Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the more than 4,200 people in my constituency who signed the petition opposing digital ID. I very much share the concerns that many of my constituents have raised with me. The Government’s intention to roll out a mandatory digital identification scheme is a serious mistake; it will prove expensive and intrusive, and it will ultimately not move the dial on the key challenges that we face as a country. We have repeatedly been told that this scheme will help to tackle illegal immigration. Frankly, I find that insulting to the intelligence of the British public. Channel crossings will not be stopped by a QR code on a smartphone. I only wish it were that easy. They will, however, be stopped when the Government have the courage to implement real deterrents and confront the lawyers and activist judges who continue to undermine our borders and throw obstacles in the way of every attempt to tackle this crisis. The British public have always rejected the idea of ID cards, and I believe they are right to do so. We are not a nation of “papers, please”, in which people must prove their identity simply to access everyday services or interact with the state, yet we risk creating exactly that kind of society under this policy. We must remember that we are here today as representatives of the British people; we must listen and proceed with caution when nearly 3 million of them feel so strongly about an issue that they sign a petition. Let us also not forget that this issue was never put before the public in a manifesto. If the Prime Minister wanted a mandate for such a fundamental change to the relationship between citizen and state as that which would come with digital ID, he should have had the courage to ask for one at the ballot box. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken today to send the Government a very simple message: mandatory digital ID is not needed to deliver excellent online public services. We already have quick, simple digital applications for passports, driving licences, and right-to-work checks. Those do not require a single state-mandated digital identity card, nor should they.

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

  More

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

• 10 Sept 2025 · Draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.