Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2025 · Support for Trans People · Hansard source

  More

  The Equality and Human Rights Commission has confirmed that at least 19 public bodies, including organisations across the policing, education and health sectors, are misrepresenting the law on single-sex spaces. That is a breach of the Equality Act 2010, as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court ruling. Has the Minister been told which bodies they are, and how can women and girls have any confidence in them if they are knowingly and deliberately breaking the law?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to raise a few issues, all of which I know are very much on my constituents’ minds. First, I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring that boroughs such as Reigate and Banstead, which have been managed well and are not loaded with debt, are not left footing the bill for the failures of other councils that have been less prudent with their finances. Reigate and Banstead borough council has a commendably strong record of financial prudence, so please will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that protection will be put in place to safeguard our community assets, such as the Harlequin theatre, and our community and leisure centres? On the Harlequin theatre specifically, I emphasise how important the asset is to the people of Redhill and beyond. It has now been closed for more than two years, following the discovery of RAAC, and residents and community groups—notably, the Harlequin Support Group—have been resolutely campaigning for its repair and reopening. I am delighted that, under the leadership of Councillor Shelly Newton, who is one of the most tenacious local councillors I have ever come across, it has now been confirmed that the £4.5 million needed for repair has been allocated. All being well, the theatre is expected to reopen by Christmas 2026. I mention that because my constituents would appreciate hearing directly from the Secretary of State and Ministers that the local government reorganisation will not hamper such projects, which have been agreed but will take some time to complete. I also make the point that the reorganisation is not the only challenge faced by Reigate and Banstead borough council, which has just had its housing target more than doubled by this Government, at a time of great uncertainty and transition—a recipe for disaster. I want to focus mainly, however, on the future of the civic mayoralty in Reigate and Banstead. Reigate has had a mayor since 1863. Great history and tradition is associated with the role, and the importance placed on it can be seen physically in the mayoral robes, the chain of office and the mace, which are still very much in use. The Government have been clear that their intention with the Bill is to provide a consistent model for how local government will be structured across England. What is rather less clear—I hope that the Minister or Secretary of State will be able to provide clarity—is what that means for boroughs such as mine, where a borough council is intermeshed with a long-standing tradition of civic leadership in the form of a borough mayor. Unlike metro mayors, the mayor of the borough of Reigate and Banstead is no kind of political executive. The role is that of a civic figurehead, non-partisan, ceremonial and community focused. We have a truly outstanding mayor, Councillor Rich Michalowski, and, before him, Councillor Eddy Humphreys was another dedicated and hard-working public servant. In the past civic year alone, the mayor responded to more than 350 engagement requests, hosted 25 town hall tours for schools and community groups, and oversaw 32 civic and charity events attended by nearly 1,500 people, not including the thousands more who attended Remembrance Sunday. The position of borough mayor does real, practical good. Their attendance at an event brings that extra sparkle, which residents so appreciate. Through the mayor’s trust fund, 38 families in my constituency have already been supported with grants this year. A single funding workshop led by the mayor’s team unlocked more than £50,000 for local charities. Through sustained community engagement, the mayor helps connect employers with jobseekers, donors with good causes, and schools with mentors. They promote local artists, support care homes, champion the armed forces covenant, and offer practical help to residents in crisis. I hope that Ministers will agree with my constituents in recognising the great value of a borough mayor, and that they will provide clarity on whether such roles will be preserved under the Bill and, if so, how in practical terms that will be achieved.

