Rebecca Paul
MP for Reigate · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Britain’s steel industry is not competitive, because of high energy costs and excessive red tape, but instead of addressing the root causes, this Labour Government revert back to their default solution of nationalisation. Why are this Government so keen to take us back to the 1970s?”
“The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), said that the Government would seek to find a buyer for British Steel, and several parties have expressed interest. Are discussions ongoing with those parties, and if not, why not?”
“I recently invited residents to vote for their favourite local businesses in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating MLP Wealth Management in Banstead, which won best overall small business; the Chapel in Reigate, which won best independent café; Murray Designs in Reigate, which won best independent shop; a…”
“The Secretary of State will know that e-bikes do not require insurance, but we are seeing some pedestrians suffer catastrophic injuries due to the additional weight of these bikes compared with a normal bike. Is she giving any consideration to reviewing the rules on this issue?”
“I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing the debate. This is a really important topic, and I do not think there has been enough focus on it in the last few years. Her speech was very powerful, and the hon.”
“The problem was not down to their lack of commitment or compassion; it was down to a system that is operating without enough physical space to meet the excessive demand placed upon it. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 612 lines we hold for Rebecca Paul, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 13.
“When the time was right for me to move on, my flat was easy to sell. Others have not been so lucky. They have bought leasehold on a private estate, and with that comes a life sentence. Today, I want to give a voice to those people on the hook for ever-increasing service charges, trapped in homes they cannot afford but cannot sell either, who thought they were buying their dream home when actually it was the start of a nightmare. Make no mistake—this is no exaggeration on my part—people’s lives have been and are being ruined by excessive service charges. Let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling you about Park 25, a housing estate in Redhill. It was built 18 years ago and has 500 homes, a mixture of houses and flats. It is a contemporary and stunning site, with the type of homes that people want to live in.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered property service charges. It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the House today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I remember vividly the day, over 20 years ago now, when I picked up the keys to my first flat in south-east London. It took time to get to a position where my salary was sufficient to secure a mortgage and to save up the deposit, but I managed to do it. I spent the first few weeks on a mattress on the floor while I saved for a bed, but it was the most amazing feeling in the world to own my own home. I was fortunate enough to have purchased the freehold, so I never had to face paying service charges that I could not afford and I never had to rely on a third-party management company to make essential repairs.”
“I completely agree. To add insult to injury, Alfie told me that FirstPort charges an £80 administration fee if payment is not made within 30 days of demand. In 2023 he received his fee on Christmas day while in discussions about a payment plan to settle outstanding fees. FirstPort refused to remove the charge despite his financial struggles. Alfie has now left the UK and is renting his flat out at a loss, because that is the only option available to him.”
“I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I completely agree that is very much an issue, as I have heard that too. Alfie and Louise, sadly, are not alone. So many other people on Park 25 find themselves in the same situation: trapped, unable to sell and move on with their lives, and wishing they had never bought the property in the first place. Sam, another resident, said that “it’s not an exaggeration to say this is ruining people’s lives”. He has a wife and child and wants to have another, but he cannot move to a bigger property as he cannot sell this one. It is literally stopping them growing their family. He even tried selling his flat for £80,000 less than the valuation, and he still could not sell it due to the service charges. This is devastating for them as a family.”
“The key point to recognise here, though, is that there is absolutely no incentive or requirement for FirstPort to keep the cost base low. In fact, the more money it spends on maintaining the estate and the more people it employs to deliver services, the smaller the percentage proportion its management fee appears to be—a perverse incentive indeed. It would be very easy for me to berate property service companies throughout my speech, and I suspect that others will take up that mantle during the debate. However, we must recognise that it is the current system that allows the companies to operate in this way.”
“The increase in costs is primarily to cover the future replacement of playground equipment, street lighting, road repairs and other infrastructure. Park 25 residents are also paying council tax for exactly those types of things outside the estate. Out of the £1.9 million service charge, FirstPort keeps around £142,000 in fees, which works out at just under 8% of the total service charge. How easy was it for me to find that £142,000 figure in FirstPort’s costs breakdown? Not very—I had to total up numbers across many pages of costs, as there is no nice, neat summary at the front showing the total amount. That 8% may or may not be out of kilter with industry—I found it difficult when researching to confirm one way or another, which is an issue in itself.”
