Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Gynaecological Conditions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am pleased to see the hon. Member attend every debate in the Chamber; he has not stopped doing that and he is always fighting for the rights of women in any of the debates that we have. He is right to say that we do need to settle what is happening in the workplace, but we also have to look at the healthcare system as well and make sure that it does not become a postcode lottery where women have to travel in order to get treatments that should be available for everyone.

In response to my constituent’s petition, the Government acknowledged that such conditions can affect women’s performance at work, but said they had no plans to amend the guidance. That is why I am standing here today, urging my colleagues in the Government to reconsider that decision. When a woman’s condition is missing from the guidance, she starts every conversation with her employer and the human resources department, as well as every claim, on the back foot. That is because courts and tribunals must take the guidance into account. HR departments and managers will use it as their checklist. It opens the door to legal protection, fairer workplace adjustments and a fairer system for millions of women across the country.

Last month, hon. Members may have seen that the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis published its “Endometriosis (Not) in the Workplace” report. The results were sobering. Evidence was gathered from more than 6,000 employees with confirmed or suspected endometriosis, and from 250 employers. The inquiry provides one of the most detailed pictures yet of the condition’s impact on working life. These are some of the facts: 97% of employees worked with severe pain; 94% believed employers lacked understanding of the condition; 62% were worried about losing their job; 47% had lost income and 39% were experiencing financial hardship; 49% had difficulties progressing in their career after the condition; 28% had been forced to leave their job altogether; 49% had received no workplace adjustments at all; and 72% of employers said they had no training or guidance on women’s health conditions, such as endometriosis.

It is fair to say that women with endometriosis have been failed by the employment rights system. It is damaging their lives, their families and the economy. With only 11% of employers in the UK having a menstrual health policy, employers are not making the reasonable adjustments to accommodate people with endometriosis, who are forced to suffer in silence. That shocking statistic highlights why there is such widespread discrimination of women with endometriosis. That is why gynaecological conditions must be included as impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects in the Equality Act 2010 guidance on the definition of disability. By doing that, we will strengthen workplace protections for women with disabling gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis, fibroids, PMOS, PMDD, severe menopausal symptoms and other menstrual disorders.

One of the biggest challenges we have—I have learned a lot of this from my constituent who suffers from this issue—is the unpredictable nature of those conditions. Women can experience severe pelvic pain, debilitating fatigue, heavy bleeding that leads to anaemia, bowel and bladder symptoms, bloating, nausea, loss of appetite and other complications that can fluctuate in severity. For example, a woman with endometriosis may be able to function absolutely fine one day, but the next day cannot get up from her bed. Employers should take that into account. It is overwhelmingly evidenced in medical statistics, but my constituent tells me it is being ignored by employers because the conditions are not listed in the guidance, which is what we are fighting for.

I ask the Minister, who I know is passionate about this topic and has been in touch with me about it, to consider four practical steps. First, will she update the Equality Act 2010 guidance? It is issued by a Minister under section 6 of the Act, so no primary legislation is needed. Gynaecological conditions should be named among the examples of conditions that have recurring or fluctuating effects. The guidance should include worked examples of what a flare can look like in a working day, and it should discuss pain that stops a woman travelling, standing up or concentrating, heavy bleeding, fatigue, anaemia and recovery from surgery.

Secondly, will the Minister look at the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance and set out in the employment code examples of reasonable adjustments for such conditions, such as flexible and hybrid working, adjusted hours on bad days, access to facilities and rest breaks, time off for medical conditions and a phased return from surgery? It is incredible that women have to fight for those things—of course they should have a phased return after surgery, but lots of women do not have that option in the workplace. A lot of those things would cost little or nothing, but they would make the lives of those who are suffering so much easier.

Thirdly, I ask the Minister to give employees something tangible to take back to their managers or to human resources. A simple standard workplace adjustments passport, backed by ACAS guidance, would record what has been agreed so that the woman does not have to explain her condition over and over again every time her manager changes, which is exhausting in itself, and the managers know exactly what is expected of them.