• 17 Jul 2025 · RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this fantastic debate. It is a great honour to rise to pay tribute to one of the most remarkable and least widely recognised units that contributed to the allied victory in the second world war: the RAF’s PRU. Formed on 24 September 1939, the PRU carried out some of the most daring and vital operations of the entire war. PRU airmen flew unarmed and unarmoured aircraft deep into enemy territory, often alone. Over the course of six years, the missions captured more than 26 million images that would shape allied strategy and save countless lives. Intelligence gathered by PRU flyers informed decisions in the Cabinet war rooms, supported the success of the Dambusters raid, and provided the data and insight needed for the D-day landings—enabling the precision planning that helped to turn the tide of the war in Europe. We are used to hearing of daring feats by heroic fighter pilots and dogged bomber crews, but the PRU operated under uniquely harrowing conditions. Flying alone with no weapons to defend themselves and no escorts to offer assistance, their only defences were altitude, speed and luck. They took to the skies with nothing more than a camera and a sense of duty. Indeed, the death rate in the PRU was among the highest of any allied aerial unit: life expectancy was on average two and a half months, and more than 500 men died serving in the PRU. That sacrifice was felt across the length and breadth of this country, including in my Reigate constituency. Among the many who served in the PRU was Flight Lieutenant Douglas Adcock, who lived in Redhill. Douglas joined the RAF alongside his older brother, Reginald, and quickly qualified to fly the legendary Mosquito aircraft—a plane almost tailor-made for the PRU’s daring missions. He flew out of RAF Benson with 544 Squadron, conducting dangerous reconnaissance operations in support of the allied advance into occupied Europe, including missions ahead of the D-day landings. On 11 August 1944, his Mosquito 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. For all the sacrifice of brave men like Douglas, there is no national memorial to the PRU—no permanent site to honour their legacy and acknowledge their vital contribution to our victory. I strongly support the excellent work of the Spitfire AA810 project, which has campaigned tirelessly to establish a fitting memorial to the PRU. The recent announcement from the Minister that we will be getting such a memorial is much welcomed. The way that history is remembered is shaped in large part by choices made in rooms such as this Chamber. Who do we raise memorials to? What do we teach our children about the past? Which major historical events do we commemorate each year? Our answers to these questions give shape to our national history, and thus far the history that we have made has not done justice to the PRU. We rightly commemorate the fighter pilots, bomber crews, sailors, submariners and soldiers of the second world war. We remember codebreakers, spies, scientists and even politicians. It is entirely correct that we will now find a place, too, for the quiet heroism of the PRU: the men who flew alone, unarmed and without fanfare, to gather the intelligence that made victory possible. I reiterate my thanks to the Spitfire AA810 project. I urge that we move as quickly as possible to complete the national memorial that these men deserve. We owe them our thanks, we owe them our remembrance and we owe them a place in our national story. Let us make sure they get it.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to be closing this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I thank colleagues from across the House for their passionate contributions, and I am going to attempt to list them all: my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and the hon. Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I also have it on good authority that the MPs from Staffordshire hunt in a pack, and after today I can confirm that they do indeed. Before I begin my speech, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Ensuring that every child, regardless of their background or circumstances, has the opportunity to thrive is something that cuts to the very heart of why many of us were drawn to politics in the first place. We know that in those crucial early years the foundations of health, learning and wellbeing are laid for life, so it is right that we ensure that those foundations are as solid as can be. I want to first reflect on the Conservative record on early years and families, starting with childcare. It was Conservative Governments who introduced and expanded free childcare entitlements, not just for parents of three and four-year-olds but for parents of younger children. It was a Conservative Government who launched the family hubs and start for life programme, investing £300 million across 75 local authorities to provide parenting and breastfeeding support to families when they need it so that problems can be addressed before they escalate. We fully recognise that stable and secure families ensure the best start in life for children. That means ensuring that support is more broadly targeted than just at the child. Family hubs are a vital part of achieving this. For 14 years, our model was to have targeted investment, early help and a determination to move away from a system where postcode