Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. It has been estimated, and reported, that billions-worth of unspent community infrastructure levy may be available at local authority level for investment in critical infrastructure. Will the Minister ensure that the money is invested in roads and drainage, so it can deliver the improvements that our residents deserve?

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Absolutely, those things apply to clubs and to any premises where we might listen to live music —they apply to so many places. I will focus on pubs, but I hope that we will have many other debates on all those other things. The Garibaldi has stood on Mill Street for 150 years. It has survived two world wars, multiple recessions and two global pandemics. It has seen Redhill transform around it into the modern, bustling town it is today, but it is now at risk if the funds cannot be raised to buy the building. Rather ironically, the pub is so much more than bricks and mortar, but it needs to buy the bricks and mortar if it is to survive. In previous years, the community ownership fund has provided a great opportunity for community groups to acquire community buildings. It has awarded more than £135 million to 409 projects across the UK, including several community pubs. Sadly, however, the fund is no longer available. The new Government have announced their intention to introduce a new right to buy for important community assets. This will no doubt bring many benefits and help to preserve valued community buildings and spaces. It will empower communities to save much-loved pubs and community halls, rather than just having to accept their loss. However, in order for groups to utilise this to the full, I ask the Minister whether they have any plans to introduce a fund to support the purchase of valuable community assets by the community. The Garibaldi is doing a sterling job of trying to raise the money itself, as I am sure many other groups around the country are doing, but it would be useful to know if there is any likelihood of new funding on the horizon that it could apply for to supplement its efforts. The Garibaldi is such an important part of Redhill—we cannot imagine Redhill without it—so I would be most grateful for any advice and support from the Minister on how we can secure it for future generations.

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes me feel slightly less guilty for reeling off all the pubs in my constituency; now I am not alone in advertising all those amazing pubs. I absolutely encourage his constituents to vote in that competition, and to let him know what they love about their pubs. I will go back to the winners, as I know Members want to know who they are. Lastly, and rather appropriately given the subject matter of the debate—I promise this is not a stitch-up; this is actually what the numbers said— I am pleased to say that the Garibaldi has won best overall pub and best community pub. I am sure from my speech that Members will understand why it is so special, and why so many residents have voted for it, so I will not wax lyrical any further, but I hope the Minister will support me, the volunteers and local residents in trying to save this gem for future generations. Again, I reiterate my invitation: he should pay a visit when he gets a break in his busy schedule. I would love to take him on a pub crawl.

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously I do not know the details of that specific case, but I agree that we all have a collective responsibility to look after these important community assets. Before I bring my comments to a close, I would like to pay tribute to some other fantastic pubs in my constituency. I have quite a lot of them.

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member. It is really important that we support our pubs. We cannot continue the approach of squeezing them until the pips squeak. We will lose them, and once we do, we will never get them back.

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, would be interested in the Minister’s response to that question. I recently ran a campaign to find out which pubs were my constituents’ favourites, with the aim of reminding them of the pubs on their doorstep and the importance of supporting their local. The response has been phenomenal. It is clear that our pubs mean a lot to local people in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, and I am pleased to say that the results are now in. I am sure the Minister is on the edge of his seat wanting to know. Before I put him out of his misery, I want to let him know that he is very welcome indeed—as is anyone here this evening—to visit for a pint. The winner of best food and drink pub and best pub garden is the Well House Inn, a pub in Mugswell that I know very well. I can personally vouch for the delicious burgers, and I have a tendency to make sure I visit around lunchtime.

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is indeed impressive what the pub in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is doing, and I completely agree that pubs are so much more than just places where we buy food and drink. Any of us that have pubs like those in our constituency are very fortunate. Going back to the Well House Inn, the amazing beer garden there is home to St Margaret’s well, which is reputedly mentioned in the Domesday Book. Those who are lucky may even catch sight of the resident ghost, Harry the monk, while enjoying a quiet pint of ale. The winner of best family pub is the Sportsman in Mogador, another excellent local pub. It was originally a hunting lodge for Henry VIII and is surrounded by the most beautiful heathland. Local residents very much enjoy a hike across the countryside to it with their dogs before enjoying a pint. It is also brilliant at supporting local businesses through its Christmas market every year.

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have the time to debate Government community funding and support for local pubs. We are fortunate to have so many amazing pubs in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, and they are far more than just a place to have a pint. They are the heart and soul of our towns and villages, bringing people together and enriching daily life. They provide jobs and a sense of community, and they even support our local farmers and producers by selling their goods. Sadly, we have lost many pubs in recent years, with ever-increasing costs and rising taxes pushing them to closure. Every loss is felt in the community, diminishing social cohesion and shrinking our local economy. Pubs contributed more than £34.4 billion to the UK economy in 2024 and paid more than £17.4 billion in tax, despite the tight margins they operate on. Just as many households have struggled with high energy bills and inflation, so too have pubs, which are still feeling the residual effects of lockdowns during the pandemic and the change in consumer behaviour that came with them. They now face increased employer national insurance contributions and business rates on top of everything else.

• 19 May 2025 · Pubs and Community Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. I would welcome any clarity from the Minister about that. In Redhill, we have an amazing pub called the Garibaldi, which is a community pub—a not-for-profit pub—that gives back to the community in so many ways. On walking in, you feel the warmth straightaway from Shiv, Juliette and the other volunteers, who are always there to give a welcome with a smile. There is always something going on: quizzes, karaoke, Bhunnys street food—even a book club. My personal favourites are the forces fry-ups for veterans on a Saturday morning—sometimes I go along to help serve the tea, coffee and toast; I normally do it quite badly—and the music bingo. Out back, there is the community garden, which has been transformed with the help of the Garibaldi gardening group volunteers. It is now accessible to everyone, including young adults with special needs who visit with YMCA East Surrey. Every bit of profit the Garibaldi makes gets ploughed back into things that benefit the community. It is there for the benefit of Redhill residents, not for any other reason, and it is extremely good at what it does. That is incredibly clear whenever I visit. People from all walks of life are sitting side by side with friends and neighbours enjoying a chat and a drink, all part of making the Garibaldi the special place that it is.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in this place on such an important Bill. Having been part of the Committee that scrutinised it line by line, and, on some occasions, word by word, for several months earlier this year, it is a pleasure to see so many of my colleagues from Committee Room 10 present today—a reunion of sorts. I am here, as always, with the intention of improving the Bill, so that if it does indeed pass, vulnerable people are as protected as they can possibly be from unintended consequences. It is important to remember that on Report and Third Reading we are not voting on whether we agree with the principle of assisting someone to end their own life. Our role is to vote on the law in front of us—on whether the words on the page are clear and do what is intended, on whether the statutory process is safe, and ultimately on whether the provision of assisted dying benefits our community. I am not against assisted dying in principle, but I am against this Bill. I am happy to put it on the record now that I have no personal religious beliefs; I am against the Bill for the simple reason that it will harm far more people than it will help. The people who will be harmed are the most vulnerable in our communities, and I am not willing to accept that collateral damage. Today is important, because we have the opportunity to improve the safeguards in the Bill so that some of those groups are better protected. I urge Members to take that opportunity to the full. It requires very little skill to draft law that works for 90% of cases, but there is much skill in ensuring that the other 10% is catered for as well. I urge everyone to set the highest standards today and think about how we can ensure that those unordinary and unexpected cases are adequately protected, too. It really is life and death, so please do not accept anything that is not good enough.

