Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

It is a genuine pleasure to speak in the debate. Along with many other Members, I have been seeking to secure the protections that the Bill affords for quite some time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on his success in the ballot, and on choosing to present such an important Bill. As the back page shows, it is supported by nine other Members, all of them Conservative. The hon. Member is not normally known for his calm and measured manner, but I have to say that in his work on the Bill he has operated with good grace, and I commend him for his patience and his efforts.

It is a matter of regret that despite numerous promises of legislation from the Government for some years, it has fallen to a private Member’s Bill to introduce it. Nevertheless, we are at long last having a debate on the Floor of the House on drafted and published legislation. Both main parties in the House can point to positive measures taken over many decades to bring about equality, dignity and protection for LGBT people, including decriminalisation, equal age of consent, civil partnerships, equal marriage, and the lifting of the ban in the military. I am proud to be a Member of Parliament who, as an out gay man, stands up for all in our LGBT community, using my position in this place to stand up for people not because I am one of them, but because they deserve our voice, every single one of them: the L, the G, the B and the T.

Having taken the time to read the reports of debates from those important milestones on the march to where we are now, I am struck by the voices calling for change. There were those who opposed them, but time marched on and progress was made. I hope and trust that we can make real progress today, and whether Members agree wholeheartedly with every word of the Bill, or think that it goes too far or not far enough, let us get it to Committee.

I recently visited Ghana as part of a delegation from Parliament to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, and had the opportunity to discuss the legislation that that country was planning to approve, which shockingly offered conversion therapy as a means of evading jail for homosexuality. The fact that that legislation has now been passed in Ghana, and embraces that which we are seeking to ban today, tells us all that we need to know.

In preparing for this debate, I was told of the story of a 13-year-old boy who knew he was gay but, because of the views of those around him, felt guilt and shame. He was subjected to shaking and incantations prayed over him for the demons of homosexuality to leave his body, and was encouraged to return regularly until he was cured of his homosexual desires. He was naturally shaken by that experience, and suffered the scars for many years. Thankfully, he did not go back. That young man now works as my parliamentary assistant, and is happy and content in who he is.

That small story is just one of many that have been shared in recent years as the debate about this ban has unfolded. There are some who do not believe that this abuse—it is abuse—exists. This House has enacted many pieces of legislation to offer protections from harms that we ourselves may not have experienced, but we in this place have a duty to provide protections for those who require them. Indeed, just this morning we prayed to God to lay aside our prejudices and seek to improve the condition of all mankind, as we do every day. If protecting people we do not know and will never meet from harms that we have never experienced is not living up to that noble ambition, I do not know what is.

I have spoken in debates on this issue multiple times and have asked questions many times, and I have been proud to do so. Many other Conservative Members have done so as well, consistently and passionately, and I am pleased that a number of them are here today to support the Bill.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the activist and musician Vicky Beeching on the book that she wrote about her experiences of conversion therapy, “Undivided”? I encourage him and everybody else in the House to read that book, because it is the experiences of people such as Vicky that are exactly why we are here today, to prevent further damage of the kind that has been done to those people. At the end of the day, government in its very nature is supposed to be behind the notion of first doing no harm, and harm is being done to our citizens. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely crucial that the Bill passes Second Reading today?

[Peter Gibson]

It is absolutely crucial, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady—dare I call her my hon. Friend—who accompanied me on that trip to Ghana and heard those harrowing stories from members of the LGBT community. We stand for some things in this place, and today is an opportunity for us to progress further.

The freedom and liberty to be whoever a person is, is at the core of my beliefs. No one, whether they wear a white coat or a religious cloak, should be able to attempt to change who that person is. It does not work, it never has and it never will, so let us ensure that we send a clear message from this Parliament. I am proud to support the Bill, and I give it my full support.

IVF Provision

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will touch on that later. The guidelines are due to be updated next year. The Government have accepted that the situation is unfair and discriminatory. Last year’s women’s health strategy promised to remove the additional financial barriers to IVF for female same-sex couples in England, including removing the requirement to privately fund artificial insemination to prove fertility status before accessing NHS IVF services.

I am pleased that the Minister with responsibility for mental health and women’s health strategy is responding to this debate. In May she said:

“We expect the removal of the additional financial burden faced by female same-sex couples when accessing IVF treatment to take effect during 2023.”

On 11 September 2023, in response to a parliamentary question, she told the House:

“We remain committed to remove the requirement for female same-sex couples to self-fund six rounds of artificial insemination before being able to access National Health Service-funded treatment. NHS England are intending to issue commissioning guidance to integrated care boards to support implementation, which is expected shortly.”

We are still waiting for that guidance. The response also failed to acknowledge that, even now, some ICBs are still requiring self-funding for up to 12 rounds. With just 10 weeks left of 2023, the promise to remove the additional financial burden in 2023 will obviously not be met.

Of the 42 integrated care boards in England, only four offer fertility treatment to same-sex couples without the requirement to pay privately for artificial insemination. Ten more have said that they are reviewing their policies, but without the guidance from the Government or NHS England, there is not even a timeline for ICBs to make the changes needed. The Minister must ensure the full implementation of the recommendation from the women’s health strategy and work with NHS England to set out a clear timeline to bring an end to the inequalities experienced by LGBTQ+ couples when accessing fertility services.

In England, the NHS will fund in vitro fertilisation for heterosexual couples who have been trying for a baby unsuccessfully for at least two years and who also meet certain other criteria such as age and weight, yet even here, there is a postcode lottery for IVF. Some ICBs use the outdated tool of body mass index as a way of measuring health and refuse women IVF on the basis of their or their partner’s BMI. Some ICBs set their own criteria—that happened to one of my constituents—and refuse to offer IVF if either person in the couple already has a child with a previous partner. I hope that the Minister’s guidance deals with all those inequalities in provision.

Stonewall and DIVA’s 2021 LGBTQI+ Insight survey found that 36% of LGBTQI+ women and non-binary respondents who had children experienced barriers or challenges when starting their family. One in five of those stated that the greatest barrier or challenge was the high cost of private fertility treatment.

Stonewall’s latest research shows that 93% of ICBs are still falling short of the women’s health strategy’s target. The Government and NHS England have said that they have a 10-year strategy to tackle that. Most women cannot wait 10 years for the rules to change. For the majority of people, raising tens of thousands of pounds is impossible. The policy is making them financially infertile.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. As well as the point about the strategy’s length of time, there is the age of some of us in the LGBT community. The fact that same-sex marriage did not come until some of us were older, and that many of us came out later in life, means that there is a very short window for older LGBT people to take the opportunity to get pregnant or be parents.

[Kate Osborne]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Generally, couples are starting their families later, and all these barriers make it almost impossible for so many to start a family.

Many organisations have been in touch with concerns about IVF provision, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Progress Educational Trust, the National AIDS Trust and many more. The National AIDS Trust has been challenging discriminatory legislation that prevents many people living with HIV from starting a family.

Under UK law, people living with HIV do not have the same rights as everyone else in accessing fertility treatment. Scientific evidence has demonstrated that there is no risk of HIV transmission through gamete donation, due to advances in HIV treatment. That has been accepted for people in a heterosexual relationship. Heterosexual couples are classified as being “in an intimate relationship” by the Government’s microbiological safety guidelines, and people living with HIV are allowed to donate gametes to their partner. However, that intimate relationship designation is not available to LGBTQ+ couples, creating yet another layer of discrimination on access to fertility treatment for LGBTQ+ people living with HIV.

Yesterday, LGBT Mummies told MPs that, in some cases, when people are denied fertility funding access, they look to alternative routes, such as home insemination. Going down that route comes with physical, psychological and legal implications, which, in turn, cost the Government and the NHS more than if the treatment and chance of family creation were offered in the first place. Laura-Rose told us that although home insemination has really worked for some people, and they have a great relationship with their donor, it can be dangerous for others. It has led to inappropriate proposals to donate only if people have intercourse with the donor. As well as the health risks, if people do not use registered banks or clinics to obtain sperm, there is the possibility that a donor could later try to claim parental rights over a child.

Laura-Rose spoke about how lucky she is to be a parent, but she is still paying off the debt after incurring costs of more than £60,000. So many families she is working with are simply priced out of having a family. TwoDads UK also raised similar concerns in their briefings and contact with MPs, with Michael setting out that the inequality is pushing a community of people to take risks. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists told me that there is significant and unacceptable variation in the availability of NHS-funded fertility treatments in the UK, and that it strongly believes there should be equal access to fertility treatment for same-sex couples. It called on the Government and NHS England to support integrated care boards to ensure that that commitment is realised as soon as possible.

