Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Prisoner Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  I would expect the Minister to know the numbers, and this question has been asked many times, so I am going to give him another attempt: how many rapists and sexual offenders will be released early under the Sentencing Act?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Draft Conversion Practices Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am concerned about the Bill’s impact on families, which the Minister has touched upon, and I am worried that positive, healthy interactions within a family could potentially fall in scope of the Bill. It is good to hear that she does not think the Bill will cover such interactions, but it is written quite broadly and I am sure that we will have further conversations about that. If a child wants to transition and to participate in the Pathways clinical trial, but their parents do not consent, will that be an abusive conversion practice under this legislation?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Can he explain why his Department was apparently willing to appoint Mandelson as ambassador, and provide him with access to classified briefings, without conducting any security vetting, given that his close links with Russia and China were already public knowledge before his appointment?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  12. What recent progress he has made on implementing the Humble Address agreed by this House on 4 February 2026.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  The Cass review also suggested a clinical trial for cross-sex hormones. On that basis, will the Government launch a clinical trial on cross-sex hormones as well?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for giving an eloquent speech. It is really important that we are very responsible in the way we talk about suicide, and I would like to point out that Professor Louis Appleby did a study on exactly this issue following the ban of puberty blockers. His conclusion was that we were not seeing an increase in suicides as a consequence. He also made the point that it is important not to suggest that denying young people puberty blockers causes them to commit suicide. That is a negligent thing to do, and it is important that we put that on the record.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  I frankly cannot believe that we are here again. When the Pathways clinical trial was paused earlier this year, I felt that there had finally been— [ Interruption. ]

• 22 Jun 2026 · Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. No child put on puberty blockers at the earliest stage of puberty and whose natural puberty is permanently blocked will ever have an orgasm or be fertile. No child can consent to that. Around 2,000 children have already been given puberty blockers for gender distress, so there is ample information available on impact and outcomes held by gender clinics. It makes no sense to experiment on even more children while this exercise remains incomplete. Why is the Health Secretary not prioritising the completion of this important data linkage study before experimenting on more children?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  This is definitely better late than never, and after listening to the Lib Dem spokesperson—I cannot believe I am going to say this—I am actually grateful that we have a Labour Government and not a Lib Dem Government, because what the Lib Dems have just said is absolutely shocking. They do not respect the rule of law at all. On that note, I am going to ask a technical question. Did the Secretary of State formally reject the draft code of practice, as submitted by the EHRC in September 2025? If so, please can the Minister provide us with a copy of the written reasons given, as per section 14 of the Equality Act 2006?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There were concerning reports at the weekend about the global combat air programme’s being delayed. We know the funding for Edgewing, agreed in April, is due to run out this month. Can the Minister guarantee that a new deal will be signed and in place before the end of June?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Conversion Practices · Hansard source

  More

  I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm exactly what conversion practices she plans to ban.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member. I appreciate the fact that she has tabled these amendments and that she recognises that it is not easy to strike this balance, particularly when we are trying to address abuse and alienation cases and it is sometimes hard to know what situation we are dealing with. We are trying to come up with a system that protects as many people as we possibly can, but I think we also have to acknowledge that it will never be perfect. If anyone thinks that we can change one bit of law and then all of a sudden nothing horrible will ever happen again, I am afraid to say that these awful things will always happen, and things will always go wrong. It is about trying our best to have a framework that gets the balance right. I will stop there—I have probably made my point. This has been a really good debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about some of the points I have raised.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure people saw me during evidence. I get really upset about the loss of any child’s life. We have to remember that we all want to keep children safe— [ Interruption. ]

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would appreciate some clarity from the Minister on the deviation from the recommendations of the Law Commission—again, just so that we are clear. To refresh her memory, the Law Commission, in its written evidence, states that “Clause 10 does not implement our recommendations in two key respects. (1) It does not implement our recommendations regarding distinguishing the different categories of evidence and the thresholds that should apply where there is a previous allegation of sexual offending. Nor does it address the confusion about whether FAE should be subjected to the BCE or SBE frameworks”— that probably means more to the Minister than to me. It goes on: “As set out above, in our view, if the evidence of an allegation does fall within the definition of ‘sexual behaviour’, the SBE framework should apply. If not, then the bad character framework will apply, or the relevance threshold will apply if the evidence of an allegation is not said to be false or is not alleged to be misconduct. (2) It does not address the concern that within the BCE framework there is currently no express provision for consideration of the particular risks associated with the sexual nature of previous allegations, as we recommended.”

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

  More

  Absolutely, Ms Jardine—we can go into the early hours of the morning if we need to, and I am happy to do so this evening if that is what people would like to do. In cases of offensive communications, malicious communications, harassment, stalking and other digital evidence-related cases, the line between criminality and obnoxiousness can be fact-sensitive and context-heavy. We have all seen how politically sensitive a question this has become. We should remember, too, that some of these cases are driven almost entirely by screenshots and unauthenticated digital material, which may be manipulated, selectively presented or forensically thin.

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members and the Minister have spent a lot of time talking about victims being central to all of the changes, so why on earth would they not support the amendment if it is really about protecting victims from being cross-examined?

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

  More

  As my hon. Friend was speaking, it suddenly occurred to me that under our current system, jurors can already make that argument—that if sitting on a jury would be particularly disruptive, they should not have to do so. How does that interact with this measure? It feels like this does not make sense.

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

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. Frankly, I am shocked that a Labour Government would do that. It is the last thing I expected of a Labour Government.

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

  More

  Perhaps I am more optimistic about these things.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Seven months ago, a national newspaper ran the story that Mandelson had failed security vetting, so how is it even possible that no one in No. 10 knew until last week?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Why not?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise if the Minister is about to come to this, but is she saying that she does not expect this process to take very long?

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I will not comment on that specifically. I am talking about the magistrates courts, which generally deal with low-level motoring offences.

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the question the hon. Member for Gloucester asked shows the crux of one of the issues? He used the term “offender” to describe someone where a verdict has not yet been reached, but they are the defendant. Is the assumption of innocence before guilt is proven not a key principle we should be fighting for?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for that point. This goes back and links to the question I raised on the impact assessment. It is really important that we get clarity from the Minister on the impact assessment. The interpretation I am taking from her answer to me on whether existing measures like the suspension of three-year sentences and the uncapped sitting days were taken into account, is that, no, those are not in the “do nothing” scenario. I am struggling with why that would be. Surely, in the impact assessment you need to be showing the reality in order to do a fair comparison? It is reassuring to hear her say that she has looked at these numbers, but why are they not included in the impact assessment so that we can all clearly see them and see why she is taking the decision she is around limiting jury trials?