Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. This is the reality of the data; we must not ignore what the data tells us. I did warn that it makes for an uncomfortable truth, but I can verify all of it and provide hon. Members with the data—I would not come to the House and give hon. Members incorrect data. Accordingly, we can conclude that the male transgender prison population poses a much higher risk to women and girls. When people parrot the line that transwomen are not a threat to women, in the case of the prison population, I am afraid that that statement does not hold up. Zoe Watts, a biological male who identifies as a women, was jailed for eight years and six months after trying to use a 3D printer to make a gun that had the capacity to cause mass casualties. He was arrested by armed officers and a stockpile of weapons and materials was found at his home. There was a disturbing video on social media of him smashing a watermelon with women’s faces on it using a glass shard-encrusted baseball bat. He was put in HMP Downview. Joanna Rowland-Stuart, a biological male who identifies as a woman, who stabbed his partner to death with a samurai sword, was put in HMP Downview too. John Dixon, now known as Sally, is a paedophile who was found guilty of 30 sexual assault charges involving seven children, some as young as six years old. He may have been held in HMP Downview too. There are also more well known transwomen prisoners who have hit the headlines, such as Isla Bryson and Karen White, both incarcerated with women. Isla Bryson, from Scotland, was jailed for raping two women, but only after being charged did he come out as transgender. This dangerous rapist was remanded in a women’s prison. Holyrood, it seems, is even worse than Westminster for drinking the gender Kool-Aid. The case of Karen White is even more appalling. A transwoman convicted of rape and a knife attack, he was remanded in HMP New Hall, a women’s and young offenders’ prison, where he sexually assaulted two inmates. Thankfully, this dangerous predator is no longer in the women’s prison estate. I hope hon. Members understand why I have grave concerns about such violent males continuing to be incarcerated with women. Not only is it against the law, the Supreme Court clarified back in April that single-sex provision must be based on biological sex alone, not anything else, but it is irresponsible and dangerous. Women prisoners deserve better than this. They should feel and be safe. I now want to get into a bit more detail about E Wing within HMP Downview. Ministers have said many times in response to written questions that E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, which is an odd statement for them to make. E Wing is a wing within HMP Downview, and HMP Downview is a women’s prison, ergo E Wing is part of the women’s prison estate. I have visited it and seen it with my own eyes. Why might Ministers be at pains to say that it is not part of the general women’s estate? I believe they are using a play on words to obscure the fact that the single-sex provisions of the Equality Act are being breached. The current policy for managing transgender prisoners, introduced by the former right hon. Member for Esher and Walton when he was Justice Secretary, prohibits male prisoners who retain their birth genitalia or have any history of sexual or violent offences from being held in the general women’s estate, unless an exemption is granted by a Minister. So this ministerial characterisation that E wing is not part of the general women’s estate appears to be a tenuous effort to argue that they have complied with the policy and the Equality Act after all. E Wing is physically located within a women’s prison. It is subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of HMP Downview. It has the same Governor. Its funding comes out of the same pots. Its inmates are supported by the same health services. It beggars belief that Ministers think that we will believe that this wing is not part of the women’s estate. Putting to one side this blatant breach of the Equality Act for now, let us consider whether the males held in E Wing are truly segregated from the rest of the female prison population. Again, Ministers keep saying that they are, but E Wing is like any other wing.

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

  More

  I am grateful for being granted this debate on the safety and wellbeing of women in HMP Downview. Women prisoners are some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet very few people give much thought to the conditions in which they are being held. Today I want to draw attention to an unacceptable situation, one that not only places these women at risk of harm but that fails to recognise their basic rights. The law is being broken and it is being broken by our public institutions. It was in 1823 that the Gaols Act was passed, mandating sex-segregated prisons. Before then, women in prison faced sexual assault and exploitation on a daily basis. Elizabeth Fry brought about important reforms that improved conditions for women, but she would be turning in her grave at where we now find ourselves over 200 years later.

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

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been accused of misinformation, and I want to make the point that the information and data I cited was obtained through written parliamentary questions. I can provide that data, so it is not misinformation; it is information that has come from the Ministry of Justice.