“Residents have told me about being billed for services they have never received, like window cleaning, with no avenue to formally challenge and remediate. Any opportunity to charge a resident is used to the full. These things are all symptomatic of an industry that prioritises extracting maximum value from leaseholders, regardless of the human cost. There is no incentive for property service companies to act any differently. It is incredibly hard for leaseholders to remove them, so the companies have free rein to do pretty much what they like. This fundamental power imbalance must be addressed, and it must be made easier for leaseholders to take their business elsewhere. The Park 25 service charge for the year ending 30 April 2026 is estimated to be just under £1.9 million— 13% higher than last year’s estimate.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for providing that very useful context. I will come on to that in my speech. One of the challenges we have is that property service companies are seeking to make a profit, yet they are unregulated and free to do as they will. It is for this place to get a handle on that. I hope that today we can think constructively about potential solutions to address the problem, the scale of which, across the House, we all recognise. We do not want our constituents to continue to face it. I am afraid to say that FirstPort is not covering itself in glory. I have now heard hundreds of times over about its lack of responsiveness, lack of transparency on costs and inadequate explanations of service charge increases.”
“Anyone who, like me, has been involved in a residents’ association or similar organisation—or, indeed, who simply understands human nature—will know that most people do not want to pay out for significant works, so the works will not get done, which in time will result in crumbling roads, failing roofs and falling home values. Again, it will become difficult for residents to sell their properties. It is just another version of the same trap, and one that pits neighbours against each other. I urge the Government to think again on plans to make commonhold the default tenure for new build flats.”
“It would be difficult, I know, in this current financial environment and with the likely variability of estate quality, but it would certainly address much of the issue and allow my constituents to sell their properties and move on with their lives. I know that this Government are also keen to move forwards and towards commonhold arrangements, especially for flats, which essentially put management of the estate in the hands of leaseholders themselves. There are some benefits to commonhold over the current model, but it is not the silver bullet that is needed and brings its own set of problems.”
“One sensible and equitable option would be that local authorities are obliged to adopt communal land and infrastructure on completion of new estates in all but the most exceptional cases. For that to work in practice, developers would need to be obliged to ensure that the infrastructure meets the council’s standards before transfer. That way, owners of leasehold properties would be put on an equal footing with everyone else, paying for communal services once through their council tax. That would certainly deal with future issues. But what about those who, like our constituents, are already trapped? It may be that something more radical is needed, such as a mandatory direction to all local authorities to adopt communal land where requested by existing estates.”
“This is increasingly important in the light of the Government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the next few years. I have to say, if nothing has changed when the time comes for my children to purchase a property, I will be strongly advising them not to purchase a leasehold on a private estate. To start us off, I will give the House my view. I think making it easier for leaseholders to change property service company is important, as is better regulation and higher standards, but that will not fundamentally transform the situation. What is needed—what is critical—is a change to the default model, so that homeowners are not paying both the council and a private company for the exact same services.”
“I thank the hon. Member for that point. An important debate for us to have today is about what we do going forward, both for those who have not yet bought a leasehold and to help our constituents who are in this situation right now. I am really interested to hear everyone’s views on that. These companies are a symptom of the problem; they are opportunists making money from an inequitable system. It is this House that must take responsibility for addressing the intrinsic unfairness and urgently make the changes needed to unshackle leaseholders. I hope that we will today hear hon. Members’ views on the solutions, not just the issues. We cannot keep building new housing estates under this same model, perpetuating the problem.”
“How can we best address the current power imbalance between leaseholders and property service companies? What role does he see an industry regulator playing in driving up standards? What default tenure model should be used for future housing estates to reduce the incidences of these issues in the first place? I would also appreciate his views on my suggestion to move to a mandatory adoption model after development completion.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his encouragement and I will keep coming up with radical ideas. Before I finish, I want to raise the issue of education and information provision to homebuyers. If most people knew the current problems with leasehold arrangements, they would not buy them—or they certainly would not pay as much for them. I am sure that conveyancers include warnings and information when managing the sale and purchase process, but it is not cutting through. People are sleepwalking into purchases with little or no understanding of the uncapped service charges they are signing up to, and we must do more to ensure that people are adequately advised and informed before signing on the dotted line. I would be most grateful if the Minister could today give his view on a few things.”
“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.”
“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 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 thank my colleagues for their enthusiasm. It is a great pleasure to contribute to this really important debate. So many people—particularly young people—are desperate to get their foot on the housing ladder, but they feel—”
“That is why I am delighted that the Conservatives have come forward with a clear, coherent and aspirational plan to abolish stamp duty land tax on the purchase of primary residences and to open up the dream of home ownership to the next generation.”