I hope that the Minister has listened to all the concerns and evidence from the many organisations I have mentioned, and others will no doubt be referenced in the debate. Ministers and NHS England can put an immediate end to the discrimination in IVF provision facing LGBTQ+ couples. It is unacceptable that the fertility treatment available for women through the NHS varies depending on where they live. The financial burden on same-sex couples is unacceptable, and we cannot wait any longer. The Government’s guidance and timetable for this to end should be published now. The Minister has recognised that the discrimination is unacceptable, and I hope to hear in her response that immediate action will be taken to remove these unnecessary additional practical and financial burdens from LGBTQ+ couples.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this important debate about IVF provision for the LGBT community, but I think we need to talk about the whole of IVF provision across the country. This is so important, particularly in the week before National Fertility Awareness Week. We are not here next week, unfortunately, so we have to speak about it this week.

IVF has become a focal point for much of the work that I am doing in Parliament, ever since I received disturbing correspondence from a constituent. She told me her story and when I looked into it, I found that it resonated with women across the country. She was working in the financial sector and had had a very successful career for 20 years. She decided to use IVF to get pregnant because of her fertility issues. After complications, her employers discovered that she was undergoing IVF treatment, and from that day onwards, they put pressure on her to move from the UK to Switzerland for her job, which meant she would not be able to continue with her IVF treatment.

My constituent made the really difficult decision to leave her job. She went to an employment tribunal and ended up getting a non-disclosure agreement. She has not been able to speak publicly about her experience and the unfairness that so many people face when it comes to IVF provision, whatever their sexuality or gender, and that is why I have taken up her case.

Unfortunately, stories like that are repeated too often across the country. To make matters worse, the issues relating to the availability of treatment—the inability of people to access it due to work commitments—are countrywide. Work commitments are not the only constraint on accessing IVF treatment. For example, the availability of treatment has, for years, been based on where an individual lives. However, 2023 has provided us with reasons to be hopeful for the future: for the first time in over a decade, all areas of England now have access to NHS-funded facility treatment. But as we heard from the hon. Member for Jarrow, that does not always mean that people can get instant access to it. It is vital that we end the postcode lottery that has been established in this country when it comes to accessing IVF treatment.

The NHS estimates that one in seven couples may be struggling to conceive, and obviously, for the LGBT community that is higher because of same-sex marriages. I have always said that infertility does not discriminate. It does not matter what a person’s background is. I have heard some really emotional testimony from people from ethnic minorities who have struggled even further in this country because of egg donation, and who have to go to Nigeria, in particular, to get their eggs. We have to widen the understanding of how people from ethnic minorities in the LGBT community struggle even more than same-sex white couples in this country. That is why it is so important to have this debate.

[Hannah Bardell]

There are, of course, many in the LGBT community who will suffer from infertility, but the reality is that, as a starting point, it is not necessarily the infertility that is the issue; it is that we are same-sex. Does she recognise that the guidelines are based on infertility rather than recognising the unique nature and differences of various LGBT families?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. On sex education in schools, it is imperative that we teach our children about all types of relationships, including same-sex and heterosexual couples, at an age-appropriate time. In my opinion, four and five-year-olds need to be taught about same-sex couples as much as about heterosexual couples. I really hope that that goes ahead—but I digress.

I want to pay tribute to all the organisations that have been helping me on my fertility workplace journey: Fertility Matters at Work, Fertility Network UK, TwoDads UK and many more whose help has unquestionably been vital to push towards the fertility workplace pledge and improve access to IVF for everyone.

As we have heard, there is one particular group who can benefit greatly from IVF and deserve equal access. The LGBTQ+ community are reliant on IVF to have their own biological children. I was pleased to hear the Government promise to make access to fertility treatment fairer last year. For too long, many in the LGBTQ+ community have faced what has been labelled the gay tax. This is because LGBTQ couples have to pay privately for their first six to 12 rounds of artificial insemination to prove their infertility, which would then grant them access to NHS IVF treatment or, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said earlier—

[Hannah Bardell]

I remind the hon. Lady—not to boast too much, but to share positive experiences—that that is only in England in Wales. People in Scotland do not have to go through that process.

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank the hon. Lady for pointing that out. It is not often that Scotland is ahead of England on the NHS. I am delighted to hear that.

I acknowledge that the change in policy will take time to implement. However, I ask the Minister to look into speeding up support to our LGBTQ communities. Such support is needed desperately in this area. They should not have to wait longer even than heterosexual couples.

Ultimately, I believe that we are on the cusp of real progress in access and attitudes. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) made clear about attitudes towards IVF, it is important that we break down the barriers from as early an age as possible. I know that the Minister is as passionate as I am about supporting individuals as they decide to go through fertility treatment. I therefore see it as vital that we all work together to bring down the remaining few barriers to make IVF treatment a viable option for everyone and anyone who wishes to start their own family, and to make it as stress-free as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson, and I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for bringing forward this debate. She spoke beautifully and eloquently about her experiences; it enhances debate when Members, like the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), bring their own personal experiences.

It is very clear that there is unanimity, which does not happen often. I trumpet and champion the positive equality and the better standards that we have in Scotland, but I would love to see those standards rolled out, so that they were the same throughout the UK. It is not about political point scoring; it is about genuinely working together and sharing best practice. However, although it is significantly better in Scotland, we still have arbitrary limits across the board on the age when women are offered IVF. That is global—not just in the UK.

A recently-published report showed that, for the first time since the second world war, more women in their 40s than women in their 20s are having children. That is just a reality. There are all sorts of reasons for that—the cost of living crisis, the cost of accommodation, women’s career paths and the lack of childcare. All Governments in the UK are trying to do more around childcare and I recognise those challenges, but the reasons are varied and complex.

A Conservative Member recently said that more people need to have babies. I will not mention the Member, as I have not given due notice. It was an offhand comment and it rightly came in for a lot of criticism because of the intent. However, there is an irony there in that some on the Government Benches are saying that, yet we need more action from the Conservative Government. They need to reflect on that. They should look at the reasons why we have a stagnant birth rate and fewer people having children, and at what more can be done.

We have heard, particularly from the hon. Member for Jarrow, about the issues with the women’s health strategy: it is ambitious and the guidance is good, but it is not mandatory. We need it to be. We need to move away from the pot-luck nature of treatment, particularly in England and Wales. I was struck by the briefing, which led through the different levels of care, all the different boards across England and Wales and how challenging that must be for people—not just LGBT people but anyone seeking fertility treatment.

The hon. Member for Jarrow also spoke about the outdated BMI criteria and how those can vary. That is particularly challenging as well. Women’s bodies come in all shapes and sizes and for all different reasons. We must recognise that. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also spoke about that issue in relation to Northern Ireland: that arbitrary line is discriminatory. We need to remove the discrimination and those barriers.

The hon. Member for Jarrow also spoke about those with HIV and how they are being discriminated against, and both she and the hon. Member for Pontypridd talked about black-market sperm. Members may remember the 2017 BBC Three documentary. I watched it and was horrified. It showed LGBT couples and female same-sex couples searching the internet for donors and often facing quite dangerous situations. In 2023, people who so desperately want to have a family and to have children should not be forced into those situations. It is unthinkable.

Someone very close to me has been through several rounds of IVF. It cost her tens of thousands of pounds. She talked to me about going to a fertility fair in London, and all the different stalls and what an amazing experience that was in her journey; but a man came up to her and, in the middle of the fair, handed her a note with his phone number and a really inappropriate message, basically trying to push himself on to her to offer his sperm. She reported it and that person was removed, but that is a truly shocking story, showing just how predatory some men can be in such situations.

We also have to recognise that there are a lot of incredible men out there who donate their sperm and make it possible for others to use it, and there are also incredible women who donate their eggs. Such people make it possible particularly for those in the LGBT community but also heterosexual couples to have children.

It is a particular privilege to be able to represent Scotland’s approach to IVF, which, as I said, I am extremely proud of. Not only are we providing a higher proportion of NHS-funded cycles of treatment, but that means that the ability to have a baby is less affected by income.

There are particular challenges for LGBT couples, but I think we are pioneering some work in relation to those challenges. In addition, one of the things that happens if there is more standardised NHS treatment is that the clinics across Scotland—in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen; I think that is correct—collaborate, whereas when people are moving around, particularly in the private sector, they find that those private clinics keep their pioneering work—I am afraid to say—to themselves. I am sure that there is some collaboration, but that seems to be the case.

So, under the SNP-led Scottish Government, we have become a “gold standard” for IVF treatment. Those are not my words but those of Sarah Norcross, the director of Progress Educational Trust, which is an independent, London-based charity that advocates for people affected by fertility issues.

I must say that this is an area where the priorities of the Scottish Government and those of the UK Government are different. I hope that the UK Government will follow our lead; if they did, I am sure that my colleagues in the Scottish Government would be happy to share their experiences and best practice. Ms Norcross said that in Scotland IVF services were

“as good as it gets”.

The UK Government obviously have a different standard. So, as I say, I hope that this is something that we can share best practice on.

