Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 729440 relating to play in the key stage 1 curriculum.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker, and a real privilege to present this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Before I turn to the detail, I want to set out three key points that frame the debate. First, England is now an outlier in the United Kingdom as the only nation with no statutory expectation that play-based learning should continue beyond age five. Scotland and Wales already have legal frameworks and national strategies that embed and protect play into the early primary years; only in England does the statutory requirement for learning through play effectively stop at the end of reception, creating a cliff edge between reception and year 1. Nobody’s brains, let alone four or five-year-old children’s brains, respond well to cliff edges. Such an approach runs counter to everything we know about children’s developmental needs and the evidence on how young children learn.

The second key point is that play-based learning is not the same as enrichment, which usually means activities that sit alongside the core curriculum such as clubs, sport, music, trips or recreational time. Those activities are valuable, but they are by definition additional. Play-based learning is something quite different: a structured, evidence-based way of teaching the core curriculum itself. The Government’s response to the petition appears to misunderstand that distinction and thereby misses the point.

Thirdly, we must distinguish between two different but equally vital kinds of play. There is purposeful, guided play in the classroom as a core teaching method; and free, social, physical play in playgrounds and outdoor spaces. I happen to live next door to a primary school and can vouch for the fact that the latter is a great deal noisier than the former, but it is a joyous and happy noise—the sound of childhood. Both kinds of play are essential and both are currently being squeezed to the detriment of our children.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In my constituency of Horsham we already see the positives that play-based education can bring, with organisations such as Woods for Learning, which is a forest school catering for children with special educational needs and other children. The effectiveness is clear enough. Would my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to look at bringing that approach into the classroom, too?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

Woods for Learning sounds marvellous. We know that time spent in nature punches above its weight in terms of psychological and physical benefits for children, so I absolutely agree.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the importance of access to play. Something that many children and parents have raised with me in Hastings and Rye is how many playgrounds have closed or fallen into disrepair in my constituency. I have done an audit of all the playgrounds and found that eight have closed since 2015 and more than half need upgrading. Many of them are run by housing associations that neglect their duty to maintain them. Does she agree that we have to do better and ensure that the playgrounds, often in the most needy parts of our constituencies, are properly maintained so that children can enjoy them?

[Dr Savage]

I absolutely agree. I have encountered similar challenges in my constituency of South Cotswolds when playgrounds are not well maintained, or when developers, having promised to provide them, shove them off into a muddy corner of a field that is entirely inappropriate for children’s play. It is essential for the sake of our children that we make sure that safe, enjoyable and not-too-muddy spaces are provided.

I thank the creator of the petition, Ruth Lue-Quee, who is in the Public Gallery with many others who feel passionately about this issue; Ruth is a former deputy headteacher and now an education consultant. I also thank the more than 106,000 people who signed the petition, including more than 200 people from my South Cotswolds constituency. That scale of support reflects a widespread sense that our education system, as it is currently structured, fails too many children. At the all-party parliamentary group on play last week, I heard even more from education experts on that very point. One experienced schoolteacher told me bluntly that the present model works well for perhaps 10% of pupils, but not for the majority. That is not because teachers lack skill or commitment—they have those in abundance—but because the system is fundamentally misaligned with how a child’s brain works and learns.

On a personal note, I should say that this debate goes to the heart of why I decided to stand for Parliament. The preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution commits us, as a party, to building a society in which no one is

“enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”

and in which every person is empowered to develop their potential to the full. The journey towards fulfilled potential begins in childhood. Play is one of the primary ways in which human potential, creativity and confidence are formed; that is why I was keen to put my hand up to introduce this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Let me return to that first key distinction: the difference between enrichment and play-based learning. Enrichment, as I have said, means activities added on around the edges of the school day. Play-based learning, on the other hand, is about how learning itself is designed and delivered. It is a planned, teacher-guided pedagogy in which reading, writing, arithmetic and wider knowledge are learned through exploration, talk, movement, construction, role play and problem solving.

Teachers are not stepping back—far from it. They are actively shaping the environment, setting challenges, modelling language, asking probing questions and intentionally extending children’s thinking while giving them genuine agency over how they engage in an embodied and creative way. Practitioners give powerful evidence of what that looks like in practice. In one platinum-rated primary school that uses a play-first model, the headteacher told me that children must complete all must-do tasks, which are aligned with national expectations, but the children get to choose when and how to do them during extended play-based learning sessions.