“I gently say to the hon. Member that I have not really got into the flow of my speech yet, either. I will finish the first sentence before I take any interventions. People feel that that vital first rung is utterly out of their reach. I remember when I bought my first property. It was the most amazing feeling in the world when I first walked through that door, with those keys. It was really hard to earn enough to secure the mortgage that I needed and to save up the money for the stamp duty and the deposit. I managed to do it, but I would have been able to do it sooner without that stamp duty cost.”
“In London, it is even higher, and across the country 20% fewer 25 to 34-year-olds own a home today than was the case in 2000. I have skin in the game: I have three children and I want them to be able to buy a house without coming to mummy and daddy to help them out.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent point. This is proper Conservative policy. This is the kind of thing everyone in this country is clamouring for—[Hon. Members: “More!”] This party is delivering that under our new leadership. For too long, stamp duty has been a dead weight on the housing market, a tax on aspiration and a barrier to the kind of home ownership that gives people a genuine stake in their community. It is time that we abolished it on primary residences. Surely we can all agree that our housing market is not working as it should. Far too many young people feel locked out, priced out and increasingly disillusioned. The average age of a first-time buyer in England is now 34, up by nearly a decade from where it was 40 years ago.”
“Yes, I should declare that interest. This amounts to an economic failure, but also to a social failure. Home ownership gives people stability, autonomy and long-term security. It encourages saving, it strengthens families and it fosters pride and a sense of genuine community in our towns and villages. Abolishing stamp duty will save families thousands of pounds and put the many benefits of home ownership back into reach for the next generation.”
“Not only is it on track to miss its self-imposed housing targets, but the Housing Secretary tried to block 237 new homes in his constituency despite promising to “build, baby, build”. By contrast, the Conservatives have delivered 2.8 million homes over the past 14 years, including nearly 750,000 affordable homes, and we pledge to go further.”
“Zoopla’s Richard Donnell has rightly said, “More home moves would support economic growth and the ambition to build more homes.” The Institute of Economic Affairs went further, calling this “the single best reform any government could make to Britain’s tax system.” Indeed, the case seems so strong that one has to wonder why the Government oppose us on this. The truth is that Labour has always been the party of higher taxes on homes. It reversed the Conservative policy that raised the first-time buyer threshold to £425,000. It is freezing stamp duty thresholds in real terms, dragging more and more people into paying this punitive tax each year. While it talks endlessly about house building, its actions tell a different story.”
“The young families I speak to, who have made the move out of London and settled in towns such as Redhill or Reigate, have been hit with eye-watering up-front costs that made those moves extremely challenging. Many more will have found it impossible. That is why our policy matters. We intend to strip away one of the fundamental barriers to family life in this country. Eliminating stamp duty will save the average first-time buyer in the south-east around £4,000 and as much as £18,000 in London. Unlike the Labour party, we will not punish those looking to move further up the ladder with frozen thresholds and stealth tax hikes. I would, of course, be expected to paint a suitably positive view of the proposal, but what do the experts think?”
“I will make that exact same point later in my speech, and I completely agree that that is a relevant change that will come from this policy. I clearly see in my constituency the way in which stamp duty chokes and distorts the market as it penalises those who move, creates a disincentive for older people to downsize and deters growing families from upsizing into more suitable family homes. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has put it, in a crowded field, stamp duty land tax is “the most economically damaging tax in the UK.” I cannot disagree with that. My constituents feel that acutely. Stamp duty is all the more painful in an area where the average house price is now above £490,000.”
“The hon. Member raises an important point. We have this situation where a lot of young people are forced to go elsewhere; indeed, the area where I live is very expensive and I am worried that my children will be forced to look elsewhere. That is why it is so important that we now focus on the future.”
“My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Going back to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), we need to take this seriously. We can either look back the whole time, or we can look forward and think about what policies are right for the people of this country and deliver for the people of this country.”
“My hon. Friend’s excellent point is pertinent to my constituency as well, which is full of amazing and beautiful green-belt land. We are suffering from what this Government have done on housing targets, which have doubled in Reigate and Banstead while going down in London. That means that we are building more homes, but not for local people and not for the children the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned, who want to stay close to home. It is for people living in London who then move out to Reigate and Banstead.”