Fourthly, I would build on the Employment Rights Act 2025. Large employers will soon have to publish equality action plans that include support for employees who are going through the menopause. The plans should extend to menstrual and gynaecological health. The Government’s Keep Britain Working agenda and their workplace health system should expressly include women with long-term fluctuating conditions.

Those changes would help not only women with such conditions but everyone living with a non-visible chronic condition whose effects come and go. Those basic changes could save jobs and so much money, and relieve so much anxiety for countless women across the county who are disabled by endometriosis and are not given reasonable adjustments in the workplace. By doing that, we can be a Government who ensure women have workplace protections and the right to reasonable adjustments for their conditions.

As the Minister knows, I was a part of the Treasury, so the economy is always on my mind. This is not just a question of fairness; it is actually about a strong economy and sound business. Endometriosis alone is estimated to cost the UK economy £8.2 billion a year in treatment, lost work and healthcare costs. The Office for National Statistics found that women with endometriosis earned about £4,500 less over the five years after receiving a diagnosis. The Fawcett Society found that one in 10 women who worked during the menopause left their job because of their symptoms, and many others worked on reduced hours.

The PMDD Project found that nine in 10 reported that PMDD significantly or extremely affected their everyday lives—particularly employment. They can be perceived as unreliable, inconsistent or unable to manage their workload, when in reality they are living with a recognised and often severely disabling condition. I am sure the Minister agrees that women are a vital part of our workflows and our economy. It is right that the law and guidance explain that and reflect the reality of their everyday lives.

Employment lawyers acting in such cases describe the same pattern again and again. Very senior women, in whom businesses have invested year after year through training and client development, are managed out after surgery or a period of sickness absence, when a phased return, a flexible pattern of working or a modest change to their duties could have retained them and helped our economy at the same time. The business loses the woman’s skills, client relationships and everything that has been invested in them. It then pays to recruit and train a replacement, and it very often pays again to defend a claim. Claims can take years. At the end of June this year, there were 70,000 claims waiting in employment tribunals—the highest number on record.

The average claim takes well over a year to resolve, with some final hearings being listed for 2028 and 2029. With appeals, a case can run for three years or more. Think about the damage that does to the economy, the business and particularly the morale of all our women who we need back in our economy working for our country. It is three years of legal costs for both the employer and former employee. It is three years of uncertainty and anxiety for all the women, and three years in which neither the business nor the woman can move. That cripples the economy, the business and, often, the woman’s life.

The cases that do reach the courts show what is at stake. In South Gloucestershire council v. Hundal, which was decided by the employment appeal tribunal in 2024, a social worker with endometriosis—who the tribunal found was managing complex cases well despite her disability—had her placement ended because of the absences caused by her medical condition. Her manager had suggested adjustments such as working from home and spreading her four-day week over five days. Neither of those was tried and an occupational health referral was not even considered. The tribunal found that ending her engagement could not be justified and an appeal tribunal agreed.

In another case, a tribunal accepted that a woman with endometriosis could not walk, stand or drive when her systems flared. The condition left her anaemic, exhausted and unable to sleep. It found that she was disabled, observing that nothing in the Equality Act requires a disability to be constant. That is exactly why guidance should be made plain: so that women do not have to waste time, effort and mental energy going to a tribunal to establish it.

Reasonable adjustments are the most effective way to avoid all this. They keep women in work, protect the employer’s investment and stop claims arising in the first place. Prevention is far cheaper than cure. For as long as our employment rights ignore the gynaecological conditions of millions of women in Britain, the injustice will continue. Making reasonable adjustments is simply the fairest thing to do. It is also the most sensible thing to do economically. Naming these conditions in the guidance would give every woman something concrete to point to, and every employer a clear basis on which to act. It would save money and time, and most importantly it would spare women, their families and their employers so much avoidable pain.