I also recognise that, as has already been mentioned by other hon. Members, the briefing yesterday by Megan and Whitney, LGBT Mummies and TwoDads UK was particularly powerful. It was really stark about the challenges that our community—I say this as a member of the LGBT community—has to face.

However, I also have heterosexual friends who have been through IVF. I have one friend who was fortunate enough to have her first baby through natural means. However, for various reasons she then went on to have secondary infertility. She cannot get fertility treatment on the NHS in Scotland. We will offer it to blended families. So, in the situation of the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I can tell her that if she had lived in Scotland, she would have been entitled to treatment. However, if someone has one child and wants to have more children with the same partner, unfortunately they would not be entitled to treatment. That is something that we need to look at in Scotland. Blended families are very much the norm now. If it is the case that someone has a child, or they and their partner both have children from previous relationships, and they are unfortunate enough to experience secondary infertility, they should have access to fertility treatment.

NHS-funded cycles in England decreased in number from 19,634 in 2019 to 16,335 in 2021, which is a 17% reduction. Covid will undoubtedly have played a part in that. In Wales, the number of NHS-funded cycles decreased from 1,094 to 704 over the same period. In Scotland there was a slight decrease, of just 1%, in that period.

In England, treatment is much more likely to be outsourced to private clinics, even when the costs are covered by the NHS, which has a serious negative impact on overall services. Fertility experts have pointed out that the major reason that fertility care in Scotland is so consistently excellent is that there is the collaboration that I mentioned.

I have also heard from a number of people I have spoken to that people are going abroad for fertility treatment. It would appear that they are going to clinics in Europe because the service there is better. That IVF tourism, as some people call it, is cheaper and seems to be better than the treatment here in the UK, but we do not want people to have to go abroad for that reason; we want people to be able to have their babies here.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke very powerfully about her work in workplace fertility support. That is interesting, because a lot of people will not want to disclose information about their fertility, or they will not feel comfortable about doing so unless their employer is being open. I have perhaps a slightly different opinion from that of the hon. Member. Of course businesses should just provide such support, but businesses have a lot of pressure on them, and sometimes legislation can be the precursor or the catalyst for changes in behaviour and lead to the provision of real, solid support for people who are going through things such as IVF treatment.

Obviously, National Fertility Awareness Week is coming up; however, it was Baby Loss Awareness Week just the other week. I know somebody who, having gone through expensive fertility treatment, only managed the one embryo transfer, which unfortunately did not work. It can be very upsetting when an embryo transfer does not work, no matter the person’s sexuality.

I thank LGBT Mummies for the excellent job it has done on briefings. I will briefly go through its asks for the LGBT community, which include equal and equitable access, national mandated funding policy and provisions for all LGBTQI people. As the hon. Member for Jarrow powerfully highlighted in her speech, the LGBT community is facing discrimination and attacks like never before, including the removal of health services, which is something we all have to reflect on and look to improve. Its asks also include personalised fertility care and education for staff—something I have experienced myself, in the language health practitioners use and in their understanding of the different healthcare requirements of the LGBT community. They also include access to funded medication and tests for home insemination, co-produced funding provision with the community, and the ability to create our families safely by our chosen routes—not being forced down a route.

The difference in Scotland is that we do not have to go through those IUI cycles, but a challenge we have across the board is the arbitrary two-year timeline, where people have to have been in a relationship for two years. I do not know of anywhere where we say to heterosexual couples, “Don’t be having a baby until you’ve been together for two years.” We don’t do that, do we? So why are we doing that to LGBT people? That really does not make any sense.

Briefly, I want to reflect on my personal experience. I had a partial failed attempt at IVF with a former partner—I will not go into the details—but I did not start my journey until after I turned 40. I now regret that, because I am 40 and I will get only one shot, rather than three. I am only at the very beginning. I want to highlight to the Minister that piece about those of us who came out later in life. When I came out at 32, most of my friends were getting married and having kids, or already had kids, and I was just working out who I was. One reason that I did not come out earlier was that I so strongly wanted to have a family, and I did not think that would be open to me if I was gay. Equal marriage came much later in life for many people. Like many of us who did not start life as their authentic self, as some people say, until much later, I have felt like I am perennially playing catch-up, and I have now decided to just do it on my own. I do not know where my journey will take me, but I know there is a lot of support out there, and a lot of incredible people.

I am in a very fortunate position, but not many are that fortunate. As we have heard, people are going to the black market and putting themselves in massive debt; we should not be putting anybody in that situation. I hope the Minister will hear the calls from across the House, and I look forward to working with colleagues on this very important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

As the hon. Lady will know, it was only last year that we published the women’s health strategy. IVF was front and centre of that—the first year priority. Getting that information is the first step, and then we are able to look at the ICBs that are not offering the required level of service, have those conversations about why and have a step change to improve the offer. That is just one tool in our box to fulfil our ambition to end the postcode lottery for fertility treatment across England.

Colleagues have also raised the issue of lack of information about IVF, both for the public and healthcare professionals. We are working closely with NHS England to update the NHS website to make IVF more prominent, and also with the royal colleges to improve the awareness of IVF across healthcare professions. One area we are dealing with is that of add-ons, which the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) addressed. As part of our discussions with the HFEA, it now has the add-on rating system, so that people can see what percentage difference an add-on would make and make an informed choice about whether they want to do that as part of their IVF treatment.

I have also just received the HFEA’s report about modernising the legislation, with particular regard to its regulatory powers. That will cover the provision of add-ons, and I hope to be able to respond to the report as quickly as possible. We are making really big changes to some of the issues that have been holding back IVF for a long time. I know that for many people this is not quick enough, but I reassure hon. Members that progress is being made.

For female same-sex couples and same-sex couples across the board, I know that this is a really important matter. I took the position that it was unacceptable for female same-sex couples to shoulder an additional financial burden to access NHS-funded fertility treatment. On the transparency toolkit now on the gov.uk website, we can easily see which parts of the country are asking for six cycles of self-funded insemination, for instance. In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough it is 12 cycles, in Bristol and north Somerset it is 10. As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) said, that is exactly the information we need so that we can tackle the issue head-on and directly with the ICBs. Indeed, one of our key commitments in the women’s health strategy was to remove this injustice once and for all. We were hoping to do that completely in the first year; it will in fact take us a little longer, but it will not take us 10 years.

[Hannah Bardell]

It is certainly comforting to hear that, but I urge the Minister to supercharge that work, so that female same-sex couples and, indeed, the trans community can make sure they can access that. Will the Minister say something about surrogacy, because I know that across the UK—though, again, we have somewhat better standards and access in Scotland—there are still major challenges, legal and otherwise, for male same-sex couples accessing surrogacy?

[Maria Caulfield]

The Law Commission has recently produced a report on changes to surrogacy, which we are in the process of responding to. It will address some of the issues raised today. The Government’s position is to abolish the requirement for female same-sex couples to undergo six cycles of self-funded treatment before they can access NHS-funded treatment. We have been clear that the NHS-funded pathway should now offer six cycles of artificial insemination followed by IVF to female same-sex couples, giving everyone access to NHS-funded fertility services. Some ICBs are doing that already, but others have delayed implementation, and that is what we want to focus on now. We are clear that that needs to be urgently addressed, because same-sex couples’ expectations have rightly been raised and the service has not met them swiftly enough. I take that on board from the debate today and reassure colleagues that that is a priority.

To accelerate action, NHS England is developing advice to assist ICBs. I hope they will be able to share that soon. I will share that with the House as soon as it is available. When it is published, we expect ICBs to update their local policies. There should be no further delay and no waiting for NICE guidelines when they are published next year. ICBs must urgently address all local inequalities in access to fertility treatment. There is a reason that IVF was made a priority in the women’s health strategy and a reason it was a priority in the first year.

Our health service pioneered the use of IVF in the 1970s. It is a great British invention that should be available to every couple who want to start a family, because the Government back women and families and the accessibility of IVF to those who need it. I look forward to the hon. Member for Jarrow continuing to hold my feet to the fire until we have delivered the change—deliver it we must.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osborne]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. In my contribution I touched on the unsafe and inappropriate online advances facing same-sex couples, which the hon. Member has just raised, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). Megan and Whitney told us yesterday of horrific, very detailed, explicit and inappropriate proposals that they have received online, and many other couples have reported the same. In 2023, we should not be forcing desperate women to turn to black market sperm and be pushed into tens of thousands of pounds of debt.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for describing the situation in Northern Ireland and adding to the concerns that I raised around the inappropriate use of BMI as a factor in deciding IVF provision, particularly how BMI is different for people with PCOS. I would add other conditions such as lipoedema. BMI is not an adequate measure to deny people IVF. Indeed, I believe that BMI is not an adequate measure in pretty much anything.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd for sharing her story, for highlighting financial risks taken and the concerns about regulatory practices in fertility clinics, and for her incredibly important private Member’s Bill.