“We on the Conservative Benches are clear that any significant change to tax policy must be properly costed. The public finances are in a challenging place, and reckless commitments only add to the prevailing sense of uncertainty. That is why it is so important to emphasise that our intention to scrap stamp duty on primary residences is costed, fully funded and fully paid for through our £47 billion savings package. Our plan is clear: it is costed and it is rooted in a belief that home ownership should be within reach of the next generation, just as it was for our own.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for yet another relevant and important point. I urge the Government to think logically about what they are trying to achieve. We all support the ambition to build more homes and recognise the problem that needs to be solved. However, the way we do it is really important, and it is important that we have those homes in the right places and that we set the targets in a logical and meaningful way. With this policy, and others like it, we are offering the public a clear choice between a party that wants to unlock aspiration and reward the hard work of our young people and a party that clings to economically damaging taxes because its own Back Benchers refuse to make even the smallest concessions on out-of-control spending.”
“Most young people referred to gender identity services are same-sex attracted, neurodiverse and/or traumatised. Looked-after children are also over-represented in this cohort. Is the Secretary of State really comfortable with children being given puberty blockers, which essentially chemically neuter them, for the purposes of the PATHWAYS clinical trial?”
“The Minister obviously feels very deeply about this issue. I think we all agree that anyone who was involved in these awful and horrific crimes must be held to account, and we must shine a light on anyone who turned a blind eye and ensure that it does not happen again. Can the Minister provide a commitment that the inquiry will not be politicised, particularly after multiple local authorities have attempted to block investigations? That is a really important question, because we see that happening. Everyone needs to be investigated on this—it does not matter which party they are from; this is too important.”
“We have seen NHS trusts wasting fortunes on a parade of diversity-focused roles. In the case of NHS Fife, the bureaucratic machinery was brought to bear against a nurse for objecting to a biological man entering her changing room. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire police felt that it would be a valid use of £4.5 million to send their entire workforce away to be lectured for two days on the slave trade. We can only wonder if that time would have been better spent trying to solve some crimes. I am of the view that we should reconsider whether the public sector equality duty is fit for purpose, and whether a return to a model under which equality means equal treatment for all would have better outcomes.”
“More in Common’s “Shattered Britain” report tells of swathes of the public who now view public institutions with mistrust, partly because within such institutions a narrow set of values now dominates, and any dissent is smacked down as bigotry or even dismissed as far-right. Like all Members present, no doubt, I have heard accounts from my constituents of what that looks like in practice. I have heard from people who feel baffled and confused by all the focus on diversity, unconscious bias and pronouns, rather than on things that actually affect their day-to-day life in a meaningful way, such as fly-tipping and potholes. My central point is that the public sector equality duty does not just waste taxpayer money; it actively distorts how services are delivered and allows ideology to permeate them.”
“More and more, we see a move away from facts and evidence towards fashionable beliefs within institutions that should be impartial. We see that in councils demanding that their staff include pronouns in their signatures, in police forces being trained to detect unconscious bias, and even in the Welsh Government, where they have pledged to make the country anti-racist. There is nothing neutral or impartial about such choices. They reflect specific world views, and by embedding them in policy and practice, the public sector equality duty is demanding adherence to such ideas as a precondition for working in the public sector or using its services. That cannot be right. It is little wonder that public confidence has been eroded.”
“A 2022 Policy Exchange report found that major public institutions are spending tens of millions of pounds annually on equality, diversity and inclusion roles, as well as training and compliance measures, all to ensure that they tick the right boxes against the public sector equality duty. The issue is not just the cost. What makes the public sector equality duty potentially damaging is the way in which it enables particular ideologies to seep into institutions and spaces that ought to be wholly neutral on such issues. Because the duty is so broadly framed, and because it requires anticipatory rather than reactive compliance, it has given rise to a culture of pre-emptive overreach. Public bodies feel compelled to insert themselves into questions of speech, behaviour and belief that ought to lie outside their remit.”
“It is now often helpful to someone’s career or studies to be oppressed in some shape or form, leading to the absurd situation in which some of the most talented people are blocked. That does no one any favours, and certainly not our country. EDI, or DEI as some people call it, has become a lucrative industry. Every public body, from local district councils and hospitals to police forces and schools, is now required to evidence, audit, review and revise policies in the light of how they impact protected groups, regardless of the outcomes that those policies deliver.”
“We see them painting rainbows on our roads rather than fixing them, and speaking warm words about the importance of accessibility for disabled people while failing to cut hedges back or adjust bus stops. We all undoubtedly support the ambition that everyone—no matter their protected, or indeed unprotected, characteristics—be given the same opportunities, be treated fairly and have the chance to thrive and prosper through hard work and talent. However, looking at the impact that the public sector duty has had, I believe that it was a mistake to think that that was the answer. If anything, it has highlighted difference, undermined meritocracy and, in some cases, pitted groups against each other.”