The benefits of doing that spread beyond the workplace, to all of us in society. It will improve the mental health and wellbeing of women by enabling them to be seen, heard and protected, and to advocate for themselves. The guidance will also help Department for Work and Pensions assessors, who are rejecting claims from women with endometriosis and other gynaecological conditions. For me, that is a win-win because it will protect women in the economy, education, healthcare, the workplace and beyond. I urge colleagues in Government to recognise what women experience every single day. I believe it is time to end this discrimination once and for all.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on an excellent opening speech, which has covered so many of the aspects that we have spoken about for so many years.

I started to raise the issues of endometriosis about a decade ago in this very room. Again, like the hon. Lady, it came to my attention through someone coming to see me in a constituency surgery. I then realised I had a close friend whose wife had suffered from endometriosis since her teen years. What is striking straightaway is how many people do not know about the condition. Therein lies one of the great problems. I remember when I first started doing this, I got lots of comments about why I was bringing this up as a man. I always found that comment particularly strange—surely we are elected to represent all our constituents, and well over 50% of my constituents are women—but it spoke to a greater problem: people do not understand women’s health needs.

Women’s health needs are exceptionally different from those of men. The reality is that men can sympathise, but cannot empathise, because they are unlikely to suffer from chronic diseases throughout their lives, from teenage years through to old age. Women can have endometriosis long after the menopause—it is not to do with being of a fertile age. Also, the growth of the endometrium is not linked just to having a uterus, as it can spread to other parts of the body.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate outlined some of the problems, but—I am sorry for this, Ms Jardine—I will get a little more graphic and try to paint a picture of what some gynaecological conditions can mean. If a person who has stage 3 or stage 4 endometriosis, there is a real chance that it has invaded their digestive system—indeed, that can be when problems start to become apparent, but by that time, it can have progressed a long way down the line. I am sure that everybody in this room will have suffered from food poisoning or an upset stomach, when—I do not want to be too graphic—they could not get off the toilet. We all know what is like, and it is horrific, but we stay at home, take our salts and fluids, and work our way through it for 24 hours. What happens is that we feel a bit rotten for a couple of days, but then we go back work.

For people who have reached such a stage of the disease, that happens all the time. They will be sitting at work and will suddenly have to rush to the bathroom. One thing that people recognise is that endometriosis can cause heavy bleeding, and how embarrassing that can be for a teenage girl. The very fact that people may soil themselves without realising is a great problem, which needs sympathetic employers to arrange an office space and position things so that they are able to go to the toilet quickly. There needs to be understanding from fellow employees, and we need to make sure that employers recognise the issues.

I will not dwell on this point, because many other hon. Members want to speak, but education plays an important role. I worked with some girls born in the 21st century who did not know about the condition, which shocked me. If it is taught to all sexes in schools, understanding will come through. If people do not know what a disease is, it is easy to try to dismiss it and say, “This person just takes time off work. Women get heavy periods. They’re just a malingerer—they’re not doing anything.” As I have spoken about for so long, such conditions need to be protected under the Equality Act. I am proud to chair the board of The Endometriosis Foundation, and that our brilliant chief executive officer, Carla Cressy, who has stage 4 endometriosis, has done so much to support people. Research shows that around 90% of affected people experience a mental health impact, and 50% think about taking their lives—unfortunately, about 30 women a year do take their lives. That is how serious the subject is.

If I can leave people with just one message, it is just to think about it. As an employer or a man, think about if you had to go to work every day, not knowing whether you will suddenly soil yourself while sitting at your desk. Think about that, and about how we should be dealing with people who suffer from this terrible disease.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I ask Members to stick to an informal time limit of three minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of planned changes to immigration rules on the economy.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

20. What assessment she has made of the impact on the economy of her proposed changes to immigration rules.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

Under the previous Government, net migration hit record highs after they lowered entry requirements and opened our borders. My definition of what is best for the UK economy is one where migration is controlled and where there is investment in skills and training for our home-grown workforce, not an overreliance on overseas recruitment.

