bring about the change the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet is calling for, but businesses are now discovering that cheaper production on the other side of the world has its downsides. Major retailers have described how customs-related supply chain frictions, increased admin costs and global events affecting major routes, including disruption around the Suez canal, have impacted transit times and driven up costs across the industry. There is clearly an appetite to address these issues by producing closer to home—maybe even at home—so that does present an opportunity. Considerations around sustainability can also play to our advantage. The rapid rise of so-called fast fashion has pushed production far from the consumer, and has often pushed environmental and social costs wholly out of sight. Now, though, we are in an era where customers, investors and regulators are far less willing to accept, “We didn’t know,” as an excuse. They want to know that their clothing has been produced ethically. Traceability is becoming a brand asset in and of itself. That is why the UK Fashion and Textile Association points to the opportunity for technology such as QR codes, radio frequency identification or even AI-enabled systems to strengthen transparency and build consumer trust in “Made in the UK” as a mark of ethical production. If that is the opportunity, we also need to recognise the barriers to us benefiting from it. First, there is cost, which I have mentioned a number of times, given its importance. UKFT’s “Reshoring for Real” report captures a real appetite among brands to source more domestically, but only if the cost model makes sense and if standards can be trusted. It really is not rocket science: if we want companies to onshore production, we need to make it cheaper for them to do so. The Government’s lack of action on bringing the cost of energy down, the imposition of the jobs tax, higher business rates and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025 show that they do not get it. Secondly, there is the issue of skills. When a country loses capacity, it also risks losing the training pipeline. We can talk about onshoring, but if there are not enough skilled people to do the work, the opportunity will be taken elsewhere. That is why, in previous debates, Members in both Houses have raised the need for stronger skills routes relevant to garment and textile manufacturing, and why the engagement with industry on training and technical education undertaken by the previous Government mattered. Thirdly—I was shocked to learn that this was an issue—past labour compliance issues in British factories have damaged trust to the point that some companies will remain wary of, or keep in place concrete policies against, UK sourcing until they are confident that these issues are resolved. Such circumstances make further basing or investment into the UK a difficult proposition for reputation-conscious firms. That clearly needs to be addressed, but with a careful eye on not heaping even more regulatory burdens on compliant, law-abiding businesses. In 2023, the then Business and Trade Secretary, who has now gone on to greater things, set out that her Department was engaging and promoting fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally, noting that fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion in 2022, and that Government funding was supporting London Fashion Week through the British Fashion Council, and supporting UKFT activity at key international trade shows. I hope the current Government will be as robust in their support. Such support matters, because onshoring does not sit in a silo. A stronger domestic manufacturing base goes hand in hand with strong exports and with a globally respected brand Britain. If we have a solid local supply chain, we attract design talent. If we attract design talent, we build brands. If we build brands, we export. If we export, we grow. A point in the application for the debate referenced UKFT estimates that suggest that onshoring could unlock substantial additional growth, jobs and tax receipts. There is a real prize here, particularly in places where manufacturing capability already exists or could be rebuilt. For communities that have lived through the loss of industrial jobs, modern textile manufacturing, technical fabrics and high-value apparel production can be part of a new story: one compatible with innovation, automation and clean growth. However, that can happen only if the right environment is created for those businesses. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I commit that we will continue to press for a serious, pro-growth approach to business and trade that would allow industries such as fashion and textiles to flourish. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s approach.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this debate and on the incredible persistence with which he has fought for his constituents. As my hon. Friend made clear, a functioning postal service is not a nice-to-have in rural Britain; rather, it is part of the vital infrastructure of daily life. The post is how people receive medical letters, time-sensitive official correspondence and the things they cannot simply pick up on the high street. For small businesses, farms and sole traders, it is how goods, invoices and documents move. We should not underestimate the harms when this important service fails. I want to cover two linked issues: the resilience of the post office network; and the reliability of deliveries and the way that failures fall hardest on rural areas. As of October 2025, there were about 11,638 post office branches in the UK, and the company is committed to maintaining about 11,500 branches. The Post Office is publicly owned, but the vast majority of branches are run by independent postmasters inside local shops. In my experience, that is why they are so deeply woven into rural life, and why, when a branch closes, the town or village feels it immediately and deeply. The network is supposed to be underpinned by access criteria, including a requirement that 95% of the rural population should