[Hannah Bardell]

One other condition or disease that has not been spoken about is endometriosis. Endometriosis sufferers often have a terrible time conceiving and face significant challenges. I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that we must include them in all our conversations.

[Kate Osborne]

I absolutely agree that we should include those sufferers. The hon. Lady’s own contribution to the debate was incredibly powerful. She shared her personal story and pointed out how much better the situation is in Scotland, although improvements can always be made. She rightly pointed out that people are going abroad for treatment. TwoDads UK made that point eloquently in our briefing yesterday.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) spoke about the need to end the postcode lottery, with that additional emotional and financial toll. I am pleased the Minister confirmed that she will remove discrimination against HIV as soon as possible through secondary legislation. I hope that “as soon as possible” means imminently and that we are not still talking about this in a year’s time.

The Minister mentioned the HFEA and changes to regulation. The 2021 guidelines for fertility clinics highlight the need for improved understanding of consumer law and how it applies to clinics and patients. The guidance significantly improves the availability of knowledge of the topic, but it still misses out conditions and vulnerabilities faced by same-sex couples and transgender people, so I look forward to receiving her update.

I am glad that the Minister welcomes me holding her feet to the fire on discrimination in provision for IVF. I will continue to do so. She said that it has taken a bit longer than she would like—but not 10 years. I want to see an urgent timeline from her. The inconsistency in IVF provision across the UK is unacceptable. We must end the postcode lottery for fertility treatment and the unacceptable financial burden on same-sex couples. As has been pointed out today, many women cannot wait any longer.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of IVF provision.

Birth Trauma

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on her courageous speech, in which she described the birth of her daughter and the terrifying experience that she had. It is good to hear that she received such great support from her NHS team, but concerning to hear of her negative experiences—and as a former Minister for maternity services, I know that they were not isolated and that many others will have had similar experiences. My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate for women who have suffered birth trauma, and I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done and, I am sure, will continue to do.

I also congratulate Members on both sides of the House who have shared their personal experiences and those of their constituents, including my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who does so much in the area of baby loss, and who I am sure will speak in the next debate. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) talked about her experience of a caesarean section, and I want to reassure her that we are trying to move away from terms such as “normal” and “natural” to the term “a safe birth”, whether that refers to a “natural” birth or a C-section. I have been working with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on the East Kent inquiry and its recommendations, and have met many of her constituents who also shared their traumatic experiences about the care they had received.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) for sharing his experience as a partner, and also for pointing out that many of these issues apply to all four nations of the United Kingdom. I respond as the Minister for services in England but, obviously, I work closely with devolved colleagues to try to ensure a consistent service across the country.

I have listened very carefully to the contributions and pay tribute to everyone for their courage in sharing their stories. Before this debate, I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford to talk about the issues she has raised and to share with her the many pieces of work that the Government are already starting, after they were shared by women across the call for evidence on the women’s health strategy and by meeting many women across the country to discuss maternity services. We clearly need to do much more in this space, but I will also share some of the progress we are making.

I salute the work of the newly established all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma, chaired by my hon. Friend, which is showcasing an issue that very few people like to talk about. She discussed breaking the taboo, because even women who have been through birth trauma are often very reluctant to talk about this difficult subject, but the issue affects thousands of women. We can see from the response in the Gallery how important it is that we break the taboo and talk about these issues, both to prevent birth trauma and to manage the consequences when it happens.

I commend the work of charities such as the Birth Trauma Association and the many campaigners who are here today. It is important that we highlight this issue, because many women going through pregnancy do not realise some of the choices that are available to try to prevent birth trauma in the first place.

Birth trauma and injury take a toll on women, both physically and mentally, and greater awareness from the public and healthcare professionals is crucial to preventing birth trauma and mitigating its impact on women’s lives. We have heard a number of examples of compassionate care, which is essential both in reducing and preventing injury and in helping women and their families to cope with the impact of injury when it happens.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am sorry that I was not able to be here for the speeches, but will the Minister join me in commending health practitioners such as Stephanie Milne, who runs Physio Village in my Livingston constituency? She does mummy MOTs, and she talks a lot about birth trauma and how her work supports women who have been through birth trauma. Does the Minister agree that the NHS can do more to help women through such post-natal healthcare support?

[Maria Caulfield]

I absolutely pay tribute to them. We have heard some great examples of work happening around the country, but the point has also been made that it is not consistently available to everyone. Those examples show why compassionate care is a key part of the work we are taking forward, particularly in relation to Bill Kirkup’s report on maternity and neonatal services in east Kent, which was published last year. Dr Kirkup rightly emphasised the need for compassionate care and a change in culture as well as a change in practice for women throughout their pregnancy, labour and post-natal period.

Compassion, kindness and understanding all require women and their families to be treated as individuals and to be heard. That is something we heard strongly in our call for evidence on the women’s health strategy, to which we had over 100,000 responses. That is why birth trauma is mentioned in the strategy, and I will talk about that further.

As part of this, we have to recognise that the PTSD, psychological trauma or depression that a mother may experience also have to be supported. Just delivering a safe birth is not enough. Wearing my other hat as the mental health Minister, it is why new mums are a high-risk group in the suicide prevention strategy. It is a shocking statistic that the leading cause of death in new mums is suicide, but it is a very vulnerable time in a woman’s life. They are often isolated from work colleagues if they are on maternity leave and, if they are a first-time mum, they will not have a support network of other mums. We hear all over the place on social media what a wonderful time it should be in a mother’s life, that they should be blooming with a new child, but the reality can be very different. We have heard that today, whether it is issues around breastfeeding, not sleeping or just feeling isolated. On top of that, birth trauma can cause difficulties in not being able to drive and with being in pain—there is a whole raft of issues.

Through the work we are doing on maternity and focusing on new mums as a high-risk priority group in mental health, we are trying to drive forward changes to support women better.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to update the House on the wider progress we are making to improve outcomes in pregnancy. I fully understand the importance of preventing perineal trauma during childbirth. We have to be honest that we cannot always prevent it. I am not a midwife, but there are risk factors such as a larger baby, a smaller cervix or a long birth that mean trauma and injury will sometimes happen. There is no doubt that we need to do more to reduce the incidence of perineal trauma but, if it happens, we need to manage it in a much better way.

That is why I am pleased that NHS England has this week published a national service specification for perinatal pelvic health services, which it aims to roll out across England by March 2024 in order to end the postcode lottery of services. The specification states that the services will work with maternity units across England to implement the obstetric anal sphincter injury care bundle developed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, getting the specification rolled out across the country is an early success for the APPG. I am confident that this new guidance, which will be implemented across maternity units, will reduce the rate of anal sphincter injuries resulting from labour and vaginal births and help to manage such injuries in a much better way when they happen.

The introduction of these services will broaden the core service offer of pelvic health beyond the existing NICE and RCOG guidelines on care for obstetric anal sphincter injuries. The services will make sure that all pregnant women get the advice and support they need to prevent and identify pelvic health problems, and that those who do have problems are offered conservative treatment options before surgery is considered, in line with NICE guidelines.

We all know the crucial role that midwives play in recognising women who are suffering perinatal mental illness, including by taking a trauma-informed approach to care. To support this, NHS England is refreshing its core competency framework for perinatal mental health. The shadow Minister touched on this, and I reassure her that, by the early part of next year, every integrated care system in England—I cannot comment on what is happening in Labour-run Wales—will have a fully working maternal mental health service to support mothers experiencing moderate, severe or complex mental health difficulties.

It is true that the number of women accessing perinatal mental health services has risen by almost 50% over two years, but that is good news because we want women to come forward. The challenge for the Government in England is being able to meet that demand. For too long, women have suffered in silence and isolation. When they come forward, we need to have the services to support them. This demonstrates that mental health services are more important than ever before.

A number of colleagues have identified the issue of inequalities in maternity care, and we know that some women, particularly Asian, black and working-class women, are experiencing poorer mental health and poorer outcomes in maternity across the board. That is why we continue to fight to introduce NHS equity and equality action plans across the country. I am proud of the progress we are making on developing resources, and I pay particular tribute to the maternity disparities taskforce, which is working with organisations to deliver this as quickly as possible.

A number of issues were raised in the debate and, touching on birth trauma in the women’s health strategy, we will fairly soon be updating our year 2 strategy and setting out our priorities. I will let Members know about that as soon as possible.

There is a lot we could talk about in this space, and I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and all colleagues who have shared their experience. I reiterate that this is a priority for the Government. We are seeing change, but more change needs to happen.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb). I think the whole House is grateful to her for telling the story of her constituents and their daughter Beccy. It is so important that the Minister and colleagues hear the impact that Primodos has had on ordinary families, and why we need justice.

I have been involved in this campaign for nearly a decade, but there are three women who have been critical in leading it. The first is the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has chaired the APPG, but who has also done many more things: she has had more meetings, asked more questions and sent more letters, and we are all grateful to her. She is one of the greatest campaigners this House has seen in recent times. Like others, I also pay tribute to Marie Lyon and her husband, who have campaigned with more courage and bravery than I have seen from anyone outside this House in my time here. They are relentless, representing the interests of thousands of women and their families. They are not going to give up until they get that justice, and neither should we.