[Shabana Mahmood]

No one disputes the tremendous contribution that international workers make to our NHS. The picture the hon. Gentleman describes is replicated in constituencies across the country, and we will always welcome that contribution. Overseas recruitment in the NHS is falling primarily because the NHS is leading by example and doing what we want all employers to do: look first at domestic recruitment to ensure that the skills and expertise of the health service are home-grown. I believe that those two systems can go hand in hand, but we have to make changes at the same time.

[Christine Jardine]

Hospitality, social care and the tech sector are all vital sources of employment and economic stability in my constituency. The companies in those sectors are telling me that, despite their efforts to recruit domestically first, the Home Secretary’s changes to indefinite leave to remain are making it very difficult for them to attract the skilled workforce from abroad that they need to keep the sector going. Will the Home Secretary reconsider the changes in the light of that impact and lighten the regulations to make it possible for these companies to survive?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We have to remember that currently in our country we have more than 1 million young people who are not in employment, education or training, and the hon. Lady and all Members should want us to turn that around and make sure that there are employment opportunities and a positive economic future in their own country for those young people in many of the sectors that she describes. We are the Government who have formalised that link between migration and skills reforms to make sure that companies are investing in the domestic workforce first and foremost before recruiting from abroad.

Immigration Policy

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman has heard what I have said to his colleagues: the choice is between paying £158,000 for those families to live in hotels and paying £40,000 for them to leave the country. I do not know whether he needs a calculator, but I think that is a good equation.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Can the Minister tell us what modelling those in the Home Office have done in respect of whether these visa bans will actually affect the backlog of refugee and asylum seekers? Have they looked at the impact on local services in constituencies such as mine? People running care homes have told me that they are losing vital workforce members and may not be able to stay open.

[Alex Norris]

Of course we take a lens on reform. The hon. Lady will know that those seeking asylum cannot work in such environments, so they would not be germane to that conversation. We look very closely at the impacts of our policies and publish reviews at the appropriate moments.

Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I will call Christine Jardine to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of fast-track visas for skilled US citizens.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I would like to share an email I recently received:

“All I’m asking for is a direction to march in, as I am in fact a refugee seeking asylum from a tyrannical, fascist administration which is utterly destroying the nation I once loved and protected. The feeling of turning my back on the democracy I swore an oath to defend feels much more as though I’m ending a long relationship with someone I still love, but am unable to live with anymore. America has broken our hearts and reconciliation is more fantastic than a Rudyard Kipling book.”

I was elected eight years ago, but sometimes I am still taken aback by a reaction to something we say or do in this place. This time, part of the shock comes from the fact that that email is not from someone in a third-world country or a warzone, but from a citizen of the United States who is living in the United States.

In April last year, I put a proposal to my Scottish party conference to offer skilled US workers a visa route to enable them to live and work in the United Kingdom. The proposal was accepted and became party policy, and that news—again, somewhat surprisingly—made it across the Atlantic. I was then inundated with messages from those in America who no longer wished to live under a Trump presidency. They wanted to feel safe and to contribute to a country much more in line with their values than the country they were born into increasingly is.

Those people felt that a lifeline had been offered. I cannot express how relieved the nearly 200 people who wrote to me were that another way might become possible for them. Some just wanted to thank me, as if no one had been thinking of them until that moment. Some laid out their CVs to prove they would be worthy of applying. Some told me they were visiting London and going to the US embassy to try to find more information. It was genuinely upsetting to tell those people that they could not apply, and that this is only an idea at the moment. There was such strength of feeling.

