Westminster Hall

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

Monday 19 May 2025

[David Mundell in the Chair]

Gender Self-identification

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[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.

[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—]

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I will not set a time limit, but if hon. Members keep their speeches to around seven minutes, everyone will get to make a meaningful contribution.

16:45

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this important debate.

Although, as MPs, we must respect the independence and authority of the judiciary, the recent ruling does not solve anything. Let us be clear that the ruling does not absolve us from our ongoing responsibility to the trans community—our duty to respect, support and advocate for their rights remains as vital as ever.

I am deeply troubled by the rhetoric that has taken hold in recent years, which has been appropriated by those seemingly seeking to sow division and manufacture culture wars at the expense of people who already face hardship and discrimination in our society. It is disheartening to see figures including the Leader of the Opposition appear to wear their transphobia as almost a badge of honour. We must not forget that our words in this House matter and can really impact the most vulnerable. Like many Members, I came into politics to champion minorities and to give a voice to the voiceless. It is vital that we remember the power we hold to raise the tone of debate, rather than lowering it, and to support the vulnerable, not scapegoat them.

Trans people simply want to live in peace, not to be demonised or turned into a convenient political target during times of national difficulty. Our constituents, by and large, are not fixated on which toilets people use. They want change, improved lives and well-funded services. I am concerned by the growing narrative that improving trans rights somehow threatens the rights or dignity of women and girls. I will not deny that in places such as the Prison Service there have been troubling examples of individuals playing the system to gain access to women’s spaces. We must acknowledge and address those concerns seriously.

But when I hear some Opposition Members declare themselves to be champions of women’s rights—well, they might if they were here—I ask not only where they are now, but where they have been for the last 15 years. When violence against women and girls skyrocketed, where was the legislation? When women’s shelters were chronically underfunded, where was the outrage? When domestic abuse cases surged while court access diminished, where was the action? When male perpetrators played the legal system to harass their victims, where was the advocacy?

I do not raise those matters just to score political points, but to prompt reflection. If a person’s defence of women’s rights surfaces only in opposition to trans rights, I question whether it is truly about supporting women or simply a way to target trans people under that guise.

I stand not to provoke argument, but to urge every hon. Member in this Chamber to remember the human beings behind our words, and their families, their communities and their lives. Hate crimes against trans people are rising. We are failing in our duty as MPs if we do not accept some responsibility for the tone and consequences of our discourse.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point. Many people have been in touch with me who are very frightened because of the Supreme Court ruling. Does he agree that not only do we need to speak here but that the Government need to make sure the interim guidance is quickly firmed up as proper guidance, because the interim guidance is causing confusion and fear for so many people?

[Mr Quigley]

I agree entirely. As we have seen many times over the last 14 years, words matter. Ultimately, the petition before us is rooted in compassion, dignity and basic respect—principles that are unmistakably British. Respect for others, fairness and standing up for the vulnerable are values in which we rightly take pride. I hope that we can all agree on the simple truth that trans people are not the enemy and that the power we hold in this place must be used to uplift, not to vilify. My message to all of us here today is that we should not lose sight of that responsibility.

16:49

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I will focus on the text of the petition by talking specifically about what a gender recognition certificate is and is not needed for. A person does not need a gender recognition certificate to update their driving licence, passport, medical records, employment records or bank account, and they do not need one to go into a toilet or changing room—nor do they need a birth certificate to go into a toilet or changing room, I hasten to add.

The point of a gender recognition certificate is to allow someone to update their birth or adoption certificate. That allows them the human right of privacy. A gender recognition certificate allows someone to get married or form a civil partnership in their affirmed gender. Again, it allows them that privacy; it allows them and their partner to have the correct genders on their marriage or civil partnership agreement. A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to update their marriage or civil partnership certificate.

A gender recognition certificate also allows someone to have their affirmed gender on their death certificate. Imagine if your partner, father, mother or child died and they had to have the wrong gender on their death certificate. Imagine how that would compound the misery you are already feeling.

Those are the things that a gender recognition certificate allows someone to do. It might also change their pension entitlements, which is really important for people who are not getting the correct pension entitlements, particularly if their partner dies.

People can apply to have a gender recognition certificate even if they have not had any surgery or treatment. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned the issues with gender-affirming care and gender identity clinics, and the extremely long waiting times even for initial appointments. Imagine if people did not have to have a gender dysphoria diagnosis to apply for a gender recognition certificate; they would not even need to see the gender identity clinic should they not wish to.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that other jurisdictions have implemented the self-declaration of legal gender without any detriment, and without any of the debates we have had in this country even without those reforms? For instance, Ireland has had an Act providing for the self-declaration of legal gender for 10 years. Is it not time that we moved with those other jurisdictions?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I completely agree. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds said, there is still a legal requirement not to lie, with powers to punish people who lie when applying for a gender recognition certificate.

Across these islands, very few medical practitioners are competent, trained and working in this area. If we freed up some of their clinical time, the people who need gender-affirming surgery and treatment would get it far more quickly. The queue would shorten because those seeking a gender recognition certificate would not need a gender dysphoria diagnosis.

The Government could also choose to put other rules in place, and there are already other rules for getting a gender recognition certificate. The petition focuses on the gender dysphoria diagnosis, but it does not focus on the fact that people have to provide two years’ worth of evidence. The Government could still require that people provide evidence for every three-month period in at least the previous two years showing them using the title of Mr, Mrs or Ms, showing them using their new name, and proving that they have been living in that gender. The Government could still require all that while taking out the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, which would make things so much better for people.

As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds and a number of other hon. Members have said, what has happened around the Supreme Court ruling has made things even more complicated and confusing for people—it has not provided clarity. We are now in a weird limbo situation where huge numbers of pubs, restaurants and shops, which are just trying to do their best, do not know what they have to do. They have the interim guidance, which is frankly not very clear, the Court ruling and the Equality Act to look at, but they do not know what toilets they should be providing.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I have heard the argument that the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of “sex” within the confines of the Equality Act 2010—I have inquired further into this as a member of the Justice Committee—and it is now for the Government to legislate further to protect trans people.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am not a lawyer, but my reading is that the Supreme Court tried to work out what was in the minds of the politicians who passed the Equality Act in 2010. That is a difficult thing to do, because I cannot say what is in my mind right now, never mind 15 years ago. The Supreme Court tried to interpret that, and it came down on the side of saying that the politicians were talking about biological sex when it comes to single-sex spaces, for example. Actually, the Equality Act mainly focuses on things like discrimination rather than single-sex spaces, which are a tangential side mention in the Act.

My understanding is that someone can now only be discriminated against on the basis of biological sex or on the basis of their transgender identity, so not their transgender gender but their identity as a transgender person. That removes a huge amount of protection for transgender people. I am massively concerned, and I think the only way we will get clarity is if the Government step up and make a change to the Equality Act.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that the Equality Act was well written to deal with intersectional issues when they arise, that the guidance around it was very clear, and that this Supreme Court ruling has muddied that. As she says, the Government may need to step in to resolve this.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree, and the court ruling made it clear that the Scottish Government had acted in line with the EHRC’s guidance, but that it was the guidance that was wrong, because it should have been done on the basis of biological sex, not gender.

I am aware that I am pushing up against the time limit, but lastly, I am concerned about the direction of travel with the EHRC. It would be sensible to have an independent body look at making these decisions. Given the EHRC’s current positioning and the comments it has made—and given that, a few weeks ago, I was at a celebration of 15 years of the Equality Act and a number of people from LGB Alliance and Sex Matters were invited to that celebration, but there was only one transgender person in the room—I am concerned that the EHRC is not able to be an unbiased arbiter of the law on this issue.

Actually, I think the EHRC has an impossible job right now, because we cannot interpret the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. It does not make sense unless we tell everyone that they must have three toilets—if we are defining all toilets as single-sex spaces, and if businesses continue to be required to have single-sex toilets. The easiest way to solve this would be to say that every business should have unisex toilets for everybody, because then everyone could access every toilet.

However, I do not think we want to get to that position, so the Government have only two options. They can either talk to the EHRC and ensure that it is being completely unbiased, or they can change the Equality Act so that its meaning is totally clear, including on the definition of sex. That way, it would be clear that we are actually trying to protect human rights, particularly the right to privacy and the right of trans people to die a dignified death in their affirmed gender, if that is the phrase we want to use. I think we are failing right now, and changes need to be made to protect our constituents.

16:59

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Mundell. According to the Rainbow Map, which ranks European countries based on their legal and policy practices for LGBT people, the United Kingdom is now as low down as 22nd. We should bear in mind that just 10 years ago we were at the top of that list, but since then we have slowly but surely made our way down it.

Let us be clear: trans people in this country are facing a wave of hostility, misinformation and marginalisation. Regardless of our position on the topic of the petition, that should concern us all. Some organisations have jumped the gun on restricting access to single-sex spaces in advance of the full guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in the misguided belief that they are following an updated law.