The third woman I want to mention is a lady called Sue Ilsley, the constituent who brought this issue to my attention. Sadly, Sue died earlier this year. I actually got to know her before this, because she was a campaigner on mental health issues in my constituency; as far as I was concerned, she was the best campaigner. I think that was partly because her mental health had been impacted by her experience of having taken Primodos as a teenager and then giving birth to a daughter—a wonderful daughter, but a daughter who had serious deformities as a result of Primodos. She campaigned on mental health, and later she brought the Primodos issue to me. When I used to speak to her, I could obviously feel her hurt and her anger, but just as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, I could also feel her guilt. She should not have had any.

There are guilty people. The right hon. Lady mentioned the NHS, but I want to take it back: Schering, the original drug company that has now been bought by Bayer, bears a lot of the guilt. All the professionals and the various medical regulators who have looked at this issue over the years bear the guilt. We should not finish campaigning until those guilty people are brought to justice. Experts and judges have looked at this recently and said, “They are not guilty”—well, they are. Look at the evidence. The expert working group was shocking, and when the right hon. Lady was Prime Minister, she was quite right not to accept its report and to go for the review. We had a debate in 2019 in which that report was pulled apart, and we have seen the work of Carl Heneghan, Neil Vargesson and others, who have proved as scientists and statistical experts that the evidence is overwhelming.

I am not a scientist or a medic, but I can sort of understand legal notes, and when I spoke in this House in December 2017, I read extensive extracts from the minutes of meetings held on 20 and 21 December 1977 at the Goldsmith Building, Temple, London. Schering, the original pharmaceutical company, was getting legal advice from a Mr Clothier QC. I will not repeat that speech today, but I will repeat a few of the things that I mentioned:

“Mr Clothier felt, if the case were tried to the end by a judge, the chances were that the company would be found to be in neglect of its duty.”

This was in 1977.

“Clothier stated that there seemed to be a 5:1 chance that, if there were a malformation in a child and the mother took Primodos while pregnant, it was the fault of the drug”,—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 707.]

so Schering knew that. That was its legal advice decades ago. Page 7 of the memo from the Berlin archives, which this note came from, states that Mr Clothier told Schering that

“there were 2 alternatives open to us—one is to establish a voluntary scheme of compensation in which a justifiable claim will be given compensation without proof of liability but simply accepting moral responsibility.”

The company’s review came to that conclusion. Decades later, why has it not happened?

The other alternative was to take the claims to court. What I found really interesting, and what I want to focus colleagues’ attention on, is that according to the memo, the Schering representative, Dr Detering, said that he was

“hesitant in establishing a scheme as the product is marketed world-wide. If we introduce this scheme in one country, we should introduce it in other countries.”

This product was marketed in 81 countries. That is the issue here; that is why there has been a cover-up for decades. That is why the medical regulators have stood behind the pharmaceutical company in question, because they know this would cost the company a fortune. Its shareholders would have to cough up—possibly cough up billions. In my view, this is potentially one of the biggest cover-ups of a pharmaceutical outrage that the world has ever seen.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful contribution. Does he agree that the recent drama documentary on Netflix, “Painkiller”, highlights just how this kind of issue happens and keeps on happening, and that if we do not get to the heart of it—if we do not stop pharmaceutical companies flooding the markets unregulated and drugs getting to patients, including our constituents, and doing them damage—it is just going to continue?

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I did not see that particular programme, but I am sure she is right. The key thing is that we need to make sure that those large organisations are held to account. That is our job, and we have been failing, because we have not held them to account—we are still here, many years and many debates later. We have had a Prime Minister on our side, and these people still have not been held to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a massive privilege to speak on behalf of my constituent Wilma Ord and those other victims. I declare an interest, as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hormone pregnancy tests, where I work alongside an incredible campaigner, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). She has done the most wonderful job and we have stood side by side.

One of the first cases I ever dealt with as a constituency Member began back in 2015, when Wilma Ord and her daughter Kirsteen came to my constituency surgery. As happened to so many of the victims—our constituents who have been mentioned today—Wilma’s doctor had taken out a pill from his top drawer when she was pregnant and handed it over to her, and she had trusted him. Ultimately, that is what this debate is about. It is about that social contract that our constituents have with us as parliamentarians and with Government, with their doctors and the institutions of the NHS, and with those private companies that are allowed into that space by us and by Government. It is also about the lack of regulation. If the Government continue to refuse to do anything about that, we can only conclude that these have been acts of state-sanctioned harm, because those companies were allowed to operate within the framework of our society and harm was done to our constituents.

Another issue, which has not been touched on an awful lot, is the flawed and failed legal process. I will touch on that, but first I pay tribute to Marie Lyon, who is a remarkable campaigner; to Jason Farrell of Sky News, who has done an incredible job and produced the documentary, “Primodos: The Secret Drug Scandal”, which I encourage Members to watch; to Baroness Cumberlege, for her remarkable work; and of course to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). In my opinion, her campaign on this subject is one of the right hon. Lady’s greatest achievements of her time in office. There may be many things on which we disagree, but we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on the issue. The Minister should be aware that we are not going anywhere. Whatever happens at the next election, parliamentarians from every party in this place will continue to hold the Government to account on the issue. The scientists Carl Heneghan and Neil Vargesson have been mentioned numerous times; their work has also been crucial.

In 2020 the right hon. Member for Maidenhead was right when she said:

“I almost felt it was sort of women being patted on the head and being told ‘there, there, dear. Don’t worry. You’re imagining it. You don’t know. We know better than you do.’”

I agree wholeheartedly with her, as that is exactly how my constituent was made to feel—she was gaslighted. I have sat with my constituent many times and I sat with her again recently. She lost her husband, George, a year ago. He died not knowing the truth and not seeing justice. It feels very much as if this Government are waiting for people to die rather than taking action, and that is for shame. When I met with Wilma recently we talked a little bit about what the future holds. As other hon. Members have said, our constituents are scared about what will happen next and about what the process and the future will hold.

I want to talk a little about that process. When some of our constituents took their legal action to court, the litigation was cumbersome and expensive and, after the judicial decision this year, the campaigners felt that they had really been done over. I will use my parliamentary privilege, Mr Deputy Speaker, to say that they were done over by a company called Pogust Goodhead, which approached the Primodos campaigners to take over the case. It then got cold feet and decided to drop the claimants and the victims when it did not fancy its chances of winning. To compound that, the company went on to withhold the documents that constituents such as Wilma Ord had presented to the company to pursue the case. That prevented the campaign from being able to find other legal representation and fundamentally meant that the campaign was unsuccessful in court. In my view, that is a hostile and odious movement by any legal firm.

The court citation states:

“Shortly after the service of the defendants’ evidence, PGMBM”—

Pogust Goodhead—

“informed the claimants that they could no longer act for them. They then applied to come off the record… The material placed…in support of the solicitors’ application to come off the record is privileged and has been withheld from me and from the defendants.”

Those are the words of Mrs Justice Yip. She goes on to say that

“some claimants discontinued their claims”,

and talks about the issues around managing a case that has “so many unrepresented litigants”.

In its mission statement, Pogust Goodhead says it is a

“global partnership…working to help individuals, groups, and businesses access fair and tangible justice.”

What a load of absolute nonsense. I appeal to the company directly today, as I am pretty sure the lawyers who worked on the case will be watching: give our constituents their documents back and come clean on exactly how you pulled out of that litigation. And for shame on the Government for going into cahoots with that crowd and leaving our constituents and those victims in that situation. That is state-sponsored and funded action against our constituents and our citizens.

As many people have said, this injustice has gone on for decades, like contaminated blood, Hillsborough and the thalidomide case. It seems to be the order of the day and the order of Government to make people wait for decades, to traumatise and retraumatise them. Baroness Cumberlege’s review clearly took a different view from that of the expert working group and concluded that the manufacturer and the state had an ethical responsibility to find a financial scheme for those harmed.

Finally on my hit list is Bayer, formerly Schering, which said that financial recompense was not appropriate. Last year, its profits were $4.4 billion. It made millions off the back of Primodos and off the back of the damage that was done to our constituents. I am sorry, but this is not good enough for our citizens. It is not good enough from the Minister and it is not good enough from the Government. They need to get off their backsides and do something about this, because we, as parliamentarians, as campaigners and as constituents, are not going away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

I hear my right hon. Friend and, as I said, I will come on to that specifically towards the end of my remarks.

There were further evidence reviews. Hon. Members have touched on the evidence from Heneghan et al., and from Brown et al. in 2018. Those were looked at, and again there was no evidence of causality found in those reviews.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will, but I need to make some progress on addressing the points made.