For me, there was also the guilt that this is not entirely altruistic, because I firmly believe that those people have something vital that we need in our economy and that could be a benefit to our country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, because this is such an important issue; I am aware of it in my constituency, although there are not the numbers she referred to—those 200 email requests. With Belfast receiving a high level of investment from US companies that wish to avail themselves of our superior cyber-skills, and our low rent and business rates, it is essential that there is a swinging door for our US allies and for US investors and individuals. Does the hon. Lady agree that visa systems are not one size fits all, and that tailoring the US visa system makes perfect sense?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. We need a system that allows people to come here—not just from the United States, but more generally. People in the United States have the skills we need in the industries that so much of our economy will be dependent on: artificial intelligence, cancer research, pharmacology, science and the growing space sector. In Edinburgh, we are working hard to create that sort of environment, so I completely agree.

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

A constituent has written to me in very similar terms about coming to the UK from the USA to “flee Trump”, as he puts it. He did not come here to steal jobs; he came to create them. He came here to start a business, at great sacrifice and financial cost to himself, but he feels betrayed by the changes in the indefinite leave to remain arrangements. When we are thinking about attracting people and their skills, we have to think about how those people are supported. Does the hon. Member agree that when people come here under an agreement, we must uphold our side of it?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. There is a danger to our international reputation, as well as our economy, if we become somewhere people cannot trust that. If they make the life-changing decision to come here, invest in our country, work for our economy, and contribute through tax and national insurance, we should not turn around decades later and say, “Sorry, we have changed our minds.” That is vitally important.

Some of the people who wrote to me told me of their visceral fears, and their worries for their children or for the LGBT community they are part of or work with. Some are terrified they will lose their jobs in the swingeing cuts of the Trump Administration. There are so many real-life stories from people in the United States.

But there are also the people in this country. We can only be the best representatives we can be if we listen, and I want to highlight something I was told by someone who wrote to me in this country. Speaking of their trans partner, they said:

“I have to say, I’m glad someone is speaking up about this. I see the genuine fear and anxiety he has about being sent back to the States. He told me recently that he has his suicide plan all ready and goodbye letters to family already written, as he’s ‘never going back’.”

It terrifies me that people should be so afraid of going back to the world’s largest democracy because of what it has become. That person went on to say:

“Thank you for maybe finding a solution that saves US LBGTQI+ lives in our current political upheaval. They and any non-white male here are in terrible danger.”

That came from someone from the United States. People have told me that they fear for their family’s safety and for their children.

We have to look at why this is happening, and how we can help people who are living in fear. The idea of fast-track visas was born of two issues. The first was the election of a President who does not represent my values or the values of so many in this place, and the consequences of that election for his own people. We have all seen the news and seen the unnecessary loss. For so many in the US, it is no longer the land of the free. According to official figures, there were more than 1,000 anti-LGBTQ incidents across 47 states and Washington DC in the past year—a 5% increase from the 984 incidents in 2024. Over half of those targeted transgender and non-conforming people specifically.

The second point was our skills shortage, and the way this Government are getting immigration under control: it will be much more difficult for people to come and stay here, to make their lives here and to feel confident, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned. They want to contribute to our economy, our public services and so many important sectors: space, education, oncology and science. So I thought, “Here’s an opportunity.” Those who know me would say that I am a solutions person, and I saw an opportunity. It is about not just saying there is a problem, but actually coming up with an idea that is beneficial to those people and to us—to both sides of the pond.

For me, it is also about creating a positive case for immigration; it is about looking up and out, and saying that for our country to be successful, we might need to encourage people to travel here from beyond our shores. That is not because I am doing this country down, but because I believe in our future and I know that that is the reality of the current situation. We are better when we work together and learn from our different experiences.

Why not offer sanctuary to those who want to flee, if they can make our country a better, more prosperous place for our people in the process? As I said, I am a solutions person. For many, the American dream is now a nightmare, but we could turn that around and offer them a fresh dream.

Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called to speak. I will call the Front Benchers at eight minutes past 5, so will Members please keep their speeches to about two and a half minutes each?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but to get everyone in we will have to go down to two minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this important debate. I speak today as the MP for Portsmouth North, but also as a former teacher, a mum of three young men and a victim of this crime.