I am afraid that the interim guidance, as other Members have said, does nothing to help that situation, and actually exacerbates it. In particular, there is the inexplicable assertion that, in some circumstances, the law also allows trans women not to be permitted to use men’s facilities, and trans men not to be permitted to use women’s facilities. In other words, trans people are excluded from all single-sex spaces.

For me, it is the vigilante enforcement of the so-called guidance that is perhaps the most toxic and damaging aspect of all. Toilets are becoming ideological battlegrounds, with the casualties including not just trans people but cisgender women who are not stereotypically female. It is clear that there is no adequate test for determining whether a person should now have access to a single-sex space, except for a DNA test perhaps, which is clearly not going to happen in a toilet, refuge or anywhere like that.

Out there, and perhaps in this place too, access is being based on whether a person appears to be a certain gender and whether they adhere to gender norms. I thought that we had left outdated notions of what a women should look and sound like where they belong, in the past, but now they are being dredged back up. Worst of all, that is being done by people who call themselves feminists.

The toxicity in this debate is not new; in this House, successive Conservative Governments not only failed to defend the trans community and advance their rights, but actively stoked division and rolled back the clock. Today, although there are calls for wider reforms, including on gender recognition and self-identification, we must also be honest about the political and social climate we are in. These are such important conversations and they require the right timing and sensitivity, not culture wars.

Over the last decade, both in the UK and globally, a lot has happened. I worry that we have started to channel wider fears into isolating an already marginalised group who just want to live their lives with the same dignity and respect that so many of us take for granted. A survey from Stonewall in March this year found that 17% of LGBT+ people have experienced physical assault because of their gender or sexual identity, and the number for trans and non-binary people is almost two in five.

The Labour party has a proud history of advancing LGBT+ rights, from legislating for a statutory right to NHS fertility treatment for lesbian and bisexual women to leading a United Nations campaign for the decriminalisation of homosexuality and, of course, introducing the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which was a groundbreaking change to the law at the time. However, 21 years on, as the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) so eloquently put it, the Act is in need of reform and modernisation.

Today, the Labour party once again has the opportunity to champion dignity and equality for all. Our manifesto commitments include a ban on all forms of conversion practice; improving access to high-quality NHS care, including gender-affirming care; making LGBT+ hate crime an aggravated offence, leading to harsher sentences; and that all-important gender recognition certificate reform. I know the profound impact it has when the law reflects our identity and allows us to live freely as who we are. Labour Governments have always understood that, and we have always known that progress never comes from standing still or failing to show up when the going gets tough.

The petition calls for legal recognition based on self-identification, and I completely understand why. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said, our neighbours in Ireland introduced self-ID without incident or issue way back in 2015. In the words of an Irish lady I spoke to last week,

“the sky didn’t fall in and I’m pretty sure it’s still up there.”

Meanwhile, trans people here still face long-winded, undignified, medicalised processes just to have their identity legally recognised.

The Gender Recognition Act ultimately allows people whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered on their birth certificate to obtain recognition and a revised birth certificate. However, as has been said, that process involves two medical certificates, including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and details of any treatment received. Further, it requires evidence of a person living in their true gender for at least two years and a declaration that they will continue to do so permanently.

Clearly, there is much unfinished work ahead on untangling the legal mess that we have been plunged into, restoring dignity for transgender people, modernising the Gender Recognition Act and ensuring that our laws reflect the lives and identities of everybody in Britain. As a cis man, I understand completely that progress must be built on trust, on consensus, which I hope we are able to come to, and on delivering what we have promised.

Let us begin by delivering on banning conversion practices in all their vile forms, equalising the punishment of all forms of hate crime, reviewing adult gender identity services and ensuring that all trans people receive appropriate and high-quality care, and, of course, making the Gender Recognition Act fit for the future. I invite the Minister to confirm that the Government are still fully committed to those advancements, as I am.

I conclude by reaffirming my allyship for trans people, who now, more than ever, need our respect, acceptance and steadfast support.

17:05

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I, too, thank the petitioners for bringing this petition forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for moving the motion.

Since the Supreme Court decision, I have received a lot of emails from people in great distress, and even fear. I have talked to women who have transitioned who were very confident playing a strong role in their local community—in many cases, standing to be councillors and things like that—but even those confident women, whom I have known for years, are now frightened and worried about how they will manage under the guidelines put in place since the Supreme Court made its decision.

We all know that the NHS is in crisis, and that is also true of the services for transgender people. As we have heard, they can correct their gender on their passport and driving licence with just the support of their GP, but they cannot get that all-important gender recognition certificate, nor the medical treatment they need, such as hormones and so forth. As we have heard, they often have to wait up to seven years just to be seen, or they have to pay significant funds to see someone privately.

Once someone has paid for that diagnosis, there is no guarantee that their GP will prescribe the medication, so then they also have to pay for that privately. In the words of one woman navigating this system:

“It’s a system that lacks any dignity and has put me in real danger as I had to begin to live as a woman long before I had any hope of starting hormones to make doing so safer and easier to fit into society.”

For someone living in the gender they identify with, while not fully looking like that gender, the trauma is huge. They become a target for those who think they have the right to abuse and assault someone just for being different. We are requiring people to go through that for seven years before they can get any help. Then they have to live like that for a further two years before they can get their certificate. We simply must improve this situation.

The recent Supreme Court decision and the EHRC guidelines mean that, even when people have their gender recognition certificate and have fully transitioned, their problems are, sadly, far from over. The Supreme Court has been misreported as having stated that a woman is someone who was born a woman. In fact, it ruled that, for the purposes of part of the Equality Act, the term “woman” means someone who was born a woman. It went on to reaffirm that trans people’s rights must be respected.

However, the EHRC almost immediately issued guidance that was unworkable and did not respect the rights of trans people, and we all understand that it will be contested legally. If a trans woman cannot use women's toilets and should instead use other toilets, what is she supposed to do? If she uses the gents, she risks abuse and assault. If she uses the disabled toilet, she takes up a facility that others might need.

This is a major imposition on a person’s life. When they want to travel, go to the theatre or go to a sports venue, they face the challenge of what they are going to do if they need the toilet. How can we be doing this to people? It is outrageous. One woman facing this dilemma told me:

“Since the ruling, I have seen a flood of hate. I have lost friends to suicide, and I have friends struggling to survive. Public life brings social anxiety. For example, this Friday I am travelling to Manchester. This is my first long trip away from home since the ruling, and it scares me. If I use female toilets, I could be apprehended, I am sure I would not, could not use the men's toilets, and ‘disabled’ toilets also expose me, if they are available. During my transition, I had several ‘situations’ including assault, and I thought this was all behind me. Going back to a life of fear in public is something I will struggle with and would do everything to avoid.”

We cannot allow this to continue. It is not acceptable. One of our core functions as MPs is to ensure people’s safety, and we are not ensuring the safety of trans people. I therefore ask the Minister to talk to her colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that people are seen promptly and supported through their transition. I also ask her to urge the Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), to work with women’s groups and LGBTQ+ groups to provide guidance that is workable and that respects the rights of all vulnerable groups. I further ask her to work with colleagues to consider any necessary changes to the law.

17:10

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.

In 2016, the Scottish Government announced their intention to reform the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland and to introduce self-ID. Years followed, and Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in 2022. Since then, according to statistics that started to be published in 2023, waiting times for gender identity clinic appointments have been increasing. In June that year, 5,273 people were waiting for an appointment, with 45 people waiting longer than five years. At 31 March 2024, that had increased to 5,640, with 184 people waiting longer than five years. Transgender identity-aggravated crime charges have also doubled, from approximately 40 in 2016-17 to more than 80 in most years since 2021, which is unacceptable and must be acted on and improved. The Bill is not improving the lives of transgender people.

Many people have faced abuse, intimidation and threats for expressing any concerns about or opposition to self-identification. I know people whose careers have suffered, or who have been cancelled or dismissed, and respected academics who have been targeted. I have witnessed placards inciting violence, and sexually aggressive language towards women. We currently have the terrible situation of nurses being taken to employment tribunals for standing up for their rights, which are provided for in the Equality Act 2010. Those threats and that intimidation are almost always targeted at women.

During the passage of the Bill, Scottish Ministers repeatedly said it was the most consulted-on Bill in the history of devolution. However, consultation is only meaningful if the feedback is listened to. One of the areas ignored by Scottish Ministers was prison placements. Self-ID was already being implemented in the prison estate across the UK. The issue was raised in the House in February 2019 after a woman was sexually assaulted in HMP New Hall. The then UK Government ordered a policy review; the Scottish Government did nothing. That is just one example where the Scottish Government ignored warnings, leaving them to defend the indefensible.