[Hannah Bardell]

Causality is one of the key issues here, because it is very difficult to prove. The only way it can be proven is if those tests were done on pregnant women, and we all know that would be utterly ridiculous and absurd. However, we do know that there was association, and the bar has been set so high that it has become impossible for people to get justice. That responsibility lies at the door of the Government. Thalidomide campaigners were able to settle with the company. We need to look at how we can make that happen for Primodos campaigners, but the Government also need to look at lowering the bar.

[Maria Caulfield]

I take the hon. Lady’s point that causality is a high bar. I am just going through the fact that there have been a number of reviews of the evidence so far. Baroness Cumberlege, when she set out the remit for her review, also stated from the outset that she would not be able to touch on causality for many of those reasons. There have been a number of reviews of the evidence, but I hear from right hon. and hon. Members some concerns that those reviews still have not got to the bottom of the issues that the families and those affected by Primodos feel that they have faced.

On the next steps, I have heard hon. Members. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was clear about the drug being taken even after evidence had emerged. I heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) about the effect on her constituent Helen and her family. I heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) about his experience in Government and why these things often take so long. And, of course, I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who set up the Cumberlege review in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) has lobbied me hard outside this place on behalf of his constituent Marie Lyon and the many others who have been affected.

Now that we are in between the first and—potentially—second court cases, I am keen to meet and get to the bottom of right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

Finger pointing is not exactly effective. As I set out at the beginning of my remarks, we have accepted the majority of those recommendations. We could not accept the Primodos ones while there was an ongoing court case. I have given my commitment from the Dispatch Box to review the outstanding recommendations in relation to Primodos, because I want to get to the bottom of this once and for all and provide justice for the families. I have heard from Members across the House about their concerns and the outstanding recommendations of the Cumberlege review, and my commitment is to look at those now.

[Hannah Bardell]

It seems to me that we are caught up in a quagmire of bureaucracy. We have had the Cumberlege review. We know what the results are. The Government said incessantly that they would not address the Primodos matter because of the court case. We now know that the court case was, in some respects, flawed, because the complainants and victims were not able to take their case forward as their information was withheld by the legal firm. As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) said, they are now being treated in a hostile manner by the Government by being told that they will be sued for over £10 million if they take another case forward. That is an utterly preposterous situation. If the Minister really wants to get to the bottom of it, she needs to implement fully the Cumberlege review and ignore the nonsense that has gone on in the courts.

[Maria Caulfield]

I do not want to test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that I am over time, but I have made the commitment to review the Cumberlege recommendations for Primodos patients. For those who have been affected by sodium valproate and mesh, we are making huge progress. Only this week, we introduced a statutory instrument so that sodium valproate can only be dispensed in the manufacturer’s original packaging. We have the pregnancy prevention programme, which is drastically reducing the number of babies born to those taking sodium valproate. We are installing the registry, so that women on sodium valproate are better cared for and not taking that medication. Now that 11 August has passed and the claim was not followed up, I am looking at the Primodos recommendations as well. My commitment is to come back to the House and update Members on the progress on those matters.

Legislative Definition of Sex

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Miriam Cates]

It is a concluded case.

The women were discriminating against him because he was male, and such discrimination is perfectly within the Equality Act if it is

“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”,

which in this case was to protect the integrity of single-sex spaces.

I have nothing but compassion for people whose biological sex is a source of distress; they should of course receive the best evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria. But while a small number of people rightly have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, everyone, including trans people, has the protected characteristic of sex—male or female. Where those protected characteristics collide, we must ensure that everyone is protected according to their sex and that proportionate accommodations are made to assist those who do not wish to use the facilities of their sex.

We must clarify the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex and to ensure that the providers of single-sex services and facilities understand and protect the single-sex nature of the provisions. It is extraordinary that in 2023—a time of unprecedented knowledge—we are arguing about the definition of something that has been known since the dawn of time. The most contentious question of our day has famously become “What is a woman?”—a question that no previous society has felt the need to answer.

Despite the semantic acrobatics employed by some to dodge the question, we all know, instinctively and intrinsically, what a woman is. The sex binary—the biological state of being either male or female—evolved hundreds of millions years ago, before we humans walked the earth. Being able to tell the difference between a man and a woman is not a matter of acquired knowledge. It is as instinctive as being able to tell up from down. Indeed, our survival as a species depends on it; if we want to reproduce, and to protect ourselves and our children, we had better know the difference between a man and a woman.

Men and women are different physically, psychologically, sexually and socially. All civilisations are built on an understanding of these differences, creating structures, rules and boundaries to protect women and children from male violence and to preserve the dignity of both sexes. There is nothing more destabilising to society than to dismantle the legal, social and cultural guardrails that protect women and children by pretending that males become females and vice versa, and allowing that to creep into our law.

While academic elites cave in to aggressive and misogynistic trans activism, ordinary women are frightened to go to hospital, ordinary men fear for the safety of their daughters in public toilets, ordinary children are subjected to a psychological experiment in which they are told they can choose their gender, and ordinary toddlers are used to satisfy the sexual fetish of adult men dressed as eroticised women. Understanding the difference between male and female underpins society, safety and security. We must clarify the Equality Act, and give ordinary people the certainty that our laws can be trusted to protect women and children and that sex means sex.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I feel it is incumbent on me to make a point of order on the fact that trans people are being characterised as predators, and that is deeply undemocratic and deeply worrying. That is not what this debate is about. For the Member to be using such language is unparliamentary. I seek your guidance, Mrs Cummins.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order because it is not a matter for the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Equality Act 2010 protects against direct and indirect discrimination, but there has always been provision in the Act for different treatment where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim—that is, different provision for those whose sex is assigned at birth and those whose legal sex has been acquired through a gender recognition certificate.

For example, although I know of one rape crisis service that has been providing women-only services for 30-years, and uses trans-inclusive language and has been trans-inclusive for 30 years, many other organisations providing services for those who have suffered domestic violence use the current provision in the Equality Act to provide exclusive services for those whose sex at birth was female.

Decisions about who can compete in sports can be made by sporting bodies as appropriate for the sport, and I do not understand why so many Members do not seem to have understood that. Obviously, rugby is totally different from chess. Those decisions are made by the appropriate bodies.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004, in combination with the Equality Act, currently defines someone’s legal sex as either the sex they were assigned at birth or the sex they have acquired through having a gender recognition certificate under the GRA. As I have illustrated, the Equality Act allows for different treatment of people whose legal sex has been acquired through a gender recognition certificate and people whose sex is assigned at birth, as long as the action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

If there is a change, as has been suggested, from the current definition in the 2010 Act to a definition based on biological sex, that would create a blanket ban on trans people from services that they had previously enjoyed without concern or complaint, even when it cannot be said to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The change would remove the current protection from discrimination for people in possession of a gender recognition certificate and undermine the Gender Recognition Act, leading to people being treated as if they had not changed their sex.

Unfortunately, this debate has often been portrayed as a matter of whether trans women should be allowed to use women’s toilets. First, we have had the GRA since 2004, and trans women have been using women’s toilets without complaint. Most of us have probably never even noticed. As we know, we have individual cubicles, so everyone has their privacy.

Even more unfortunately, there has been a conflation, even by Members in this debate, of a trans woman and somebody who is a criminal. We know perfectly well that there are police who are criminals and carry out heinous acts, but that does not mean that all police officers are criminals. It is exactly the same. Someone could impersonate a meter reader or a council worker, say, and go to a house to try to gain entry by false means. Why the idea that someone can dress up as a woman and therefore carry out whatever criminal act they intend to should determine how we decide to treat trans women is absolutely indecipherable to me.

To those people who genuinely feel that they do not want to discriminate against trans people, I want to make it clear just how hurtful that suggestion is to many trans people. They feel that they will be completely obliterated—that they will no longer exist, that they will no longer have the right to recognition. They have so many challenges in life—challenges with their family, challenges at work, challenges with their social life—

[Hannah Bardell]

I commend the hon. Lady for making a passionate and common-sense contribution to the debate. I am sure she agrees that some of what we have heard today is just feeding into the moral panic; some of the arguments are just cut and pasted from what gay and lesbian people faced decades ago. Does she agree, as a lesbian, that trans people do not threaten us? In fact, they enhance our existence.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. As a fellow lesbian, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady; they are absolutely not a threat. More importantly than that, they need our support now more than ever.

International Women’s Day

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller]

That is an excellent friend— I mean that is an excellent comment from my hon. Friend, and she is absolutely right. I should at this stage point out that there are a couple of us on the Government Benches who have not slept overnight, so please forgive us, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we stumble over our words. [Interruption.] No, a lot tamer than that; we flew back on the red-eye from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am moved to intervene because the right hon. Lady mentioned Cheryll Gillan. While there might have been many things we disagreed on, there were many things we did agree on. She did incredible work on autism and championing neurodiversity. Also, when I joined the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, she was a very supportive member and helped to show me the way. She is much missed across all Benches.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for those kind comments. It demonstrates how we work together and have shared interests. Just to refer back to our venture to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women earlier this week, I chaired a panel of young women, and they were asking about how we work together, and where the political divides were. I have to say that I used Jo Cox’s words that there is more that unites us than divides us. That is another thing I would like to remember fondly today.