The school has academic standards at or above national averages. Attendance is described as “through the roof”: the children cannot wait to get there in the morning and they are a bit reluctant to leave at the end of the day. Behaviour problems fall and children almost cannot wait to participate. Globally, across more than 2,000 schools and 1.8 million children using high-quality play approaches, we see the same pattern emerging: higher engagement, better attendance, fewer behaviour issues—because children are not wired to sit still for hours a day at age five—and much greater professional satisfaction for teachers, who see their students really thriving.

That brings to me to the second distinction: guided play in classrooms and free play in playgrounds. Guided play in the classroom supports cognitive and language development. Children experience what psychologists call “productive struggle”. They plan, manage resources, seek help when they need it, collaborate, persist and reflect. They develop independence, motivation and embodied understanding, not simply compliance and conformity. Free play, especially outdoors and in nature, serves a different but equally vital purpose. It is where children develop physical confidence and learn to negotiate rules, to resolve conflict, to take manageable risks and to build friendships while experiencing a real sense of autonomy. Free play supports mental health, resilience and social intelligence in ways that no formal lesson, no matter how well designed, can fully replicate.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I have been to see the OPAL—outdoor play and learning—programme at Brookside primary school in East Leake in my constituency. The teachers there are finding that the outdoor play element means that they are spending more time successfully teaching in the classroom because there are fewer issues and disputes to resolve. Does the hon. Lady agree that teachers and schools are pushing for those things both indoor and outdoor, because together they ultimately result in better learning for children?

[Dr Savage]

I wholeheartedly agree. The evidence is incontrovertible: free play benefits students, teachers and parents.

The two forms of play are complementary, but not interchangeable; a truly child-centred system must value and protect both. Neuroscience helps explain why that matters so profoundly. Play activates almost every region of the developing brain, strengthening connections between emotional, social and cognitive systems. It stimulates dopamine and serotonin, creating what might be called a happy, relaxed, learning-ready brain. Those rich, flexible neural networks support memory, creativity and adaptability. By contrast, chronic stress and over-formalisation create rigid neural pathways that inhibit curiosity and learning, and create more stress that is not conducive to a receptive brain. In simple terms, joyful, playful brains learn better.

The issue is not just about short-term wellbeing; it is about future-readiness in the age of artificial intelligence. The skills that will matter most in the future are not rote recall, but creativity, adaptability, collaboration, emotional intelligence, imagination and the ability to navigate uncertainty. Those are precisely the same attributes that high-quality play develops. If we want children to thrive alongside AI, rather than be diminished by it, we must nurture the uniquely human capacities that play supports.

However, practitioners have told me that teacher training in England contains remarkably little on child development, neuroscience or the pedagogy of play. Many teachers know how play works, but feel constrained by rigid tests and by inspections that prioritise uniform outcomes and control rather than curiosity and agency. That contributes not only to poorer outcomes for children, but to burnout, demoralisation and a recruitment and retention crisis across the teaching profession.

It is also vital to remember that the effects of depriving children are not equally felt. Children in low-income families or those with special educational needs and disabilities are most likely to experience barriers to play while also being the children most likely to benefit from it. If the Government are serious about taking into account the educational needs of each individual child, play must form a vital part of their SEND strategy and curriculum reset. That is why the petitioners are not asking for just warm words; they are asking for statutory recognition for play-based learning and continuous provision to be embedded in the national framework, and for every single school to have a proper strategic plan for play, just as they have plans for literacy, safeguarding or special educational needs.

Finally, I return to the three points with which I began. England is still the only country in the home nations with no statutory expectation that play-based learning should continue beyond age five. That is a policy choice, not an inevitability. Secondly, play-based learning is not enrichment; it is different. It is a core pedagogical approach grounded in evidence about how young children’s brains develop and how deep learning takes place. Thirdly, guided play in classrooms and free play in playgrounds are not luxuries. Together, and complementing each other, they build the cognitive, emotional, social and creative foundations that children need—not only to pass tests, but to flourish as human beings in a rapidly changing world.