In the Supreme Court case brought by For Women Scotland, Scottish Ministers argued that, for the purpose of sex under the Equality Act, a woman would be a biological woman, a person who had a gender recognition certificate identifying as a woman, or a person who self-identified as a woman. Had the Scottish Ministers won, it would have meant that the rights of one protected characteristic would prevail over the rights of another—again, a concern raised during the consultation that was not listened to and that has been borne out in practice.

In one example from March this year, councillors who strongly support self-ID attempted to defund Edinburgh Women’s Aid. Their reason for doing so was that it provided some services that did not include trans people. That women’s project provides single-sex services, refuge and support for women, and a lawful exemption is provided for in the Equality Act.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that threat to the funding for Edinburgh Women’s Aid was an absolute disgrace, and that we should be ashamed that it was even discussed in Edinburgh?

[Tracy Gilbert]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Were those councillors really saying that trans people wanted to see vital support for women fleeing violence and abuse withdrawn? Those politicians do not represent the views of any trans person I have met.

Self-identification has an impact on a number of protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. Of course we must do more to help and support trans people to live healthy, happy and fulfilling lives, and we must bring respect and dignity to all. Trans men and women remain protected by the Equality Act 2010, proudly introduced by the last Labour Government, and they must have appropriate services and protections from discrimination in the workplace—but those should never come at the expense of other protected groups.

We all know from the Sullivan review that data has not been collected accurately and that institutions continue to blur the lines between sex and gender, which is leading to gaps in provision for all people across communities. Replacing sex with gender identity erases biological difference, which is critically important for medical and health issues, criminal justice, education, sport and the rights of lesbians and gay men, to name but a few areas.

In conclusion, it is vital that we have open communication with trans people to move this conversation forward. We all have a responsibility to remove the toxicity from this debate. This is not about winning or losing; it is about how we provide trans people with services and help them to live dignified lives, but with the understanding that sex is not an identity, and gender and sex are not the same thing.

17:15

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your wing, Mr Mundell. I too thank John Baic for launching this petition and congratulate him on getting enough signatures to secure this debate.

I associate myself with the compassionate, thoughtful, rigorous, clear and helpful contributions that many hon. Members have made so far. I know that the Minister is here in Westminster Hall to listen to this debate, but I hope that the Government more widely are also listening hard to it, because it shows that we can have a practical debate with compassion and inclusion at its heart.

I see many colleagues here today from constituencies whose citizens have signed this petition in large numbers, but it will probably be of no surprise to other hon. Members that my Brighton Pavilion constituency has by far the largest number of signatories; indeed, when I last checked, it had almost twice the number of signatories of any other constituency. In fact, every petition related to trans rights that I could find on the parliamentary website demonstrates just how trans-inclusive Brighton Pavilion’s residents really are and how much they care to keep things that way. Trans inclusion runs through Brighton like the letters through its famous rock. I am immensely proud to represent such a famously compassionate city and constituency.

However, agreeing with this petition is not just a Brighton thing. The policy of the Green party, voted on by our members, is to allow transgender people to self-declare their gender without facing barriers to securing their rights. It is also formal Green party policy to recognise non-binary and intersex people on legal documents, something countries such as Iceland, Germany and Malta already do.

Of course, as others have already reminded us, the context for this debate is a highly worrying and uncertain time for trans people and their rights in the UK. Daily lives are being conducted in the shadow of the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex and gender in the Equality Act 2010. In what ways guidance for institutions and businesses will be changed permanently, and how that ruling’s decision on one act affects the whole basis of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, is still under debate and facing legal challenge. Meanwhile, my inbox is full of words such as “shock”, “disbelief” and “fear”, used by Brightonians worried about what the future may hold for themselves and the people they love.

As always, however, my brilliant constituents are coming together in solidarity. As their MP I tabled an early-day motion last week that was co-written with a trans woman in my constituency. So much of this debate happens without trans voices playing the part they should, and I am grateful to every Member who has brought a trans voice into this Chamber today. Our EDM is a simple call for solidarity and respect, recognising that

“transgender transition liberates trans people to be their true selves”,

and I believe that every hon. Member in this House can and should sign up to it.

Ahead of this debate, my constituent Abigail, who volunteered on the doorstep during my campaign last year, wrote to me telling me more about what this issue means to her. She said that

“I transitioned in April 2002. Before then, I drifted through life wanting to die, sometimes suicidal. Now, I know who I am and what I want.

Before, life was black and white, and it changed to full colour. Everyone has heard of ‘gender dysphoria’, the pain of pretending to be who one is not, trying to be ‘masculine’ and feeling wholly inadequate, but on transition we feel trans joy, the liberation of being who we really are. It is a gift to society: there are people, being truly ourselves. Many people do not manage that.

Before, I could not form relationships because I could not reveal who I am. Now, I have close friends and a loving partner.

I am a woman. I cannot explain that, it is simply true.”

Let us bear Abigail’s words in mind and try to build back to a consensus on these issues. The fact that trans people are real and have rights, including the right to have their gender legally recognised in a fair process, was something that Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged in 2017 and brought forward for consultation. The fact is that the current process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate remains protracted, complex and very unnecessarily intrusive. The question asked then was how to change the process to make it better, not whether to change it. The plans were officially dropped in 2020—by Liz Truss, I understand, during Boris Johnson’s Government—and no Equalities Minister has yet officially gone back on that decision and relaunched the reform.

I hope that this Government will reconsider. That is the question I ask the Minister today. Even though the benefits of people having their true gender legally recognised are now in question, we can continue those arguments. Reforming the process is still sorely needed, so I ask the Government, “Please support my constituents, the petition and trans people across the country today, and get the reform moving again.”

17:21

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I rise in support of the petition, and more broadly in support of the rights and dignity of transgender people in the UK. Let us be clear: we are debating not just a petition, but people’s lives.

In Macclesfield, we have a fantastic LGBTQ+ community, where people show solidarity with each other, including recently through Stride for Pride, which was run by the owners of Yas Bean. Solidarity is incredibly important; the LGBTQ+ community hangs on a history of solidarity with each other, and the need for it has never been clearer than in recent years, with a surge in the number of recorded transphobic hate crimes. According to Home Office data, such crimes have more than doubled since 2016. That is not a culture war; it is real harm. It is fear, isolation and violence, felt by people who are simply trying to live as themselves.

While that is happening, our international standing in LGBTQ+ rights is falling. As Members have noted, this year the UK dropped even further down the ILGA-Europe rainbow map, which ranks countries by their equality laws. In 2015, we were first—what an incredible thing to be proud of. Last year we dropped to 16th; as of a few days ago, we are 22nd. We have fallen behind countries we once led, and we have not gone backwards by accident. I fear it is because our political will has begun to fade.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out how we are falling behind many of our allies around the world. Does he share my concern that, for the first time, the UK is the only country in western Europe to be rated amber rather than green? It was a Labour Government who took forward LGBT rights in the past, and this Labour Government ought to do the same.

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and why we should be extremely worried about what is happening to our record on LGBT rights. In him, his constituents have an excellent champion for their local LGBTQ+ community.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Under the previous Trump Administration, the British Foreign Office issued a travel warning to trans people because of the so-called bathroom ban—well, the actual bathroom ban—in parts of the United States. Yet now we are in a position where many trans women and trans men are very frightened about using toilets. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government action is needed?

[Tim Roca]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes a good point about how urgent action is needed.

Almost all Members have touched on the recent UK Supreme Court ruling, which has created so much uncertainty about the legal rights of trans people, particularly trans women, under the Equality Act. Let me be clear: I am not questioning the existence or legitimacy of single-sex spaces. The Equality Act rightly allowed for such spaces in reasonable circumstances, particularly where privacy, dignity or safeguarding required it, but its principle was balanced. In my view, the Supreme Court judgment reinterpreted that balance in a way that completely undermines the legal clarity that we had before, and raises new concerns about consistency in application. That interpretation appears to directly contradict the spirit and purpose of the Gender Recognition Act, which was passed to give trans people full legal recognition in their acquired gender.

The judgment not only strips away legal certainty for trans individuals, but risks making the GRC, as Members have pointed out, a symbolic document with little practical effect. The critical question—I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) wants to intervene.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; I was going to let him make that critical point before intervening. It is fair to say that nobody is comfortable with the heated way in which the debate has taken place over the past few years, but does he agree that, in fact, women’s sex-based rights have been ignored for many years and not enforced? That has led us to the place where we are today. There must be space for respectful discussion, to find a way to improve the rights of trans people while also respecting the hard-earned and hard-won rights of women.

[Tim Roca]

Where I agree completely with my hon. Friend is that this debate—as has been pointed out already—has become incredibly toxic. We are seeing, with Reform and others, an attempt to import American-style politics to our country. We need a rational, reasonable debate that safeguards the dignity of all people, so I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point.