Having women in Parliament and in leadership really matters—we know that—because it changes the conversation, the discussion and, above all, the decisions that are made both here and in organisations across the country and around the world. To mark International Women’s Day, at the start of this week I led one of four delegations of UK parliamentarians to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. My delegation was from the all-party parliamentary group on United Nations women. We thank the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for its support in helping that delegation happen.

At the CSW in New York, thousands of women from around the world met to discuss the status of women, with four delegations from our Parliament. There were 18 hon. and right hon. Members and noble Members of the House of Lords at that global event. The event was at times harrowing, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) will draw later on some of her work while she was there. It was harrowing in particular to hear directly from women from Afghanistan, Ukraine and other parts of the world, including Colombia and Mexico, about their own personal experiences, particularly around sexual harassment and worse. The Afghan women we heard from talked about the brutal beatings, the torture and worse, but they are still there, prepared to protest to regain the hard-won rights of the past two decades. We also heard from women in Iran living with a brutal regime. We must continue to play our part in this Parliament, as we have a proud tradition of doing, in keeping these women’s plight at the fore and ensuring that their need for support and change is never forgotten.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about pilots. I know her point is slightly broader than that, but pilots face issues in staying qualified to fly, if they have children. That is one of the reasons— I met that sector of the industry a number of years ago—it sees such a haemorrhaging of women out of the industry. But she makes a broader point. Over the last decade and a half, we have made some important progress in getting in place the idea and notion that having more women in senior roles in organisations is important. On STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths— I actually think those on the Treasury Bench should be singing much louder than they do on their success in putting STEM first and foremost in young women’s minds. When we compare STEM graduates coming out of our universities now with the graduates who came out of our universities in 2010, there are now more women than men coming out with STEM degrees. We do not shout about that enough, but she is right that those women are still on a junior level. We need to ensure that the barriers have been removed so they do not, as we see in the case of pilots, end up having to move out of the industry because barriers are in the way. She makes an important point.

As I say, in the business world, research from McKinsey found that gender diversity increases earnings and that companies in the top quartile for diversity outperform their industry mediums. McKinsey believes that that is because diverse companies are better able to win talent to improve customer understanding, employee satisfaction and decision making, leading to what it calls a virtuous circle.

If diversity can improve our businesses, it can improve our Parliament, too. Where our performance metrics are not found on balance sheets, they are found in the decisions we make for the future of our country. Diversity and deliberative processes, by which I mean voices from more backgrounds bringing new ideas from different life experiences, are foundational to what we do here. The Center for Talent Innovation identified that 56% of leaders do not value ideas they do not personally see the need for. Given that we know that women have experiences of life that are very different from those of their male counterparts, we can see from that figure how important it is that we have more women not only in this Chamber but at the decision-making table of Government.

What is the solution? We need diversity in leadership, and having women central in our debates adds legitimacy to our democratic process. It means that our work in scrutiny is done in a more rounded and full way, and policy can be made that more fully encompasses the needs and dreams of the people we serve. The UK electorate and all electorates are half women, so representing women’s voices here is directly important to at least half of our constituents. Gender equality in Parliament is all about democracy and improving our democracy. It is clear to see why it is important that we make an ever-increasing effort to ensure that diversity can thrive in this Parliament.

Our Parliament has come a long way and we have a very reforming Speaker, who has put the role of parliamentarians front and centre in this place and picked up some of the issues that are incredibly important to women not only coming into Parliament but staying in Parliament. I am thinking particularly here about personal security. However, our Speaker has also inherited an enormous backlog of issues that have not been tackled for a variety of reasons in recent years. It is my belief that the House of Commons must continue to renew its energies in this area to ensure that it is not only the political parties that are working hard to get more women into the House of Commons, but the House of Commons itself that is appealing and is a place where people want to come and have a career. The women who have the capacity, the capabilities and perhaps even the personality to come into Parliament have a lot of choices and different ways they can use their lives. If we do not make sure that the people who have the best capacity are attracted to come to Parliament, as well as have a vocation, we are going to miss out on the brightest and the best, a phrase that is often mentioned to me by Ministers who are responsible when I talk about this issue.

One of the ways we can ensure that we increase the appeal of our Parliament is through gender-sensitive audits, to ensure that we have an understanding of what makes our Parliament strong, and where we can improve it and make it more appealing for women. I pay tribute to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which developed the concept of gender-sensitive Parliaments in 2010. Since then, multiple Parliaments around the world—including our own—have conducted gender-sensitive audits to see how they fare. That was developed further by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which put together a toolkit to make it easier for all sorts of Parliaments to implement such an audit.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Maria Miller]

Will the hon. Lady forgive me if I do not? I do not want to incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.

The point of gender sensitivity is to create environments in which both men and women can operate equally. There are seven key aspects, which include: the numbers and positions of women; the legal and policy framework of the legislature; mainstreaming of gender equality; the culture, environment and policies of Parliament; the role of political parties; and the position of parliamentary staff. All those aspects can tell us a lot about how men and women are faring in their Parliaments. The House of Commons conducted a gender-sensitive audit in 2018, which was welcome, but that feels like a long time ago. Some colleagues were not even here. Our audit of how Parliament works for people today, not three or four years ago, should be foremost in our minds.

It is clear that there is more to do. I refer to the Fawcett Society’s report “A House for Everyone: The Case for Modernising Parliament”, published in December, which I am sure colleagues are familiar with. It brought into focus the problems around retaining female parliamentarians, which I know concerns colleagues on both sides of the House. The number of women in Parliament taken as a snapshot is all well and good, but Fawcett’s work reveals that, because women face disproportionate challenges, they tend to stay in Parliament for one fewer term than men. That means that those women do not get the opportunity to reach the seniority or level of experience of their male counterparts.

On what we do next, the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament will produce a workstream to ensure that we have a clear plan to get an equal Parliament by 2028, to coincide with the centenary of the Equal Franchise Act 1928. When that work plan is put into place, I hope that we can share it in Parliament through further debate.

It is a great pleasure to open the debate. On behalf of those colleagues who are still at CSW in New York, I wish a happy International Women’s Day for yesterday to everyone in the Chamber and those who are watching at home. I encourage everyone to ensure that the legacy from our time in Parliament is encouraging and achieving the objective of having more women on the green Benches, to make this place a fairer and even stronger parliamentary democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a huge pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate. There have been some fantastic and powerful speeches by right hon. and hon. Members. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who opened the debate. I have fond memories of us trekking down the corridor to the former Speaker’s office to advocate for baby and parental leave for Members of this House, to try to take this place forward. It is right, as other Members have said, that female parliamentarians often work cross-party to achieve progress. It is not the Punch and Judy show that folks see on the television week in, week out.

I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her incredibly moving speech. It has become a grim tradition, it is fair to say, that every year she discharges her duty of reading the names of women who have been killed by violent men. That is incredibly important.

One of those names was a constituent of mine, Aimee Cannon. Her mother, Wendy Cannon, is here with us today in the Gallery. I want to share the details of what happened to Aimee. I stress that these are Wendy’s own words, and we are privileged that she is willing to share them with us through me, her Member of Parliament.

On 5 May last year, Wendy and her husband were enjoying a Friday night. It felt like any other typical Friday night as they began thinking about the weekend. Wendy had been communicating with their daughter, Aimee, via WhatsApp. Aimee had been telling them how much she was looking forward to work the next day. Aimee worked at a beauty salon. She had plans to celebrate at a birthday party that weekend, and she was also going to help out at a charity fundraising event for a children’s hospice. In spite of her own challenges—anorexia, self-harming, domestic abuse and addiction—she wanted to help others. She had a big heart. That was Aimee.

On Saturday her parents became worried about Aimee’s lack of contact. Aimee’s father went to her house and found her dead with multiple injuries. The police described the attack as a brutal and sustained attack. Aimee would have been frightened, in pain, alone and dying in a place that she should have felt safe in. Aimee was only 26 years old, and she had so much to live for and so much to give.

Aimee’s parents and their grandchildren’s lives will never be the same again. Aimee’s mum Wendy told me that they stagger from day to day in a dark maze of grief, lost in a legal system that they do not understand. They have one question: how many more women have to die before we recognise that gender violence is now becoming an epidemic in our society?

I am incredibly proud of and grateful to Aimee’s parents for their courage and bravery in sharing Aimee’s story, and for allowing me to share it today. When Wendy first came to see us to get support, we sat together and she told me about Aimee. And we cried—a lot. Wendy said to me this morning when she came to Parliament that she had heard the Prime Minister’s legitimate concerns about his daughter’s safety while walking to school. She said that she hears that—but imagine how she feels.