I hope that the Minister will respond directly to what the petitioners are asking for: for the Government to recognise play-based learning as core and not peripheral; to address the reception-to-year-1 cliff edge; to strengthen teacher training in child development and play; and to ensure that our curriculum and accountability systems give every child the chance to grow into a confident, curious, resilient and creative adult.

If we want a generation who are able to think, collaborate, imagine and thrive in a world shaped by AI, we must start by taking play seriously. Play is not a distraction from education, but one of its most powerful enablers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I again thank the amazing petitioners and all my colleagues who have contributed to this important debate.

I echo the request already made, that the Minister go back to her Department to reconsider this issue. I feel passionately about it; I have spoken with many educators over the last few weeks in preparation for this debate and they have educated me, deeply impressing on me the critical value of play within the curriculum as a pedagogical method. Wales and Scotland are already aware of that, as are many countries in Scandinavia, and the evidence suggests that they are raising children who are happier and more engaged in their lessons and are doing extremely well. This feels like a critical moment for the debate; with AI so high on the political agenda, we really need to nurture those skills of creativity, confidence and imagination—all those essentially human things that AI cannot produce.

The Minister spoke about giving teachers the flexibility to introduce more play to the curriculum if they think it is appropriate, but play should not be a postcode lottery. It should be a right for children in schools across the entire country. I urge and beseech the Minister, please, to take these passionate requests from Westminster Hall today back to her Department.

[James McMurdock]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way at this last moment. Does she agree with me that these debates are called debates for a reason, and that where there is an overwhelming outcome to a debate—one way or the other—we expect the Minister, regardless of who they are or what party they are a member of, to take that outcome away and implement it quite directly and quite heavily, wherever possible and wherever appropriate? Does she agree that in debates such as this one we expect a relevant outcome and not just an exercise in hearing our own voices?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reiterating that point. I hope that I speak for the entire Chamber when I urge the Minister, one final time, to convey this message to the rest of her Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 729440 relating to play in the key stage 1 curriculum.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 711021 relating to assessments and support for children with SEND.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this extremely popular debate, Dr Huq, and it is a privilege to open it on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Over 122,000 people have signed this petition, led by Save Our Children’s Rights, parents and organisations including the Independent Provider of Special Education Advice, Special Needs Jungle and SOS!SEN. Their message is clear: the primary goal of education policy must be to ensure that every child fulfils their potential to the maximum degree possible. They are deeply concerned that weakening statutory duties would reduce not just rights but opportunities.

What do we mean by SEND? It is a legal term: a child has special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty or disability that means they cannot use standard educational facilities without extra help, and if they require special educational provision—extra or different support from what is normally provided. This can include one-to-one support, smaller classes, adapted curricula or therapies such as speech and language support. A diagnosis is not required. What matters is whether the child’s needs make learning harder and whether extra help is essential to their participation and progress.

We all know that the system is under immense pressure.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s allocation of £740 million to the 10,000 new places for pupils with SEND. However, there are still serious funding concerns in my constituency. One school told me that its funding shortfall is around £22,000 per pupil for those requiring one-to-one support. Does the hon. Member agree that, without adequate and sustainable funding, local authorities and schools will struggle to deliver on their legal duty to support children with SEND?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Given the number of people who want to take part, I will proceed with my speech to allow the maximum number possible the chance to speak.

We extended support from birth to 25 in 2014, replacing statements with holistic education, health and care plans, but those reforms coincided with major funding pressures. Families now routinely have to enforce their rights through tribunals, with almost all appeals finding in their favour.

Last week, a new Institute for Fiscal Studies report confirmed the seriousness of this crisis. It found that, since 2018, the number of pupils with EHCPs has grown by nearly 80%, from under 3% to over 5% of pupils, while local authorities face cumulative high-needs deficits, which are projected to reach £8 billion by 2027. The report also shows that the cost of independent special school places is now more than double that of state special schools on average. The IFS warns that, without reform, spending pressures will balloon over the next few years.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case, and we all agree that we want to get the system right. Can we also all agree, because there is not a Reform Member here, that the comments about the system being “hijacked” were completely inappropriate and do not speak for the needs of the children we all want to represent, and that we all in this room condemn that as being without foundation? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

