Lesbian Visibility Week

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central has said, there is real need to approach these things in a calm and appropriate way, and to respect everybody’s different ways of manifesting their humanity.

What for me is very telling is the fact that I came out when my relationship broke up. It is almost impossible to hide grief. It is ironic that, having spent a considerable period not being open and trying not to make it obvious that we were in a relationship, it was when we did not “need” that hidden approach any more that I came out. It is incredibly difficult to explain to people why you are in such a state of grief if you do not explain the relationship. What was interesting about that was not only the reaction of very supportive friends, which was great, but finding that some people had never guessed; I was quite shocked and surprised by that. It was strange to realise that we were more hidden than we understood, because people did not see lesbians. That shows the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week.

Perhaps because society is so male-dominated and women are marginalised in many respects, or perhaps because women are more likely to be seen doing things together, holding hands or going on holiday with other women, we were not even noticed. One of the important aspects of raising lesbian visibility is enabling people to be their natural selves and enabling other people to recognise that. Of course that has meant over the years that women were perhaps not the subject of homophobic legislation. In many ways, it reflected the role of women as society was then and that women were very marginalised and not seen. That is perhaps part of the wider picture of where women were.

There have been workplace stereotypes: women have to dress in a certain way and behave in a certain way towards heterosexual men, or they are expected to do so. When they do not, be that as lesbians or as heterosexual women, it can be interpreted negatively, which has often held lesbian women back over the years. It is a form of discrimination and stereotyping that has had pernicious results.

It is not enough for us to hope that attitudes can change. Hope is not enough. We all have a responsibility to challenge, and to use our legislative powers to strengthen our challenging through legislation. We were proud, as a Labour Government from 1997 to 2010, to do a number of important things that helped LGBT rights, including ending the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces, ending discrimination against lesbian and gay partners for immigration purposes, and giving LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children. Of course, we scrapped section 28, which was very important for people like me, but we also banned discrimination in the workplace and in vocational training with the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.

We also included homophobia in the definition of hate crimes. Sadly, we have seen a rise in hate crimes in recent years, to which I draw the Government’s attention. In particular, I ask that more should be done to tackle homophobic, including transphobic, hate crime.

Of course, we created civil partnerships and awarded statutory rights to fertility treatment for lesbians on the NHS but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, there is a long way to go on equal and fair access. I hope the Minister has listened to what she said today, and to what she said to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, and I hope progress can be made on this sooner rather than later.

Although we have made progress, we know that, in many respects, there is a lot to do to stop attitudes regressing in this country but also internationally. Women are hardly noticed or recognised in many countries and, if they are, they are certainly not allowed to be in same- sex relationships.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. With others in this House, I hope I can play my part in securing greater lesbian visibility.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

There are also inspirational figures outside Parliament, such as Dame Kelly Holmes, mentioned by the hon. Members for Jarrow and for Brent Central, who is raising the profile of those who find their true selves later in life. I was particularly touched by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). I know that at times it can be incredibly emotional for her to tell her story, but I am honoured every time I am in the room to hear someone being so open about their experiences. It is inspirational. The UK is undeniably richer for the contributions of these women, and more LGBT role models continue to appear every day. As others have righted raised, lesbians have contributed importantly to the way of life in this country: in our armed forces, serving to keep our country safe; in medicine, helping us to make medical advances; in education; and in all walks of life. Their contributions have been extraordinary.

Many Members will have heard me say on numerous occasions that I am committed to improving the outcomes for lesbians, and all LGBT people. We especially recognise that lesbians often face specific challenges. The hon. Member for Jarrow talked about how she often felt lonely. As Minister for loneliness, I was really keen that we had a specific campaign and focus this year on loneliness experienced by members of the LGBT community, as they often find that journey incredibly challenging, particularly if they are in rural areas.

Other challenges may include difficulty in access to IVF, mental health challenges, domestic abuse or hate crime. I was distressed to hear the experiences of hon. Members who have faced hate crime. Having been queer- bashed myself, I know how terrifying it is and the lasting effect such an incident has, not just when it happens but years later, with flashbacks. I reassure all Members of the House that I and the other equality hub Ministers regularly engage with our counterparts across Government, as well as relevant civil society groups, on a range of matters that relate to this important area of work.

The equality hub is working with a range of businesses and professional membership bodies to identify how employers can best support women’s reproductive health in the workplace, for example, as part of the delivery of the workplace elements in the women’s health strategy. We are holding roundtables and working with employers from a range of sectors to develop case studies and tips on good practice, to improve the support available for women’s reproductive health. This will help inform the development of resources to promote and support employer good practice, highlighting those organisations that are leading the way on these issues.

A number of important points were made about IVF. There were a number of changes and future ambitions within the women’s health strategy for England to improve the variation in access to NHS-funded fertility services.

Colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have begun work to improve information provision on fertility and fertility treatments, including on the NHS website, and have launched a tool that provides greater transparency on local provision of IVF. Our initial priority is to remove the requirement for female same-sex couples to self-fund six rounds of artificial insemination before being able to access NHS-funded treatments. My colleagues in DHSC are working with NHS England to take that forward, along with other commitments that are deliverable through the integrated care boards.

I accept that this work is taking longer than expected, which I realise is disappointing to those affected, but please be assured that it remains a priority for delivery. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing its fertility guidelines and will consider whether the current recommendations for access to NHS-funded treatments are still appropriate, and we expect that review to be published next year.

With regard to the statutory instrument, I am assured that colleagues in the DHSC are working on it, so that it can be presented to the House, but I will update the hon. Member for Jarrow when I have had further discussions with DHSC Ministers.

Let me come on to some of the other points that were raised by Members today. Mention was made of the equal marriage debates that we had in this Chamber. Ahead of that debate, I remember Members receiving emails and letters from people almost suggesting that if we extended marriage to lesbian and gay couples, the sky would fall in the next day. Well, we did it, and the sky is still up there. What I noticed though was that, very quickly, everybody was waiting for their invitation to an equal marriage reception.

Turning now to the issue of hate crime, we need to ensure that we all call hate crime out, and I am glad that hon. Members have done so. I am in regular discussions with my colleagues in the Home Office and will continue to raise the points that hon. Members have mentioned today.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) talked about the voices of lesbians being silenced. I simply cannot understand why anybody would want to do that. Lesbians have as much right as anyone to stand up for recognition and for their rights. It is important that we all enter this challenging debate in a calm and measured way. A toxic debate serves no one. We can have a grown-up debate in which we disagree and agree, but we should do so with dignity and with respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) said, this should all be about the people whom we love, so let love be at the centre of that debate.

I was glad that colleagues raised international issues. Unacceptable things are happening around the world—in places such as Uganda and Ghana. I pay tribute to the work that the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights is doing to focus attention on this area. It is right that we join our LGBT alliance friends around the world to encourage progress in this area so that people do not have to live in fear.

I will address the issue of conversion practices that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) mentioned. No one in this country should be harmed or harassed for who they are, and attempts at so-called conversion practices are abhorrent. We are clear on our stance that they are harmful and that they simply do not work. That is why we are committed to publishing the draft Bill. I know that it has taken time, but it has been a very challenging issue to get right. I am committed to our doing it.

I gently say that I was slightly disappointed by the shadow Minister’s conclusions to her speech, trying to make out that this Government have not worked hard on LGBT issues. I am proud to serve in a Government who introduced equal marriage, proud to serve in a Government who have brought about an HIV action plan to eradicate new infections by 2030, proud to serve in a Government who allow gay men to donate blood, and proud to serve in a Government who instigated the LGBT veterans independent review, so that there can be more support for those who were treated so disgracefully.