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

  More

  That is absolutely right and the situation at HMP Downview is a great source of concern to me, which is why I am raising it with the Minister. However, I want to move on to another issue. Once again, we have mixed-sex prisons—inclusion trumping safety, ideology winning out over reality, the feelings of a man holding more weight than the fears of many women. HMP Downview is a women’s prison in Banstead, near the Sutton border. It includes a wing, E Wing, specifically for biological males who identify as women. E Wing local policy sets out that it is for transgender women with or without a gender recognition certificate where risk indicates they cannot be safely held in the general women’s estate. Over the course of the last year, between five and seven males have been housed in this wing. The Minister in the other place has said that these males are vulnerable. Before I look at the facts, I have a warning: some may find the data difficult as it yields an uncomfortable truth, but one that it is incumbent upon this House not to ignore. In 2024, of the 245 transgender males—biological males with a trans identity—in prison, 151, or 62%, were convicted of a sexual offence. This is a far, far higher rate than that for the overall male prison population, which is only around 17%. And it is not a one-off either: a similar rate can be seen for 2023—a rate of 56%. So sexual offences are massively over-represented in this specific cohort of biological males.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this critical debate, which is very timely, given the forthcoming Budget. I acknowledge the very pertinent point that he made about the importance of apprenticeships for the specialist sector more broadly. The specialist manufacturing sector is one of those quiet national assets that rarely make front-page news but keep our economy alive. Its contribution to the UK is not abstract but is counted in highly skilled jobs, export strength and clusters of high-value industry. According to the latest figures, advanced manufacturing now accounts for more than 900,000 jobs across the UK and contributes more than £90 billion in gross value added to the economy. I am pleased that the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the reality of advanced manufacturing’s value, which is spread across the country. I welcome the emphasis that they are placing on specialist manufacturing, as it is clear that the industry offers Britain a comparative advantage in our trade with the rest of the world. The sector gives our communities certainty. I see that in my constituency, where we host a range of high-value specialist manufacturers whose work speaks directly to the issues raised in this debate. One such firm is Respirex International, a world-leading manufacturer of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protective equipment, including gas-tight suits, respirators and chemically protective boots. Its products are not only exported worldwide, but used by emergency services and pharmaceutical and nuclear facilities across the UK, protecting lives in some of the most hazardous environments imaginable. We are also home to Risbridger Ltd, established in 1922—an engineering company producing advanced components for aircraft servicing and petrochemical infrastructure. It contributes directly to aerospace and energy supply chains. That is exactly the kind of innovative, precision-focused industrial capability that we should champion as part of Britain’s economic future. In Reigate and across our country, specialist manufacturing has always pulled in long-term capital because it deals in long-term capability. In 2025, the sector counted some 2,700 active companies, and the Government aim to increase annual business investment from £21 billion to £39 billion by 2035. That ambition matters, because regions such as the north-west already generate £14.4 billion in advanced manufacturing GVA. The west midlands generates £11.8 billion and the south-west generates £10.4 billion. Those are not marginal numbers; they are proof that British engineering remains globally competitive when it is backed properly. Defence manufacturing is a genuine force multiplier. The Ministry of Defence estimates that the sector supports 200,000 jobs, with 70% of spending flowing to areas outside London and the south-east. Indeed, aerospace and defence manufacturing are particularly strong drivers of regional growth. Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland has grown more than four times faster than the UK average, while areas such as north Wales remain world renowned for aeroplane wing production. In Glasgow, specialist shipbuilding and satellite technology lead the charge. Woven together in often complex supply chains, the specialist manufacturing sector demonstrates how fragile business ecosystems can be and why they need the Government’s support. But I must say, with deep regret, that the sector has received nothing of the kind, despite the Government’s lengthy blueprint earlier this year, which rightly identified eight key sectors as strategic priorities: advanced materials, agritech, aerospace, automotive, batteries, space, defence and maritime capabilities. But of course a strategy is only as good as its implementation, and manufacturers are seeing not policy support but punitive tax hikes, cost pressure and legislative risk. As the hon. Member for Calder Valley and many others said, it would be fantastic if we used more British parts in the UK, but we do not because of the cost. To address that, we must bring energy prices and tax down; warm words in this Chamber will not do it. Since their very first Budget, the Government have inflicted a barrage of attacks on manufacturing businesses. The spiralling uncertainty pouring out under the door of No. 11 is damaging the confidence of every business, but especially the specialist manufacturing sector, and the warning lights are flashing. Make UK reports that manufacturers’ operating costs have risen sharply, driven by