determines life outcomes. Nowhere is that approach more vital than in the first 1,001 days of a child’s life—from conception to age two. The science is clear: a child’s brain develops more rapidly in these years than at any other point in their life. Attachment, stimulation, nutrition and the emotional environment during this time all have lifelong implications for learning, resilience and health. Interventions in these early days can literally change life chances, and we know that failure to act compounds over time. I pay tribute to Dame Andrea Leadsom for all her excellent work on this subject. Earlier this month, the Government published their “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy. The House will be aware that the strategy’s name, scope and substance owe much to the work begun by the Conservative Government. There is much to celebrate when a new Government build on the good work of the previous one—and as the old saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The strategy identifies the very early years as a priority for the Government, which is welcome, but I must echo the Institute for Fiscal Studies in suggesting that this strategy is a first step, not the finished article. The Government’s approach to family hubs is a good example of what I mean by that. It is welcome that the Government are continuing the programme, with a further £69 million announced in the autumn Budget and £57 million in Start for Life funding for 2025-26. The goal of rolling out Best Start family hubs in every local authority is certainly ambitious and something to be welcomed, but there is one important point I want to make. Even with this new funding, spending on integrated early years services will be remain at less than one third of what was spent on Sure Start at its peak. Family hubs are being asked to do more, serving children up to the age of 19, but with far fewer resources per child. If this Labour Government want it to be Sure Start 2.0—and I truly hope they do—they may need to be more ambitious with their funding plans. If the Government want to build on the solid foundation they inherited from their Conservative predecessors, they must guarantee long-term investment, retain high-quality staff and ensure that hubs are universal in reach but suitably targeted in mission. Before I move on from hubs, I welcome the fact that each one is promised a SEND-trained staff member who can deliver practical and well-informed help to families navigating what is a complex system. As we in the House all know, SEND is a big issue. I am all too aware from casework in my constituency that the families of SEND children are too often left fighting against the very system that should be fighting for them. Early identification of SEND is still inconsistent, and when that diagnosis is eventually made, EHCP needs assessments and much needed support are often delayed too. Disappointingly, Ministers have refused to rule out scrapping ECHPs outside special schools, despite over 300,000 children currently relying on them in mainstream settings. That has triggered real fear among families and professionals alike. More than 110,000 people have signed a petition opposing these changes, yet to date Ministers have offered no firm reassurance that no child will lose the legal right to the support they need. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to provide some clarity and reassurance to those worried parents. Looking at the Government’s approach in the round, the “best start in life” strategy contains much that the Opposition welcome in principle, such as more family hubs, the expansion of funded childcare to 30 hours a week for working parents of children from nine months old, thousands more nursery places and the development of a digital offer. However, if we are seeking to ensure that every child has the best start in life, a key ingredient must be the provision of high-quality education: the very provision that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill seeks to sabotage. Far from ensuring that schools can serve as a foundation for success in the early years, Ministers have led an attack on school standards by undermining the academies that have led the way on school improvement for decades. If the Government get their way, academies will no longer be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status from non-traditional backgrounds and will be forced to follow the same national curriculum as other schools. Those measures will risk the progress made during three decades of cross-party consensus on academies. It is nothing less than educational vandalism. If any Member of the House doubts that fact, they need only pay a visit to Labour-run Wales. After 26 years of Labour in power, Wales finds itself at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the UK in maths, English and science. The Government cannot even bring themselves to ban smartphones in schools—something so simple yet so effective in improving a child’s wellbeing and educational outcomes. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) introduced a Bill that would have done just that. I applaud him for doing so and for the strong cross-party consensus he built up. It is shameful that much of his work was undone by a Government who insisted on watering down his Bill and burying their heads in the sand to the harms. A Government who refuse to act against that danger give me cause for concern about their commitment to offering children the best start in life. I will conclude by making an observation on nurseries, which face extreme financial pressure because of decisions taken by the Government. The lack of compensation for the employer national insurance contribution increase is forcing nurseries and childcare providers to either hike fees, opt out altogether from offering funded places or close down entirely. I ask the Minister to ponder what use any number of policies aimed at supporting nurseries and increasing funded places will be if the Treasury is driving nurseries into the ground with tax hikes before those policies have even started.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because of the time—we all have lots of questions for the Minister that we want to get through. The statutory override was due to end in 2026, but the Government have decided to extend that accounting trick for another two years. I cannot emphasise enough to the Minister that we are on the brink of a financial disaster in local government. Accounting fudges only delay the inevitable and make the problem even worse—and it will not just be SEND services impacted when local authorities are issuing section 114 notices; it will be all local authority services. Before I put some questions to the Minister on her proposed changes to the SEND system, I want to address some of the issues raised about Surrey county council specifically. Members have already laid out clearly some of the challenges experienced by Surrey parents trying to secure SEND support for their child. I too share their concerns and agree that that is unacceptable. Like them, I have spent much time grappling with the council to ensure that it delivers the right support to children in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, so I have seen at first hand deadlines being missed, information being withheld, decisions being delayed and essential support not being provided. Although I recognise the challenges and pressures on the council from an insufficiently funded and less than optimal system, the fact is that the law is clear on support for children with SEND. I thank parents and groups that have fought hard in recent years to shine a light on the issues both in Surrey and beyond. I want to make special mention of the Let Us Learn Too campaign, whose founder, Hayley Harding, is one of my constituents. That important campaign started in 2021 and has sought to raise as an issue the difficulties that disabled people and young people have been experiencing in accessing education. It is important to say that they were extremely disappointed at the lack of detail coming out of the hearing of the Education Committee on 1 July about the forthcoming changes. To return to the situation in Surrey specifically, I welcome the recent appointment of Councillor Jonathan Hulley with a specific focus on addressing the issues and delivering a better, more effective SEND service. One of his first actions has been to propose boosting the future annual SEND budget by 42% in order to substantially increase staff. As part of the plans, the number of caseworkers will be increased from 81 to 111, resulting in caseloads being reduced from over 200 per staff member currently to 150. Also, 30 new assessment officers will be put in place to support families during the 20-week process, and a mediation and dispute resolution officer team will be established to support early resolution of cases where mediation or a tribunal has been requested. The proposals will increase SEND staff by 103 permanent positions—an 80% overall increase in SEND staff. That is all very positive, and I welcome Surrey’s actions to address the issues raised, but we are still in the dark about national reforms and how they might impact plans such as those at local authority level. Without firm information, we see speculation starting. Last week, the future of SEND support was splashed across the front pages of three national newspapers. Despite the off-the-record briefings from the Department, Government Front Benchers have failed to give parents any reassurance on their plans. Parents are rightly anxious about what any change could mean for their child and the support they are entitled to. I have a series of questions for the Minister. When will we finally see the White Paper? Does she anticipate a change to the Children and Families Act 2014 as a result of the Government’s proposed reforms? Can she confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed as a result of her planned changes? Will EHCPs be part of the plan going forward? Will there be any new capital funding for new special schools, or does the Department plan to build capacity in mainstream schools? Is the Department engaging with parents, schools, colleges and local government leaders ahead of the publication of the White Paper to ensure their support? Will the White Paper include reforms to school transportation? Is work under way in the Department to look at early identification, and what role will support staff and access to specialist interventions, such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists, play? Given that any changes will be a worry to many constituents up and down the country, can the Minister confirm today that MPs will be given a chance to vote on any proposed changes? I will now allow time for the Minister to go through that list of questions.