be within three miles of a post office, and that 95% of the population of every postcode district should be within six miles of one. Even remote communities have a minimum level of access. Those are sensible measures of access, and it is therefore deeply concerning that the Department for Business and Trade Green Paper on the future of the Post Office explicitly asks whether to keep the existing requirement, remove the minimum 11,500 branch requirement or replace it with a different framework altogether. Rural Britain has heard that language before: “a different way of meeting obligations” is often a Whitehall euphemism for a quiet downgrade under which the network looks stable on paper but becomes thinner in practice, with reduced hours, reduced services and longer journeys for those without cars. Although the Government appear to be drifting, the Conservative party is clear about what the Post Office is for. It is more than a business; it is part of the UK’s social and economic fabric, especially in rural areas, and especially as bank branches continue to vanish from our high streets. For many communities, the post office is now the most realistic place to do basic banking, withdraw cash or deposit takings. There is also a straightforward point about support. The nationwide network, especially in rural areas, will not always be commercially viable based on pure retail footfall alone. That is why public funding has played a role. The Conservative Government provided more than £2.5 billion in funding in the past decade to sustain the nationwide network, including support for branches in uncommercial areas. That turned out to be money well spent, in the light of the ongoing use of the post office network. Post office data shows record levels of cash deposits at branches and significant use by both personal and business customers, alongside the roll-out of banking hubs operated in partnership with Cash Access UK. When the Minister responds, I hope we will hear some reassurance about the support for the post office network. Can we have a commitment today to retaining a minimum network size of at least 11,500 branches? Will we keep the rural and postcode district access criteria and will sub-postmasters be properly supported so that rural branches do not become financially untenable? I now turn to deliveries, which is where constituents, including my own, are impacted when the service breaks down. The universal postal service is a promise that has been repeatedly broken. In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million for missing its 2024-25 delivery targets, finding that only 77% of first-class mail and 92.5% of second-class mail was delivered on time, far below the long-standing universal service targets. Ofcom has since moved to reform parts of the universal service obligation, including allowing second-class letters to be delivered on alternate weekdays Monday to Friday and adjusting headline targets while introducing new backstop measures designed to prevent extreme delays. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about sustainability and falling letter volumes, but reform must not become cover for a two-tier Britain where rural residents simply wait longer as a matter of course. The focus must now be on delivery offices, staffing and day-to-day operational reality. In my own Reigate constituency we face ongoing concerns about the standard of postal services in the village of Banstead. Constituents have raised this with me repeatedly since the general election, and with good reason. A key issue appears to be staffing. Royal Mail has admitted to higher than normal levels of sickness and vacancies, and when I visited the delivery office that serves Banstead it was clear that morale there was extremely low. Meanwhile there is an operational inefficiency built in. Banstead is served by a delivery office based in Epsom, meaning staff travel before rounds even begin. I think we can all guess what that leads to. One constituent received 10 items of post on 30 January after receiving none in the preceding 10 days. Others report the same pattern of long gaps followed by sudden floods. If that is the experience of a well-connected part of Surrey, it should shock no one that deeply rural areas are hit even harder. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire highlighted severe delays in his constituency. The frustration felt by his constituents is wholly understandable. So what should happen next? First, the Minister should make it clear that regulatory fines are not the end of the story. Ofcom’s enforcement action was accompanied by requirements for Royal Mail to take corrective steps. The Government should press for transparent reporting at delivery office level with a particular focus on rural performance so that communities can see whether their service is improving and where the problems sit. Secondly, Ministers must ensure that any future changes to the universal service protect rural users. If second class is delivered less often, that should not translate into worse outcomes for rural areas. Backstop measures are welcome, but they must be enforced and felt in places that have been left behind. People do not care about clever statistics if their letters still arrive late, in clumps, or not at all. Thirdly, the Government should recognise the interdependence of the system. The post office is not a shop counter; it is part of the national postal infrastructure, so any reform must be judged by a simple test: does it improve the lived experience of rural users? I will end by returning to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire, who has done what good MPs should do: listened locally, engaged with the operators and brought the issue to Parliament for debate. To be clear, neither he nor rural Britain are asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness and competence. A letter posted in this country should arrive when the sender is told it will arrive. A rural post office branch should not be quietly allowed to wither. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope we will hear some meaningful commitments on the issues today.