Today, though, I will end on a positive note by again thanking the hon. Member for Jarrow for securing this debate today and bringing awareness to the extremely important topic of our lesbian citizens during this important Lesbian Visibility Week. As outlined, the Government are committed to making sure that the UK is a safe place where lesbians are given the opportunities to thrive and live a safe and happy life.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Kate Osborne to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) must really not use such language. I think she should withdraw that comment.

[Kate Osborne]

I am not sure which bit you would like me to withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The bit referring to hate language.

[Kate Osborne]

Okay, I withdraw it. But it is astonishing to claim that Lesbian Visibility Week is marginalising lesbians. It is because of Lesbian Visibility Week that we are here in this Chamber, bringing to Parliament the issues that lesbians face. The reality is that trans-inclusive lesbians like me are very much in the majority of cis lesbians, so I take offence at any insinuation that I am marginalising or misrepresenting lesbians. As a cis lesbian, I will not shy away from my trans-inclusive lesbianism and feminism. This year’s theme is “unified, not uniform”. To embrace that, we should all be celebrating the wonderful diversity among the spectrum of LGBTQIA+ women.

I thank the Minister for his constructive contribution and his support for the LGBTQIA community and I look forward to receiving his response regarding IVF. I also thank Labour’s Front-Bench spokesperson for setting out that Labour will treat all LGBTQIA+ people fairly and with dignity and respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week; and believes LGBTQIA women and non-binary people should be recognised for the work they do and the joy they bring.

Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the covid-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths; and calls on the covid-19 inquiry to move onto its module 4 investigation into vaccines and therapeutics as soon as possible.

We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory, and possibly ever: the excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. Its causes are complex, but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a covid vaccine is a large part of the problem. I have been called an anti-vaxxer, as if I have rejected those vaccines based on some ideology. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I have not: in fact, I am double vaccinated and vaccine-harmed. Intelligent people must be able to tell when people are neither pro-vax nor anti-vax, but are against a product that does not work and causes enormous harm to a percentage of the people who take it.

I am proud to be one of the few Members of Parliament with a science degree. It is a great shame that there are not more Members with a science background in this place; maybe if there were, there would be less reliance on Whips Office briefings and more independent research, and perhaps less group-think. I say to the House in all seriousness that this debate and others like it are going to be pored over by future generations, who will be genuinely agog that the evidence has been ignored for so long, that genuine concerns were disregarded, and that those raising them were gaslit, smeared and vilified.

One does not need any science training at all to be horrified by officials deliberately hiding key data in this scandal, which is exactly what is going on. The Office for National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations—it no longer does so, and no one will explain why. The public have a right to that data. There have been calls from serious experts, whose requests I have amplified repeatedly in this House, for what is called record-level data to be anonymised and disclosed for analysis. That would allow meaningful analysis of deaths after vaccination, and settle once and for all the issue of whether those experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths.

Far more extensive and detailed data has already been released to the pharma companies from publicly funded bodies. Jenny Harries, head of the UK Health Security Agency, said that this anonymised, aggregate death by vaccination status data is “commercially sensitive” and should not be published. The public are being denied that data, which is unacceptable; yet again, data is hidden with impunity, just like in the Post Office scandal. Professor Harries has also endorsed a recent massive change to the calculation of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate excess deaths. It is now incredibly complex and opaque, and by sheer coincidence, it appears to show a massive excess of deaths in 2020 and 2021 and minimal excess deaths in 2023. Under the old calculation method, tried and tested for decades, the excess death rate in 2023 was an astonishing 5%—long after the pandemic was over, at a time when we would expect a deficit in deaths because so many people had sadly died in previous years. Some 20,000 premature deaths in 2023 alone are now being airbrushed away through the new normal baseline.

Shocking things happened during the pandemic response. In March 2020, the Government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with certain disabilities should have “do not resuscitate” orders, known as DNRs, imposed upon them. A document summarising the proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals; it was mistakenly treated as formal policy by a number of care homes and GPs up and down the country, who enacted it. At the same time, multiple hospitals introduced a policy that they would not admit patients with DNRs, because they thought that they would be overwhelmed. The result was that people died who did not need to die while nurses performed TikTok dances.

The average time to death from experiencing covid symptoms and testing positive was 18 days. It is a little-known fact that the body clears all the viruses within around seven days; what actually kills people is that some, especially the vulnerable, have an excessive immune response. Doctors have been treating that response for decades with steroids, antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections and other standard protocols, but they did not do so this time. Even though the virus was long gone, doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols because covid was a “new virus”—which it was not. They sent people home, told them to take paracetamol until their lips turned blue, and then when those people returned to hospital, they sedated them, put them on ventilators and watched them die.

The protocol for covid-19 treatment was a binary choice between two treatment tracks. Once admitted, ill patients were either ventilated in intensive care or—if they were not fit for that level of care—given end of life medication, including midazolam and morphine. The body responsible for that protocol, NG163, which was published on 3 April 2020, is called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE. Giving midazolam and morphine to people dying of cancer is reasonable, but there is a side effect, which is that those drugs have a respiratory depressant effect. It is hard to imagine a more stupid thing to do than giving a respiratory suppressant to someone who is already struggling to breathe with the symptoms of covid-19, but that is exactly what we did.

Can the Minister explain why midazolam was removed from the same updated guideline NG191—the antecedent of NG163—on 30 November 2023? As it was removed, is it now considered and admitted that it was a mistake to ignore the warnings of so many experts about including that specific drug, midazolam, in NG163 when it was introduced? It has been confirmed in letters from Ministers to families whose loss of loved ones was down to this protocol that Ministers are now saying that doctors and nurses should have treated the individual patient with their own knowledge, rather than strictly following NICE guideline NG163. If legal cases for unlawful killing are brought, can the Minister tell us who is going to be taking the blame? Will it be NICE, will it be NHS England or will the individual doctors and nurses be held to account?

Interestingly, NICE has now removed these alternative protocols, including NG163, from its website, although every other historical protocol is still there for reference. Could the Minister tell us why NICE has removed this protocol from its website? Is it ashamed of the harm it has caused? It certainly should be. What can we learn from this? We learn that very few doctors dare challenge what they are told. Protocols with no authors are distributed, and doctors fall into line.

There is a huge, stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared with those after covid. After a positive covid test, any illness and any death was attributed to the virus. After the experimental emergency vaccine was administered, no subsequent illness and no death was ever attributed to the vaccine. Those are both completely unscientific approaches, and that is why we have to look at other sources of data—excess deaths—to determine whether there is an issue.

First, however, I want to address the phrase “safe and effective”. The fear deliberately stoked up by the Government promoted the idea of being rescued by a saviour vaccine. The chanting of the “safe and effective” narrative began, and the phrase seemed to hypnotise the whole nation. “Safe and effective” was the sale slogan of thalidomide. After that scandal, rules were put in place to prevent such marketing in future by pharma companies, and they are prohibited from using “safe and effective” without significant caveats.

That did not matter this time because, with covid-19 vaccines, the media, the Government and other authorities turned into big pharma’s marketing department, and it is very hard now to hear the word “safe” without the echo of the words “and effective”, but they are not safe and effective. In March 2021, when the majority of UK citizens had already received these novel products, Pfizer signed a contract with Brazil and South Africa saying that

“the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and…adverse effects of the Vaccine...are not currently known.”