The critical question I was coming to was this: what is the purpose of the GRC now? For many years, we were told that the GRC was the legal mechanism by which a person’s acquired gender would be recognised in law, but many people are now left wondering whether a GRC still confers the rights and recognition it was meant to. If a trans woman with a GRC can still be excluded from single-sex spaces and services, what legal certainty does that document offer? Why are we asking people to go through a lengthy, intrusive and often dehumanising process to obtain one?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. The gender recognition certificate is often destroyed by trans people because they have their new birth certificate. The certificate itself is not always an extant document.

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As other colleagues have pointed out, the sky did not fall in when these reforms, also passed in so many other countries across the world, took effect. We heard from hon. Members today about the EHRC’s first proposed guidance following the ruling, which allowed just two weeks for consultation—two weeks to respond to complex legal changes that affect fundamental rights of our constituents. That is simply not good enough; it risks shutting people out of a conversation about their own lives and protections. Although I welcome the fact that the period has now been extended, it should never have been that short in the first place.

Trans people are asking for clarity, dignity and fairness. They deserve to know where they stand under the law, to walk down the street without fear, and to have representation in this place that does not question their right to exist.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Parents of trans people have contacted me about not only their fear, but their children’s fear in the light of the Supreme Court judgment. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it is not clear what they should tell their precious children, and agree that this is an unacceptable state of affairs? Does he agree that we should ask our fellow citizens to ask themselves: “What would I advise if my own child were trans?”, and even, “How would I like to be treated if I were trans?”. If we cannot answer those questions, clearly the situation we find ourselves in is completely unacceptable.

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes that point extremely well. It is so depressing to hear of the fear that many of our constituents up and down the country have expressed to us, and the chilling effect that the judgment has had. I believe my hon. Friend’s constituents have in him a wonderful champion and supporter of the LGBTQ+ community.

We cannot keep deferring justice and letting misinfor- mation fill the gaps where leadership should be. We cannot let this debate be led by the most toxic voices. It is time for Parliament to lead with compassion and evidence, not confusion and delay, because trans rights are human rights, and this country is better than the fear that we see taking hold.

17:29

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.

It is shocking that over 16,000 people are currently waiting for treatment at the London gender identity clinic alone, and that it is currently treating people referred in the summer of 2019. There are 6,225 children currently waiting on gender waiting lists, and waits of more than three years are completely normal. If it takes that long to achieve a first appointment, imagine how long it takes to achieve two medical assessments.

The NHS figures issued last week have completely confused me. According to NHS England, the figures on referral for treatment for the whole country state that only 147 people are waiting more than 104 weeks—that is two years—for any treatment. How is that possible? Are gender identity clinics not included in the figures? It makes no sense at all. I would be interested to know how those figures were come up with. How can we look trans people in the face and tell them that only 147 people are waiting for treatment, when we know that thousands and thousands are waiting for life-affirming treatment?

Fifty per cent of trans and non-binary youth have seriously considered suicide in the last year alone, driven by stigma, exclusion and hate. A local teacher from Dorset told me that he found it deeply upsetting to see young people who feel that their rights are being stripped away. He said the ruling is not just a setback for human rights but an act of erasure.

A trans constituent told me that we need a system that protects all women, including trans women, and went on to say:

“I am asking you to see me and help build a future where trans people don’t have to fight every day to exist.”

What a sad state of affairs.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect trans people? In Somerset, for example, trans hate crimes have increased from 119 to 179. While providing women-only spaces where they are needed, we need to do more to stand up for trans people who feel frightened and afraid and who are being attacked.

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

We talk a lot about the needs of trans women but very little about the needs of trans men. I am deeply concerned about the impact on trans men who might be forced to go into women’s toilets. Many of them do an amazing job of masking and appearing to be men. I am sure that most of us know people but have no idea they are trans men, because so many have fantastic facial hair—more so than some men I know—and incredible muscles and tattoos. Imagine being a trans man who is told that they have to go to a women’s refuge. Imagine being the women in that refuge when a trans man comes in and says, “I have to be here because I’m still treated as a woman.” That is just offensive.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If a trans person has to out themselves every time they go to the toilet, does the hon. Member believe, like me, that that fundamentally conflicts with the right to privacy under the European convention on human rights?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am shocked daily by the indignity that we are imposing and the impact on the human rights of people who are trans.

Let me share some just some of the words used by trans people about the current gender recognition system: “traumatic”, “intrusive” and “over-medicated”. I am pleased that one of our Liberal Democrat Members in the other place is looking at how we can remove the need for a spouse to consent. How can it be compliant with the human rights of a trans person if their spouse has to consent to their getting a gender recognition certificate?

The recent Supreme Court ruling has made life as a trans person so difficult, and calls into question the value of a gender recognition certificate. If trans people who have undertaken all that is required to achieve that status are still to be treated as though they remain in the sex that they were assigned at birth, what is the point of a gender recognition certificate? Self-ID seems to be the only viable alternative. If self-ID is not to be progressed, what assurance can the Minister give our trans constituents that a gender recognition certificate will become easier and quicker to attain? If a trans person has gone through many years of distress, treatment, cost and trauma, they deserve to be honoured and respected, and their legally acquired gender should be recognised.

I recently recruited a member of staff, who unfortunately did not stay with me very long because they found the whole process quite traumatic. The day before they were due to start, they emailed me to tell me that they thought I needed to know that they were trans. I was so upset that they felt the need to do that. What sort of world are we in when someone has to share that private information with me, as their employer, and then is so traumatised by it that they decide they cannot work in the role after all? I felt absolutely sickened. The Good Law Project recently stated that

“given the current hostile direction of travel in the UK…we do not think it is without risk to be on a State list of trans people.”

Let me go back to something the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said about death. I cannot imagine anything more awful than a parent losing a child, particularly in a violent death or a death by suicide, which we have seen in recent years, or losing somebody who has lived their life for many years in their acquired gender, and then not to be able to lay the person they love to rest in the gender in which they lived. There is no greater indignity than that. I beg the Minister: if we do nothing else, let us change it so that people do not need a gender recognition certificate for their death certificate. That is absolutely inhumane.

17:39

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I begin by expressing my full support for the trans community and their right to live openly and authentically. Every individual in our country must be allowed the freedom to live their truth free from discrimination and fear, and to be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

I am especially proud that City of Wolverhampton council, which is based in my Wolverhampton West constituency, made history back in 2016 by electing the first transgender councillor to office. That moment was not only a milestone for our city, but a powerful symbol of what can be achieved when inclusion and equality are not just discussed but put into practice. I am sure that my city of Wolverhampton will continue to lead the way in promoting acceptance and equal rights for all.

In an intervention earlier, I mentioned the UK Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers. As a member of the Justice Committee, I have had the opportunity to inquire further into that decision. The decision confirmed that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, “sex” refers to biological sex, and that trans women, even with a gender recognition certificate, are not considered to be women under the Act’s provisions on sex-based protections and rights. The ruling does not strip trans people of their right to be protected from discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair treatment.

The decision has created a legal distinction between biological sex and legal gender, and that has obviously created a lot of confusion and uncertainty in areas such as access to single-sex spaces. The Government must find a way to uphold the rights of women and trans people without pitting them against each other, as has happened in the past. It is crucial that the Government recognise that transitioning is not a choice, and that the transitioning process often comes with a deep and difficult journey of self-understanding and acceptance, with the associated stress and emotional strain of coming to terms with one’s new gender identity.

The law is not static, and it never should be. It evolves with society, and society itself evolves through empathy and understanding others. I am pleased that the Government have committed to a wider range of support for the trans community, including a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices and a review of adult gender identity services. However, we have a duty to ensure, through further legislation, that trans people are given proper legal recognition of their gender, and that we demonstrate respect and compassion toward all our communities. This is not about special treatment: it is about equal treatment and sending a message to everyone in our country that they have the right to live freely and proudly as who they are, and not as we think they are. Consequently, we need to reassure transgender people in our communities that they have the right and the ability to live as their authentic self, free from fear and discrimination.

17:40

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for moving the motion and for her powerful speech. I also thank all the signatories to the petition. I want to add my voice to the calls for transgender people to be able to change their legal gender through self-identification and, in particular, without the need for recourse to a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

The petition reflects a long-standing call for dignity, simplicity and fairness in how we treat some of the most marginalised people in our society. We seem to be going backwards rather than forwards. The Women and Equalities Committee spent years scrutinising the Gender Recognition Act. As early as 2016, and again in a 2022 report, the Committee recommended a move to a more streamlined, de-medicalised process, recognising that being trans should never be treated as an illness. Yet that is exactly what the current process continues to do. The requirement to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria from an NHS gender clinic doctor is not only dehumanising and daunting for those involved, but these days is practically almost impossible, and inaccessible.