• 28 Jan 2026 · LGBTQ+ Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It has been 146 days since the Equality and Human Rights Commission laid the revised code of practice before Government. Have the Government asked the EHRC to make any changes to the code of practice? If they have, can the Minister tell us what they are?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, and for all his support with the issues we have had at Park25 in Redhill; I very much appreciate that he has taken residents’ concerns seriously. Which of the changes will be most beneficial for my Park25 residents, and has the Minister given any more thought to my suggestion of mandatory adoption of communal land by local authorities?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I am concerned that a merger of Surrey police with neighbouring forces will divert resources away from communities in Surrey. On a busy Saturday night, Reigate will inevitably lose out to Reading. What reassurance can the Secretary of State provide to my constituents?

• 13 Jan 2026 · NHS Staff · Hansard source

  More

  One of the things that contributes to staff burnout is caring for patients in corridors. I recently visited St Helier hospital and saw that for myself, and it was very concerning and distressing. We are also seeing that at East Surrey hospital in Redhill, in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm when we can expect to see the issue resolved for good?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate. In many countries, a quick kiss and fly really is quick and really is free. At Amsterdam Schiphol, the kiss and ride drop-off is free. At Paris-Charles de Gaulle the first 10 minutes are free, and at Madrid-Barajas the express departures car park gives drivers 10 minutes free. Meanwhile, here in the UK we are normalising the idea that dropping off and saying a hurried goodbye at the airport comes with a bill. Bear with me here: kiss and fly? More like kiss and buy. At Gatwick airport, which serves so many of my constituents in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, the drop-off fee was hiked to £10 for 10 minutes—a 43% jump from £7. That hits everyone: the parent, the friend taking someone to an early flight and taxi drivers trying to earn their living. It is true that Gatwick offers free drop-off in the long-stay car park with a complementary shuttle, and that blue badge holders are exempt, but we all know that that option adds time and complication, and is not always practical at unsocial hours. We should be clear about responsibility. Most airports in the UK are private businesses, and drop-off charging is a matter for the owners to decide and manage. That is certainly true at Gatwick, where the increased drop-off charge has been explained on the grounds of growing financial pressure on the operation. However, the extra costs place a burden on my constituents using the airport, and I urge Gatwick always to keep them in mind when analysing the numbers and ensure fairness, the importance of which the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) eloquently highlighted. It is easy to assume that people can use the train or bus as an alternative, but that is often not the case for the elderly, the disabled or those who simply cannot transport all their luggage by hand. Gatwick has said that the drop-off charge increase has not been taken lightly and follows a number of cost increases, including a more than doubling of its business rates by this Government, from £40 million to more than £80 million per annum. It is relevant to note that Heathrow has also increased its drop-off charge this month, although far more modestly, from £6 to £7. Unfortunately, that is what happens when the Government pile ever more taxes on our businesses: those costs inevitably find their way back to the consumer in some shape or form. If Ministers would like to see the trend of extra charges and surging prices reduce, I say gently that they might consider not continually taxing businesses. Rethinking the damaging business rates hike would be a good start and would give British businesses, including our airports, room to breathe.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Plans to restrict access to jury trial take a sledgehammer to one of the most important protections for the people of this country. I would expect any Government suggesting a change of that magnitude to have a strong rationale for doing so. Instead, we hear the nonsensical argument that curtailing jury trials will address the courts backlog, yet the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services told the House that only 3% of court cases are jury cases. So before we even get into the debate, we need clarity on what this change will mean for the backlog. That means modelling and timescales, not justifications based on religious belief. I suggest that the Government are getting desperate when that is the best they can offer—perhaps next we will hear that the tooth fairy backs digital identification or that Father Christmas supports giving away the Chagos islands. Back in the real world, in 2024 the Lady Chief Justice gave evidence to the Justice Committee that our courts faced around 100 unplanned closures every week, with 200 near closures per month. That is in line with credible data suggesting that just yesterday, 15% of our Crown courtrooms sat empty, and it is the same today. If the Minister wants to tackle the backlog, might that not be the best place to start? Let me turn to the key benefit of jury trials: the involvement of our peers in delivering justice. These are people in our own communities with no obvious axe to grind or political motivations. Any justice system that concentrates powers in the hands of a small number of repeat decision makers inevitably risks groupthink and unconscious, or even conscious, bias. A jury is a built-in safeguard: 12 ordinary people drawn at random, bringing different instincts and experiences, and forced to test the prosecution’s case in a way that a single decision maker cannot. Simply put, it is safer to spread human fallibility across 12 people than to concentrate it in one. A system in which liberty hinges solely on inputs from various arms of the state—the police, the CPS and then a judge—cannot be as inherently fair as one in which justice is done with the people’s direct involvement. The curtailing of jury trials is not the only concern. Ministers want to expand sentencing powers in the magistrates courts by allowing them to hand down sentences of up to two years, while at the same time restricting the ability to appeal decisions taken in those