[Dr Savage]

I barely need to respond to that, as the sentiment in the room is very clear. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Only one in five children leaves school with their dyslexia identified. A constituent of mine told me that, although he was diagnosed with autism in lower school, it was not until upper school—thanks to the excellent support at Grange academy in my constituency—that teachers truly understood his needs and he began to flourish. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must improve routine screening for neurodivergent conditions so that every child can be identified and supported early, and given the best chance to learn and reach their full potential?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree that early intervention absolutely pays dividends in the long run.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Early intervention is exactly the issue at play here. The reality is that for many families in my constituency who have managed to acquire an EHCP, it has come only after considerable delay. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must protect legal rights and move from a system that focuses too much on later interventions to one that focuses more on earlier interventions, and that the right test will be whether the new system gets more support to more young people more quickly?

[Dr Savage]

I totally agree with the hon. Member’s intervention. Change must focus on early support, mainstream inclusion and capacity, which is exactly what the petitioners are calling for today. In the light of that evidence, the legal rights given by EHCPs are not a luxury but a necessary tool for ensuring that children get the support to fulfil their true potential. Without these legal rights intact, many families face months or years of legal challenge or delay just to obtain what should be automatic.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Recently, I held a roundtable for parents and carers, and we had a very moving discussion. One parent spoke about how her son had not been to school since January and had missed out on his GCSEs. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a holistic procedure whereby schools and local authorities work with the NHS; that we should have dedicated special educational needs co-ordinators in schools; and that teacher training should include SEND so that teachers are equipped to deal with these children?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I, too, have hosted roundtable events such as the one that he describes, and I agree that collaboration and greater education across the board is the way forward.

Three guiding principles should underpin the Government’s White Paper and coming reforms. First, early intervention must be real. If mainstream schools had better statutory support earlier, fewer children would need EHCPs. Making SEND support stronger and more reliably available would allow many needs to be met before they escalate.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her fantastic speech. In Staffordshire, I met representatives of one of my local specialist schools, who said that it receives 200 applications for just 20 places. On top of that, many of our state schools and those who wish to provide support to students with special educational needs are struggling with capacity. Does she agree that it is of the utmost urgency that our county councils, such as Staffordshire, start to get to grips with the issue of placement and support in schools?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I agree.

Secondly, individual need absolutely must be at the heart of provision. Every child, and their needs, is different. Generic packages or waiting until needs become acute undermines potential. Provision must be tailored so that each child can achieve as much as they are capable of. Thirdly, we need capacity and accountability. The system should get decisions right the first time.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

There are some tragic stories of horrendous errors with EHCPs in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly important that accountability is maintained in the system? If we cannot get it right now, how will we be able to—under the potential threat of EHCPs no longer existing—ensure that families and children are protected and get the support they need, and that the accountability of county councils and local authorities is maintained?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention —I was about to expand on that very point. The high success rate at tribunal reflects systemic problems, not overdemand.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Last week, I was contacted by a mother in my constituency who was not happy with the plan. She wanted to challenge it at a tribunal, but the date she was given for a hearing is September next year. Does the hon. Member agree not only that the plans need to be well resourced and individualised, but that the tribunals need to meet more quickly and be adequately resourced, so that children do not miss out on the support they need to ensure that their journey through learning is not impacted negatively?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I agree that, at this formative stage of a child’s life, a year is forever. It is unacceptable to have to wait that long.

Without capacity and timely support, costs rise and outcomes worsen. This autumn, the Government will publish a SEND White Paper. This is a critical opportunity, but it is also a moment of danger. Change that simply cuts legal rights or dilutes statutory support to reduce short-term costs will fail children and ultimately cost more in the long run. The petitioners and the IFS urge the Government to ensure that the White Paper retains and protects legal rights, including EHCPs, so that each child can access what they are entitled to.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I have spoken to many parents and teachers, and part of the problem, certainly in Birmingham Perry Barr, was that EHCPs were being designed in relation to the budget, as opposed to what the needs were. Does the hon. Member agree that the only way we can reform the whole system is to make sure we have sufficient resources?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and would emphasise that point. We know that investing money up front early in a child’s life ultimately ends up costing less.