• 6 May 2025 · Dedicated Schools Grant · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am pleased to respond to this important and thoughtful debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing it, and I completely agree with his remarks about the importance of teaching children in the home as well as the school. It is clear from all the contributions we have heard that, across all political divides, we share a desire to see all children, regardless of their location, their background or the complexity of their needs, accessing high-quality education in a setting that supports their potential. That vision depends heavily on fair and sufficient funding for our schools. As we have heard, the dedicated schools grant is at the heart of that. It would be appropriate, before turning to the concerns raised today, for me to briefly review the last Government’s principal achievements in this space, all of which have a bearing on any debate on the dedicated schools grant. Hon. Members will recall that it was a Conservative Government that took the step of reforming school funding through the introduction of the national funding formula, thereby ending the postcode lottery that, for too long, left similar schools receiving vastly different allocations. The national funding formula delivered greater transparency and a demonstrably fairer methodology, and drew a clearer line between the needs of pupils and the funding schools received. However, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury set out, there are clearly still some disparities. It is right that we look at those and consider what can be done to address them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on that. It was also a Conservative Government that increased core schools funding to record levels. Between 2010 and 2023, funding per pupil rose in real terms, with particular investment in the high needs block of the dedicated schools grant. In fact, by the final year of the previous Government, we had delivered a £10 billion increase in overall schools funding compared with 2019-20, including a £4 billion increase to the high needs budget, bringing total high needs funding to £10.5 billion in 2023-24. We backed that up with targeted support for pupils with SEND through capital investment focused on expanding special school places and improving facilities across the country. It was the Conservative party that took decisive action to address poor-quality provision, cracking down on unregistered settings and increasing the powers of local authorities and Ofsted to take action where provision fell short. Our approach was unambiguously vindicated, as England soared up the Programme for International Student Assessment league tables between 2009 and 2022 in maths, English and science. In that period, England went from 21st to seventh for maths, from 19th to ninth for reading, and from 11th to ninth for science. Moreover, in December 2023, children in England were named best in the west for reading, and in December 2024 they were ranked the best at maths in the western world in the 2023 TIMSS—trends in international mathematics and science study. Regrettably, where England has surged in international education rankings, Labour-led Wales has slumped. While England went from 21st to seventh in maths, Wales went from 29th to 27th. While England went from 19th to ninth for reading, Wales stayed 28th. While England went from 11th to ninth for science, Wales slumped from 21st to 29th. Ultimately, whether in England or Wales, there will always be more to do, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury highlighted, but I can say without hesitation that the legacy left by the last Government on school funding and educational outcomes is overwhelmingly positive, based on a relentless focus on sustained investment and principled reform, and a clear commitment to inclusion. It is not just our record; it is the yardstick by which the current Government must be judged. Our position today is consistent with that record: we support fair funding, we support the principles behind the dedicated schools grant and we believe in the importance of local flexibility and accountability. We support the overarching aims of the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, and the continuation of investment to support the transition to new national standards, but we also recognise the real pressures that local authorities and schools are facing. While funding has increased, so too has demand, and the current system is struggling to keep up. The number of pupils with an education, health and care plan has more than doubled in the last decade. Local authorities up and down the country—Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat alike—are grappling with high needs deficits, a growing wave of legal challenges and spiralling parental frustration. In my constituency, SEND makes up an ever-growing proportion of casework, and I hear every week from parents struggling to secure the provision that their child so desperately needs. It is little wonder that the Public Accounts Committee recently found that the current system risks creating a “lost generation” of children without intervention from central Government. The National Audit Office was equally blunt in its 2024 report on SEND provision, which made it clear that, without systemic reform, there will be systemic collapse. The crux of the matter is that, as of January 2024, approximately 1.9 million children and young people in England were identified has having special educational needs, with 1.7 million attending school. Despite the 58% real-terms increase over the last decade in high needs funding, which reached £10.7 billion in 2024-25, the system is not delivering improved outcomes for those children and young people. The financial strain that is placing local authorities under is deeply alarming. The NAO estimates that, by March 2026, 43% of local authorities will have deficits exceeding or close to their reserves, leading to a cumulative deficit between £4.3 billion and £4.9 billion. The situation is exacerbated by the impending end of accounting arrangements that currently prevent those deficits from impacting local authority reserves. Without a clear plan to manage the deficits, many councils risk issuing section 114 notices, effectively declaring bankruptcy. Demand for education, health and care plans has surged by 140% since 2015: the number of children with one reached 576,000 in 2024. That increase, coupled with long waiting times—only 50% of EHCPs were issued within the statutory 20-week target in 2023—has eroded confidence among families and children in the system’s ability to meet statutory and quality expectations. Sadly, at the very moment that clarity and support were most needed, the Education Secretary introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would do nothing less than destroy standards in English schools. No less serious are the broken promises on compensation for national insurance contributions, which have left schools in an impossible funding situation. It is reported that some schools face funding gaps of up to 35% for those additional NIC costs. That shortfall will only exacerbate existing financial pressures, forcing schools to divert funds from essential services, potentially leading to the loss of valued staff, reduced capacity to accommodate pupils with special needs and a generally lower standard of education provision. In summary, we are at a point where the Government are asking councils to maintain high-quality provision even as they manage large accumulated deficits, some exceeding £100 million, without knowing how or when those will be resolved. Schools have been asked to go further and faster on inclusion without the confidence that adequate support services will be in place to back them up. At the same time, parents are being asked to trust a system that all too often feels both overwhelming and overwhelmed. I want to put a number of questions to the Minister that reflect the concerns raised by Members, local authorities and professionals across the education sector. First, the Government have confirmed that they will continue funding local authorities through the dedicated schools grant for the foreseeable future, but what is the long-term plan for managing the high needs deficits that many councils have accrued? The safety valve programme and the delivering better value programme provide some support, but they are not available to every authority and they do not provide a long-term solution. Will the Minister confirm whether the dedicated schools grant will remain ringfenced beyond 2025? Will she guarantee that local authorities will not be forced to divert core council budgets to prop up SEND provision at the expense of other vital services? Secondly, on