In Portsmouth, our residents live much of their lives online for work, study, information, and socialising, but the reality for many users is worrying. In 2023-24, of the cyber-crimes reported in Portsmouth, 34% were online bullying or harassment, 30% malicious messaging, 10% stalking and 8% sexual offences. Disgustingly, that number includes 60 cases involving images of children. Most of the victims were women under the age of 45, and their perpetrators were known to them, yet only 13% reported these crimes, leaving too many to suffer in silence or to be told that their complaint did not meet the threshold.

The digital revolution has brought opportunity, but it has also brought new and relentless forms of abuse. UN Women warns that AI deepfakes, grooming and image-based abuse are escalating. The recent use of AI to generate non-consensual sexual images, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston noted in opening this debate, shows how quickly technology can be weaponised, and how tech giants are complicit.

Let me be clear: this is not about blaming girls or young women, or boys and young men. It is about responsibility, consent and respect. It must be clear that technology does not remove consent, and anonymity does not remove accountability. Women and girls should never have to navigate fear, shame or harassment just to live their lives.

I welcome the strengthening of the law and the introduction of the long-awaited VAWG strategy. I am proud to be part of a Government who have presented it and will deliver it, but we all know that laws alone are not enough, because technology moves quickly. We need stronger enforcement, safeguarding at the source, and education for young people and their parents about respect and consent online as well as offline.

There must be joined-up Government working, taking young people, their parents and whole communities with us, so that we can change the landscape and the culture, ensure that young women and girls in Portsmouth and across the country are safe online, and give victims the confidence they need to come forward.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much, we managed to get everybody in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Marie Goldman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. She is absolutely right that we need to make sure these things are enforced. To Members who spoke about pornography, I would say that there are reasons to be cheerful about the enforcement by Ofcom. I could dance a jig because Pornhub has reported a 77% reduction in traffic since age verification stopped young people being able to access it so easily. We are in the foothills of what that legislation can do. Where pornography companies have not been undertaking age verification, Ofcom has issued £1 million fines, and changes have been made to companies’ roles in the UK, so that they meet our laws. So there are reasons to think that there is some enforcement, but I absolutely agree that we need to grapple with the agility, scale and scope of that enforcement.

I must come to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. Before I came to the debate, my colleague the Minister for victims was telling me how amazing my hon. Friend and his office have been in Preston in handling online abuse. People in our constituency offices often do not get praised for these things, but I hear that my hon. Friend has a legend working in his office.

My hon. Friend talked about the importance of education in this space, and about this being a country-wide push for change, and I could not agree more. The Government have invested in this issue, and it will be an absolutely fundamental part of the violence against women and girls strategy.

The National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection will do exactly what my hon. Friend talked about, so that the good standards, for example, in Cheshire—it is not far from him, and the anti-stalking practices are amazing and world-leading—are the same for people in the west midlands and everywhere else. My hon. Friend used the example of stalking legislation and making sure there are standardised systems and standards that police forces have to live by, which will absolutely include upskilling, when policing the digital elements of these crimes, whether it is domestic abuse or online. Stalking online is as illegal as stalking in real life—just to be clear, they are the same crime.

My hon. Friend talked about the richest man in the world. I am not sure there are many people in this building who have quite such a claim against the richest man in the world as me. What happened is unacceptable, and anyone who has existed online will know about the Grok outcry.

Some hon. Members mentioned Meta glasses. If I had been in the meeting where they floated the idea of making Meta glasses, the very first thing I would have said would have been, “These are going to be used to abuse women.” Why is that not being baked into the design of such products?

One of the things the violence against women and girls strategy has absolutely committed to is working on safety by design. In the car industry, we now take safety features for granted. If we are talking about what it was like when we were kids versus now, my dad used to put us in the back of the car and purposefully go round the corners fast so that we would smack into the window. These things are not acceptable now.