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for obtaining this important and very timely debate on SEND provision in the south-east. First, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a serving Surrey county councillor. I was also a member of the Public Accounts Committee during its inquiry on support for children and young people with special educational needs. SEND support in the south-east is in crisis. Children are not getting the support that they are legally entitled to at the right time, which is driving poorer outcomes and putting untold stress on families. My inbox, like those of many Members here, is full of examples: parents battling to secure much-needed support for their child to thrive, yet facing incompetence and fundamental misunderstandings of the law by the council; carers forced to give up work to stay at home with their child while they languish without school provision; and families driven to the brink of despair by the adversarial system. Those issues must be addressed, and fast, for the sake of our children and their loved ones. Despite significant increases in recent years in SEND funding, to £10.7 billion, there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes for children and young people since 2019. Only half of EHCPs are issued within the 20-week statutory deadline, resulting in children having to wait too long for support. Shockingly, in about 98% of cases that go to a tribunal, the tribunal finds in favour of the family, indicating that something is going very wrong in the original decision-making process. It is clear that the overall system is not fit for purpose and is inadequately funded, making local authorities’ already difficult job in this area even harder. Worryingly, a statutory override system has been put in place, which essentially allows the ever-growing SEND deficit on local authority books to be ignored. According to the recent Public Accounts Committee report, nearly half of all English local authorities are at risk of “effectively going bankrupt” when the statutory override ends.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 20, and in support of new clause 106, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). First, it is important for me to say that I fully support women’s reproductive rights. I think that we generally get the balance right here in the UK, and protecting that is a hill I would die on. However, I am disturbed by new clauses 1 and 20, which would decriminalise abortion up to birth. If they become law, fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences. The reason we criminalise late-term abortion is not about punishment; it is about protection. By providing a deterrent to such actions, we protect women. We protect them from trying to perform an abortion at home that is unsafe for them, and from coercive partners and family members who may push them to end late-term pregnancies. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who has tabled new clause 1. We share many of the same objectives on other topics, but in this case I think she is trying to solve a very real issue—the increased number of prosecutions—with the wrong solution. These amendments are driven by the case of Carla Foster, among others. Carla Foster is a mum who was prosecuted under UK law for carrying out an illegal abortion in May 2020, during the covid pandemic. She carried out the abortion at 32 to 34 weeks of pregnancy after receiving the relevant drugs through the pills-by-post scheme introduced during lockdown. This is a terrible case that harshly demonstrates the flaws with the current process, but the issue here is not the criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks; it is the fact that Carla Foster was given the pills without checking how far along she was in the first place. She was failed by people here in Parliament who voted to allow those pills to be sent out by mail during lockdown without an in-person consultation. That was an irresponsible decision; and one that might have been forgiven in the light of a global pandemic if it had remained temporary. However, in March 2022 the scheme was made permanent. If we want to protect women from knowingly or unknowingly acquiring abortion pills after 24 weeks of pregnancy and inducing an abortion at home, we must put an end to the situation in which those pills can be acquired without a face-to-face consultation at which gestational age verification by medical professionals can take place. These drugs are dangerous if not used in the right way, as we saw when Stuart Worby spiked a pregnant woman’s drink with them, resulting in the miscarriage of her 15-week-old baby. Make no mistake: the pills-by-post scheme enabled that evil man and his female accomplice to commit that crime. It is also important to note that prior to the pills-by-post scheme, only three women had been convicted for an illegal abortion over the past 160 years, demonstrating the effectiveness of the safeguard. However, since that scheme was introduced—according to Jonathan Lord, who was medical director of Marie Stopes at the time—four women have appeared in court on similar charges within an eight-month period. Criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks is not the problem; the pills-by-post scheme is. If new clause 1 passes while the pills-by-post scheme remains in place, here is what will happen. More women will attempt late-term abortions at home using abortion pills acquired over the phone, and some of those women will be harmed. Many of them will not have realised that they are actually going to deliver something that looks like a baby, not just some blood clots—that is going to cause huge trauma for them. Many of those women genuinely will not have realised how far along they are, due to implantation bleeding being mistaken for their last period, and on top of all of this, some of the babies will be alive on delivery. We in this place need to get away from this terrible habit of only considering issues through a middle-class lens. What about women who are being sexually exploited and trafficked? What about teenage girls who do not want their parents to find out that they are pregnant?