transparency and accountability, colleagues have spoken of the challenges that their local schools face in not just securing adequate funding but navigating a system that is complex, fragmented and adversarial. Parents are turning to tribunals in record numbers, while local authorities are caught between an ever-growing web of statutory duties and finite budgets with which to deliver them. What steps are the Government taking to reduce the number of SEND tribunals, and what support will be offered to schools to manage rising demand? Finally, I want to address the issue of place planning and capacity. One of the most frequent complaints we hear from local authorities is about the mismatch between need and availability, particularly in relation to specialist settings. This is not just about funding; it is about the ability to plan, build and adapt provision to changing demographics and trends. Will the Minister set out what work is being done to support local authorities in expanding specialist provision where it is most needed? How will the Department ensure that capital investment keeps pace with rising demand? What role does she see for the dedicated schools grant in ensuring that sufficient places are available for all? I will end my long list of questions by thanking the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for securing today’s debate. The dedicated schools grant is a critical part of how we deliver education in this country, but if it is to work as intended, particularly in relation to SEND, it must be fair, transparent and sustainable. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will make it so.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Easter Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to rise today and speak in my first Easter Adjournment debate. I also pay tribute to Sir David Amess, whom unfortunately I never had the pleasure of meeting. Today I wish to speak about neighbourhood policing and tackling town centre crime—we were due to debate that important topic yesterday, so I thought I would take the opportunity to raise it today. It is particularly relevant to Redhill in my constituency, which has been suffering from increased levels of antisocial behaviour and crime in recent years. Redhill is an amazing town that is the cultural epicentre of our local area. It has undergone significant transformation over the past decade, with new developments such as The Rise, which includes The Light cinema. As a result, I am pleased to say that more people from further afield are visiting and enjoying all that Redhill has to offer. That is a positive thing for our local economy, but at the same time we have seen an increase in antisocial behaviour. To address the real issues faced, the Safer Redhill initiative was established. That is a partnership between Surrey police, the office of the police and crime commissioner, Reigate and Banstead borough council and East Surrey YMCA to cut crime and foster pride in the town. The project adopts the College of Policing’s “Clear, hold, build” framework, which is a three-stage approach where offenders are cleared from the area, and then partners work together to put in place interventions to keep it that way. From drug operations at Redhill train station to plain-clothes officers out at night looking for suspicious behaviour, huge amounts have been achieved as part of the Safer Redhill initiative. There have been 155 arrests, with a combined prison time of 25 years for local offenders, 86 drug seizures—including 10 kg of suspected cocaine—£89,000 of cash recovered and weapons taken off the streets. I take this opportunity to thank Surrey police, especially Jon Vale, the borough commander, and Lisa Townsend, the police and crime commissioner, for ensuring that Redhill got the additional police focus it needed at the right time. However, making Redhill safer is not all about police action; it is also about prevention, and that is where East Surrey YMCA has come in. With its qualified youth workers, it has been supporting local young people at risk of offending or becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training—by giving them the support they need and helping them to thrive and flourish. With their Y bus, the YMCA has been getting out and about in Redhill to engage with the young people, and I thank it for the important part it has played in making Redhill safer and ensuring a more positive future for the next generation. Safer Redhill is an inspiring example of what can be achieved by the police, the local council and the charity sector working hand in hand, with all partners bringing different skills and expertise to the table, but with the same ultimate goal. I thank and pay tribute to everyone involved. It is wonderful to see the local community starting to feel safer in the town centre and businesses feeling more confident about their future in Redhill. However, there is still much to do, and I will speak briefly on some of the other challenges faced in Redhill town centre. The first is pavement parking. Redhill has a fantastic pedestrianised shopping area, but some people mistake it for a car park and even use it as a cut-through. That behaviour by motorists is disrespectful and downright dangerous. There used to be physical bollards in place to prevent access by cars, and those need to be fixed, as that would go a long way towards addressing the issue. But we in this place also have a role to play. We must ensure that unnecessary and antisocial pavement parking, as in the case of Redhill town centre, is tackled and routinely enforced. That type of parking affects wheelchair users, people with visual impairments and those with pushchairs, making it difficult for them to get around safely. Redhill residents have been raising this issue for years, and we must tackle it. Currently, it is not a criminal offence for a car to park on the pavement, which is to ensure that traffic continues to flow on narrow roads where pavement parking is the only option, but it is an offence if the vehicle creates an unnecessary obstruction. The problem here is what constitutes an unnecessary obstruction, and that ambiguity makes it incredibly difficult for the police to successfully prosecute offenders. As a consequence of the low success rate, we see few instances of the police enforcing it. I therefore urge Government Ministers to look at how we can make it clearer which types of pavement parking are prohibited and which are not, so that effective enforcement can be deployed by the police or even the local authority, creating the necessary deterrent effect. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to talk for so long about the wonderful town of Redhill and the huge amount of work that has been put into making it safer. I will now bring my remarks to a close so that others may contribute.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Looked After Children (Distance Placements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) on bringing the Bill before the House. I commend him for shining a spotlight on an issue that affects some of the most vulnerable children in the country. These children are not simply statistics or case numbers; they are young people who have experienced trauma, instability and, in many cases, loss. It is essential that they get the loving home and the support that they deserve, so that they can flourish. He has brought this issue to the House with compassion and care, and I commend him for doing so. As a serving Surrey county councillor and a former member of the corporate parenting board, this is an issue close to my heart, too. I have seen at first hand many of the challenges and systemic failings that have been talked about. As was set out, local authorities have a duty, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure that looked-after children are placed in accommodation that meets their needs in the local area, but many local authorities fail to achieve that, and often shockingly high numbers of children are placed out of area. I am sure that the inclusion of the words, “so far as reasonably practicable” was intended to give some leeway to local authorities where needed, and to recognise that sometimes distance placements are in the best interests of the child. However, I am afraid that in far too many cases those words have become a licence for abject failure. Yes, I accept that there are many challenges for local authorities in meeting their duties, including the higher cost of living, which makes it difficult to recruit and retain foster carers; the increased national demand for placements; and even the recent ban on using unregulated accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds. Those pressures are real, but it is unacceptable that high numbers of looked-after children