Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is wonderful to hear the Minister’s enthusiasm for the changes, but if she is so confident that they will deliver that benefit, why was she not willing to start with a pilot, or even agree to a sunset clause?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend, as I normally do. Finally, there is the obvious practical point that there are better answers available. The Law Society says that reform and investment must be strategic, not piecemeal, and warns against stand-alone measures such as changing from jury trials to judge-only trials without convincing evidence that they will significantly reduce the backlog. It says that Parliament should insist on “detailed modelling” and on understanding the Government’s intentions across the whole package of reform, not just on this isolated measure. The existence of pressure in the system does not prove that every proposed constitutional shortcut is justified. The question is whether the shortcut is necessary. With clause 4, the answer is plainly no. For all those reasons, I oppose clause 4 and schedule 1, and I support amendment 51. Clause 4 offers a constitutionally serious reduction in jury trials for a tiny claimed benefit of 200 sitting days. The evidence does not show that juries are the cause of delay, collapse or miscarriage in these cases. Fraud cases are not too technical for juries. The key issue is dishonesty, and ordinary citizens are uniquely well placed to judge that. The removal of juries in these cases would damage open justice and public confidence. Schedule 1 gives effect to that flawed principle and then goes further by creating a route to ministerial expansion. Amendment 51 is therefore a sensible and necessary safeguard, but in truth, the better course is simpler still: clause 4 and schedule 1 should not be included in the Bill at all.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Rail Prices: Contactless Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the hon. Lady gets an answer to her question. On paper, contactless was presented to my constituents as a simple upgrade to how they pay. In practice, it is much more than that. I am not at all suggesting that operators have actively set out to conceal their price rises, but it is fair to say that they were not as clear, prominent or energetic as they should or could have been in explaining the full practical implications for passengers. Indeed, the changes were snuck through without any proper consultation or targeted communication. That is particularly galling since the Government are freezing rail fares across the country to ease cost of living pressures. Why do my constituents who rely on Reigate station not deserve the same? Contactless was presented to people simply as a way of making payments easier, so many passengers, understandably, assumed that they would not have to pay more or change the time they travelled. Clearly, that has not happened at stations like Reigate. One very brief example will illustrate the point: the first off-peak train of the day is now nearly an hour later than before. That is a ticket price hike by stealth. For many years, Reigate passengers had a settled and well-understood expectation about which morning train to London marked the start of off-peak travel. That was an important part of how they planned their day, especially those travelling into London for leisure, appointments or family trips rather than for the traditional commuting pattern. Under the new structure, because peak now runs until 9.30 am, and because Reigate’s train pattern does not line up neatly with that cut-off, the practical effect has been to push the first off-peak option later. In other words, a journey that many local passengers had long understood to be available on an off-peak basis is no longer available on the same terms. Some must now travel later, otherwise they must pay more. In that case, the roll-out of contactless has had a measurable negative impact on how some of my constituents travel by rail. Of course, it is important to acknowledge that not every fare has increased and not every passenger has found themselves losing out. Southern notes that for many people, the contactless fare will be the same as that of a ticket bought on the day, and the whole premise of the system is that, for many passengers making simple journeys, contactless will be convenient and, in some cases, better value. That, however, is only one part of the picture. The people who are most exposed to the downsides of this transition are the people least placed to absorb them. Currently, existing discounts cannot be applied to pay-as-you-go contactless, and if someone has a railcard or is eligible for other discounts, including a child discount, it may be cheaper to buy a conventional ticket rather than use the contactless system. That means that often the most affected passengers are families, older people, veterans and others whose journeys may amount to something more than the default model of a full-fare adult simply tapping in and tapping out.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Rail Prices: Contactless Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we should look to roll out contactless to stations that do not have it, but I hope that the issues I am raising about pricing are taken into account. I hope it is useful for the hon. Gentleman to see the impact that the roll-out is having in Reigate. It would be good if we could iron out the difficulties before it is further expanded. We very much welcomed contactless and were excited to get it, but we did not anticipate the stealth price hikes and their impact. It was something that I really wanted to celebrate locally, but all of a sudden there were these downsides that we had not planned for because they had not been communicated properly. I hope it is helpful for the hon. Gentleman to learn from what has happened in Reigate, and hopefully the Minister will take that on board before rolling out contactless to other stations in Surrey. Sitting on top of all this, there is an unfortunate layer of confusion. I agree with the Government in their diagnosis that rail fares are too complex and that simplification is necessary. On one level, that is plainly true, so surely they did not intend that the contactless roll-out would leave informed local rail users having to spend time and energy working through the interplay between contactless singles, paper returns, travelcards, caps, discounts, peak