We have to go on a journey with this technology. To me, a Ring doorbell is such an obvious way to stalk somebody, as is an AirTag. I see cases again and again. It does not matter what the new technologies are; perpetrators of these abuses will find a way to use them for that purpose, so we need to design in safety functions. On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) about planning, I will take that away and work with him.

The Government obviously took a strong stance—I felt pleased about this—against Grok. We can see that when we stand together and people speak up, we can make change in this area, but we need to make sustainable change. We absolutely are always looking at legislative changes. As people have said, there have been a number of those. There is the issue of Grok being added into the Online Safety Act, so that there can be accountability on that basis.

In the Crime and Policing Bill, we are also banning nudification apps. I have also had it shown to me that they do not work on men and boys, which I am glad about for men’s and boys’ sake, but if you are designing something that will nudify only women, you have a problem. I do not know who I can talk to, but there is something wrong with you. Have a word with yourself; otherwise, we will have a word with you. The ban will target firms and individuals providing and supplying tools that use AI to turn images of real people into fake nudes.

There is a raft of other legislation that we are putting through and that we hope will shift the dial. Obviously, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made a very clear commitment to ensuring that we make it impossible for children to take and share naked images of themselves—we will make it impossible for them to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) and others talked about children being taken from social media and on to other platforms. I have to say that encrypted spaces are the most dangerous for child abuse imagery. But to the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, who was talking about that, I say this: 91% of all child sexual abuse images are self-made; they are made by children themselves. People have groomed them—exploited them—to make those images. It may be their peers.

We will not stop this just by looking at the issue of new AI. There is an issue with where our children can go and who has access to them. I agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment. We have to make sure that we get this right. Even with the 10 years of work on the Online Safety Act, and with the level of detail and, I have to say, the arguments that went into it, it still has all the gaps that we are talking about, so we need to make sure we get this right and legislate in a way that can be agile for the future. That is why I think the Government need to take the time—not too much time, I agree—to make sure we do that.

Others talked about accountability and whether anyone ever actually gets punished for these things. As part of the work we are doing in the Home Office, we are expanding the use of covert officers to address violence against women and girls, and improving the capabilities to counter and reduce the highest harms. We operate a similar system with regard to child abuse online. We are now doing that also for women and girls online, recognising the level of organised crime that is behind this. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about people who are asleep and being filmed, like Gisèle Pelicot. These issues deserve a police force specifically looking at the covert aspect, and that is what this Government are doing.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call Sir Mark Hendrick to wind up the debate extremely briefly—in about 5 seconds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the whole Government have been clear that we believe the wrong decision was made. We have asked the inspector to look at what happened in two parts: first, what happened around the match itself; and secondly, a wider look at the police role in relation to safety advisory groups and how decisions are made. We had been expecting that information before the end of the year, but it will be slightly delayed to take into account the recall of the West Midlands chief constable to appear before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow. We need to wait and see what the inspector says, and that is what we will do. That is the right thing to do, because these things will be considered in the round.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

14. What steps she is taking to tackle hate crime.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

This Government are determined to tackle all forms of hate crime. We have a robust legislative framework in place to respond to hate crimes that target race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. The Home Secretary has also commissioned an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation to ensure that it remains effective, proportionate and fit for purpose.

[Christine Jardine]

I welcome the Minister’s comments, as I welcome the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy, including the confirmation that the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 will commence in April. We know, however, that misogyny runs deeper, and attitudes and actions throughout society and on social media are damaging to women. As well as focusing on prevention and strategy in all these areas and tackling harassment, will the Minister outline the position on misogyny becoming a hate crime?