courts. It is extraordinary that this Government think that someone who can sit as a magistrate from the age of 18, with no legal qualifications or experience, should be able to decide whether someone loses their liberty. If you were in the dock, would you be happy with that? Juries may not be perfect, but I know what I would prefer. If the Government are determined to push ahead with this, they are knowingly increasing the risk of wrongful convictions and excessive sentences. We know that more than 40% of appeals against decisions taken by magistrates courts are upheld. How many miscarriages of justice are this Government willing to accept? Ministers would be foolish to trade away a centuries-old safeguard for a headline about swift justice, only to discover afterwards that our courts are no speedier, just less just. I believe that the British people must remain participants in their system of justice rather than mere observers. I urge Ministers to think again. Do not curtail jury trials. Do not concentrate yet more power in fewer hands. Fix the courts. Protect our legal heritage.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Fairtrade Certification · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing today’s informative and thoughtful debate. All the contributions have been insightful, but I particularly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) who spoke about the man from Del Monte, taking me back down memory lane. I had not thought about him for a long time, probably not since the ’80s. This is a timely debate. It rightly draws attention to a topic that has relevance to how the UK positions itself as a responsible trading nation and global partner. Fairtrade certification schemes have become a visible and recognised feature of British consumer life. They are well understood by the public, well supported by major retailers and increasingly used by UK businesses to demonstrate transparency and ethical practices across global supply chains. This debate invites us to reflect on how Fairtrade sits within the wider landscape of British trade and business policy, and how it might continue to support responsible sourcing, environmental sustainability and long-term development goals. At its core, Fairtrade is a voluntary certification scheme applied to consumer goods such as bananas, cocoa, coffee, tea and sugar. It sets minimum prices for producers, offers a Fairtrade premium to be invested in community projects, and lays out standards on labour rights and environmental protection. The scheme is built on a partnership model between producers in the global south and businesses and consumers in the global north. Over time, Fairtrade has come to play a role in supporting responsible UK sourcing practices. The UK has long been a leading market for Fairtrade goods, and British supermarkets were among the first in the world to adopt the Fairtrade label at scale. The distinctive mark is now found on thousands of product lines sold in every part of the country, from major supermarket chains to small independent stores. Beyond consumer familiarity, the benefits of Fairtrade certification also flow into business practices here at home. For British companies, certification helps to meet environmental, social and governance expectations from investors and consumers alike. It offers reassurance on the ethical provenance of goods and helps to reduce reputational risk in complex and sometimes opaque global supply chains. More broadly, Fairtrade fits into a wider framework of responsible sourcing in which UK firms are increasingly engaged. For example, the cocoa industry has seen significant improvements in transparency and long-term planning due to Fairtrade and similar voluntary schemes. British food and beverage companies, in particular, have drawn on Fairtrade principles to strengthen resilience and quality across key import lines. There is also a trade policy angle. Fairtrade is not only about individual transactions; it reflects a broader outlook on how the UK interacts with developing markets. As the Government have observed in the recent trade strategy, trade and development are not mutually exclusive goals. We can support UK business while also encouraging more ethical, sustainable and secure supply chains. The developing countries trading scheme, launched in 2023 under the last Conservative Government, is one such example. It reduces tariffs on goods from low and middle-income countries and allows for easier trade in value-added products, helping to support economic diversification. The previous Government were also clear that they recognised the role that voluntary schemes like Fairtrade play in complementing formal legal frameworks, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which continues to apply to large UK businesses. In this context, Fairtrade certification can be seen as one of several tools that enable the UK to act as a responsible trading nation, championing higher standards while maintaining competitive access to key goods. One of the great strengths of Fairtrade is the strong grassroots support that it enjoys. I saw that at first hand earlier this year when I was contacted by my local Reigate Fairtrade steering group to draw my attention to the “Brew it Fair” campaign. The campaign highlighted that, while the Government have committed to protecting human rights and environmental standards by endorsing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and by passing the Modern Slavery Act, wages, incomes and working conditions remain inadequate for the majority of the people involved in tea farming. As such, the Fairtrade Foundation called on the Government to introduce a law on human rights and environmental due diligence. Again, good work was done in that space under the previous Conservative Government. The UK was the first country to create a national action plan to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which are widely regarded as the authoritative international framework to steer practical action by Governments and businesses worldwide on this important and pressing agenda. More recently, the UK has taken a number of steps through the Modern Slavery Act to ensure that no British organisation—public or private, and unwittingly or otherwise—is complicit through their supply chains in human rights violations. I am sure that the Minister will have more to say on that in a moment. I conclude by noting that this has been an excellent debate, and I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow North for securing it.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Pubs: Bognor Regis and Littlehampton · Hansard source