are being placed in accommodation far away from the communities that they know—far from their schools, their extended family and their support networks. Such placements are often made not because they are seen as the best option for the child, but because there is simply nowhere else to put them. The problem is that it becomes almost normal to send high numbers of children out of area, so it becomes more acceptable. I am here to say that, except in specific cases, it is not acceptable. Local authorities and national Government need to do more to ensure that the sufficiency duty is met. The wellbeing and safety of these vulnerable children depend upon it. The damaging consequences of these long-distance placements are obvious. Children placed miles away are more likely to experience educational disruption, go missing and lose contact with friends, siblings and trusted adults. In some cases, the sense of being cut adrift from everything familiar only deepens an already present feeling of abandonment. It should be noted that these placements are often beyond the local authority boundary, giving rise to myriad further risks. It is self-evident that the system needs further intervention, and I am pleased that any policy decisions taken in the future will build on the major reforms introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Perhaps the most impactful reform in this space was the introduction of the staying put policy in 2014, which allowed young people in foster care to remain with their foster family until the age of 21. That was a transformational step. For the first time, young people in care were offered the stability and ongoing familial support that many of their peers take for granted. It was also the previous Conservative Government who rolled out regional adoption agencies, which are designed to reduce delays in the adoption process and increase the number of children finding permanent, loving homes. Since their introduction, adoption timeliness has improved, and agencies have been better able to match children with prospective parents across wider geographical areas. We also published our strategy and consultation, “Children’s Social Care: Stable Homes, Built on Love”. Our strategy was backed initially by £200 million of additional investment over two years to transform children’s social care, including by delivering a decisive multi-agency child protection system and ensuring that every child has a valued, supported and highly-skilled social worker when needed. Finally, the publication of the independent review of children’s social care in 2022, commissioned by the last Government, was a landmark moment. It provided a comprehensive and honest assessment of the system’s challenges, and offered a road map for reform focused on early intervention, family help and a more relational, less transactional model of care. Those milestones, taken together, demonstrate that we have always taken the needs of looked-after children seriously, and we will continue to work constructively alongside Government Members to improve the support available to these children; I know Government Members have the same overarching objective of transforming life outcomes for these children. I return to the Bill. The ambition of improving the transparency of data about placements of looked-after children is much welcomed. The Bill would place a duty on local authorities to publish such information, making it easier to identify where there are issues, and where local authorities are not performing. We will start to see tangible improvement only when the extent of the issue nationally is clearly laid out. As is often the way, measurement prompts improvement. Undoubtedly, one of the most consequential aspects of the Bill is the requirement for the Secretary of State to produce a national sufficiency strategy for looked-after children. Local authorities can and should do more to collaborate at regional level to ensure that children are put in placements close to their homes, but the structural challenges faced likely cannot be solved by local government alone. National leadership is essential, and I urge Ministers to look seriously at how best to increase placement capacity where there are shortages, and at how to ensure that the right children end up in the right locations, not just the cheapest locations. That is not to say that local authorities are not at the heart of this challenge—they are—but I know that they find it increasingly difficult. The residential care market is now heavily dominated by private providers, and the cost of placements continues to rise, placing a huge strain on local authority budgets. A shift to a more strategic approach is needed, and I recognise that the hon. Member for Rother Valley has sought to kick-start that shift with the requirement in his Bill for local sufficiency strategies to be published by local authorities in England. At this point, I should acknowledge that for all the justifiable talk today against distance placements, there is a very limited set of circumstances in which they are appropriate and necessary. Some children need specialist provision that simply does not exist locally. Others may need to be placed at a distance to ensure their safety if they have become involved with gangs or are threatened by an abuser. The question is not whether distance placements should be banned—they should not—but how we can get to a point where they are used only when it is truly and demonstrably in the best interests of the child. A key focus is how we recruit, retain and support foster carers, and how we encourage local authorities to invest in local residential provision at a time of such pressure on their budgets. Many of the answers lie in not only legislation but funding, training and leadership, both local and national. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these important issues. When a child is taken into care, the state becomes their parent. That is not a responsibility to ever be exercised lightly. We must hold ourselves and the systems we put in place to the highest standard—the standard we would expect and demand for our own children. The hon. Member for Rother Valley has brought this Bill forward in precisely that spirit, and I congratulate him once again on doing so. It was truly a pleasure to speak on it.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend and am sure I will come to his point. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire said about the definition of “assistance” in clause 23. If this legislation is to genuinely respect the preferences of doctors and other professionals, it is essential that “assistance” is read as including the matters in amendment 480 covering non-medical practitioners, too. I support that amendment, and what I am going to say is based on its definition of “assistance”. My amendment, it is important to say, works both ways. A care home or hospice can state that all employees must be willing to assist. We agreed to amendment 341, which allows individuals to opt out on conscience grounds. My amendment 481 gives institutions and organisations the same latitude. It opens the way to three kinds of institution: those that provide assisted dying as a matter of policy, those that will not provide it as a matter of policy, and those with no fixed policy, where some employees will assist and some will not. All those different approaches should be respected and supported. The legal basis for this is found in schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010, which allows an employer to specify a “genuine occupational requirement”. A company can require a particular protected characteristic, as long as it is a work-related requirement and the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Equality and Human Rights Commission gives an example: a humanist organisation that promotes humanist philosophy and principles would probably be able to apply an occupational requirement for its chief executive to be a humanist. In this case, an organisation providing end-of-life care and with a blanket policy in either direction would not be found in breach of the Equality Act’s protection of beliefs. In healthcare, there is the obvious precedent of abortion. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, as an abortion provider, is allowed to specify that employees must support its position. Without this amendment, we are looking at a legal and ethical minefield. If a hospice has a policy of helping with assisted dying requests and a staff member refuses to refer a patient to a doctor, can that staff member be sacked, or are they protected by clause 23? Surely we want to avoid the situation arising in the first place, by ensuring that employers can make clear their requirements on this front at the hiring stage. Conversely, what if a hospice has a policy of not participating in assisted dying? Many hospices may want to have such a policy, to reassure their patients on this front and provide a safe space for those who need it. In written evidence, Rowcroft hospice says: “Some patients may fear discussing pain and suffering in case assisted dying is suggested as an option.” According to an article in Annals of Palliative Medicine , this is a major concern in Oregon. One nurse is quoted as saying: “there’s all this advice about how to get information on Death with Dignity…already there is an attitude among many of our clients that ‘if I go into hospice, they’re going to kill me because that’s what a hospice does’”. Likewise, a healthcare professional in Australia is cited in one study as saying: “It’s affecting us in palliative medicine, more than we would like and more than it should because of the assumption that because we specialise in end-of-life care therefore, this is for us. And so, the general perception amongst medical practitioners, the health community and the general public is that this is our thing. And so, for a lot of us, we’re saying, no, this is not our thing.” Clearly, some hospices will want to have an explicit policy that assisted dying is not their thing, and they should have the right to do that. But what if an employee at that kind of hospice wants to help a patient with the assisted dying process? What if, for instance, a hospice doctor volunteers to do one of the assessments? That will obviously compromise the hospice’s policy, but are they in breach of the Equality Act 2010 if they only hire doctors who share that institution’s view of assisted dying? Again, without my amendment, it is not clear what the law allows. Amendment 441, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, has a similar aim and would further clarify the legal position for institutions, so I am glad to support that, too. This kind of institutional opt-out is, I believe, standard practice in US states that have adopted assisted dying. California’s law includes the following provision: “a health care entity may prohibit its employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including health care providers, from participating under” this legislation “while on premises owned or under the management or direct control of that health care entity or while acting within the course and scope of any employment by, or contract with, the entity.” There is also a good model in New Zealand, where the High Court has ruled that institutions can opt out. Hospice New Zealand, the organisation representing all hospice services in the country, sought a declaratory judgment because of exactly the kind of confusions that I have described. In its judgment, the High Court of New Zealand agreed that the ambiguity about institutional opt-outs was “causing confusion amongst those involved in palliative care and more generally.” The Court found that New Zealand’s assisted dying law “does not require hospices or other organisations to provide assisted dying services. They are entitled to choose not to provide these services. This does not depend on a hospice or other organisation having a conscientious objection, although that may often be the reason…Hospices or other organisations that choose not to offer assisted dying services may employ or engage health practitioners on the basis that these services are not provided by the hospices or organisations”. As a result, New Zealand hospices can set their own policy on whether to provide assisted dying. Sinéad Donnelly, professor of palliative care at the University of Otago, says that this judgment has proved very helpful to the hospice sector: “this has proven pivotal in retaining staff at hospices, many of whom would no longer be willing to work there if the assisted dying doctor or nurse practitioners were given access to the hospice to end a patient’s life.” Dr Siwan Seaman, a hospice doctor, says in written evidence: “I have liaised with a Medical Director of a hospice in New Zealand…The Medical Director in New Zealand believed that without the organisation-level conscientious objection that the hospice movement in New Zealand would have been under even more strain and look very different now.” Dr Seaman says that if we want the quality of palliative care provision across England and Wales to continue to improve, “the bill has to be amended to allow specialist palliative care services such as hospices to be separated from assisted dying processes.”

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have real sympathy for that situation, because no one wants to see that. That is why it is really important to be clear up front. I would like care homes and hospices to be clear with their policy, so that when people make decisions about where to have their care or where to live, they can take it into account. I totally recognise that in the situation we have, if the Bill went through in two years’ time, there would be some people who were already settled in care homes where they did not know the policy, because it was not relevant at the time they moved in. I totally take the point that there are downsides to the provision, but it is important to include it to get this right in the long run. I hope Members will agree that amendment 481 seeks to make it easier for hospices and other institutions to deliver on their policy, whatever it may be, by ensuring that they can require their employees to comply. It would also leave space for palliative care to flourish by not imposing burdens on people who work in the sector. Let me turn to new clause 23. I have talked about one challenge for the hospice sector, but it is not the only challenge. The past few years have been a challenging time, given the rising cost of living and rising demand for hospice services. Hospices play a vital role in local communities by providing high-quality, compassionate care at the end of life, and I pay tribute to their work. They face huge financial pressures that put their essential work in jeopardy and could lead to unprecedented closures. In oral evidence, Dr Cox said: “The first thing to say is that palliative care is currently inadequate. Not only do we need to ensure that it does not decline, but we need to massively improve it so that this Bill offers patients a real choice. We know that effective palliative care can change a terminally ill person’s point of view from wanting to die to wanting to live. We also know that 25% of people who die in this country do not have the palliative care they need. That is more than 100,000 people a year. Providing palliative care, which might make their lives better, reduce their suffering and even change their perspective on whether they would want assisted dying, should be our priority in reducing suffering in this group.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 70, Q84.] I also remind the Committee of what Dr Clarke said: “There are hospitals, and mine is one currently, where we do not even have a 24/7 palliative care service face to face. Every night in my hospital, and every weekend from Friday to Monday, you cannot see a palliative care nurse or doctor, despite the fact that for a number of years that has been an NHS standard. That is an absolute disgrace and it shows how little people who are dying are truly cared for in a civilised society. It does not necessarily have anything to do with assisted dying, except that if we do not address that simultaneously, some of those people will “choose” to end their life, because we as a society do not care about them enough to give them the care that might make life worth living. Surely that is a travesty for Britain.