energy prices, the Chancellor’s job tax and uncertainty around business taxation: 68% said that costs rose faster than expected, and more than half froze recruitment as a result. If specialist manufacturers are to keep delivering regional growth, energy competitiveness and a stable tax policy are not luxuries; they are prerequisites. Let us consider the UK’s industrial electricity prices, which are now estimated to be 40% to 50% higher than the International Energy Agency median for comparable industrial nations. Make UK has gone as far as to call energy costs an “existential threat” to many specialist firms. The consequences are already here. UK steel and chemicals output has dropped 35% compared with 2021 levels, while imports of those same materials are rising. Just yesterday, we heard that ExxonMobil is closing its plastics refinery in Mossmorran. Four hundred jobs are now at risk because of what the company called the “current economic and policy environment”. I am confident that in a moment the Minister will rise to spin away any criticism, but this is indefensible. The reality is that no Government that are serious about the future of advanced manufacturing in Britain would have imposed a jobs tax and changes to national insurance thresholds that hurt hardest those who employ the most. No Government who care about British advanced manufacturing firms and British workers would ignore energy costs that are four times higher than those of our competitors. No Government who believe in the future of our advanced manufacturing industry would introduce a 330-page unemployment rights Bill with job-destroying, hiring-freezing measures from cover to cover. No Prime Minister who wants to kick-start economic growth would look advanced manufacturing business in the eye and say that he has a done deal with the United States and then leave the industry in the dark as tariffs on items such as pharmaceuticals remain for months afterwards. And no Government who say they want to build skills would abolish level 7 apprenticeships. Just as night follows day, the Government will talk big on business, but their actions show that much of it is merely empty rhetoric. Our specialist manufacturing sector deserves better; it deserves a Government who stand with them, and leadership that understands that when specialist manufacturing succeeds, Britain succeeds. We have in this country the expertise, the heritage and the industrial DNA to compete and excel, but the specialist manufacturing sector will not survive on pride alone. It needs certainty, cost stability and a Government who truly get what it means to make things. We urgently need to reclaim our status as the nation that builds, and the best way to start is by listening to those firms that still do so.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement, and for recognising the great work that has been undertaken by many PCCs across the country. I want to take this opportunity to recognise Lisa Townsend, our excellent police and crime commissioner in Surrey, and her deputy Ellie Vesey-Thompson. We need to be aware that there are employees who support all PCCs’ activities who now know that their roles are going in the next few years. It is good to put on record that we thank them for everything they have done. Can the Minister confirm what the announcement means for Surrey, given that we are moving to a unitary model, but that the Government are yet to confirm solidly that we are getting a mayor?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. I would like to ask the Prime Minister for his help. It has been over six months since the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex. Yet public institutions are still knowingly and intentionally breaching the law. HMP Downview, a women’s prison in Banstead, has five biological males in it. If that was not bad enough, those males are mixing with the women in the daytime without adequate supervision. Will the Prime Minister ensure that biological males are moved out of women’s prisons immediately?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  More people are now recognising that all is not well with the current approach to energy policy or net zero. That matters because the cost of energy is deeply tied to the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and the security and resilience of our country. It therefore follows that any energy policy which sees us spend £250 million per month to import energy from Europe because our own production cannot meet demand can only be called a failure and a security risk. The country urgently requires an energy policy that is realistic, reliable and rooted in the pursuit of prosperity, yet what successive Governments have legislated for has been anything but. The net zero agenda is not working and it is time we were honest about that fact. The target may have been well-intentioned, but the current pathway is unaffordable and unworkable. What many people will be wondering is, how did we get to this point? To address that, we must look back to the Climate Change Act 2008. When the Act was passed, it was the first legislation in the world to set a legally binding national framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it applies only to territorial emissions; that is, emissions that occur within the UK’s borders. This means that while it can be made to look as though we are meeting our climate targets, with a reported 54% reduction in territorial emissions since 1990, we are in fact exporting an increasing share of our emissions elsewhere. This phenomenon, known as carbon leakage, occurs when UK-based industries shut down or relocate overseas to avoid high carbon costs, only for the UK to continue importing the very same goods, often with higher embedded emissions. Net zero by 2050 may lower UK emissions on paper, but perversely, it is also driving up global emissions in real terms as we become more reliant on imports. Several forces contribute to this situation. First, UK electricity prices are now among the highest in the developed world, driven in no small part by net zero policies. Secondly, under the UK emissions trading scheme, firms in energy-intensive sectors must buy allowances for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit—a cost their foreign competitors may not face. Thirdly, the rise of green finance regulations such as mandatory environmental, social and governance disclosure and climate stress testing has constrained domestic investment into high-emissions sectors, even as our competitors around the world forge ahead without similar constraints.