Rebecca Paul MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 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.