  More

  It is incredibly depressing that the Minister does not appear to recognise the seriousness of the situation for pubs in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and, indeed, across the country, with around eight closing every week. Pubs already face huge costs and hiked taxes—there really are no more pips to squeak. It can be no surprise that, since the Chancellor’s Budget, some landlords, already emotionally drained from a difficult year, do not have the stomach to check their new business rates liability until after Christmas. If the Minister truly values our pubs, will she take meaningful action, rather than just tell us that business rates are going down when they are actually going up?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conversion Practices Ban · Hansard source

  More

  The Health Secretary’s puberty blocker trial will stop the natural puberty of many young lesbians, putting them on a pathway to irreversible changes and a lifetime of medicalisation. What are the Minister’s plans to stop this state-sanctioned conversion therapy?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Pornography and violence against women · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to present a petition on pornography on behalf of my Reigate constituents. Pornography has never been more accessible than it is today, and it is fuelling an epidemic of violence against women and girls. It is vital that action is taken to protect both those viewing this material and those individuals featured in pornographic content. The petitioners therefore request that “the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.” Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Reigate, Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003144]

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the more than 4,200 people in my constituency who signed the petition opposing digital ID. I very much share the concerns that many of my constituents have raised with me. The Government’s intention to roll out a mandatory digital identification scheme is a serious mistake; it will prove expensive and intrusive, and it will ultimately not move the dial on the key challenges that we face as a country. We have repeatedly been told that this scheme will help to tackle illegal immigration. Frankly, I find that insulting to the intelligence of the British public. Channel crossings will not be stopped by a QR code on a smartphone. I only wish it were that easy. They will, however, be stopped when the Government have the courage to implement real deterrents and confront the lawyers and activist judges who continue to undermine our borders and throw obstacles in the way of every attempt to tackle this crisis. The British public have always rejected the idea of ID cards, and I believe they are right to do so. We are not a nation of “papers, please”, in which people must prove their identity simply to access everyday services or interact with the state, yet we risk creating exactly that kind of society under this policy. We must remember that we are here today as representatives of the British people; we must listen and proceed with caution when nearly 3 million of them feel so strongly about an issue that they sign a petition. Let us also not forget that this issue was never put before the public in a manifesto. If the Prime Minister wanted a mandate for such a fundamental change to the relationship between citizen and state as that which would come with digital ID, he should have had the courage to ask for one at the ballot box. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken today to send the Government a very simple message: mandatory digital ID is not needed to deliver excellent online public services. We already have quick, simple digital applications for passports, driving licences, and right-to-work checks. Those do not require a single state-mandated digital identity card, nor should they.