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to continue, but thanks for the offer. The economic consequences are now plain to see. Since 2021, the output of UK energy-intensive industries has fallen by around 35%. In sectors such as steel, petrochemicals and fertilisers, this trend is not theoretical, and the damage already done to once-proud industries is plain to see. At Grangemouth in Scotland, INEOS recently announced the closure of its ethanol production facility. Its founder, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, issued a stark warning at the time, saying that Britain is offshoring its emissions and onshoring virtue—we close plants here, import the same products from abroad, and claim we are greener. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the decision to reduce North sea oil and gas output in favour of increased imports. On paper, this slashes the UK’s territorial emissions, but in reality, it leaves us more reliant on volatile overseas markets, increases our net carbon footprint and surrenders billions in domestic tax revenue and thousands of skilled British jobs. We appear to have confused decarbonisation with deindustrialisation. What do we have to show for years of adherence to the Climate Change Act and everything that came with it? We now have the second highest domestic energy prices and the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, with 12 million families struggling to pay their energy bills. I defy anyone to try to sell that as any kind of success. The old orthodoxy has been tried and found wanting, and we now need a better way forward. That is what we are offering today with our cheap power plan, which delivers on energy security, supports economic growth and protects the public from unaffordable green extremism.

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  Like many in the Chamber, I want to see the BBC rebuild public trust and return to its core mission, but it must be recognised that as a result of its pro-gender-ideology bias, it failed to adequately report on issues such as the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the placing of violent men in women’s prisons, and the loss of women’s medals in sport to biological males. On top of all that, it has attributed the crimes of violent men to women. Calling a male sex offender “she” can never be responsible, impartial journalism. How does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the BBC moves away from its current ideological approach on gender to one based on facts and evidence?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that point. An important debate for us to have today is about what we do going forward, both for those who have not yet bought a leasehold and to help our constituents who are in this situation right now. I am really interested to hear everyone’s views on that. These companies are a symptom of the problem; they are opportunists making money from an inequitable system. It is this House that must take responsibility for addressing the intrinsic unfairness and urgently make the changes needed to unshackle leaseholders. I hope that we will today hear hon. Members’ views on the solutions, not just the issues. We cannot keep building new housing estates under this same model, perpetuating the problem. This is increasingly important in the light of the Government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the next few years. I have to say, if nothing has changed when the time comes for my children to purchase a property, I will be strongly advising them not to purchase a leasehold on a private estate. To start us off, I will give the House my view. I think making it easier for leaseholders to change property service company is important, as is better regulation and higher standards, but that will not fundamentally transform the situation. What is needed—what is critical—is a change to the default model, so that homeowners are not paying both the council and a private company for the exact same services. One sensible and equitable option would be that local authorities are obliged to adopt communal land and infrastructure on completion of new estates in all but the most exceptional cases. For that to work in practice, developers would need to be obliged to ensure that the infrastructure meets the council’s standards before transfer. That way, owners of leasehold properties would be put on an equal footing with everyone else, paying for communal services once through their council tax. That would certainly deal with future issues. But what about those who, like our constituents, are already trapped? It may be that something more radical is needed, such as a mandatory direction to all local authorities to adopt communal land where requested by existing estates. It would be difficult, I know, in this current financial environment and with the likely variability of estate quality, but it would certainly address much of the issue and allow my constituents to sell their properties and move on with their lives. I know that this Government are also keen to move forwards and towards commonhold arrangements, especially for flats, which essentially put management of the estate in the hands of leaseholders themselves. There are some benefits to commonhold over the current model, but it is not the silver bullet that is needed and brings its own set of problems. Anyone who, like me, has been involved in a residents’ association or similar organisation—or, indeed, who simply understands human nature—will know that most people do not want to pay out for significant works, so the works will not get done, which in time will result in crumbling roads, failing roofs and falling home values. Again, it will become difficult for residents to sell their properties. It is just another version of the same trap, and one that pits neighbours against each other. I urge the Government to think again on plans to make commonhold the default tenure for new build flats.