“However, as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The public sector equality duty in section 149 imposes a legal burden on public bodies to “have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity…and…foster good relations” between people with different protected characteristics. That all sounds rather wonderful, but the reality is that it has become a powerful, often unaccountable force that we see distorting public priorities and fuelling ideological dogma. We see local councils that are more concerned with ensuring that residents are anti-racist than with ensuring that bus services to schools and colleges are adequate.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Surrey county councillor. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing today’s debate. For all the reasons that he so ably laid out, it is now well overdue that we honestly assess the impact of the Equality Act on people in the workplace and wider society and consider whether there is need for change. It is best practice to always reassess and measure outcomes, rather than assuming that something is working as intended. I wish to focus on the public sector equality duty in the Act and on its broader impact on our public institutions. It was undoubtedly a well-meaning clause.”
“They do not want us tying ourselves up in knots, effectively looking for social injustice the whole time rather than cracking on and sorting out our NHS so that everyone gets the treatment they need, and ensuring that our schools are giving the best education for our children. Let us get back to the priorities of the British people and stop wasting our time with all this stuff. Right: back to my speech. I think I have summed it up in my response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), so I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. It has been a good use of our time to debate how effective the Equality Act and its various provisions have been. I hope that we will continue this important conversation.”
“There will always be some loophole or difference in interpretation that means that the law can be misused. I believe that it is absolutely right to move away from thinking that legislation is the silver bullet to all our ills. We should actually put faith in the behaviour of the people of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford says, we dealt with these things before and we have the mechanisms to do this. Most people in this country are well-intended and trying to do the right thing. Let us have some faith in this country and not just tie ourselves up in knots. Let us get back to delivering for our constituents and residents.”
“I think the hon. Member and I will just have to disagree, because I do not believe that legislation is the solution to these things. What is much more powerful is societal attitudes and norms, and education. That is how we get the change that we want. That is also how to ensure that the spirit of the ambition is met. As soon as we try to legislate, there will be loopholes and grey areas where it is not quite clear what something means. We have got ourselves mixed up in a whole host of issues and trouble as a result of trying to define something that is common sense. All of us in this Chamber undoubtedly share the same ambition. We want everyone to be treated fairly; we just disagree on the way to do it. I do not think that it is possible to prescribe in legislation how people should act decently.”
“However, that appears to contradict the recommendation of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who proposed abolishing the power under schedule 7 on the basis of its lack of use. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could outline how he envisages the power being used in future, and whether it still has a role to play in stopping the heinous acts of terrorism that we unfortunately continue to see in Northern Ireland. Stopping terrorism is a responsibility of the Government, which Members across the House take with the utmost seriousness. It is therefore right that we support measures that improve the system.”
“Given some of the recent debate around the relationship between protests and terrorism, I ask whether the Minister has had conversations with the police to ensure that those using this power have a sufficient understanding of the changes, so that officers can accurately identify those who may be involved in the instigation of acts of terrorism, and avoid incidents such as those in the past that have prompted these changes. I am aware that many of the changes are in line with recommendations from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. On that point, I would like to ask the Minister about the changes to the code of practice concerning schedule 7 and Northern Ireland. Given the ongoing challenges with terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s code of practice set out the continuing use of the 2000 Act.”
“Furthermore, steps appear to have been taken to ensure that the powers within the Acts remain usable under the new guidance. The response of the independent Office for Police Conduct illustrates the broad agreement that these powers will continue to be used appropriately by the authorities. On the broader point, measures that ensure transparency and improve communication—for example, ensuring clear notification—should be welcomed, provided the powers remain effective. The steps on examinations appear proportionate. However, they will also make the process more effective and quicker. I recognise that the clarification relating to public order policing is somewhat limited. However, I note that the amendment to the code explains that the examples of changes provided are illustrative, not exhaustive.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the Minister on maintaining his role during what some have described as the purge of the Home Office. It is therefore appropriate to thank him for his remarks about the legislation, and pay tribute to his staying power. Turning to the draft regulations, the periodic updating of codes of practice is a regular occurrence for Governments. With the codes last altered in 2023, it has been deemed necessary to provide further clarification. The regulations we are debating today appear to present proportionate clarification to the existing system, while maintaining the powers necessary to question individuals. As the Government have stated in their documentation, the changes should not alter the original intention of the legislation.”