• 24 Nov 2025 · HMP Downview: Female Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. E wing has sleeping quarters and bathrooms, along with some living room space. Everything else that these prisoners need, like work, education and health services, are only available in the main estate. They therefore spend their days mixing with the women. So what supervision arrangements are in place to protect the women from these dangerous males?

• 24 Nov 2025 · HMP Downview: Female Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentions risk assessments. The independent monitoring board report seems to suggest that no such risk assessments have been provided. Can she put on the record that those risk assessments for every single biological male in HMP Downview are on file somewhere, and that she is comfortable that they exist?

• 24 Nov 2025 · HMP Downview: Female Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. In September, the independent monitoring board published its report on HMP Downview and shed some light on this matter. The report makes it clear that there had previously been “a requirement for constant sight and sound supervision of E wing prisoners by a dedicated prison officer on a 1:1 basis whilst in activities…alongside prisoners in the general population.” However, the report notes that that was changed earlier in the reporting period. It says: “The previous 1:1 supervision arrangement was replaced” by staff having “general oversight of the E wing residents off the wing, as they do for all other prisoners”— in other words, nothing additional. To be completely clear, we have violent males housed in a women’s prison, which in itself is against the law. These males are not segregated from the women in the daytime; they use all the same services and communal spaces. These violent males are not supervised any differently from the female prisoners, with the previous one-on-one supervision by a dedicated prison officer being stopped. That is gross negligence and shows a complete disregard for the safety and wellbeing of female prisoners at HMP Downview. What have been the responses of Ministers to the supervision issue raised in the report? Are they horrified? Have they committed to look into this issue? No, of course not. What they did do was remove the chair of the independent monitoring board the day after publication of the report highlighting the safeguarding failure. Before I bring my speech to a close, let me comment on assertions that these males have not caused any issues for female prisoners. In reality, I really do not know if that is the case, because my question about how many of the prisoner-on-prisoner assaults at HMP Downview were committed by males has not elicited a response. Ministers simply say that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Why is that information not being provided? A failure to respond to that straightforward question does not fill me with confidence. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. When are the biological males being moved out of HMP Downview and all other women’s prisons, in accordance with the Equality Act? What immediate action is being taken about the inadequate supervision of these males in HMP Downview and any other women’s prison where it is relevant? How comfortable is the Minister with the removal of the chair of the independent monitoring board the day after the publication of the IMB’s September 2025 report highlighting the changes to supervision of E Wing inmates? How many assaults of female prisoners and prison officers by biological males in the women’s prison estate have taken place since the inclusion of males in women’s prisons? What percentage of total assaults do they make up? I thank all Members for their participation in the debate this evening. Those who notified me in advance that they would like to make an intervention were granted said intervention—courtesy needs to be paid to these things. I also thank the Minister for listening to what I know is probably a difficult speech to listen to. I hope the issue at hand is now clear. I urge the Minister finally to grasp the nettle on this shocking scandal and ensure that women’s prisons become single sex once again. We managed to get this right more than 200 years ago. Please restore our faith that this country is not going backwards on basic safeguards and rights for women.