That is verbatim from the Pfizer contracts.

These so-called vaccines were the least effective vaccines ever. Is there anyone left under any illusion that they prevented any infections? When he was at the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions on 31 January, even the Prime Minister, in answer to my question, could not bring himself to add “and effective” to his “safe” mantra. In his own words, he was “unequivocal” that the vaccines are “safe”. The word “safe” means without risk of death or injury. Why is the Prime Minister gaslighting the 163 successful claims made to the vaccine damage payment scheme, totalling £19.5 million in compensation for harm caused by the covid vaccines? Have these people not suffered enough already? Those 163 victims are the tip of the iceberg, by the way. It also should be noted that the maximum payment is only £120,000, so each of those 163 victims got the maximum possible award, which should tell us something. The same compensation scheme paid out a total of only £3.5 million between 1997 and 2005, with an average of only eight claims per year, and that is for all claims for the entire country for all vaccines administered. So much for “safe”.

How about effective? On 25 October 2021, the then Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson—even admitted that the vaccine

“doesn’t protect you against catching the disease and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on.”

Looking at the levels of the virus found in sewage shows that the post-vaccine wave was of the same order of magnitude and duration as the previous waves. This proves that the vaccines changed nothing. They were not safe, and they were not effective.

Those who imposed these vaccines knew full well that they could never prevent infection from a disease of this kind. An injection in the arm cannot do that. Only immunity on the surface of the airways and the lungs can prevent viral infection; antibodies in the blood cannot. In Dr Anthony Fauci’s words,

“it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.”

He continued:

“This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?”

They knew that the so-called vaccines would never protect from infection, which explains why they never tested for protection from infection.

Only a few days ago, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry rapped Pfizer on the knuckles for the sixth time, and said that its marketing practices had brought the industry into disrepute. It was asked to pay a paltry £30,000 in administrative expenses, with no fine on top. The person heading the ABPI at the moment is also the head of Pfizer UK. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has a statutory duty to carry out this work, and it has handed its responsibility to the industry. This is an outrageous conflict of interest.

Let us turn back to excess deaths. The Australian Government have launched an inquiry into Australia’s excess deaths problem. Australia is almost unique as a case study for excess deaths; as it had the vaccine before it had covid, its excess deaths are not so easily blamed on the long-term side effects of a virus. Like us, it saw a rise in deaths, which began in May 2021 and has not let up since. The impact was evident on the ambulance service first. South Australia saw a 67% increase in cardiac presentations of 15 to 44-year-olds. That increase peaked in November 2021, before covid hit. We saw a similar, deeply worrying effect here. In the UK, calls for life-threatening emergencies rose from 2,000 per day to 2,500 per day in May 2021, and that number has never returned to normal.

By October 2021, despite it being springtime in Australia, headlines reported that ambulances were unable to drop off patients in hospitals, which were already at full capacity. Mark McGowan, Premier of Western Australia, said that he could not explain the overwhelmed hospitals:

“Our hospitals are under enormous pressure. This has been something no one has ever seen before. Why it is, is hard to know.”

In April 2022, Yvette D’Ath, Queensland’s Health Minister, said about the most urgent ambulance calls, called “code ones”:

“I don’t think anyone can explain why we saw a 40% jump in code ones... We just had a lot of heart attacks and chest pains and trouble breathing, respiratory issues. Sometimes you can’t explain why those things happen but unfortunately, they do.”

I think we could explain this if we were to look at the link to the vaccine roll-out. Omicron did cause some excess deaths in Australia from 2022 onwards. However, there was a huge chunk of excess deaths prior to that, which doctors have not been able to blame on the virus. Could those deaths be caused by the vaccine? Very few people dare even ask that question.

It is important to remember how the vaccines were made. Traditionally, the key to making a vaccine is to ensure that the pathological, harmful parts of the virus or bacteria are inactivated, so that the recipient can develop an immune response without danger of developing the disease. In stark contrast, the so-called covid vaccines used the most pathological or harmful part of the virus—the spike protein—in its entirety. The harm is systemic because, contrary to what everyone was told, the lipid nanoparticles, encapsulating the genetic material, spread through the whole body after injection, potentially affecting all organs. At the time, everyone was being reassured that the injection was broken down in the arm at the injection site. Regulators ought to have known that those were problems.

Furthermore, it is now plentifully evident that the drug results in continued spike protein production for many months—even years, in some people. The deaths thus far have been predominantly cardiac, but there may unfortunately be many more deaths to come from these novel treatments, which may induce extra cancer deaths. Dr Robert Tindle is the retired director of the Clinical Medical Virology Centre in Brisbane, and emeritus professor of immunology. This month he published a paper highlighting the multiple potential harms from the vaccines, including harm to the immune system. As anyone who knows anything about biology will know, anything that disrupts the immune system can potentially increase the risk of cancer.

There are other reasons to be concerned about cancer being induced by these vaccines. Cancer is a genetic disease disorder that arises from errors in DNA, allowing cells to grow uncontrollably. Moderna has multiple patents describing methods for reducing the risk of cancer induction from its mRNA products. That risk comes from the material interrupting the patient’s DNA. It turns out that an mRNA injection has very high quantities of DNA in it, and that massively increases the risk of disturbing a patient’s own DNA. Worse still, the DNA that was injected contained sequences that were hidden from the regulator. That is the SV40, or simian virus 40 promoter region, which has been linked to cancer and has been found in the Pfizer vaccines. That was no accident. Yet again, crucial information was hidden from the regulator and the public with absolute impunity. An independent study in Japan, published last week, has found links between increased cancer rates in Japan and those who took the first and subsequent booster vaccines. Perhaps that explains why Pfizer acquired a cancer treatment company for a reported $43 billion earlier this year.

In conclusion, the evidence is clear: these vaccines have caused deaths. Despite that, they have been described as safe and effective. However, for a proportion of people who took them, the vaccines have caused serious harm and death, and they will have raised the risk of cancer for many more. Nor are they effective. The vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, and when the data is looked at objectively, it shows that the vaccine does not prevent serious illness or death. Those are hard truths to face, but we must face them if we want to learn the lessons of the last few years. At some point we will have to face up to all the evidence that is building. It was fairly convincing 18 months ago when I first spoke out, but it is unequivocal now.

It is time to take the politics out of our science, and to put actual science back into our politics. I ask the House to support the motion today, and for Baroness Hallett’s inquiry to open module 4 on the safety and efficacy of the experimental covid-19 vaccines. Given the evidence, I call on the Government once again to immediately suspend the use of all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals, pending the outcome of that inquiry. [Applause.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

No, no, we will have to clear the Gallery if clapping continues; I will order it, if necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention. I call Sir Christopher Chope.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the enthusiasm is unbounded. I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) if she wishes to make the point to me in an intervention that she would have liked to have made to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger).

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is important that the hon. Gentleman answers the first intervention before taking a second.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very wise advice.