times and station-specific exceptions. We have to ask ourselves whether the new system is actually simpler from the passenger’s point of view. Contactless undeniably offers much convenience, but I am concerned that it is not offering clarity or value for money for all. I gently say to the Minister that this roll-out appears to have been a rigid programme. The correspondence I have seen suggests that operators had only limited room to preserve sensible local arrangements, even where a clear passenger need has been identified. If that is correct, the Department should reflect on whether the roll-out has been too inflexible. National consistency has its place, but so does common sense. We were just discussing the broader roll-out in Surrey, which I hope we will see; there is lots that can be learned and improved on so that other areas in Surrey do not suffer the same surprise and detrimental impact as we have in Reigate. I would like to ask the Minister four things. First, what can be done for specific cases like Reigate where contactless has caused unexpected problems? Will he step in to help work towards restoring the long-standing off-peak position for the first morning journey, so that passengers are not simply forced on to a later train or a higher fare? Secondly, will the Minister review the impact of the contactless roll-out on passengers who depend on discounts, particularly railcard users and families travelling with children? It is difficult to argue that a system is fully fit for purpose when important categories of passenger are told that the purported benefit does not properly work for them. Thirdly, can the Department for Transport look into anomalies between geographically neighbouring stations and whether these are forcing passengers to alter their behaviour, including using cars to drive to a further away station to secure a better deal? We are seeing people drive to Redhill rather than get the train from Reigate, which they live closer to. Finally, will the Minister ensure that when these changes are rolled out in future, passengers get genuinely clear, station-specific guidance explaining what has changed, who benefits from contactless, who may be better off sticking with conventional tickets and how any new restrictions operate in practice? My constituents have very much regretted not having access to that information. As I hope I have made clear, I support simpler ticketing, modernisation and making rail travel more attractive. Contactless is a gateway to all that, but it must work for all passengers. Regrettably, at the moment we have a system that is leaving a sizeable minority disadvantaged and paying more for less flexibility than they enjoyed before. I hope the Minister will engage with these points in the practical and constructive spirit in which I have made them, and I would be delighted to work with him on finding workable solutions and taking the learnings for roll-out to other stations. Overall, it is a great thing: I very much welcome contactless coming to Reigate, but it would be really good if we could iron out some of the difficulties with ticket pricing.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that point; he makes it eloquently, as always. I really enjoyed going through the groups that do not support these proposals. Obviously, the Government like to rely heavily on Sir Brian Leveson’s findings and recommendations, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East questioned him in the oral evidence session, he did not blame jury trials. Fundamentally, jury trials are not the problem. They are not creating the delays, so limiting them will not address the backlog. In fact, their curtailment will likely bring a whole host of other issues to the table that were not there before. The Bar Council believes that the changes “will produce serious adverse consequences that have not properly been considered by the Government.” In the light of such uncertain outcomes, I find it difficult to understand why the Government will not perform a pilot first to test the proposal or put in place a time limitation more generally. To plough ahead in this way, with no way back in the event of failure, is reckless by any measure. A more cautious approach might have been more positively received. As we heard from Kirsty Brimelow KC, the chair of the Bar Council, it is vital that we approach the backlog problem logically, look at where the delays are occurring and target them. For rape cases, the majority of the delay is actually at the investigation and charge point, which takes an average of two years. Although the one-year delay at court stage is too long, the lion’s share of the problem is pre-court—perhaps the CPS can help with that one—so let us deal with that. The Government should open all the courts so that they can hear cases every day. Yesterday, 11% of Crown courts were not sitting, and I am sure we will find out later what the percentage is today. Revising the contract with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services to ensure that defendants are delivered to the dock on time would also help. Giving proper consideration to specialist rape and serious sexual offences courts to deal with sexual offence cases and addressing the many inefficiencies and delays in the system through a better use of technology would no doubt greatly reduce the backlog. It is also important that we give the steps that the Government have already taken to address the backlog an adequate chance to filter through. One example is increased sitting days: in February 2026, the Justice Secretary announced that there would be no cap on sitting days for ’26-27, which will undoubtedly help. In addition, last month, powers were granted to suspend custodial sentences of up to three years, a change from the previous two years. Putting aside whether that is a sensible measure, it will undoubtedly increase the number of guilty pleas. That means fewer trials and a decrease in the backlog. The Government should properly model the impact of those significant changes on the backlog before imposing such a draconian limitation on jury trials. I would be grateful if the Minister could share any projections of the impact of those two changes on the backlog and clarify whether they have been factored into the “do nothing” option of the impact assessment. It looks as though they might not have been included, because they are not referenced. If clause 1 is accepted, there are several types of serious