As other Members have done, I would like to bring into the debate the voice of trans people, particularly from my South Cambridgeshire constituency. Let me share the very human story of what it is like in practice—the story of a trans woman who embodies the struggle that the petition seeks to address. Yannifer is a trans woman, a close friend and a colleague of mine. She happily changed her gender in her passport and driving licence back in 2023, after a visit to her GP—self-declaration in practice. I remember the joy of that day, and her joy and pride in what she said was her most life-affirming moment. But that was short-lived, because she then realised that that did not entitle her to the next steps towards a gender recognition certificate, nor to hormone treatment. For that, she needs a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from an NHS gender clinic.

With the NHS in crisis and the reality of the current provision, Yannifer is now two years into what is likely to be at least a six-year wait—a cruel and unnecessary delay for a basic recognition of her identity. She has been able to form the most special of relationships, but she is not able to marry her partner in her own acquired gender without a gender recognition certificate. More dangerously, she has had to turn to private treatment, at huge personal cost, because her GP still refuses to prescribe the hormones that she needs, citing loopholes that discredit private diagnoses.

We have heard today about the mental health impact of this process, and the stress and uncertainty that it causes are not hypothetical. The situation in which Yannifer finds herself is dangerous. She has told me that to procure medication informally is just to survive, because the alternative of not being able to live in her acquired gender and to change and transition, as she puts it, would be “practically suicide-inducing”. So she lives in limbo, denied the basic dignity of legal recognition. There are huge questions over the need for this medical diagnosis. As the Women and Equalities Committee concluded, the diagnosis is outdated. The World Health Organisation has moved from “gender dysphoria” to “gender incongruence”, under a non-mental health classification. The UK is now out of step with international best practice.

Ireland, Denmark, New Zealand and Argentina have all reported positive administrative and public health outcomes from policies based on legal gender self-declaration. As we have heard today, these nations are not collapsing and the sky has not fallen in. They are modernising, but in the UK we continue to ask trans people to navigate a legal process that is, according to the Government’s own consultation, dehumanising, overly bureaucratic and prohibitively expensive. We continue to ask trans people to prove that they are ill in order to access the legal right to live as their authentic selves. That contradiction is not only outdated, but harmful.

Trans people such as Yannifer are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for respect, safety and recognition. I would like Yannifer to know that she is heard, and that we see, value and respect her. That is why I am urging the Government and the Minister to reconsider the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Committee, to allow self-identification, remove the requirement of a gender dysphoria diagnosis from the Gender Recognition Act and reform the Act completely to enable self-identification, as the petition requests.

17:46

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate incredibly well, on a subject that often gets heated. Today, we have shown that we can discuss these issues without that heat. I also thank the more than 120,000 people who signed the petition, especially the 250 people who did so from my constituency.

ILGA-Europe’s recent report saw the UK fall to 22nd place in the rainbow map of Europe. That should really concern us all; it is not just a warning about LGBT rights, but a signal of a broader erosion of democratic protections across Europe. At the heart of the decline is a failure to uphold the dignity and autonomy of trans people, particularly when it comes to something as fundamental as legal gender recognition. I am exceedingly embarrassed about this—to fall so far, when just 10 years ago we were No. 1, is unforgiveable. We must all look at ourselves hard in the mirror for allowing that to happen.

In recent debates, we have heard Ministers affirm that LGBT rights in the UK remain protected, and that we are firmly committed to equality. I welcome that, as it is something we all want to see upheld both in spirit and in practice. However, I have heard fears from countless people, including many of my constituents and parents of trans children. Some have actually spoken to me about leaving the UK. How embarrassing that we have fallen so far that people would rather not live here because they feel their lives are so unliveable in the society that we are creating.

[Mr Quigley]

Naively, when I was at university in the ’80s and early ’90s, I believed that I would see the end of sexism and racism. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have fallen so far backwards over the last 14 or 15 years, and that it is entirely down to a party obsessed with staying in power, rather than doing the best for its citizens?

[Olivia Blake]

I have been here talking about migrants and other communities who have been victimised and used as scapegoats repeatedly over the past 15 years. It has been sad to see; unfortunately we are seeing it across the globe, but we should all be standing up against it. We should be dealing with people’s daily concerns, rather than using rhetoric, as we do far too often.

As we have heard from colleagues today, trans people will not feel protected right now. They are navigating rising levels of hate, extending delays to healthcare and increasing uncertainty about how existing laws apply to their lives. They are being told that their identity—their sense of self—is something that we can debate, question and deny. I think that is wrong and I urge all people outside the House who are looking at the interim guidance not to have knee-jerk reactions to that but to fully take part in the consultation. That consultation should be 12 weeks long, as previous consultations have been. For something that will mean such a big change for individuals, the EHRC has got the consultation period wrong and needs to extend it even further.

I just think this is quite sad. It is right that people have a way to self-identify their legal gender. That matters for many reasons. I think a lot of politicians, sadly and wrongly, think, “Isn’t it a shame that trans people are trans people?” How completely wrong is that? Too many people live in fear, with false statistics, about the risk that people pose to women—

[Tracy Gilbert]

Does my hon. Friend agree that trans women and trans men should have services and provision on that basis, and that sex and gender are two very separate things?

[Olivia Blake]

I think it is very problematic if we go down that track for all services. I think that the equality right and how it was interpreted previously were correct, and that people should be excluded where there is a need for that. It should be on the basis of a balance, and I think that is true for all protected characteristics and when they come into conflict.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Olivia Blake]

No, I will make some progress if my hon. Friend does not mind, because I have only a little time.

The idea that it is a shame or somehow sad that people are trans is completely and utterly wrong. As has been said, trans joy exists. The many trans people and non-binary people I know live joyful lives. We should celebrate those lives, rather than suggesting that it is a mental health condition even though the WHO has said it is not. Creating a protracted, medicalised route just to get a piece of paper that says that one’s correct gender is really problematic and something that we should continue to question. This is why the right to self-identify one’s legal gender really matters. It is about the basic freedom to live as oneself. That means being able to go to the local supermarket or local café and not be fearful of being challenged when going to the bathroom. It is about being able to live without intrusive medical gatekeeping that means that it takes years and years for people just to get to that point.

We know that we are out of step internationally here. We know that the health advice has moved on, just as the thinking about hysteria moved on from the time when women got categorised as having that. Many groups of people have been wrongly categorised as mentally ill just for being themselves. We need to get away from the gatekeeping, outdated bureaucracy and humiliation that we have heard about again and again in consultations about the process as it stands.

The EHRC’s recent guidance on sex and gender in single-sex services has created further concern among my constituents, as well as charities, schools and employers who want to act properly but now feel unclear about their responsibilities. We need clarity that reinforces inclusion, not ambiguity that creates fear. I am pleased that Labour committed in our manifesto to making the GRC process simpler, but the recent judgment is very concerning. It risks undermining the existence of these certificates in themselves if we are not careful and if the guidance goes the wrong way.

Trans healthcare, too, is an area where we need action urgently. Current NHS waiting times and the indefinite ban on puberty blockers are leaving people in limbo for years. This is not just a policy challenge. It is a public health issue and one that requires compassion, evidence and leadership. I hope that the puberty blockers trial is as wide as possible and as scientific as it can be.

Thank you, Mr Mundell, for allowing me to speak for this long. Rights are not a zero-sum game. We cannot protect one group without protecting another; we need to strengthen the whole. I urge Ministers to continue listening to trans people, to ground decisions in evidence, and to act with the courage that true equality demands and make sure that instead of us just standing up here, we have proper consultation, which has the voice of trans, non-binary, intersex and all people represented in the evidence that it hears, and that that is taken on board.

We do not want a situation where we are trying to police people going into toilets, which could be problematic to those who do not fit or conform to gender stereotypes, as we have heard. This is not just about toilets; it is about dignity—dignity in death, as we have heard, and dignity in having privacy and the ability to have that joyful life that we all want everyone to have.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Martin Rhodes, and I assure Dr Arthur that, after I leave the Chair, he will be called.

17:55

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Mundell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairing. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her introduction on the petition. My constituency has the second-highest number of signatories to this petition—after Brighton Pavilion—which has also been reflected in my inbox. I thank those constituents for making their views known through signing the petition and through correspondence, and those with a range of different views on the issue for contacting me.

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

This petition refers to people’s self-identity. Let us be clear: all of us have our own identity. How we see ourselves is an integral part of the human condition, and is universal. It is part of how we understand ourselves, how we seek to relate to others, and how we feel about who we are. We all have our own journey to self-identity, and hopefully to acceptance of that identity.

Legislation cannot stop that innate self-identification of human nature, but legislation can frame how easily we can live that identity honestly, openly and safely. That is as relevant for trans men and trans women as it is for any human being. Supporting trans people to have their self-identity respected is as important for all of us. That is not a claim for special treatment; it is a call for equality in how people are treated.