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the Government were reluctant to concede, at the beginning, that there might be risks associated with all this. Now, we have seen that some people have been adversely affected and, in certain circumstances, have even lost loved ones. We would expect the Government to look after people who have been adversely affected, which was the whole ethos of the vaccine damage payment scheme when it was set up. The Government are falling down on their responsibilities on that and, as a result, that is adding to vaccine hesitancy. The proportion of people who are accepting invitations from the health service to have yet another booster is plummeting, because increasingly people realise that in their particular circumstances the risks may outweigh any possible benefit.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Chamber asks for a link. We know that the excess deaths are predominantly in cardiac arrests, heart problems and strokes. We know that the vaccine works supposedly by inducing human cells to produce spike protein, to be attacked by our own immune system and create the immune response. We know that the vaccine does not stay in the arm. It travels all over the body through the blood supply. Blood vessels are lined by endothelial cells. The mRNA goes into them and makes them creates a spike. They are attacked by the immune system. That explodes into the blood supply and that is a blood clot. If it goes to the heart, you have a heart attack; if it goes to the brain or the lungs, you have a stroke or a pulmonary embolism. That is the link. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is the final warning. It is simply not acceptable for there to be clapping in the Gallery when particular Members speak. If there is any repeat of it, I will ask for the Gallery to be cleared. I just want to be absolutely clear that that is the position I will take, because it is not what happens in the Chamber or the Gallery.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Gentleman has put on record what he wanted to say in that intervention. All I am saying is that, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, I receive a large number of letters, not just from my constituents but from across the country, from people who have been adversely affected. I do not think anybody is challenging the authenticity of their circumstances or the complaints they make.

I am going to close—I know a lot of other people want to participate in the debate—with one such letter that came not from one of my constituents, but somebody else. She gives her name, but I will not repeat it. She says:

“After receiving my covid-19 vaccination, I experienced severe adverse reactions that resulted in hospitalisation. These reactions encompassed stroke-like symptoms, including seizures, tremors, inability to work or talk, irregular heart palpitations, low oxygen levels, vertigo, brain fog, memory loss, balance issues, tingling, high blood pressure and more. Despite undergoing extensive examinations, a recent diagnosis of Functional Neurological Disorder has highlighted my ongoing struggles with headaches, declining eyesight, and daily seizures.

Before vaccination, I was a healthy 34-year-old; however, now I am severely disabled, unable to work, and filled with uncertainty about my future, especially with the imminent arrival of my baby. Unfortunately my situation is not unique; thousands of individuals are suffering similar consequences. Despite assurances of safety, many have been left with life-altering disabilities or worse. I am writing to urgently request an investigation into cases like mine to address the impact of vaccine-related injuries.”

She goes on to give the batch number, and to quote the rather lame response from the MHRA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I want to be absolutely clear, for the benefit of everybody who is watching our proceedings or participating in them, that if there are any more interruptions from the Gallery and it has to be cleared, I will have to temporarily suspend the House, which may mean that those who want to participate will be denied the opportunity. To be clear, I am trying to create a situation whereby everybody can have their say.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I remind those who have contributed to the debate that it is very important to get back for the wind-ups, including for the beginning of the one by the shadow Minister? I call Kevin Hollinrake.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Assessment of impact of CPTPP on deforestation and import of certain products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on—

(a) the volume of UK imports of palm oil;

(b) the volume of UK imports of tropical wood;

(c) the rate of deforestation in Asia;

(d) the UK’s ability to fulfil its obligations under—

(i) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; and

(ii) the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published no earlier than a year and no later than 18 months after the passing of this Act.”

New clause 3—Report on the impact and use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP on the UK.

(2) A report prepared under subsection (1) must include—

(a) analysis of the likely use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure in relation to the UK, and the likely impact of such on the UK;

(b) details of discussions held with other signatories to the CPTPP regarding the use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure in relation to the UK; and

(c) discussions held with, or agreements made with, other signatories to the CPTPP regarding the exclusion or exemption of the UK from any use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure.”

New clause 4—Report: accession of new states to the CPTPP—

“(1) Before any decision is made by the Government on the accession of a new state to CPTPP under Chapter 30 of the CPTPP, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the potential benefits and impact of the accession of that candidate state on the United Kingdom.

(2) Both Houses of Parliament must be presented with a motion for resolution on the report under subsection (1).”

New clause 5—Review: Investor-State Dispute Settlement—

“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the financial risk of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP, not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”

New clause 6—Impact assessment: environmental standards etc—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters of the CPTPP on—

(a) environmental standards,

(b) food standards, and

(c) animal welfare standards.

(2) An impact assessment under subsection (1) must be published not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the day on which this Act is passed and every two years thereafter.”

New clause 7—Report on business impact of CPTPP—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a plan outlining the steps being taken to—

(a) measure the impact on UK businesses of the implementation of the CPTPP; and

(b) support UK businesses to benefit from the UK's membership of the CPTPP.”

New clause 8—Impact assessment: labour standards—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Labour Chapter not more than eighteen months after the day on which this Act is passed and every 18 months thereafter.

(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—

(a) the impact on the Government’s commitments to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation;

(b) steps that have been taken to ensure adherence to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation in CPTPP partner countries; and

(c) how the experience and impact of implementation might inform negotiation of future trade agreements.”

New clause 9—Comparative analysis of impact on UK businesses—

“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on the matters listed in subsection (3).

(2) The report must include an analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) prior to the implementation of the CPTPP with the situation post the implementation of the CPTPP.

(3) The issues which must be included in the comparative analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—

(a) tariffs paid by UK businesses to bring in or remove items from the UK;

(b) costs of non-tariff border control measures paid by UK businesses to bring in or remove items from the UK;

(c) inflation in the UK;

(d) the extent of alignment of regulations relevant to UK businesses;

(e) the ability of UK businesses to trade with the EU;

(f) the implications for UK businesses of introducing new trade and climate regulations, including for carbon pricing;

(g) tariff and non-tariff costs facing businesses trading with the EU; and

(h) trade volumes for UK businesses trading with the EU.

(4) Within 10 days of a report being laid under subsection (1) the Government must schedule a debate on the findings of the report in each House.”

New clause 10—Report on economic impact of implementation of CPTPP—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the economic impact of the implementation of the CPTPP.

(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include an analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) prior to the implementation of the CPTPP with the situation post the implementation of the CPTPP.

(3) The matters which must be included in the comparative analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—

(a) the UK’s trade in goods;

(b) the UK’s trade in services; and

(c) UK GDP.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a comparative analysis of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on UK trade and GDP.

New clause 11—Impact assessment: new states acceding to the CPTPP—

“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report assessing the impact of the accession of new states to the CPTPP on the United Kingdom.

(2) In respect of states that have submitted a request to the Depositary of the CPTPP to join the CPTPP since 2019, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament within three months of this Act coming into force.

(3) In respect of states submitting a request to the Depository of the CPTPP to join the CPTPP following the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament within three months of a request being made.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide an impact assessment on the accession of countries that have made and will make a formal request to join the CPTPP.

New clause 12—Impact assessment: UK performers’ rights—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of performers' rights provisions in the CPTPP.

(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include—

(a) consideration of the impact of performers' rights provisions on qualifying individuals in the UK;

(b) an assessment of the reciprocity of rights across qualifying countries;

(c) consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This new clause would mean the Government must publish an assessment of the impact the performers’ rights provisions in the CPTPP will have on qualifying individuals in the UK.

New clause 13—Review of regulatory impact of implementation of the CPTPP treaty on UK businesses—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the regulatory impact of the implementation of the CPTPP treaty on costs to exporting and importing businesses in the UK.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must take account of the existing levels of costs to exporting and importing businesses arising from trade regulations.”

This new clause would require the Government to report on the impact of implementation of the CPTPP treaty on the costs to businesses in the UK. The report would need to take the existing trade costs facing such businesses into account.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before Government has moved a substantive motion to resolve that the UK Accession Protocol should not be ratified.”

Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 6, line 36, at end insert—

“(7A) The Secretary of State must, after a period of three years from the passing of this Act, lay a report before Parliament containing an assessment of the impact of changes made in this section.”

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 1, which is signed by a cross-party group of MPs who all believe that Parliament should have the right to scrutinise trade deals. It seeks to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the UK’s position toward the accession of economies that are designated—that word is very specific—as “threats” or “systemic challenges”. It would achieve two things. First, the Government would be required to produce a report assessing the impact of the economy’s accession on the UK, and both Houses of Parliament would have a non-binding vote on the UK’s position regarding the accession of the economy in question. In other words, we would take the temperature of Parliament’s view, even if it disagreed with the Government. That is important, because the public need to know about it, so we should not be frightened of this.

Budget Resolutions

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can make more progress if I am not interrupted, so I do appreciate your advice on that.

Talking about advice, I want to return to Citizens Advice Scotland. It revealed that, in the past four years, it has seen the number of people requesting advice and support on energy bills increase by 14 times. That is a shocking increase. Proper investment in green energy can make sure that people in Scotland never have to face an energy crisis of this scale again.

As I have said, the Chancellor could have helped families with the cost of living by scrapping grossly unfair and unequal energy bill standing charges and using a £12 billion wealth tax to fund a £400 annual energy discount for households; reintroducing mortgage interest tax relief; capping supermarket food prices; and matching the Scottish child payment UK-wide. He could have boosted UK finances, but he chose not to do so. He could have introduced the long-overdue essentials guarantee while scrapping callous policies such as the two-child limit and the benefit cap. One of the most game-changing things he could have done is to finally give up on the failed experiment that has been Brexit, rejoin the EU single market and deliver economic growth.

The Chancellor must help businesses and introduce measures to support the tourism and hospitality industries. We know that businesses have faced a very challenging period with covid, Brexit and the increased costs from all sides, making life more difficult for people across Scotland. That is why the SNP is calling on the Chancellor to reduce the rate of VAT for the tourism and hospitality sector—it is not too late for him to do that; reinstate VAT-free shopping for international visitors; and implement VAT-free streets to support struggling town centres and high streets. If nothing is done to halt their decline and they continue to be ignored, as they have been for too long, communities will suffer and far more tax will be lost in the longer term than it would cost to provide them with some support.

The Government could choose to construct mini enterprise zones, working with devolved Governments and local authorities to agree on which sectors and areas are most in need of support. These sectors could benefit from reductions in VAT or from no VAT at all if the need is great enough. That could be tied to businesses agreeing to pay the real living wage. The chief executive of Marks & Spencer yesterday described operating under the current Government as

“like running up a downwards escalator with a rucksack on your back.”

If the Government can roll out freeports, then why not freeports for people? They could reduce alcohol duty for whisky and other spirits to support Scotland’s thriving whisky sector that adds £7.1 billion to the UK economy. Businesses in Scotland can no longer afford to be held back by the UK’s low-growth economy. The Chancellor should bring in measures to support businesses that have been left paying the price for the UK Government’s disastrous Brexit. It is clear that the SNP is the only party committed to rejoining the EU and giving Scottish businesses the chance to access goods and talent from our 27 closest neighbours.

The Scottish Government are committed to protecting the people of Scotland from some of the worst Westminster policies and are making a real difference to the lives of people in Scotland, despite their limited powers. The cut to the Scottish Government’s capital budget and financial transactions have meant that they have had to take some difficult decisions in this year’s budget, but they are still committed to delivering for the people of Scotland. The SNP fully support the £3.3 billion package the UK Government have delivered for Northern Ireland, and urge the Chancellor to make similar funding available—in line with the Barnett formula—to help the Scottish Government deal with the budget pressures they face.

The Scottish Government are freezing council tax—except in Tory, Liberal Democrat and some Labour councils where those councils think that people should pay more. The Scottish Government are also lifting 100,000 children out of poverty with measures such as the Scottish child payment; providing child winter heating payments to help mitigate additional heating costs for households with the most severely disabled children; providing free school meals to all children in years 1 to 5 and to all eligible children throughout the school; providing all babies in Scotland with the essentials needed for the first six months of a child’s life through the baby box; introducing 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare to all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds; and making bus travel free for 2 million people in Scotland, including all children and young people under the age of 22, eligible disabled people, and anyone aged 60 or over.

That is just a snapshot of some of the landmark policies that the Scottish Government have brought in, and all of them have been achieved against the backdrop of limited powers and being tied to a Westminster system that, as we have seen from today’s Budget, continues to do nothing for the people of Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just to emphasise what the Chairman of Ways and Means said, it would be helpful if colleagues confined their remarks to about six minutes, so that we can get everybody in with equal time.

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I was particularly struck by the change to capital gains tax and the reference to the Laffer curve. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that the OBR in particular still does not appear to look at dynamic impacts of tax changes in a way that is essential for the future?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Interventions are absolutely marvellous, but can those who have already spoken be conscious that we are trying to get everybody in with equal time? My advice remains six minutes per speaker. Sir David Davis will notice that he is already slightly over that.

[Sir David Davis]

I have one last thing to say, as I will cut what I was going to say about productivity.

One rule that used to apply in this House was something called a general amendment arrangement, which came after the Budget. That disappeared in 2017, which means that we cannot change the Budget except in a very, very narrow way—this probably should be a point of order rather than part of a speech. I plead with Members on the Front Bench to ask the Chancellor whether we can have a general amendment arrangement at the end of this Budget.

Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey]

The hon. Gentleman made that point to me some days ago in the media, and I agree with him. I said, “I believe that you are earnestly trying to fix the problem and you are trying to reach across both sides”— I genuinely do believe that. But you cannot divorce yourself from the backdrop of queer theory activists who are causing mayhem, and will interpret, despite your reassurances and clarifications—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not address another Member directly. Please do so through the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is not in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should carry on.

[Neale Hanvey]

I will—

International Women’s Day: Language in Politics

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Perhaps I should explain how we need to proceed this afternoon. About 20 Back Benchers all together wish to speak in this afternoon’s two debates, and about an hour of the available time will be taken up by the Front-Bench speakers in the next debate. I therefore urge Members to try to speak for six or seven minutes, which will guarantee fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I just remind the hon. Lady that if she is referring to Members, I hope she has notified them that she intended to do so.

[Dawn Butler]

I have not notified them, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have just been so angry about this. I will withdraw naming them. I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for calling out the language used by those on both sides of the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) is no longer in her place. When she read out her list, it was heartbreaking, and when we saw the family members stand, it broke all of our hearts. The media are failing women and, as legislators, we are too, because that list should be getting shorter every year and it is not getting shorter.

In the short time I have today, I wish to mention three things that we can do as legislators to help stop the killing and abuse of women. I wish to thank Level Up and Glamour magazine for their tireless campaigning in this area. I also thank the Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), for the productive discussions we have had on language changes to the Independent Press Standards Organisation code. It is important that we have cross-party discussions on that, because we are talking about the safety of women. It is a shame that those changes have not happened yet. I feel that the Minister understands their importance, but I sometimes think there is a barrier stopping her from making them happen. I do not know who or what the barrier is, but I feel that she understands the importance of the changes. The second thing we need to do is put in place 10 days’ paid domestic violence leave. The third thing we need to do is ensure funding for refuges.

Let me start by discussing the IPSO code. The way the press reports is often inaccurate and undignified, and prioritises sensationalist headlines over responsible reporting. That approach needs to be replaced with responsible reporting that tackles the root of domestic abuse and the dynamics of power and control. We need to end victim blaming. By doing that, we will save lives. We need to improve and strengthen clause 4 of the code. As Level Up has said, clause 4 deals with:

“Intrusion into grief or shock”.