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 76-77, Q94.] I remember being quite moved when she said that. Although we are limited in what can be done through the Bill to rectify funding for palliative care, we can ensure that it is not further impacted detrimentally by the introduction of assisted dying. New clause 23 seeks to protect hospices from further funding pressures arising specifically from the Bill, because there is a risk that public funding becomes dependent on offering assisted dying. The new clause would ensure that public authorities could not make funding conditional on the provision of assisted dying, and could not subject care homes or hospices to any other detriment merely on the grounds that they do not permit such assistance to take place on their premises. The new clause reflects a serious concern in the hospice sector. St Gemma’s hospice in Leeds warns in written evidence: “If compliance with assisted dying provision becomes a condition for NHS funding, institutions like St. Gemma’s may have no alternative but to cease operations entirely given its reliance on NHS funding for its financial sustainability. Such closures would have devastating consequences for the communities we serve, eliminating high-quality palliative and hospice care options for thousands of terminally ill patients annually. If patients in our catchment area could not be cared for by St Gemma’s, this would, at a minimum, reduce the degree of choice for many and put at risk the availability of palliative care across large parts of the city. Patients would be admitted to hospital or would die at home in a way that is difficult to reconcile with the palliative care ethos of choice, quality of life and quality of dying. This would increase demand on a health and care system that is already under unprecedented pressure, leading to devastating outcomes.” That is a real possibility, as shown by the fate of the Irene Thomas hospice in British Columbia. It was known as a sanctuary for dying people who did not want to be in a setting offering assisted dying, but the province adopted a policy that required hospices to provide assisted dying if they had over 50% funded beds. After the hospice board voted not to offer assisted dying, its 1.5 million Canadian dollars of public funding was cut, its clinical staff were laid off and it was taken over by the regional health authority. We should be honest about the possible threat to palliative care. This is a much-debated subject, so I will lay out in some detail the evidence that assisted dying may be detrimental to palliative care. It is true that the Health and Social Care Committee concluded that palliative care did not deteriorate where assisted dying was introduced, but a recent report by Professor David Jones looked at the issue more forensically and found: “This conclusion, however, was based on the selective evidence that the Committee received from respondents, much of which was irrelevant, outdated, or speculative. In contrast, a more complete review of better and more recent evidence shows ‘clear indications in several jurisdictions of palliative and end-of-life care deteriorating in quality and provision following the introduction of AD / AS, and a negative impact on some healthcare professionals.’” In his study, Professor Jones found that some of the evidence on which that Committee based its conclusions was highly unreliable. For instance, it was partly based on Canada committing to spend 6 billion Canadian dollars on palliative care and home care over 10 years at the time that assisted dying was legalised. The money was not ringfenced, however, so five years later, only 184 million Canadian dollars could be shown to have been allocated to palliative care. Other evidence was also out of date. For instance, Belgium’s spending on palliative care was cited, but that covered only 2002 to 2011, and that spending appears not to have been sustained. In his lengthy analysis, Professor Jones cites a wealth of evidence for his conclusion. He examines the data and finds that, between 2012 and 2019, European countries without assisted dying increased palliative care provision more than three times more than countries with assisted dying. Between 2015 and 2022, Belgium, Canada and the United States fell out of the top quartile in the world ranking for quality of death and dying, while the United Kingdom remains in first place. Between 2015 and 2019, the number of palliative care teams in hospitals increased by 3.2% in US states with assisted dying, but by 9.4% in non-assisted dying states. Clearly, there is a competition for resources between palliative care and assisted dying. In 2023, for instance, New South Wales cut spending plans by 249 million Australian dollars after increasing palliative care spending.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I take that point. In an ideal world where our public services were not under pressure, I might be more reassured, but I am a local councillor, and I am well aware how difficult it is to get social workers involved in all the things that they need to be involved in, because they are spread so thin. The hon. Lady lays out very well how things should work, but when I take off my rose-tinted glasses, I am concerned that they will not work like that in the real world. That is why I always go back to putting things in the Bill, because that forces them to happen—doing so here would force that treatment to happen. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I now turn to my amendments—but I am afraid there are four of them, so bear with me. Amendment (a) to new clause 17 may be one of the most important amendments that I will speak about. This is something that I feel very passionately about. One of the most important questions we should ask is how the panel might deal with a family member with concerns, for example, that a relative was being coerced. Would the family member be afforded the status of a party to proceedings? Would they have a right to see the relevant documents before the panel? Would they have a right to be informed that a panel was taking place? If they are not a party to proceedings, is their status that of a witness? If they are a witness, do they have the right to observe proceedings when a panel sits in private? Do they have a right to be heard by the panel? Again, I am asking questions. I am not necessarily saying one way or the other what the answer should be, but those are questions I have. None of this is laid out in the new clauses that we are considering. In fact, I suggest that in the struggle to balance autonomy with the rights of impacted others in the Bill, autonomy is very much winning the fight. I was struck yesterday by various Members setting out their fears that the first a family could know about an assisted death is when they are called upon to make arrangements for the burial. That would be an awful situation, and I strongly believe that families and loved ones should not be cut out of the process without good reason, especially when, no doubt, they will be required to bury the person and pay for it, as I assume the state will not take on that responsibility. I suggest that this point on funeral arrangements and expenses needs further thought as the Bill progresses. From reading the Bill, all we know is that the panel may “hear from and question any other person”. There is no mechanism for family members to have a right to be heard or even to submit information. That needs to be rectified. The panel could reach its conclusions without hearing at all from the family. That is unacceptable. If someone’s mother, father, son or daughter were going in front of an assisted dying panel, that person would at least want to know and be clear about their rights and available options to feed into the process. We then come to the big issue. What if a mistake is made and a relevant piece of information is not provided to the panel by the people it hears from? My amendment (a) to new clause 17 seeks to help the panel to avoid making the wrong decision, and give time for it to be remedied before the patient is dead.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak briefly to amendments 413 and 414, which are very thoughtful and well-considered amendments. I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd for setting out powerfully and persuasively the importance of the subject. I support the amendments, but in reality we probably need to go further by specifying exactly who would be interpreting and making sure that it is regulated reliably. We do not want just anyone coming in off the street and doing that. That would not be appropriate, so we need to think about whether we need to go further. However, the amendments are a great starting point and would move us closer to where we need to be. There is much subtlety in this debate. We talked a little in the first week of this Committee about the importance of language and the words that are used. We always need to be cognisant that when we are imparting information to people, particularly in a healthcare context, it is vital that we use language that people understand so that the ramifications of what is being discussed are clear. That is where these amendments become really important, because for those for whom English is not their first language, some of the subtlety and nuance around what a term means could be lost. Interpreters could be an important part of adding the clarity required to ensure that everyone going through the process understands exactly what it involves. A 2024 Nuffield Council on Bioethics survey found that 39% of people think that assisted dying means withdrawing life support, 19% think that it means providing people who are dying with drugs that relieve symptoms of pain or suffering, and 13% think that it means providing hospice care. That echoes our debate a couple of weeks ago about how assisted dying can be interpreted in quite a few different