I believe that we need to modernise, simplify and reform the Gender Recognition Act. That particularly means reviewing adult identity services to ensure that all trans people can access appropriate, timely and high-quality care. Trans people are so often let down by healthcare and support services. That said, I recognise that easier access to gender recognition certificates is meaningful only if it enables trans women and trans men to live with dignity and respect.

That brings me to the recent Supreme Court case. It is extremely important to highlight that the Court warned against

“reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”,

and noted that transgender people are protected under the Equality Act through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Although the ruling clarifies the legal definition of sex in the Equality Act, it does not clarify how the Act should be implemented, or how the Gender Recognition Act interacts with the Equality Act and the right to privacy.

There needs to be an inclusive process of working through the Equality Act and its range of protected characteristics. The Supreme Court judgment provides clarity on the legal definition of one of those protected characteristics, but does not in any way negate the importance of the other protected characteristics, including gender reassignment. It is clear that there are complexities in how these protections interrelate, and careful thought must be given to guidance on this.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is due to provide an updated code of practice. I believe that its deliberations must be informed by the voices and lived experience of those affected, and I have written to the commission to that effect. The interim guidance that it has published so far has only highlighted the complexity and the urgent need for appropriate and inclusive consultation and engagement. That process is necessary to avoid institutions and businesses acting in ways that fail to fully take into account the full range of responsibilities in relation to all protected characteristics.

Action without a full recognition of responsibilities risks causing harm not only to trans people, but to non-binary individuals and those whose gender expression does not conform to stereotypical expectations of their sex. There is a danger that the law could be implemented in such a way that it forces trans individuals into distressing and unsafe scenarios simply for existing in public spaces. At the same time, it could put public and private organisations potentially in breach of their legal responsibilities and at risk of not protecting effectively those they seek to protect. That is why broad, inclusive consultation is vital. There is a need for actions that are proportionate, risk-based, trauma-informed and inclusive and that have appropriate safeguards and protections for all.

The Supreme Court judgment that “sex” in the Equality Act means “biological sex” creates an impossible dilemma for many trans people in everyday situations. A trans man could be legally required to use a women’s changing room because he was assigned female at birth, but because he presents as male he may be challenged or even excluded by staff or other users, who assume he is in the wrong place. At the same time, if he tries to use the men’s changing room—the one that matches his gender identity and appearance—he risks being accused of unlawfully accessing a single-sex service that is not intended for him. Essentially, the situation leaves him and other users of those facilities without a dignified option.

I have long campaigned for LGBT+ rights and will continue to do so. We must never lose sight of the fact that real people’s lives are at the heart of the issue. Equality depends on our upholding our shared values such as open-mindedness, and it requires continued advocacy for groups of individuals who are too often marginalised in our society. Trans people have the right to live with dignity, safety and equality under the law. These are worrying times for many, and I share many of the anxieties. I regret the nature of too many of the discussions about these issues, but I remain hopeful that if we listen calmly to each other, there is a way forward rooted in the shared values of inclusivity, respect and equality. With those values, and the actions that need to lead from them, we can all benefit.

The denial of the right of one community or one person to be openly and genuinely themselves diminishes us all. It is our challenge as legislators to address these issues. I commend the petitioners for taking the opportunity to remind us in this place of that responsibility. To them, I say thanks.

18:02

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Furniss. Is it not fitting that we have had a change of gender in the Chair during this debate? It is quite incredible.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), who is not in his place just now, summed up so much when he said that being trans is not a choice. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds made an incredibly important point that applies to everyone when she said that everybody has a right to be themselves. In my maiden speech, I made the point that I would be there for everyone in my constituency. In the last Parliament, many people across the UK did not feel that they could approach their MP to discuss this issue. That is something that should shame us all.

I consider myself an ally of the LGBT community, not least because I am the proud father of a gay woman. I hope that we will hear today from the Minister about the implementation of our manifesto in this area. This time last year, on so many doorsteps in Edinburgh South West, I was pointing to that section of the manifesto and saying, “This is our commitment,” so hopefully we will see it sooner rather than later.

I want to talk about two people I spoke to on the doorstep last year. Without doubt, the person I spoke to longest was the mother of a trans woman. It was incredibly moving. She talked about how, as her daughter moved through puberty, she struggled to come to terms with herself, and about the problem that that caused her. Her daughter believed that if she did not eat, it would delay the onset of puberty. It led to her almost dying. That told me that perhaps there is a case for puberty blockers; in an absolute minority of cases, where they could save a life, they are really important. That girl is now a woman. The last I heard, she was leading a full life, thanks to her quite incredible mother.

A few weeks after that, I spoke to the mother and father of two teenage girls. They were concerned about this debate, because they were worried that their daughters would go into a toilet and be confronted by a trans woman or—worse still, as they saw it—by someone masquerading as a trans woman. It is tempting to view those two sets of parents as opposed to each other, but in fact they had so much in common: they both loved their children and just wanted the best for them.

Quite naively, I dreamed that the solution was perhaps to get the parents together so that they could see the issue from different perspectives and find common ground. Scottish MPs will know that that was incredibly difficult in Scotland, because the debate in Scotland became incredibly toxic. I do not know how bad it was in England, but it could not have been worse than it was in Scotland. The thing we should be ashamed of is that it became difficult to talk about the issue in social circles, because nobody knew what perspectives people had or how strong their feelings were. It does not support the rights of a minority group when we cannot even talk about their rights in those settings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) said that we need a respectful debate. That is right. It is good that the EHRC’s consultation around the Supreme Court’s ruling has been extended to six weeks, and I hope that it is open and inclusive. I also hope that, as well as people suggesting to the EHRC how they think the world should be, we find space to listen to one another, because that is what has been missing from this debate for the past five years or so.

18:06

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on leading the debate with such a powerful speech on behalf of the 120,000 people who want us to consider the petition carefully. I thank them for bringing the voice of the trans community into this Chamber. They need to be heard. More than that, they need to be listened to.

For the past six to eight months, and in fact the past three and a half years, this debate has been a big part of my life. That is not just because I am a Scottish MP— I recognise what the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was talking about—but because I have been at the centre of the formation of Liberal Democrat policy on this issue. The revised policy that we came up with sets out our continued commitment to self-ID. The Conservative Government’s 2018 proposals to reform the gender recognition process, which we first endorsed in 2014, are at the heart of it.

The proposals would remove the requirement to provide medical reports confirming a gender dysphoria diagnosis, as well as the spousal veto—a horrible requirement for the person applying for a GRC to provide a statutory declaration of consent from their spouse. Applicants would still have to prove that they have lived in their affirmed gender for at least two years and make a legal declaration that they intend to live permanently in that gender for the rest of their life—put simply, self-ID. It would be clearer, simpler and less intrusive.

However, that is just the paperwork. It is not really what this issue is about. Over the past year of listening to various groups and hearing their views on what is needed to protect the trans community and the LGBTQ community in general, I have learned that it is, more than anything else, about valuing people. It is about recognising their worth, their human rights and their right to live a life free of victimisation, discrimination, fear and anxiety. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds said, this is not about an abstract debate, but about real lives and real people.

That is where I begin to struggle with many of the things that have been said over the past three years. This is about people who are living in distress that has been caused by the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC interim guidance. For so many of them, that has meant that the lives they have led, in some cases for decades, quite straightforwardly, simply and happily—recognised by their peers—have been thrown into doubt. Suddenly it seems that in this country, rather than making progress and protecting people’s rights, we are regressing.

We have had this toxic debate for three years in Scotland; I suppose in some places it has been much longer. We have had three years of pitting one vulnerable group against another: on the one hand the rights of women, and on the other hand the rights of the trans community. To me, it is utterly ridiculous to pit against each other two vulnerable groups who are both afraid and continually victims of discrimination and violence. We are completely losing sight of the damage that we are doing to both groups.

I completely understand and sympathise with the arguments put forward by those who fear that women could be vulnerable to attack in certain circumstances and single-sex spaces unless we protect them. Of course we should protect them, but that is not anything to do with the rights of the trans community. They are not the problem, and their rights should not be impacted by the rights of women. One person’s rights should never be contingent on another’s, and yet that is what we have done. The statistics we have heard are frightening; hon. Members have outlined how we have made people from the trans community into targets. It saddens me to my core that the debate around fundamental rights—maybe those of your friends, your family, your neighbours or your work colleagues—has been so toxic.

Just recently, a friend of mine whose child is trans told me that since the ruling she now worries about how they are expected to go about their life every day and do simple things that we take for granted—like going to the toilet at work, for goodness’ sake. Funnily enough, not so long ago she told me how wonderful it was, now that they had completed their transition, to see them happy in themselves, living the life that they had always wanted to live. That is why I believe that we need to think seriously about self-ID. We need to think seriously about how we can put an end to the confusion and the anxiety that are being felt by too many people in this country.