cases where the defendant might now lose their right to elect for trial by jury. It has been suggested by the Justice Secretary that only cases involving minor offences, such as stealing a bottle of whisky, will be impacted, but that is not the case. Let us start with causing death by careless driving. That is a serious offence—rightly so, given that a life has been lost—and it carries a maximum five-year sentence and driving disqualification. Currently, the defendant has the right to elect for trial by jury. That is especially important in such cases, where the difference between careless and unfortunate is not entirely clear. It is exactly that type of case where we see the benefit of 12 individuals, all with different experiences, using their judgment to decide whether the defendant crossed the line into “careless”. Under clause 1, that right is no longer available; the judge will decide on their own. Imagine a defendant who is innocent. Their whole life, and that of their family, is to be decided by one person—their bad day can destroy the defendant’s entire life. Their case might not even make it to a judge; it could remain in the magistrates court. Surely the intention was never for our magistrates courts to hear cases involving the loss of a life. Sexual assault is another serious offence. It carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and inclusion on the sex offenders register. It is also completely life-changing for everyone involved. Under clause 1, the defendant’s right to choose a jury trial will be removed. Many of those cases could end up in the magistrates courts, but they are nothing like the normal cases seen in magistrates courts day to day: they are highly sensitive and complex, involving third-party disclosure, and video recorded and forensic evidence. They are not simple add-ons to what those courts already do. With the best will in the world, they do not currently have the capability or skillset to handle such specialist cases involving traumatised victims.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that point; I share his concerns. There is also a question regarding whether unpaid volunteers will even want to take on such a serious role that involves handing out two-year sentences—that is quite a responsibility. The outstanding caseload in magistrates courts has been increasing in recent years. In September 2025, the outstanding caseload was around 373,000, which was a 74% increase compared with pre-pandemic levels in September 2019. The shift of cases from the Crown court back into the magistrates court is simply moving the issue to a less suitable court to deal with it. It is simply moving the problem around, rather than actually addressing it. Summary trial through the magistrates court was always designed for the purpose of swift justice in low-level cases. By removing the right to elect for a jury trial, in combination with increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years’ imprisonment and removing the automatic appeal against conviction, important protections are being removed, and the groups that will be impacted most detrimentally are ethnic minorities. Magistrates are unpaid members of their local community who volunteer to act as magistrates. There is no requirement for them to be legally qualified. That may well be fine for summary-only offences, such as low-level motoring offences and minor criminal damage, but it is not appropriate for more serious offences. Many magistrates do an excellent job and give up their time selflessly for the benefit of their community. In spite of that, I do not believe that they should have the power to send someone to prison for two years. Let us all remember that magistrates can be as young as 18. In closing, I want to make one last point. This change was not in the Labour manifesto; indeed, there is no mention of any changes to trial by jury at all. Only one such commitment was made, which Government Members appear to have forgotten. To quote from the Labour manifesto: “Labour will fast-track rape cases, with specialist courts at every Crown Court location in England and Wales.” That is on page 67, if anyone needs to refresh their memory. That is what the British people voted for. The Bill could have been so different if clause 1 had started with that, instead of jeopardising fair justice for many defendants. It is such a shame that a Government with such a historic majority have so quickly forgotten the change they promised, and whom they fight for and represent.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone for their powerful and often personal contributions today. First, I want to recognise Michelle Dewar, the tenacious campaigner behind today’s petition for menstrual relief. She is a great champion for women suffering with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and I congratulate her on securing over 100,000 signatures—not an easy task, but it showcases the strength of feeling from many on this important topic. Endometriosis is a condition where endometrial tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows in other places such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes. One in 10 women of reproductive age suffer with it, making it the second most common gynaecological condition in the UK. Common symptoms include chronic pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding, making normal activities difficult. It predominantly affects women during their reproductive years. Adenomyosis, an often overlooked condition, has similar symptoms, but is where the lining of the womb starts growing into the muscle in the wall of the womb. It is commonly diagnosed in women over the age of 30, but can also affect younger women, as we heard today. Similar to endometriosis, it affects one in 10 women, with nearly 70% of women waiting over five years to get a diagnosis. Michelle’s own journey with endometriosis began 24 years ago, causing her to miss school every month from the age of 14. Shockingly, it was not until she was 23, nine years later, that she received a diagnosis. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, her story is far from uncommon, with many women not receiving a timely diagnosis. It takes on average eight years and 10 months from the first GP visit to get a diagnosis. Women’s symptoms are often dismissed and normalised, leaving them to struggle on with their pain, without treatment, without understanding and without support. The lack of understanding and knowledge of what constitutes a normal period or menstrual cycle also delays women seeking help and can leave family and friends uncertain how to provide support. No woman or girl knows what a normal level of period pain is without input from others, and lack of awareness leads to her not being well equipped to advocate strongly for herself with medical practitioners. We also need to recognise that there is still embarrassment and stigma around talking about periods, which can add to the challenge of getting adequate medical care when something is not right. Recognising the challenges women face in their engagement with the healthcare system, in 2022 the then Conservative Government published the women’s health strategy for England, a 10-year programme committed to improving women’s health. The strategy seeks to address disparities in women’s healthcare and the under-representation of women in medical research. One of the strategy’s eight priority areas is menstrual health and gynaecological conditions, including greater awareness, earlier diagnosis and better treatment of endometriosis and adenomyosis. As we have heard many times today, all aspects of the lives of women struggling with those conditions and enduring awful pain every month are impacted. It affects their relationships, their overall wellbeing and also their careers, and such debilitating conditions impact on earnings in the long term. Office for National Statistics data published last year shows a drop in monthly earnings among women aged 25 to 54 diagnosed with endometriosis from one to five years after diagnosis, compared with the two-year period before being diagnosed with the condition. Average pay decreased each year post diagnosis, culminating in a £130 monthly reduction in the four to five years post-diagnosis period. Although it is likely that different factors contribute to this change, it is none the less worrying that there is such a statistically significant drop in earnings post diagnosis. Prompt diagnosis of these conditions is vital and the roll-out of community diagnostic centres will help immensely. Many of my own constituents stand to benefit from the recently opened community diagnostic centre in the Belfry in Redhill, which will deliver much needed extra capacity to perform diagnostic scans. That is exactly the kind of practical measure that can help women to get answers more quickly when their symptoms and pain suggest that something is wrong. When a woman is suffering symptoms that mean that she is unable to work, the current option available to her is to take sick leave. That option is available to any employee with any condition or illness that leaves them unable to work. It is a broad, non-discriminatory entitlement available across almost all conditions. From 6 April this year, following recent changes by this Labour Government, when a person is unable to work due to ill health, they are entitled to statutory sick pay from the first day of illness. It is also relevant to note that statutory sick pay is now available to all eligible employees, regardless of their earnings. The current approach to statutory sick pay therefore allows any woman who requires two to three days off every month due to endometriosis or adenomyosis to take the time she needs with sick pay. For that reason, the introduction of a specific menstrual leave is unnecessary as statutory sick pay already delivers what is being asked for. Statutory sick pay is the better mechanism to use, because it does not discriminate or restrict provision to highly specific conditions. Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis are just a few examples of conditions that are equally debilitating and involve regular flare-ups—so it is entirely right that they are covered too.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely right. I am explaining the current system and why we do not need an additional level of menstrual leave. What the hon Gentleman said is correct and yes, we opposed those changes. The approach taken in Portugal has been mentioned a number of times during this debate and in the petition itself, so it is important that I address the situation. Portugal introduced a menstrual leave policy last year, which gives the right to up to three days of paid leave per month for women diagnosed with endometriosis or adenomyosis and who suffer from severe and disabling pain. However, it is important to note key differences between the Portuguese system and ours which explain the difference in approach. First, in Portugal, the first three days of ordinary sickness absence are generally unpaid, with sickness benefit usually only starting from day four. As I have just explained, in the UK statutory sick pay now begins from the first day of illness. Portugal has created a diagnosis-specific exception within a less generous baseline sickness system. The implementation of the same policy in the UK would therefore not deliver the same kind of incremental benefit because our general sick pay framework already covers short absences from day one and does not require a sick note for only three days’ absence. It is also important to note that the protected characteristic of “disability” under the Equality Act 2010 may cover some women suffering from severe endometriosis or adenomyosis, depending on the effect that the condition has on their day-to-day activities. Where that is the case, they are protected from discrimination and their employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments can include changes such as phased returns to work, part-time working or flexible hours to support women to continue working when they are able to despite their condition. The Conservative position is that a specific menstrual leave is not required. We are comfortable that existing sick leave provisions and discrimination protections already adequately protect women suffering with these conditions and ensure that they can take the time off they require every month. However, that does not mean that we do not think action is needed. We urge the Government to do all that they can to raise awareness of how severe these conditions can be and ensure that the NHS provides early diagnosis and treatment. We need to end the situation where women spend years in agony with no answers and support, and where employers are ignorant of how debilitating these conditions can be.

• 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.

• 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.