ways. It is really important that we are clear in the language we use and what we mean by it. We also find that among ethnic minorities there is sometimes a greater misunderstanding about palliative care. A 2024 King’s College London survey found that 6% of people believe that it is accurate that palliative care involves giving people medicines in order to shorten their life, but 18% of ethnic minority groups think that. We need to be cognisant of that. While 18% of people trust healthcare providers “not very much” or “not at all” to provide high-quality care towards the end of life, that figure increases to 30% for ethnic minority groups. While 6% of people say they have not heard of palliative care, that increases to 22% of people in ethnic minority groups. It is important to recognise that the text of the amendment is much less stringent than that of section 7 of South Australia’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021, which strictly regulates interpreters. That goes back to my initial point. Under the South Australian law, they must be “accredited by a prescribed body”. They cannot be a family member, cannot stand to benefit from the will and cannot be involved in the patient’s healthcare. It is really important to ensure that a recognised professional is involved in this most important of processes and information sharing. I support the amendments, although I think they need to go a little further. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Financial Education · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that great contribution to the debate. I agree that all those small things add up and make a difference to our financial literacy. I am a chartered accountant, but that is not what made me financially literate; it was the lessons I was taught by my family, and the jobs that I did when I was young. Members have given great examples of how they came to understand finance. In an increasingly contactless world, it is important that children and young people physically see and feel cash. That is the way in which value is tangibly understood. To return to schools, financial education is not, as has been noted, a statutory part of the national curriculum in primary schools in England, but in contrast, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is very much embedded at primary level. Given the way in which our children are relentlessly pressured to spend money that they may not even have, and in the light of Cambridge University research suggesting that habits and attitudes towards money are formed by the age of seven, there is much logic to the argument that financial education—whether delivered by schools, parents or even community hubs and other organisations—should not wait for the later years, and should be continuous. Teachers also feel that starting good financial education early is important for the future wellbeing of young people. According to a 2020 survey, 82% of primary teachers consider teaching financial education to be very important. We may hear more about that when the Francis review of the national curriculum is complete. I urge the Minister to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked about the Government’s plans for the curriculum. In secondary schools, the picture is somewhat different. In 2014, the then Conservative Government acted to ensure that financial education was placed on a statutory footing in local authority schools. However, the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people—which I once again praise as an outstanding example of everything an APPG should aspire to be—noted in its 2023 “Building Beyond Barriers” report that over half of teachers did not know that financial education was part of the curriculum at all. That is a matter of some concern. It is certainly important that the topic of financial education is addressed in the classroom in an appropriate way. I have no doubt that our hard-working teachers are keen to play their part in delivering that content. The same report found that three in four teachers believed that they should play a leading role in imparting financial skills to children. The obstacles were reported to be inadequate training, limited funding and an understandable feeling that there is simply not sufficient time in the school year to deliver those lessons. In government, the Conservatives sought to mitigate the funding issue with an investment of over £1 million to embed and scale teacher training in financial education. The Money and Pensions Service did excellent work developing and testing approaches to supporting teachers, and practitioners working with children and young people in vulnerable circumstances, to deliver financial education. Ultimately, though, we must acknowledge that the school timetable is already under intense pressure, and there are many competing calls on limited time. That is why I would argue that the good financial education that every child deserves is best delivered not only in schools, but in the family setting, in communities, and with the help of valuable resources. I conclude with a simple message, which I hope underscores some of the excellent contributions that we have heard today: financial education is invaluable and transforms life outcomes. Research undertaken by Compare the Market tells us that today, just two fifths of young adults rank as financially literate. We can and must do better. Conservative Members will keep these matters under careful review, and I hope that the Minister will address the questions that have been raised. Once again, I thank all those who have spoken, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving my constituents in Reigate and Banstead certainty over the timing of elections; however, many of them will be disappointed. One of my big concerns, which needs to be seriously considered, relates to debt. I am not against unitaries in principle; there are many benefits and advantages to them. However, I have great concerns about debt sitting in other district and borough councils for which my constituents may end up footing the bill. Please can she reassure me that my constituents will not be paying a bill that they did not incur?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is for Toby Porter, and it is probably quite timely. What are the risks and impact for the hospice sector if assisted dying becomes legal? Can you talk broadly about the implications, touching on the impact on the workforce and patients? Toby Porter: In England and Wales, there are about 190 hospice charities and probably about 16,000 care staff, who will represent every different opinion on the spectrum. Hospice UK and most hospices have a position of no collective view on whether the law should change. To summarise three impact areas, the first and most important one—this is why our written evidence stressed the need to sustain the public conversation about death and dying that this debate has started—is that, if people are made more comfortable, there is a real opportunity to talk about death and dying, as well as what services are available for everybody, including those who may want an assisted death. There is a real opportunity to improve palliative care, because most people in palliative and hospice care think that the golden thread is increasing people’s knowledge, ability and willingness to talk about what is happening to them and what services can help them. Conversely, there is a risk. Modern palliative medicine and hospice care have for 30 or 40 years been working very hard to get people to access palliative care early—as soon as possible after diagnosis of a life-limiting condition. The language of, “I’m going to fight this”, “I’m going to defeat this cancer”, “I’m going to battle” or “I’m stronger than this” shows that we have a whole culture that works against that early access. Even today, people still sometimes associate accessing hospice care with admitting defeat and going too early. If hospices were involved in assisted dying, there is a theoretical risk that that would just reinforce an inaccurate perception about hospice and palliative care: the myth that you are helped along your way by doctors in hospices and hospitals. That is one risk. More briefly, the second risk relates to the duty of care. What do you need for hospice and palliative care services? You need adequate resourcing, which means staff and finances. In terms of staff, the real fragility in the hospice and palliative care sector is a shortage of clinical staff—that is shared nationally with the NHS and other healthcare providers. You will know from Sarah Cox’s evidence that the majority of palliative care consultants hold views against assisted dying, many of them very strongly. If the consultants felt, for example, that they could not keep their distance from assisted dying in a 12-bed hospice unit in the way they could in an 800-bed hospital, you could very easily see that if this was not done properly and the consultants deserted the hospice sector, you could no longer offer the specialist care that is so important to the Minister, the NHS and every health and social care provider. Thirdly, at the moment, every hospice operates with not just the consent, but the active financial support of its local community. This is, perfectly legitimately, a controversial issue, and there are very strong feelings on both sides. At the moment, we depend on charity to fund about 65% or 70%. There will be people who would stop funding hospices because they did not offer this service, if it became legal, and there will be people—this has already happened—who would stop funding hospices if they did. Those are the main strategic and operational challenges of the hospice sector. I hope you will think about how they might be mitigated in your deliberations.