Just think for a moment: what if we had been talking about your child, brother, sister or friend? Yes, there are questions that we have to overcome about prisons and single-sex spaces, but those problems should not come before protecting the rights of anyone. Somehow that has been lost in the toxic debate, but we have to stop. We have to change the narrative around this issue. It is clear today that people want us to find a way forward, stop rehearsing bitter arguments and look for ways to help one another, help people find a way forward and allow everyone to be free to live the life that they want to lead.

I remember a time not unlike this one, when another campaign of fear—the threat of HIV and AIDS—made life insufferable for the gay community in this country. That we would now live in a society that embraces same-sex relationships and allows us all to be free to love who we love was unimaginable then, but we have changed. My generation—my friends—went through hell then. Well, now another generation needs our help and support in protecting their rights. If we do not protect their rights, we risk losing all our rights. Women’s rights, children’s rights, men’s rights, minority rights and trans rights are all human rights. If we do not protect one, we risk losing them all.

I ask the Government to examine what they are doing at the moment. A friend of mine said to me today that we should judge our society by how we treat our vulnerable minorities. I ask the Government to do that: to look at the legislation, look at how it is treating our vulnerable minorities, and ask themselves if that is acceptable. Or, if they are prepared to put an end to the confusion, the anxiety and the fear—

[Tracy Gilbert]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s giving way on that point. When she talks about vulnerable categories, does she include women, lesbians and gay men?

[Christine Jardine]

I think I have made it absolutely clear that I include women and I include all the LGBT community. But what I object to, with every fibre of my being, is those vulnerable groups being pitted against each other. I think we all do.

Every vulnerable group in this society deserves the protection of not just their Government but their community. I ask the Government to think about that and think about whether it is time to allow trans people in this country to have the same freedom as others. That is not a privilege, but a right. I mean the same freedom to live the life that they want to live—the life that they would have in Ireland, Germany, Iceland and so many other countries. We are falling behind and letting our people down.

18:15

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I am grateful for the many thoughtful contributions from Members today. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee; I recognise the important reflection of trans voices that she brought to the Chamber. It was compassionate and absolutely right to recognise strong feelings and concerns on all sides. Friends, constituents and colleagues are affected by today’s debate. Dignity, understanding and respect are crucial. I am always mindful that we are talking about people in this debate or any debate, and listening to people, parents and communities is crucial.

Last month’s Supreme Court ruling importantly clarified the law as per the Equality Act. As we have heard today, many real practicalities still need to be agreed and implemented. Many constituents, including several of mine, have been in touch with their MPs to ask what the judgment means for them. The judgment rightly calls for the rights of trans and non-binary people to be upheld as per the Equality Act. It is no surprise that this wider uncertainty has resulted in this petition. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss where the Opposition sit on this matter and where the Government must simply do more in light of the concerns.

I agree that it is important to lead the discussions in the right tone, and that is always my approach. As the shadow Minister for Women, I believe that we must ensure that we work for a future in which women do not have to fight for their rights every time, and nobody has to keep fighting for all their rights every time. That reflects the comments of the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), which summed up this afternoon’s tone and approach.

Let me affirm on behalf of my party that we strongly believe that every individual should live a life of dignity, be free to live their lives and be safe—safety has been very much raised today. They should be supported in that. We are an inclusive party that is focused on equality. We will always stand up for the rights of women and girls, too.

[Vikki Slade]

How can the hon. Member square new clause 21 to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which would expose trans people in everything that they do, with her commitment to the safety of trans people? That does not seem to fit together.

[Mims Davies]

I think that it is a matter of fact that biological sex is crucial when it comes to correct service delivery and approach. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but when it comes to the understanding of treatment, it is important for there to be a distinction. But I understand the point.

Consider single-sex spaces such as refuges and NHS provision—screening programmes, for example: the protection and privacy of people, including women and girls, is paramount. However, as the hon. Lady just said, that must be balanced by the needs of others, so third spaces and understanding are also important. As I have already said, practicality is important. As many Members have said, this is not a zero-sum game for anybody, whether that is women and girls, and their safe spaces. As we have also heard, there must be suitable spaces for disabled people. This issue is about rounded equality for all. I truly believe that is vital.

We know that the Labour Government have not always necessarily agreed with the judgment in the recent case. Of course, Scottish Labour backed the SNP’s self-ID plans in Holyrood. Those were challenged in the Supreme Court and shown to be incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.

As we have heard again today, some people still have strong views about self-ID, which I recognise. However, for those concerned about the gender recognition certificate process, I highlight that that had already been reformed following feedback, which was rightly listened to. The then Government agreed with the GRC process, because it was hoped that it would create a balance between significant checks and balances within the system. But as we have heard today, different people take different stances.

In light of the ongoing debate and the Supreme Court judgment, it is now for this Government to find a way to clarify how they intend to implement their manifesto commitment to modernise and simplify the GRC process without compromising the rights of women and girls. Those buzzwords signify an intent to change, but what people living this right now want to know is the detail. Hopefully, the Minister will today start to clarify matters or begin to set a timetable for proposals to be scrutinised by the House, the public and all the different voices in this debate. That is crucial, because there is public concern that the Government may be introducing self-ID by the back door—not deliberately, but perhaps through processes that some may see as careless and others may see as suitable.

I address a specific point. It is a concern that Government Ministers have admitted that the Passport Office does not accurately record sex. A passport is one of the most recognised and commonly used Government issued IDs with a sex marker. Can the Minister say why the Government have not sought to remedy the situation? It clearly leaves a potential route for self-ID, creating uncertainty for service providers trying to comply with the law under the Equality Act. Today, we are talking about clarity; all concerned need clarity.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The shadow Minister is making the case that biological sex is incredibly important for things such as medical procedures—absolutely. However, I am not sure how she thinks that the marker on someone’s passport has any relationship with that. If, as has been argued, biological sex is immutable and cannot be changed, surely it does not matter what someone’s passport, driving licence or even birth certificate says? There is, apparently, some magical way of ascertaining people’s biological sex that nobody has yet told me about, unless it is a DNA test. Why does biological sex matter on a passport if, as a number of people have said, it is immutable and cannot be changed anyway?

[Mims Davies]

The previous Government commissioned Professor Alice Sullivan to ensure that the collection of data on sex and gender was consistent across Government. As I was saying, it would be good to know whether the Government will set out a timeline for implementing fully the recommendations from the Sullivan review. I understand the point made by the hon. Lady and other Members, but it is important for people to understand data collection.

[Christine Jardine]

I find this confusing and incomprehensible. Why do the Government need that data? Is there not also a danger that it will get into the hands of the wrong people and there will be a breach of privacy? I just do not understand why we need it. Medical records need it, yes, but do the Government?

[Mims Davies]

Perhaps the hon. Lady can ask the Minister about the Sullivan review and we will get some clarity on that.

Additionally, the Government should be issuing schools guidelines at pace to seek consistency, as we have just been talking about, and understanding across the education landscape. Teachers and headteachers need to have confidence that they will not be open to challenge, that self-ID will not operate in the school system, and that parents are involved at every stage of their youngster’s education.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on the matters raised not just by me, but by Members across the Chamber and in the petition. It is important to ensure that women and girls have a safe and fair experience in life, that there is equality for all, and that we get the practical understanding that trans people need urgently, as the petitioner and many Members have raised. As we have heard today, this should not be a zero-sum game. There should be no failings in duties and people should be able to deliver on the judgment, but ultimately there should be a reassurance that all will be able to thrive in life respectfully and positively, with good guidance and support.

18:27

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and to respond to this debate, which has been held with tremendous respect for each other, for trans people and for the issues that we face in navigating through the situation, particularly after the Supreme Court ruling. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for the way in which she opened the debate and for her extremely powerful speech. Bringing the voices of the trans community into these debates is important indeed.

I am speaking of behalf on my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who is unable to be in the House due to a visit abroad. We will discuss the debate and the issues raised, and I am sure she will update the House on some of these matters in due course. I also thank all those who signed the petition and all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.

I am proud to be a member of the party that introduced the Equality Act 2010, which many colleagues have referred to. It is indeed world-leading legislation, which has reflected our commitment to ensuring that every member of our society is treated with dignity and respect, and afforded the same basic rights as each other. Our commitment to those principles remains resolute, and I am sure that everyone who has participated in the debate can agree that they are at the heart of what we want our society to represent.