The White Paper should also invest in early support in mainstream schools to ensure that SEND support is strengthened, so that schools are properly resourced and not forced to chase EHCPs just to unlock basic help.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Before the summer recess, I ran a consultation session in Dartford for parents, carers, schools and local organisations to discuss their experiences of SEND. I have provided a full report to the Department for Education to inform the White Paper. Would the hon. Member agree with my constituents’ top three priorities: a faster, simpler EHCP system, investment to provide early interventions for under-fives, and more specialist places in properly resourced mainstream schools?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he is echoing the same points that I am making.

The White Paper must also close funding gaps and workforce shortages, so that element 2 funding keeps pace with inflation and so that the capacity of speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and occupational therapists is rebuilt. It needs to ensure fairness and accountability, with clear expectations of quality and reducing postcode lotteries. Finally, the White Paper must embed inclusion across mainstream settings, so that children with SEND are supported close to home whenever possible, rather than having to spend many hours a day travelling, often at great cost to their families.

At its heart, this petition and today’s debate are about one fundamental, non-negotiable principle: that every child, in mainstream or special settings, has the right to an education that meets their needs and allows them to fulfil their potential. The IFS report confirms what parents, teachers and schools are saying. The current system is creaking. It is overburdened and under-resourced, and it is operating under legal obligations that are increasingly hard to meet. My call to the Government is simple. When they publish the White Paper, let it align squarely with the arguments made here today by protecting legal rights, strengthening early support, investing in capacity, ensuring inclusion and creating accountability. If the White Paper delivers on those points, children will not just get by, but will be given the firm foundation they need to realise their potential to its full.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I thank the petitioners again for making today’s debate possible, and I thank everybody who spoke. I hope the breadth and depth of both feeling and understanding across the House is clear to the petitioners.

I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her to her place. I hope she will forgive me for observing that I heard a great deal of empathy but not a great deal of action. I trust that the forthcoming White Paper will set out in much more detail and far more concrete terms what the Government will do to address the crisis in SEND. There is a crisis of funding and of trust, but behind the national crisis are countless families in crisis, pushed to breaking point by the fight to get their children the provision they deserve. We need accountability, training and funding; we need early and timely intervention; we need a system that works with and for parents, not against them; and above all else, we need a system that enables all children, no matter what their challenges, to fulfil their potential. I, for one, look forward very much to hearing what the Government will do to provide that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 711021 relating to assessments and support for children with SEND.

Gender Self-identification

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 701159 relating to transgender people self-identifying their legal gender.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to bring forward this very important debate. I am grateful to the petitioner, John Baic, and the more than 127,000 people who signed the petition, including 132 from my South Cotswolds constituency. The petition calls for a simple principle: that trans people should be able to self-identify their legal gender without needing an intrusive medical diagnosis; and for trans people to live with dignity, not bureaucracy, and with compassion, not suspicion. This means allowing someone to change their legal gender through a statutory declaration. That already works effectively in countries such as Ireland, Argentina and Denmark, and it does not remove safeguards; false declarations remain a criminal offence.

What self-identification does is remove unnecessary medicalised hurdles that dehumanise trans people and delay access to legal rights. Many trans people already live full time in their affirmed gender, without ever applying for a gender recognition certificate, precisely because the process is so inaccessible. The current system does not stop people from transitioning; it simply makes their lives harder—so much harder.

The Liberal Democrats have long supported reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to make it less bureaucratic and intrusive. Our party policy is clear. We support removing the requirement for medical reports, recognising non-binary identities in law and ending the spousal veto—the very proposals that the Conservatives brought forward in 2018. We also believe in a wider approach, expanding access to timely, high-quality healthcare and putting an end to all forms of conversion practices.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am sure the hon. Lady will know that when setting out last month’s Supreme Court judgment, Lord Hodge counselled against reading the judgment

“as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.

None the less, it has caused immense distress to the trans community. Does she agree that now is the time for the Government to commit to a clear timetable for allowing transgender people to self-identify their legal gender, so that they can live with dignity and respect, which is a basic human right?

[Dr Savage]

Dignity and respect are exactly what we are talking about, and I absolutely agree. For us, this is not about abstract debates, but about real lives, human beings and the fundamental human right for someone to live safely, freely and in their own truth. Yet today we find ourselves in a situation where one of society’s smallest minorities is being targeted with hostility and violence.