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Hospitality Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  In Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, we have many amazing pubs that contribute hugely to the economy, such as the Garibaldi community pub in Redhill. For those businesses to thrive, reform of the unfair business rates system by 2026 is critical. Will the Minister commit to the proposed 20p reduction to the small business rate multiplier, which is the absolute minimum reduction needed for the long-term sustainability of the pub sector?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Remembrance and Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech in this important debate about remembering the valiant actions of those who have fought to keep this country safe. It is a privilege to rise as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Reigate, a constituency that I am proud to represent and serve. I am deeply grateful to the people of Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages for placing their trust in me. Before I turn to an issue of great importance to my constituents, I must acknowledge my predecessor, Crispin Blunt, who is himself a veteran. I have not rushed to deliver my maiden speech, not least out of a desire to give careful thought to the words I choose. Ironically, it seems that Crispin faced a similar conundrum in 1997. In fact, I do not think I can do better than to quote from his own maiden speech: “It must be admitted that Sir George Gardiner did not end his Conservative party career in a blaze of glory…Sir George was a resolute battler for the causes he believed in, and although many of us questioned his judgment at the end, no one could question the resolve with which he steered his chosen course.” —[ Official Report , 9 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 857.] My sincere hope is that when my successor rises to deliver their maiden speech, they are not inclined to give those words a third airing in this House. That said, I would like to recognise Crispin Blunt’s 27 years of public service, and also pay tribute to his team. No MP achieves anything without a great team supporting them, and Crispin’s team served our communities with diligence and grace during many challenging times. I take this opportunity to thank them, especially Teresa Craig, who has gone above and beyond in the past 15 years to help many thousands of constituents. I also pay tribute to Lord Grayling, the former MP for Epsom and Ewell: thanks to recent boundary changes, I have welcomed the wards of Nork and Tattenham Corner and Preston into the Reigate constituency. Chris was an exceptional local MP, and I thank him for all his support. Let me now turn to a subject close to my heart: my wonderful home. Reigate is a constituency that encapsulates the very best of both town and country—a trinity of towns in the most beautiful part of Surrey, each with its own unique character and identity. We have the historic town of Reigate, with its winding streets, independent shops and proud heritage. It is a place of immense charm and community spirit, and notably is the location of the first road tunnel built in England; it is the birthplace of Margot Fonteyn, one of the greatest classical ballerinas of all time, and is also the place where both our current Prime Minister and Fatboy Slim were educated. Just north of the town stands Reigate fort, a Victorian structure intended to serve as a last line of defence in the event that the south had fallen and defeat seemed certain—a role not unlike that which Reigate played in the recent general election. Then there is Redhill, a railway town that pulses with energy and ambition—a transport hub and a centre for business, commerce and the arts. It is home to an inspirational Lioness and some Lobsters. As the place where the existence of solar flares was first confirmed, Redhill shines bright as a vivacious younger sister to Reigate. Finally, we have Banstead, which offers a quieter appeal with its village feel and beautiful commons. Its bustling high street is adorned with gorgeous flowers that are lovingly tended by local residents. It is a community whose respectful patriotism is keenly felt, especially at this time of year. I must take this opportunity to recognise and thank the Banstead and District Royal British Legion branch, whose members do an outstanding job paying tribute to, and raising money for, our armed forces and veterans. Beyond our towns, we are blessed with many picturesque villages, each with its own charm. Disappointingly, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is not enough time for me to tell you about all of them, so I will tell you about just one: Walton-on-the-Hill. With its serene pond, world-class golf and history of feisty suffragettes, it is the place I chose to settle and raise my family. Like a thief, Walton stole my heart, and I must thank the Prime Minister for giving it early release. Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not surprise you to hear that the green belt is one of the reasons why the towns and villages of my constituency are so unique. We are incredibly fortunate to be surrounded by beautiful countryside, from the rolling hills of the north downs to the open green spaces of Banstead commons. This country needs more homes, so there now comes pressure to build on the green belt because it is easy, but that is the lazy solution. The new Government talk about developing brownfield first, which I very much support, but just saying the words is not enough. For building on those sites to become a reality, we need tangible action to make brownfield development economically viable. We also need to have an honest conversation about the impact of reducing housing targets in London while nearly doubling them in Reigate and Banstead. Even if by some miracle my local council could deliver on those targets, they would simply be building homes for people from London to move into, not meeting the local need and certainly not bringing down house prices. If we are to break the cycle, we must densify in cities, where essential infrastructure is already in place. I hope this Labour Government will consider tackling the issue of housing with the same spirit shown by the Labour Government elected in the final months of the second world war. Then as now, the country was in desperate need of more homes; Clement Attlee delivered 1 million of them, while insisting both on densification and ensuring that development was concentrated in cities and towns. Mr Attlee set out to build his new Jerusalem primarily as a fitting tribute to a generation of servicemen who fought, endured and suffered to keep this country safe from fascist tyranny. That heroic generation included Flight Lieutenant Douglas Adcock from Redhill, who flew ultra-high-risk missions for the Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron at RAF Benson. Tragically, though, Douglas never came home: on 11 August 1944, his aircraft failed to return from one of those missions. Some days later, his body washed up on the shore in Belgium, where he is buried today. A generation earlier, Lieutenant Rupert Hallowes, another Redhill man, answered the call to serve his country. He would go on to earn the Victoria Cross in the first world war; he died fighting at Hooge in 1915. Those are accounts of just two men, but memorials across my constituency bear the names of many hundreds more who left home to fight for their country and did not return. Ultimately, the debt we owe to the fallen can never be repaid, but we honour them, keeping the promise to never forget. I will end on that note, but just before I do, I want to thank my parents, Bev and Steve, without whom I would not be here today. Today is a proud day for our family—one that we will remember.