The clause states:

“In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.”

Level Up says:

“Given the academic research on the negative impact of romantic framings and the known damage caused to victims’ families, Level Up recommends the Editors’ Code Committee introduce a subclause to the effect of:

‘In cases where a person has been killed by a partner or former partner, care should be taken not to use language which could frame the killing as an act of ‘love’, or which could be construed to blame the victim for their death.’”

That amendment needs to be made to the code with urgent effect. We cannot say that this is voluntary; it has to be enshrined in the code.

One in four women experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. I am sure that all the women in the Chamber today have suffered some kind of domestic abuse or unwanted attention in their lifetime. Every three days a woman is killed by a partner or ex-partner. None of those deaths have come out of the blue. Criminologists have established that when a woman is murdered by a partner, it marks the end of a sustained period of coercive control. Abuse does not end when the relationship ends. In fact, the time when women are most vulnerable is when they leave a relationship. The moment someone leaves an abusive relationship is the moment of greatest risk. I urge the Minister to urge the Government to look into a domestic abuse policy requiring employers to provide up to 10 days’ paid leave, as enacted in the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand. By granting victims paid leave, those 10 days will save lives. As legislators, there is no greater honour than passing legislation that saves lives.

To conclude, the third of my asks is for extra money for refuges. The Women’s Aid “Domestic Abuse Report 2024” states that £189 million should be ringfenced for women’s refuge services. Almost 50% of organisations have said that they are operating without funding, so they are saving lives but they are not being paid for it. Some 79% of people using refuges use food banks and 62.5% of survivors are unable to leave their abusers because they cannot afford to.

Level Up has an acronym: AIDA. A is for accountability: murder is not a loss of control, but the responsibility of the perpetrator. I is for image: centre images of victims, not perpetrators, and do not place their images side by side; and use official photos that have been provided by the police or the family, not social media. D is for dignity: a victim’s children, family and friends will read the coverage many times. They will be in grief and shock. Avoid sensationalising language, invasive or graphic details. Dead women cannot protect their families. Finally, A is for accuracy: name the crime for what it is—fatal domestic abuse, not a horror or a tragedy perpetrated by a monster or unknown evil. Use statistics from the Office for National Statistics for context on how many other women have been killed. Gender-based violence is a national and not a personal problem. It is not an isolated incident and many women are being killed each year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I am pleased to follow all these excellent speeches. It has been a worthwhile debate, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for bringing it here today.

Debating the language that is used in politics is important, particularly as we approach an election. As we have heard, we cannot debate that without speaking about the reality of the impact of the language that is used about us and to us. The language in the political sphere has a profound impact on women in politics now and on those who may or may not want to jump into what is sometimes just a swamp. That sounds a bit dramatic, but it is not really. Although it is the biggest privilege to represent our communities—I am sure we all feel that very sincerely—the challenge is the discourse, including in here, the language and the abuse. To hear her talking, I think the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) the Member for Swansea must be using my social media. Unfortunately, we all also recognise the targeted harassment and security concerns that go along with some of this.

Important research by the Fawcett Society points out that the safety and security of elected representatives, and the issues around that, are highly gendered. The fact is that we are not representative. Women make up more than half the population, but only 34% of MPs. We need to do better there. I applaud the new Scottish Government Cabinet. It has been gender balanced for many years now, but the new Cabinet is, I think, 70% female. That is a significant and important step. It is welcome to see all these capable women taking their places.

It is telling that the debate today follows on from statements on the security of elected representatives and on the Angiolini inquiry into the circumstances around the murder of Sarah Everard. Although I have been glad to participate in the last few International Women’s Day debates, there is an undercurrent, which was brought into stark focus again today by the Angiolini inquiry report. We need to reflect on the awful reality of where the normalisation of behaviours, and the amplification of language and attitudes, can lead to. My very deep sympathies are with the family of Sarah Everard. They are also with the family of Emma Caldwell, whose killer was sentenced yesterday to 36 years’ imprisonment for her murder in 2005. Their ordeal has been so awful. They have waited so long for answers, but those answers, while very important, will not bring their much-loved Emma back. Emma was reportedly someone with many friends, who, despite having a very difficult time in life, was appreciated, valued and loved. I appreciate any and all headlines that manage something that should not be so difficult: when talking about Emma, to use her name and not just describe her as “sex worker”—Sky News, you must do better. I do hope that Emma’s very brave family can now find peace.

Every hon. Member who has spoken today has, unsurprisingly, noted the impact of online abuse on their participation in democracy. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke eloquently pointed out that robust debate is not the same as abuse. We could be here all day—probably all week or more—if we started down the road of giving examples that are far from even pretending to be debate. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) was right to say that what starts in fringe spaces does not end there.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke well about language. There is our language here— I am thinking of the recent remarks by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), not made in this Chamber, but the context was that of an MP speaking. That was a powerful and unfortunate example of the power of language. What we say and how we say it does not just reflect on or influence us, but enables people—men, mainly—to abuse women, including not only politicians, but other women who have the audacity to have opinions and to want to express them. That is regrettable, because of the likely impact of turning women off politics and the democratic process. Glimmer of light and all that, though: I was at the St Ninian’s High School careers fair a couple of weeks ago, and the number of powerful, articulate and smart young women interested in careers in democracy, politics, research and so on was heart- warming. I wish them all every success.

There is space to welcome some positives, but I will touch on some other women we need to mention before I close, not least the women in the middle east. We know about the awful and disproportionate impact on women, and that is horribly clear as we watch with horror what is unfolding there: the Israeli women caught up in the Hamas terror attack, the hostages and their families—it is impossible to imagine how they are coping; and the women in Gaza dealing with unimaginable things—with the death, destruction, privations that we cannot begin to imagine, and childbirth without hospitals or medical facilities, these women are suffering beyond belief.

I would like to end on a more upbeat note and to speak about the women of East Renfrewshire who do so much good. I do not have time to speak about many of these brilliant women, but I would like mention the women in my office team, Carolyn, Nix, Freya, Katie and Sampurna, who all deliver every day for our community—I am fortunate to work with them—and my East Renfrewshire councillor colleagues, Councillors Angela Convery, Caroline Bamforth and Annette Ireland, who are all women of substance and hugely committed to improving their communities.

I must also mention two special women commemorated just last week at the 20th anniversary event of the Auchenback Resource Centre. They are memorialised on lovely benches that sit outside the front of the centre. I think that the House would want to join me in reflecting on the great work that Rita Connelly and Irene Simpson did for the people of Auchenback and on how much of a difference those powerful women made to the people who lived in their area. That is a useful point at which to conclude. We all understand that this is a challenging time, but we must ensure that as well as pointing out the difficulties and challenges, we celebrate powerful women like these, who make a real difference.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I remind Members again that if they are going to refer to other Members, they should notify them. Criticism of other hon. Members should only be on a substantive motion.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his fantastic work as the postal affairs Minister, and I can confirm that. My officials have looked through all the correspondence, and all the minutes of the conversations that Mr Staunton had with the Department. They found absolutely nothing, and he did not raise the matter in his call with me. If it were something that officials had said to him, surely he would have mentioned it to Ministers—either myself or the postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). The fact that Mr Staunton did not do so shows that it is quite likely something that he is making up.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I am at a loss today: another Monday, another Post Office scandal. I have tried very hard to pull together my thoughts on the statement, what was said in The Sunday Times, and what was said in this place less than two weeks ago when I led a Backbench Business debate on the culture of Post Office management.