According to the 2021 census, only 0.5% of adults in England and Wales identified as trans or gender diverse, yet entire newspaper front pages and hours of political debate are dedicated to their existence. This toxic and hostile debate has real-world consequences. According to the Office for National Statistics, hate crimes against trans people have risen by close to 200% since 2018. In 2023, of the nearly 5,000 transphobic hate crimes reported, only 126 led to prosecution—less than 3%. That is not acceptable. Nearly half of all trans and gender-diverse individuals have experienced sexual assault. Trans women without access to gender-affirming care are significantly more likely to attempt suicide—one in five will try. While this is often painted as a culture war, the human cost is painfully real.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

It deeply saddens me to hear some of those statistics. Does the hon. Member agree that what we say in this House matters? It ripples across communities, and regardless of what side of the argument someone is on or where they sit on the issue, at the centre of the argument are people. Does she also agree that we should do our utmost to protect the trans community and make sure that they have the same rights as everyone else, and can live in dignity?

[Dr Savage]

I wholeheartedly agree, and I associate myself with the hon. Member’s remarks.

Let us take the example of Joelle, a trans woman who died of an eminently treatable cancer after waiting for eight days on a general ward, because clinicians could not agree whether she should be placed on a men’s ward or a women’s ward. The delay in treatment cost her her life. That is not to mention the recent Supreme Court ruling and the devastating impact that its implications are having on trans people, who are just trying to get on with living their lives.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I have many constituents who have been really affected by the Supreme Court ruling. I highlight one who works in the ambulance service; she has breasts and uses women’s changing facilities without any issue. Were she to be forced into using other facilities, it would declare to everybody her transgender status. She has lived as a woman and has a gender recognition certificate. Dos the hon. Member agree that this legal ruling creates a real mess that needs sorting out?

[Dr Savage]

I am keenly aware of the distress that the Supreme Court ruling has caused. It seems to fly in the face of common sense when somebody who is clearly living life as a female would, under this ruling, have to go into male spaces. It beggars belief. The ruling hurts not only trans people, but any woman who does not conform to feminine norms, who may be challenged on entering a women’s space. This is not just a legal roll-back for trans rights, but a roll-back for women’s rights.

A recent survey response from a parent said:

“I’m primarily worried about my trans daughter’s safety as a result of the ruling. I’m also worried about my cis daughter’s future and the increasing pressure to conform to restrictive gender stereotypes.”

A trans person responding to the same survey said that they felt:

“Stress, anxiety and uncertainty for the future. More and more I feel like I am having to shrink my life for my own protection”.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I am struck by not only the Supreme Court ruling, but the interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is causing extreme distress for a number of my constituents. I am having to rely on Margate Pride’s own advice to businesses to reassure them about things in the ruling and the guidance—they should be taking into account that it is not legally binding and does not change the law, and that businesses should not feel pressured to rewrite or roll back their trans-inclusive policies based on the draft guidance alone. This situation, in which interim guidance from the EHRC is causing more stress and anxiety than the initial ruling, is not acceptable for anyone. Anybody who thinks that the Supreme Court ruling is drawing a line or making things clear is greatly mistaken.

[Dr Savage]

I absolutely agree. This already vulnerable group, many of whom struggle with mental health issues, are struggling even more as a result of the confusion arising from the ruling.

I was quoting a trans person who responded to the survey. They continued:

“When discussions of safety have been in Parliament, there is a complete lack of empathy for the invalidation and fear trans individuals are experiencing.”

I say to that person and other people in the trans community that I hope they are witnessing the empathy that is being expressed in this Hall today.