[Sarah Jones]

A review is being undertaken by Lord Ken Macdonald KC, who is looking at hate crime legislation in the round. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that we want to wait for that, so that we can understand what those recommendations are before the Home Secretary makes decisions.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I am not going to draw that conclusion today, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that I am going to ensure that we get to the bottom of yesterday’s reporting and what happened. We often ask the police to make decisions that are almost impossible, and—here I am setting aside this particular case—we ask them to police protests in such a way that we are almost asking them to make political decisions on a day-to-day basis, which is very difficult for them. I should pay tribute to the many excellent public order police officers, who are very well trained and who work in such difficult circumstances. We ask a great deal of them, and I am grateful for the work that they do.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

After the incident with Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam, the Government’s independent assessor on antisemitism, Lord Mann, visited the city, did a fact-finding mission and compiled a report. It was passed to the Government in January, and to the Government and the police again in June. Can the Minister tell us what consideration, if any, was given to this report in the decision making?

[Sarah Jones]

I would very much like to talk to Lord Mann about the work that he has done, which was prior to me being in post. I will pick that up.

Asylum Policy

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I think there is general agreement that we have chaos in the immigration and asylum system, and that the Government should be looking for new ways to discourage people from crossing the channel in small boats. Given what the Home Secretary has said today, though, is there a danger that the people we need to come to this country legally—people with the skills that we need to fill the employment gap, and who will keep our NHS working and work in the social care sector—will look at this country now and say, “No, I don’t want to go there”?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree with the hon. Lady—there is no reason to believe that. The people who come into this country on small boats constitute about 40% of all asylum claims. About the same number of people come through a legal route—a visit visa, a work visa or a study visa—and then apply for asylum when that visa comes to an end. I hope that she will recognise that it is important that we stop that abuse of the asylum system, so that we can retain public confidence in the legal migration system that I think we can all agree this country needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Everyone deserves to feel safe and to be able fully to participate in public and political life, free from the threat of violence or exclusion driven by hateful prejudice. We will persist in our efforts to challenge extremist narratives, disrupt the activity of radicalising groups and directly tackle the causes of radicalisation. Alongside our work to tackle extremism, the defending democracy taskforce is driving forward a whole-of-Government response to the full range of threats we face to our democracy.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

T2. I have been contacted by constituents concerned that a group calling itself Justice for Innocent Men in Scotland is allegedly harassing victims of sexual violence by undermining their anonymity. Will the Minister tell me what the UK Government are going to do to protect women across the UK from that sort of targeting and harassment?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this case with me, and I am happy to look into it in more detail. It is a fundamental principle that victims of sexual violence are entitled by law to anonymity, and breaching that anonymity is a crime. I am very interested to hear from her and to see how we can ensure that that is not happening.

Borders and Asylum

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have increased illegal working arrests and raids by 50% and significantly increased the fines for employers engaged in illegal working. Further to that, the organised immigration crime domestic taskforce, which brings together policing here in the UK, is looking at the ways in which organised immigration crime networks are linked to organised crime and the exploitation of illegal workers in the UK, so it is about going after some of those employers operating bogus tactics, alongside the existing raids.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s confirmation in her statement of the expedited visas for students, particularly those from Gaza. I wrote to both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary this summer to appeal for exactly this move, and I know how welcome it will be to those students.

The Home Secretary talks about a capped work scheme. We talk a lot about the pressure on local authorities and the cost to the taxpayer. Does she not agree that if we gave asylum seekers the right to work, pay national insurance and tax and contribute, they would then be carrying their own burden, and they would no longer be a weight on the taxpayer?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the campaigning the hon. Lady has done to support students in Gaza, because the situation we are seeing there is horrendous. The Foreign Secretary will shortly make a statement about the truly abominable situation in Gaza, as well as the work we are doing to get out students who have fully funded places in the UK and provide them with support.

On the hon. Lady’s question, I would say that the criminal smuggling gangs use the potential to work in the UK as a pull factor—as part of their advertising—which is a point the French Government have raised many times. The challenge with the scenario she sets out is that it would make it even easier for the criminal gangs to use that factor as part of their advertising to try to persuade people to part with their money and make an incredibly dangerous journey across the channel.