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for providing that very useful context. I will come on to that in my speech. One of the challenges we have is that property service companies are seeking to make a profit, yet they are unregulated and free to do as they will. It is for this place to get a handle on that. I hope that today we can think constructively about potential solutions to address the problem, the scale of which, across the House, we all recognise. We do not want our constituents to continue to face it. I am afraid to say that FirstPort is not covering itself in glory. I have now heard hundreds of times over about its lack of responsiveness, lack of transparency on costs and inadequate explanations of service charge increases. Residents have told me about being billed for services they have never received, like window cleaning, with no avenue to formally challenge and remediate. Any opportunity to charge a resident is used to the full. These things are all symptomatic of an industry that prioritises extracting maximum value from leaseholders, regardless of the human cost. There is no incentive for property service companies to act any differently. It is incredibly hard for leaseholders to remove them, so the companies have free rein to do pretty much what they like. This fundamental power imbalance must be addressed, and it must be made easier for leaseholders to take their business elsewhere. The Park 25 service charge for the year ending 30 April 2026 is estimated to be just under £1.9 million— 13% higher than last year’s estimate. The increase in costs is primarily to cover the future replacement of playground equipment, street lighting, road repairs and other infrastructure. Park 25 residents are also paying council tax for exactly those types of things outside the estate. Out of the £1.9 million service charge, FirstPort keeps around £142,000 in fees, which works out at just under 8% of the total service charge. How easy was it for me to find that £142,000 figure in FirstPort’s costs breakdown? Not very—I had to total up numbers across many pages of costs, as there is no nice, neat summary at the front showing the total amount. That 8% may or may not be out of kilter with industry—I found it difficult when researching to confirm one way or another, which is an issue in itself. The key point to recognise here, though, is that there is absolutely no incentive or requirement for FirstPort to keep the cost base low. In fact, the more money it spends on maintaining the estate and the more people it employs to deliver services, the smaller the percentage proportion its management fee appears to be—a perverse incentive indeed. It would be very easy for me to berate property service companies throughout my speech, and I suspect that others will take up that mantle during the debate. However, we must recognise that it is the current system that allows the companies to operate in this way.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. To add insult to injury, Alfie told me that FirstPort charges an £80 administration fee if payment is not made within 30 days of demand. In 2023 he received his fee on Christmas day while in discussions about a payment plan to settle outstanding fees. FirstPort refused to remove the charge despite his financial struggles. Alfie has now left the UK and is renting his flat out at a loss, because that is the only option available to him.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered property service charges. It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the House today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I remember vividly the day, over 20 years ago now, when I picked up the keys to my first flat in south-east London. It took time to get to a position where my salary was sufficient to secure a mortgage and to save up the deposit, but I managed to do it. I spent the first few weeks on a mattress on the floor while I saved for a bed, but it was the most amazing feeling in the world to own my own home. I was fortunate enough to have purchased the freehold, so I never had to face paying service charges that I could not afford and I never had to rely on a third-party management company to make essential repairs. When the time was right for me to move on, my flat was easy to sell. Others have not been so lucky. They have bought leasehold on a private estate, and with that comes a life sentence. Today, I want to give a voice to those people on the hook for ever-increasing service charges, trapped in homes they cannot afford but cannot sell either, who thought they were buying their dream home when actually it was the start of a nightmare. Make no mistake—this is no exaggeration on my part—people’s lives have been and are being ruined by excessive service charges. Let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling you about Park 25, a housing estate in Redhill. It was built 18 years ago and has 500 homes, a mixture of houses and flats. It is a contemporary and stunning site, with the type of homes that people want to live in. It is particularly attractive to key workers, such as doctors and nurses, due to its proximity to East Surrey hospital. Like many new estates, it was built by private developers with no arrangements made for the local authority to adopt the communal land after completion, so FirstPort was appointed as the property manager to maintain the estate. This means that residents of Park 25 pay an expensive service charge to FirstPort, on top of their mortgage and on top of their council tax, for pretty basic services. Those service charges are going up significantly every year, driving