• 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?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As of 1 May this year, there were seven biological males in HMP Downview, a women’s prison in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State confirm when they will be moved out?

• 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

  I wholeheartedly agree. There is much to discuss today and there is little time, so I will start at the beginning of the Bill, at the point at which the criteria for eligibility for an assisted death are set. It is there that important safeguards are needed to ensure that those who should never be eligible are excluded. We should not make the mistake of assuming that a doctor will always make the right decision or that they are infallible. It is incumbent on us to put in place law that makes it harder for them to get it wrong—that makes it harder for someone vulnerable to fall between the cracks.

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

  More

  I am sorry, but I do not have much time and I wish to get through my points. How can we be happy with a process that does not exclude such reasons? Instead of providing the support that is actually needed, the state is content to put them on a pathway that leads to their death. I hope that the House will recognise that, whether one supports assisted dying in principle or not, it is morally bankrupt not to have some kind of best interests test to protect those who are not seeking death to alleviate pain from a terminal illness. Another group that is particularly vulnerable is those with eating disorders. In Chelsea Roff’s oral evidence, she set out that “at least 60 people around the world have been euthanised or assisted in suicide” with “anorexia nervosa listed by name as a terminal condition.” ––[ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 139, Q175.] To paraphrase her, these were young women who were not terminally ill and had decades of life ahead of them. It is important to make the point that someone suffering—

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

  More

  I will therefore speak to my new clauses 17 and 18, which would provide important protections for hospices, which are currently lacking in the Bill. New clause 18 makes it crystal clear that any regulated care home or hospice can decide whether to provide assisted dying on its premises, and new clause 17 makes it clear that they cannot be subject to any detriment for not providing or permitting assisted deaths, and that their public funding cannot be conditional on their providing this service. Whether one is in favour of assisted dying or not, we must preserve the rights of organisations, companies and charities to choose whether to offer it. They must never be forced into it by public funding being conditional on the provision of assisted dying. I note that new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), would expand the protection for individuals not to participate in the assisted dying process if they so wish. It seeks to protect employees from being subjected to any detriment for participating or not participating in the provision of assisted dying. This sensible protection would ensure that if an NHS hospital provides an assisted death service, any member of staff who does not want to participate would not have to do so and would suffer no detriment as a result. However, there needs to be a sensible mechanism balancing that against the employer’s right to set their own policy on assisted dying, and that is what my amendment (a) to new clause 10 seeks to do—we have already talked about that, so I will not go over it again. I did want to talk about process and family, but it looks like I will not have time to do that. I will end there. I thank you for your patience and generosity, Mr Speaker. I am grateful that I have had the chance to speak in support of the amendments, and I look forward to hearing from other Members.

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

  More

  I agree, and I will come to that point in more detail in the second half of my speech.

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

  More

  I would love to give way, but—

• 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.

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

  More

  The evidence is clear that palliative care does not get better when assisted dying is introduced; we heard that in the Bill Committee. We should absolutely look to address palliative care, because that will benefit more people. I will come to that point later in my speech, so I will not discuss it any further now. I do not want to get ahead of myself. There are many helpful amendments in this vein—namely, new clause 16, new clause 9 and amendments 80, 14, 38, 81, 24, 30 and 31. In simple terms, they seek to tighten and refine the eligibility criteria for an assisted death by setting out when and for what reasons an assisted death should be allowed, and by ensuring that those who are vulnerable are protected from something that may not be in their best interests. Interestingly, on Second Reading the argument put forward for assisted death was that those who are dying should be spared unbearable pain. This is an argument that everyone understands and has full sympathy with. No one in this place wants people to endure pain as they come to the end of their life; I certainly would not want that for my loved ones or indeed for myself when my time comes. But then the arguments being put forward changed. There was less emphasis on pain, and more on choice and autonomy. The word “autonomy” came up again and again in Committee—and autonomy is important, of course, but up to a point. From a proposal to provide a humane end to someone’s pain when it cannot be relieved in the last months of their life, we have moved to a proposal to provide an assisted death service to those who choose it for any reason, even if the pain can be alleviated by palliative care. This approach, however, comes with a cost to others: family, clinicians and broader society. This really is momentous. There is no going back from such a massive shift. A move to autonomy trumping everything else changes everything.

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

  More

  The key point is that we need to improve palliative care. We are spending so much time and effort focusing on this Bill rather than doing the thing that would actually help more people. My amendment 80, in combination with amendments 30 and 31 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), would drive significant improvements to palliative and end-of-life care, getting us closer to consistent and universally available care for all.