I will ask the Secretary of State a few questions. Will she place on the record whether Nick Read wrote to the Justice Secretary last month defending the convictions, saying that some postmasters were guilty? That is a serious allegation, and I would really like to have an answer.

There has been talk all morning about damaging confidence in the compensation schemes. If there is confidence in them, can the Secretary of State explain why so many leading sub-postmasters affected by the scandal were given such derisory offers, months and months late? That is just not on. The Secretary of State cannot say that Henry Staunton damaged the compensation schemes; it was down to the Government and Post Office Ltd.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Post Office Ltd still employs 40 investigators who secured convictions? I agree with what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said: exoneration must be hurried up and compensation must be paid sooner rather than later. I have said that every month for the last nine months.

Points of Order

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Stephen Doughty to make his point of order first, because it relates to the statement and I believe the Secretary of State may be able to provide clarification.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to the point I raised in my question to the Minister for Women and Equalities about the information that had not been provided to the House, I have a list here that appears to be a list of countries and territories that are changing status as a result of the statement and the order that is being laid, but it does not appear to have been published or to be available in the Vote Office. It includes a large number of Australian states, Canadian provinces and states of the United States, including Colorado and New Mexico, as well as New York city and New York state, and other places. It actually includes some European countries—Malta, Luxembourg—as well as Mexico in Latin America and many other locations. Could the Minister confirm for the House’s interest whether this list is correct?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

First, I believe the Minister did confirm that the order has been laid, and it should therefore be available in the Vote Office. However, the Secretary of State may like to confirm that, or if she does not have the information immediately available, to say that she will report back about it.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to confirm that the order has been laid. I have just heard from officials that it has been laid.

[Hon. Members]

After the statement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We will ensure that it is available in the Vote Office.

[Kemi Badenoch]

It was laid well before the statement to the House. I am sorry it has not been published, but it was laid, so we have done our bit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think the Minister has confirmed that it was laid. We will find out why it was not in the Vote Office and come back to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you been given notice of any oral statement by the Home Secretary today, given that he signed a treaty with Rwanda yesterday? As you are aware, the Government have repeatedly made major announcements outside this House and have not been forthcoming in bringing forward opportunities for Members to scrutinise them here. I note that the Home Secretary was in fact in his place for Prime Minister’s questions today, so he would have been able to give an oral statement. Can you also confirm that statements can be made at any time during the day, and have you been given notice of whether one will be made later today?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for giving me notice of it. As she knows, the Speaker has been very clear on the importance of Ministers making statements first to this House. I can confirm that it is possible for a statement to be made at an unusual time—in other words, not straight after questions, as would be the norm. The Government would need to notify the Speaker of their wish to do so, and if that does happen later today, I am sure the whole House will be notified in good time.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to seek your advice because, on 6 December 1923, the first three female Labour Members of Parliament were elected—Margaret Bondfield, Dorothy Jewson and Susan Lawrence—and these three women campaigned tirelessly for election against all odds. Between 1929 and 1931, Margaret Bondfield became the UK’s first woman Cabinet Minister after being named the Minister of Labour. That is a profoundly important anniversary in our country’s history. Can I seek your advice about how it can be marked on the record of this House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for giving me notice of it. All I can say is that I think the hon. Lady has answered her own point of order in drawing our attention to this anniversary in the way she has done.

Gender Recognition

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

It is this Government’s policy that the UK does not recognise self-identification for the purpose of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. However, the Government are determined that everyone should be able to live their lives free from unfair discrimination. We are proud to have passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and Turing’s law. We also introduced a modernised and affordable gender-recognition process, while recognising the need to maintain checks and balances.

Today, we are laying an order to update the list of approved overseas countries and territories for parliamentary approval. That is provided for under section 1(1)(b) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and follows previous periodic updates. This is long overdue. The list of approved overseas countries and territories was last updated in 2011. A commitment was made to keep the list under review, so this is a further step in implementing our response to the Gender Recognition Act consultation.

We are doing this because some countries and territories on the list have made changes to their systems and would not now be considered to have similarly rigorous systems as the UK’s. Inadvertently allowing self-ID for obtaining GRCs is not Government policy. It should not be possible for a person who does not satisfy the criteria for UK legal gender recognition to use the overseas route to do so. We also need to ensure parity with UK applicants: it would not be fair for the overseas route to be based on less rigorous evidential requirements. That would damage the integrity and credibility of the process in the Gender Recognition Act.

We have finalised details of overseas countries and territories to be removed and added to the list laid today via an affirmative statutory instrument. We have undertaken thorough checks in collaboration with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to verify our understanding of each overseas system in question and measure it against the UK’s standard route to obtain gender recognition.

My officials and I formally engaged with colleagues and Ministers from devolved Governments in advance of laying this statutory instrument. The Government are committed to ensuring that this outcome of the 2020 Gender Recognition Act consultation is followed through and upheld, and the overseas list will be updated via statutory instrument more regularly in future.

This work is important because of the complex interactions between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act 2010. The complexity of the legal situation was reinforced by the judgment in December 2022 by Lady Haldane in the judicial review brought by For Women Scotland, upheld on appeal last month by the Inner House of the Court of Session, which effectively stated that a gender recognition certificate changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the protections conferred by the Equality Act. Labour’s Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010 did not envisage that the words “sex” and “gender” would be used as differently as they are today. That is having an impact on all policy that draws on those Acts, including on tackling conversion practices and guidance for gender-questioning children.

To that end, I am exploring how we can rectify these issues across the board and provide legal certainty. That will reduce the tensions that have emerged as a result of the confusion around the terms “sex” and “gender”, first by ensuring that we are evidence-led in the approach we take—for example, when considering appropriate treatment of children on the NHS, we should be fully informed by the final report from the Cass review, which is due early next year; given the complexity of this area, the review is understandably taking longer than originally expected—secondly, by ensuring consistency in how we implement policy across the board; and thirdly, by exploring whether we need more clarity in law. For example, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has recommended that we clarify the definition of sex in the Equality Act, while ensuring that any further proposed legislation fully takes into account the complexity of issues.

We should not leave ordinary people to suffer unintended consequences because we in Parliament are shy of dealing with difficult issues. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for Women and Equalities for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the chance to respond to her on these important issues. Such opportunities are vanishingly rare, given that I believe this is the first oral statement she has made on the women and equalities brief this year. Like Santa Claus, it seems she gets to work when Christmas is around the corner.

I started this morning by joining a debate on the Government’s continued failure to ban conversion practices, a promise that was made over half a decade ago. I was sorry not to see the Minister there to explain that failure in person—no conversion practices ban, no commitment to making every strand of hate crime an aggravated offence in order to tackle the staggering rise in violent hate crime targeting LGBT+ people, and no provision to schools of the guidance that has been promised repeatedly but not delivered. She has been unable to deliver in any of those areas, and she even tried in her statement to say that legislation passed over 13 years ago has caused those delays—you couldn’t make it up.

Let us be clear. There are millions of British LGBT+ people in this country. I would love to hear from the right hon. Lady what she is doing for them, after her Government ditched their LGBT action plan, disbanded their LGBT advisory panel and frittered away taxpayers’ money on a cancelled international conference that LGBT+ organisations refused to attend.