The Government must modernise, simplify, clarify and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law and bring in a new process, as they promised at the last general election. We are being told the current system is robust, but how can a system be robust when over 31,000 people are still waiting just for their first appointment at a gender identity clinic? Some will wait for more than seven years. Many will never make it through the process—not because they lack the seriousness, but because the bureaucracy is unbearable, as is the toll on their mental health. Public Health England said that over a third of trans people have attempted suicide at least once. A human tragedy is unfolding as a result of the lack of suitable support and enough resources to see trans people through the process.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. In the Supreme Court ruling, the judge said that the Equality Act 2010 applies to trans people. Does the hon. Lady agree that we have been failing trans people for many years in this country, despite the fact that they are covered by the Equality Act? That has to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I wholeheartedly agree that equality means equality, no matter who the individual concerned may be. Even the Government’s much-lauded £5 GRC fee is meaningless when the necessary private medical reports, blood tests and hormone prescriptions cost thousands. This is simply inaccessible to many people. It is not a system of integrity, but one of delay, expense and quiet exclusion leading to quiet desperation.

Meanwhile, there are some rays of hope. Organisations such as the Trans Legal Clinic are stepping in to fill the gap. Founded just three years ago, the clinic now supports trans people across the UK with legal issues relating to discrimination, housing, gender-based violence and access to care. Its staff are unpaid, its clients often arrive in crisis, and its work is saving lives. Its message to us as parliamentarians is clear: legal recognition reduces suicide risk. Gender recognition reform would directly improve mental health outcomes. We need to get past this toxic debate and focus on the urgent reality of trans people who face violence, homelessness and systemic neglect.

I will end this speech with a simple reflection. There are, as far as I am aware, no trans MPs in this Chamber, but we all have trans constituents, and we all have the capacity to imagine. Imagine waking up tomorrow exactly as you are—same body, same mind—but the world is treating you as somebody that you are not. They call you by the wrong name. They dismiss what you say because they do not see beyond the gender issue. That is the daily experience of many trans people in the UK.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has made a comprehensive opening statement on behalf of the Petitions Committee, so I thank her for that. Does she agree that trans voices are often left out when we talk about these issues and have this debate? We need to remember that there are humans on the other side of this, and we need to listen to our trans community when we make decisions that directly impact their lives.

[Dr Savage]

I have worked closely with a member of my team who is a trans person in preparing this speech. It has been eye-opening for me, as a cis woman, to find out so much about the toll on members of the trans community as they try to navigate these impossible systems. I could have put so much more in this speech that would only arouse even more compassion. In my own small way, I am doing what I can today to try to be that voice for the trans community, which, as the hon. Member said, is not heard enough in this debate.

To any trans person listening to today’s debate: please know that even in a Parliament where your voice is still too often missing, there are people who see and hear you, and who will fight for your right to be yourself. As parliamentarians, we have a choice: we can stoke fear and division or we can show leadership. Let us choose dignity and compassion. Let us choose to recognise people for who they are as individuals, and give them the legal recognition and protection they deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken in support of this petition with understanding and empathy. As a Liberal Democrat, one of my foremost values is to create a society in which people are able to lean into their full potential. In the past in this country, we have tried to force left-handed people to be right-handed and gay people to be straight, or otherwise have punished people who deviate from the norm for being who they are. Let us not repeat that mistake by putting insuperable obstacles in the way of trans people.

Today, we have heard some argue about the right of trans people versus the right of women to have a safe space. This is very complex, and in some contexts it is especially sensitive, but let us keep it in proportion. Trans people are a tiny percentage of the population, and the vast majority of them just want to be able to live their lives peacefully. As has been mentioned, being trans is not a lifestyle choice. It is a path that is difficult, onerous and too often fraught with danger. It is not a mission that people undertake in order to gain access to single-sex spaces of the opposite sex.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to get this right. It is literally vital, given the terrible and tragic rates of suicide and mental health issues among trans people. I would like to leave the Government with the following questions. What measures will they implement to reduce the current seven-year NHS waiting lists? What will they do to address the shockingly low prosecution rate for hate crimes against trans people? What will they do to ensure that tragic cases like Joelle’s, who was left waiting a crucial eight days for cancer treatment, never happen again? What will they do to ensure that there is fairness and clarity for the trans community going forwards?

Trans people in the UK are not asking for special treatment; they are simply asking to be seen, recognised, safe and treated with respect and dignity. And finally, I say this to any trans person listening to the debate: even in a political climate where your identity is too often debated rather than respected, there are people in this Parliament who will stand up for your right to live freely and authentically, and to live to your full potential. We owe it to you to keep the focus where it belongs—on your humanity.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 701159, relating to transgender people self-identifying their legal gender.