some homeowners to the absolute brink. I first became aware of the issue when I met Louise, a single mum, at my first ever surgery last year—a meeting I will never forget. She told me how she had purchased a one-bedroom flat on Park 25 when they were first built, but the service charges quickly increased, becoming unaffordable for her, in part due to the expensive biomass communal heating system. In desperation she tried to sell, but three times over she lost her buyer. She now lets out the flat and has moved back in with her family, unable to access the equity that would allow her to buy somewhere else. She is trapped, not able to move on with her life. Then there is Alfie, who purchased a two-bedroom flat in 2018. He was “thrilled to get on the property ladder at the age of 23, thinking it was a valuable investment.” His first service charge payment was just under £2,200 per annum. Six years later, it is over £3,600—a 70% increase. For that, he says “they basically cut the grass and insure the building”. When heating is included it gets even worse, due to the biomass system. The first amount becomes £3,400, going up to a whopping £8,000 per annum—a 135% increase. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind you that he is paying council tax and a mortgage on top. Alfie did consider challenging the service fees at a tribunal, but he was advised by the Leasehold Advisory Service that for any chance of success he would need to appoint a surveyor to review the service charges. However, to do that there needed to be a recognised tenants’ association, and to set that up, over 50% of leaseholders needed to agree. In the case of Park 25, he quickly found that to be an impossible task as many rent out their properties and so are not easily traced. With that door closed to him, he tried to sell his property for over two years—even for £50,000 less than he bought it for just to cover the mortgage. There was lots of interest, but every time the potential purchaser found out about the service charges, they withdrew. Alfie says: “Understandably, nobody wants to buy it. The ‘we buy any property’ companies won’t touch it and even the auction sites which run a ‘no sale no fee’ policy don’t want to take it on”.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his encouragement and I will keep coming up with radical ideas. Before I finish, I want to raise the issue of education and information provision to homebuyers. If most people knew the current problems with leasehold arrangements, they would not buy them—or they certainly would not pay as much for them. I am sure that conveyancers include warnings and information when managing the sale and purchase process, but it is not cutting through. People are sleepwalking into purchases with little or no understanding of the uncapped service charges they are signing up to, and we must do more to ensure that people are adequately advised and informed before signing on the dotted line. I would be most grateful if the Minister could today give his view on a few things. How can we best address the current power imbalance between leaseholders and property service companies? What role does he see an industry regulator playing in driving up standards? What default tenure model should be used for future housing estates to reduce the incidences of these issues in the first place? I would also appreciate his views on my suggestion to move to a mandatory adoption model after development completion.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I completely agree that is very much an issue, as I have heard that too. Alfie and Louise, sadly, are not alone. So many other people on Park 25 find themselves in the same situation: trapped, unable to sell and move on with their lives, and wishing they had never bought the property in the first place. Sam, another resident, said that “it’s not an exaggeration to say this is ruining people’s lives”. He has a wife and child and wants to have another, but he cannot move to a bigger property as he cannot sell this one. It is literally stopping them growing their family. He even tried selling his flat for £80,000 less than the valuation, and he still could not sell it due to the service charges. This is devastating for them as a family.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for participating today. I also thank all Members for leaving politics at the door, on the whole. Everyone recognises that there is a challenge, we all agree that that challenge is impacting our constituents’ lives in a detrimental way, and I think everyone came here today to try to solve that, and I thank them for that. I also thank the Minister, who has clearly listened closely to everything that was said today. I am grateful to him for taking this with the seriousness that it deserves. He has already contacted FirstPort—that is incredible and I thank him for it. I thank the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for his contributions and the Liberal Democrat spokes- person, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. I think we can all agree that it was time well spent, and I am sure that the Committee will be happy with the number of hon. Members who were here to speak today. In summary, we have heard some truly astounding things today. I am sure that we are all horrified by what some leaseholders have to endure. It is clear that some property service companies are exploiting leaseholders for their own benefit and profit. Some do not provide a value-for-money service, do not adequately maintain communal areas and are most certainly not transparent in their dealings. Their actions trap residents in homes they cannot afford and cannot sell, but the law of the land currently allows those companies to do that. It is a travesty and an absolute scandal. I look forward to the Minister and the Government acting quickly to prevent further abuse, and I will support them and cheer them on in that. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered property service charges.

• 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.