Of course it is important that the list of approved countries is kept up to date. That was what Labour provided for when we passed the GRA back in 2004. The list was last amended in 2011, when two countries were removed from it and nine added. At that time, the Government said that they expected that it would be necessary to update the list

“within the next five years.”

Here we are 12 years later and the Minister has just got around to it. That is the kind of timescale our country has grown used to when it comes to Conservative delivery. Indeed, even she herself said that it is long overdue.

The right hon. Lady outlined several changes, and it is important that we understand fully why the decisions have been made. Why is there so little information on why they have been taken? As just one example, as I understand it, Germany approved self-ID this summer, but it is still on the list. Is that because its changes apply to birth certificates rather than to GRCs—it does not have such a certificate—or is it because of the timing of its reforms? There is no clarity and no information. We are talking about likely very small numbers of people, but for those individuals it is important to get this right. It is extremely difficult to determine the Department’s approach on the basis of an extremely thin explanation.

Many people living in this country who hold GRCs from the overseas route will be worried about what this means for them. Will the Minister be clear—do the changes impact their rights in any way? What about those with applications that are still outstanding?

As a result of the changes, many countries that are close allies of the UK have been removed from the list. Will the Minister explain whether she has had bilateral discussions with each of them over the implications of this move? She referred to thorough checks, but not to any bilateral engagement; does that mean that none took place? If so, why was there no such engagement on an issue on which I suspect we as the UK would expect to be consulted were the shoe on the other foot?

On that note, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the changes on the mutual recognition of UK GRCs in other countries? Did she consult her newly appointed colleague in the other place, the Foreign Secretary, about the diplomatic impact of the changes? If so, does he agree with them? I note that, for example, China is now on the approved list, but our four closest Five Eyes allies are not.

The Minister mentioned that there was consultation with the Scottish and Northern Irish authorities, but she did not say what the upshot of that was. She also did not indicate what the impact of the change is on our arrangements with Ireland. Will she please clarify that?

Finally, changes to the rights of foreign nationals in this country may lead to wider concerns about the mutual recognition of marriage rights, and other rights such as adoption. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government have any plans in those policy areas?

Let me be clear: Labour wants to modernise the Gender Recognition Act while making sure that that does not override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. We recognise that sex and gender are different, as the Equality Act does, but I am afraid the Minister’s statement only underlines how chaotic her Government’s approach has become, with the Conservatives apparently completely divided on these issues and focused on rhetoric rather than delivery. LGBT+ people deserve better.

[Anneliese Dodds]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is not possible to intervene while the Minister is responding during a statement.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady questioned why certain countries are on the list and others are not. Again, I heard lots of laughter from Members on the Back Benches. I am going to have to reinforce this really important point: this is not a tool for foreign policy. This is a tool that is used to make sure that other countries’ systems are as rigorous as ours. I understand why people will have concerns, but this is not about virtue signalling as to which countries we like or which countries we do not like—far from it. This is about whether another country’s system meets our guidelines.

The hon. Lady talked about countries such as China. It is a very good question and I will explain to her why some countries that we might not expect to be are on the list. I will use the example of Kazakhstan, where to obtain gender recognition applicants must undergo gender reassignment surgery. That includes forced sterilisation, something which we condemn completely. It is banned in our country and is a form of conversion practice. Recognising certification for someone who has undergone that is a compassionate acknowledgement of what some transgender people in other countries have had to go through to obtain their certification. Are we really going to say to people with GRCs from China or Kazakhstan who have been forcibly sterilised by their state that we do not think they are serious about legally changing their gender? Of course not. That is why we have included certain countries. If people have gone through such extreme measures for gender recognition, we should not be giving them any additional issues here.

There are countries with which we work very closely, and with which we carried out a good deal of extended engagement. I am also the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and I work with embassies across the world and Ministers across the world. I spoke to other countries’ Ministers about this issue, and they recognised the sovereignty of the UK. Ambassadors have been notified. We engaged in a great deal of collaboration with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office throughout this process, and we are monitoring the international reaction to the legislation. Members can be assured that diplomatic posts have been notified of the changes, and we have provided them with comprehensive question-and-answer documents that address any potential misconceptions about what this statutory instrument does.

That returns me to what I was saying about why I am so careful with the interventions that I make about equalities. Labour Members do not do their homework. They stand up in the Chamber and produce repetitive lines from social media. They think that they can use LGBT people as a shield for silly policy. We are going to do the policy properly: we are taking a lot of time to do this right. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), the Minister for Equalities, I am keen to ensure that LGBT people across the UK understand that this Government are making sure that we are doing things in a way that will not collapse once it makes contact with reality.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I certainly support any effort to clarify the law, and we should start from first principles. No child is born in the wrong body, and no child should be put on a pathway towards irreversible medical transition. I am also conscious that it will take time to amend law, and I am therefore focusing on what will work for now. That is why we are publishing guidance to give clarity to schools as soon as possible. I remember discussing the growing problem of what we describe as social transitioning with my right hon. Friend when she was the Minister for Women and Equalities. I am pleased that she has come round to my point of view, and I am keen to work with her to see how we can ensure that the legislation works properly in practice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, although I would have welcomed a good deal more detail. I do not know whether it is because the UK Government have been missing in action on their own commitment to ban conversion therapy for the last five years, but they seem much more interested in culture wars than in looking after the rights of some of the most vulnerable people. Of course, this is the same UK Government who are intent on blocking the democratic will, expressed across parties, of the Scottish Parliament. Again, they seem to be more interested in constitutional shenanigans than in human rights.

The Minister talked about unintended consequences. Has she undertaken an impact assessment of the impact of this change on the safety, health and wellbeing of those affected? What conversations has she had with international counterparts, and what specific evidence did she receive ahead of the change that made her decide to remove these named territories? Can she tell us exactly what will happen to those already living here, and living under their new gender, who come from the places that she is now removing from the list? Can she say where this leaves the motion of reciprocal arrangements? What of those from the UK who are living elsewhere? Does she recognise that the UK is travelling rapidly backwards on the rights of LGBT people and that this decision is very much out of step with other progressive countries around the world? What consideration has she given to the UK’s international reputation?

From sending vulnerable refugees to Rwanda, placing barriers in front of care workers who want to come to the UK and now this, we can see the dearth of compassion at the heart of the UK Government writ large. We have all heard the reports that the Conservative party intends to fight the general election on the trans debate and culture wars, but nobody’s identity should be in question. As the Minister herself said, nobody’s identity should be used as a political football. We need to stop that. She needs to reflect and she needs to change tack.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. This is one area where we are trying to provide clarity. As a result of the Haldane judgment, there is now confusion between biological sex and legal sex and certainly in terms of the interpretation that people put on it. A gender recognition certificate had different standards in terms of what could be obtained until this judgment. We want to make it clear, for instance, that single-sex spaces will still be protected. We will do a lot more to clarify that. As I said, the Haldane judgment changes that, which is one reason why we need to look at this very carefully. There were 30 pages in the Appeal Court report, which shows how complex this issue is. The law is no longer clear. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the law is now a mess because of changing times. We need to provide clarity. We cannot assume that the wording as was intended in 2004 and 2010 still works in 2023, and we are carrying out work to fix that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will be calling only those who were here at the start of the statement. Members will know if they were not here, so I do not expect them to stand.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, not wishing to be upstaged by the ex-Home Secretary, the Minister whose job it is to defend vulnerable minorities chooses to make her first statement this year in the House to announce two measures attacking transgender people. Why does she think that the UK, which was the first for four years up until 2015 in the European league of LGBT rights, and has now fallen to 17th under her watch?