I will repeat one phrase that really stood out, which is that everyone has a right to be themselves. It is important that we keep in our minds those who, as has been talked about today, are feeling very insecure. While I may not be able to cover all the points, I will do my best to do so. I also want to give assurance that the comments that have been made are on record and have been heard by the Government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned, Labour Governments have a very strong history of promoting LGBT+ rights. From the decriminalisation of homosexuality under Harold Wilson’s Government in 1967 through the repeal of section 28 to the introduction of civil partnerships in the early 2000s, we have consistently led the way in advocating for legal equality and social progress for LGBT+ people. It was our then Labour Government that equalised the age of consent, extended adoption rights to same-sex couples, and introduced legislation aimed at combating discrimination and hate crime in the workplace. We laid the crucial groundwork for marriage equality and elevated LGBT+ issues to the forefront of public and political discourse—a legacy that I know Parliament, as well as colleagues in this House, will take great pride in.

The conversation surrounding rights, particularly those related to trans individuals, has sadly become increasingly divided and divisive, as this debate has so importantly highlighted. I think we all agree that it is necessary to approach this debate with honesty, respect and sensitivity to all viewpoints. It is in a similar vein that Lord Hodge, when delivering the Supreme Court judgment that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, underscored the importance of not viewing the judgment as a

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

That has been referred to a number of times in this debate.

The entrenchment of division and ever-greater polarisation seeks only to move us away from holding the empathetic, meaningful and productive conversations that holistically address the issues that stem from this debate. That is why we have emphasised the importance of balancing all people’s rights, including those of trans people and of women, acknowledging that both groups have real, important and often shared concerns. On matters such as access to single-sex spaces, we understand these issues must be navigated sensitively. The Government’s position embodies a belief that it is both possible and essential to uphold protections for trans individuals while respecting women’s concerns regarding privacy, safety and dignity. Those points were also made very strongly and powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss).

It is also important to recognise—I want to underscore this—that nobody should suffer or feel the fear that so many do today. It is so important to recognise how much words matter. We recognise that, for many trans individuals, the current climate is uncertain and it has become, in too many places, hostile. The Government are committed to ensuring that trans individuals are treated with dignity and respect. The statistics on hate crime and sexual assault that have been shared in the debate, and of which we are aware, must be of concern to all. We are committed to equalising all existing strands of hate crime as aggravated offences, to ensure that all LGBT+ people are fiercely protected under the law. Let me be unequivocal: trans individuals deserve the right to live free from discrimination, violence and fear. There is no place for transphobia in our society, just as there is no place for homophobia or biphobia.

I understand that the recent Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case has left many trans women feeling worried and concerned for their safety. I want to stress that there are also, rightly, laws in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment. That was true before the ruling; the Supreme Court ruling has also underlined that fact.

As has been referred to in the debate, the independent equalities regulator—the Equality and Human Rights Commission—is working to update its statutory code of practice, which will include advice for duty bearers on how to avoid discriminating against groups with protected characteristics, and it has committed to seeking views from all affected stakeholders. The consultation—

[Olivia Blake]

Does the Minister agree that six weeks is a very short time for that consultation to run? Initially it was two weeks. Would not 12 weeks, as has been the case for various pieces of consultation undertaken by the organisation, fit better with the big issue that we are talking about today?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on the draft updated code opened today. I recognise the consensus that two weeks was too short, and people have already been contributing their views. Agreement has been reached with the Secretary of State for a six-week period, and I hope that during that longer period, those who have already put together their views and shared them can take forward that consultation. There will be extensive consultation with stakeholders, and everybody, including parliamentarians, will have the opportunity to contribute. We welcome the EHRC’s commitment to ensure that diverse voices are included and will be listened to. It is important to also recognise that the final draft of the updated code will be laid in Parliament and subject to scrutiny and consideration by both Houses in due course.

[Dr Arthur]

Can the Minister explain the timeline in a bit more detail? When can we expect this to come to Parliament? When will the formal guidance be agreed and issued?

[Seema Malhotra]

Some of this depends on the EHRC’s work and the time it takes to respond to the consultation; I know that we all want it to do so effectively. It is a matter on which I am sure the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, who is unable to be here today, will update the House in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West will understand that on one hand, we are saying it needs to be longer, and on the other hand we want clarity. What is important is that it is a consultation in which all voices can be heard. I think he will appreciate the assurance that the updated code will be laid in Parliament and will be there for scrutiny and consideration by both Houses. That will be an important part of the process.

[Kirsty Blackman]

When the Minister encourages the hon. Member for Llanelli to update us on the timelines, will she encourage her to update us with information on what the scrutiny process will be? I might have missed it, but I do not know whether it is subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure. If a statement could be made to the House explaining both those things, that would be helpful for all of us.

[Seema Malhotra]

That is an important consideration, and I will raise it with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. Laws remain in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment, as the Supreme Court pointed out. It is important to state that protections for gender reassignment under the Equality Act have not been affected.

The ruling does not impact how a GRC is issued to change a person’s legal sex for certain purposes, nor does the ruling change its significance. There has been considerable debate on this, so I will make some comments on it, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that this is an ongoing debate. However, as we have heard in this debate, it is important to recognise that trans people deserve the right to get married, to have dignity in death, to access pensions and to live their lives in the same way as anyone else.

We have said that we will look at gender recognition reform. Our immediate priority, as laid out in the King’s Speech, is to make sure that we have a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, to strengthen hate crime protections for trans people, and to improve healthcare for trans people. It is also important to recognise that discussions continue with trans organisations and the trans community. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli will continue to have those discussions.

Any process that allows people to change something as fundamental as their legal sex must have appropriate and proportionate checks and balances. I have heard the different views today, but it is important for me to say—I do not believe this is new information—that the Government do not support self-identification because, as we set out in our manifesto, we believe in protecting the robustness of the process and its legitimate application. A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is important in this process.

We all recognise the challenges in accessing NHS services, and it is important to say that the Government are committed to ensuring that trans people receive the healthcare and support they need when accessing NHS services. We are all aware of the delays, which have been happening for far too long. NHS England has increased the number of adult gender dysphoria clinics in England from seven to 12, but in the light of the Cass report’s recommendations, NHS England also launched an in-depth review of adult services led by Dr David Levy in August 2024. The review will assess not only the quality, effectiveness, safety and patient experience of each service, but their stability and whether the existing model is still appropriate for the patients they care for.

I can also confirm that, as part of our agenda supporting LGBT+ people, the Government will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are clear that conversion practices are abuse. They do not work, and they can and do inflict deep and lasting harm on victims. The continuation of such acts in our society—a society largely accepting of LGBT+ people—must be challenged. The previous Government failed to act, but this Government will not fail.

That is why we committed in the King’s Speech to publish draft legislation for a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are working hard to draft measures that offer protection from these harmful practices, while also respecting the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am looking for an update on the timeline for the conversion practices ban and on what the scrutiny might look like. I understand that it is being published in draft, which is very much appreciated—the Online Safety Act 2023 really benefited from being published in draft—but what scrutiny will happen, and what is the timeline for the initial publication of the draft?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member may not be surprised to hear me say—indeed, I pre-empted her question—that there is not much I can update her on, other than to say that it is a priority for the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. When it is possible to update the House, she will very much want to do that. It is a priority and she is continuing to work on it.

I briefly mentioned Dr Levy’s review of adult gender services in NHS England. We want to ensure that all trans people can get the high-quality care they deserve, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) referred to that, too. Also, we remain committed to implementing the recommendations set out in the Cass report, working with NHS England as it continues to improve children’s and young people’s gender services, and ensuring that those services provide the right healthcare, safeguarding and support for children and young people. That means making sure that they are based on the best available evidence and expert clinical opinion.

To briefly refer to the Supreme Court judgment again, I recognise that recent years have seen an increasing focus on the definition of sex in the Equality Act and access to single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court has given its judgment on that point, and the Government have been consistently clear that single-sex spaces must be protected, but we also know that trans people must be protected, and their safety and wellbeing is a matter for all of us. It is the role of the Government and Parliament to protect all members of society, and I hope that with the processes we have, we can now work better together to do just that.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the Rainbow Map, and they were right to do so. We were ranked in first place in 2015 but went down to 22nd place this year, and that is a matter of concern. The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad, and we proudly uphold a clear, robust and expansive legal and legislative framework. We are working to advance the rights afforded to LGBT+ people, including, as we have spoken about, by bringing forward legislation in relation to conversion practices and strengthening protections against hate crime. We recognise that there is always more to do.

As we look forward to the future, the Government’s mission remains constant: to create a fairer, more inclusive society. That entails listening actively rather than imposing viewpoints, and it requires people to stand up for those who are marginalised even when those actions prove politically difficult. This debate has been an important contribution to that. More importantly, it involves remembering the core principle—that equality is not a zero-sum game; it elevates us all. We take pride in our achievements and our values, and we will not let complacency or the intent for division take root. Our commitment is to continue listening, learning and fighting for a society where everyone, regardless of their identity or who they love, can live with safety, dignity and hope.

18:49

[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.

18:52

Sitting adjourned.