The challenges that Aimee faced in her life are, sadly, shared by many women across the UK. I have spoken before of women from my constituency, Kirsty Maxwell and Julie Pearson, who were both killed abroad at the hands of violent men. It was their untimely and tragic deaths that led my team and me to start our work on deaths abroad and consular assistance. There are so many other women we could talk about, though some are very often missed off our lists, forgotten about or unnamed.

We are privileged to be here and in this position as female parliamentarians. I am in this place because of generations of women who have come before me, who fought for our right to vote, to get paid equally and to get treated fairly, and who fought for real progress at their own expense, both professionally and personally. In fact, yesterday I had the privilege of taking some of the WASPI women—from the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—to the suffragette broom cupboard, a little-known shrine for those feminists among us. On the night of the 1911 census, Emily Wilding Davison hid herself in that cupboard so that she could record it as her address, in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft. Her census form gives the postal address as:

“Found hiding in crypt of Westminster Hall”,

and the pencilled note on the bottom left gives the date, “3/4/11 Since Saturday”. Emily was arrested on nine occasions, went on hunger strike seven times and was force-fed on 49 occasions. She died after being hit by King George V’s horse at the 1913 Derby when she walked on to the track during the race, sacrificing herself so that we can be here today.

There was something almost prophetic about showing those incredible women, who have faced such injustice, that place where another great woman suffered and sacrificed to make her point.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Emily Wilding Davison taught for a time in Worthing, which gives me a constituency link. I think her view was that if she could not vote, she was not a person and therefore she should not be recorded by the census. I do not think that she aimed to be recorded as being in Westminster; she just wanted to hide here.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that providing that incredibly helpful education.

As we walked past the statue of Falkland, to which suffragette and activist Margery Humes chained herself, one of the WASPI women told me that they should have brought their own chains. It is a brutal and harsh reality that more than a century later, we have women facing similar injustice who have to fight way past retirement age and who are dying before they get the justice to which they are entitled.

I am reminded that it is Endometriosis Awareness and Action Month. My co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), and I have been to a number of events and briefings this week, as we do throughout the year, to talk about, discuss and campaign for better diagnosis, support and funding for research and treatment for those who suffer from such a brutal and life-limiting disease.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about a reality that blights the lives of many women. Will she also call for similar research and focus to be shone on polycystic ovary syndrome, which is another blight on the lives of many women?

[Hannah Bardell]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. So often, women are being left behind by the lack of resource for, research on and understanding of diseases such as endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.

All over the UK we have incredible groups, such as my local one in Livingston, Endo Warriors, run and managed by Candice and Claire, two remarkable women. I was reminded yesterday that, unlike other diseases, endometriosis and, I believe, polycystic ovary syndrome, still have some of the worst support and understanding by clinicians, and that post-op care comes nowhere close to what people get if they have almost any other injury, disorder or disease.

I want to mention briefly Marie Lyon, who heads up the campaign on Primodos, another scandal of our time. I know that the Minister is familiar with this. We have to pay tribute to those women and parents who have suffered at the hands of Primodos, the hormone pregnancy drug, because they are still fighting for justice decades on from the harm that has been done to them and their children.

Some progress has been made, though—it is not all grim. In Scotland, for example, we have become the first country in the UK to publish a women’s health plan, which is an important first step, and I know that the UK Government are following in our footsteps by focusing on the rights of women and girls in their international development strategy. That is incredibly welcome, but what is not welcome is the cut in international aid, which is going to hit some of the poorest areas in the world the most. It needs to be reversed.

The simple fact is that women today still face vast inequalities. The issues are complex and interlinked, whether they be childcare costs, the cost of living, access to affordable healthcare or traditional stereotypes, many of which we have heard about from Members throughout the Chamber. Women of colour, trans women, women on lower incomes and women across the LGBT community continue to be disproportionately impacted. Not only are this UK Government bringing forward illegal and illiberal policies that will shame us the world over, but having no recourse to public funds has a brutal impact on many women who are seeking refuge and asylum. I have seen that at first hand when constituents come to me.

According to the World Economic Forum’s “Global Gender Gap Report 2022”, it will take another 132 years to close the gender pay gap.

Internationally, we see women striving for the same rights as men. I pay tribute to the incredible women in Iran who have stood up and risen up against an authoritarian Government, and to the women in Afghanistan who are fighting for the right just to retain the ability to be educated, and who face a brutal reality following the departure of the troops. The west has left the women of Afghanistan behind and we must look to what more we can do. And I pay tribute to the women of Ukraine, including my constituent Natalya, who is interning in my constituency office. She had to leave many of her family members behind, as they are fighting in that horrific conflict.

There are many incredibly important women in all our lives. One of them is my mum. She stood for election to this place in 2010. She was unsuccessful but, five years later, I am pleased to say that I beat the man who had beaten her.

I grew up as a child of a single parent. I was born out of wedlock, and I want to say to all the single parents and single mothers how incredible they are, that they are loved, wanted and valued.

One of my favourite stories about my mum is about our dinner traditions. One of our favourite dinners—some may be familiar with this, and some may not—was a pick-and-mix dinner, which often came at the end of the month. It did not dawn on me until adulthood that my mum creatively made up the dinner with whatever was left over at the end of the month because, quite often, there was not much left to spend. Her creativity in presenting us with lots of different wee bits as an entertaining game worked every time. We loved it and I still love it. Her door was always open to anyone, no matter how little we had. We had Christmases with folk who did not have anywhere to go and camping trips with other folk’s kids. Mothers, especially single mothers, are really quite exceptional.

I close by paying tribute to the incredible Emma Ritch. She was the executive director of Engender and passed away suddenly in 2021. She is desperately missed by her family, friends and colleagues, and I was the beneficiary of her excellent advice on more than one occasion. I am so pleased that the Emma Ritch law clinic will shortly open in her memory at the University of Glasgow.

To all the incredible women, to those who identify as women and to women like Aimee who, in spite of all the challenges they face, display enormous kindness and generosity for others, we salute you. I know that my constituent Wendy will continue to fight for women’s equality, in Aimee’s memory, with her army of friends and family, and I look forward to going on that journey with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), with whom I always enjoy working. She is always worth listening to.

I also want to reflect on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) at the beginning of the debate. I was not sure how I was going to begin my contribution because, to be honest, I am a bit scunnered—probably more than a bit—but she set a positive example so, before I get on to my scunner, I will follow on from what she said and reflect on the fact that women across the House can and do work together positively. Although I have significant political differences with her, with women on the Labour Benches and with others, I am really grateful for the focus that all these strong, powerful women have on issues to do with women. I put on the record my great appreciation for colleagues cross party and for the work they do.

I note the exceptional speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). It was a powerful contribution. She talked about her constituent and her lovely mum. It has been nice to hear the reflections of others about their mums, too. Again, that is something we can all agree on.

I think we all want to be very clear in our appreciation for what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) does. It really matters. I am sure it is very difficult, but these women matter and the difficulty their families are facing should never happen. It should never be experienced by any family. We need to reflect on that and on the headlines, as others have commented, that follow these tragic incidents about “family men” and so on. The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) made some very powerful comments in that regard.

[Hannah Bardell]

My hon. Friend speaks of the families of the women whose names the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out. I have just had the pleasure of spending some time with them, and what was palpable was not just the tragedy they have experienced, but their resilience. Does she share my view that they should never have had to face this and, as we have heard across the House today, we need to do so much more to ensure there are no lists of dead women to read out?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what she says. I cannot add to that. What she describes is a reality and we have a responsibility to ensure that we do everything we can. The reality is not great. Too many families know all too well the gaping holes that are left because of male violence against women, so we will keep talking. We have a responsibility to do that. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) said, we need to use our privileged platform here as parliamentarians to raise this issue time and again.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke spoke powerfully about the value and importance of women in public life, and the consequent improvements they bring. An increase in the number of women in public life ties together to bring women’s situations more broadly into a better place. She is 100% correct in what she says. We have many more women in public life now and I very much welcome that, but I also reflect that, certainly in the time since I was first elected in 2015, public life has become increasingly polarised. There are challenges over and above those that we would have identified in 2015.

The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) was correct to be concerned about the damage that influencers such as Andrew Tate inflict on wider society. Obviously, that has a profound effect on women. We also heard that culture wars, which we hear too much about, are not without an impact on women—that is absolutely right. All those who engage in that kind of behaviour should be ashamed of themselves, because they do down and cause detriment not only to women but to everyone in our society.

Last year I was struck by hearing Members express those kinds of concerns—they were fed up and worn down by the toxic climate that they were working in. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) reflected that it is increasing. Can we, in good conscience, not point that out? I do not think so. We should call it out for what it is: damaging our democracy and women. Can we, in good conscience, ask young women to come forward into what is often a toxic soup of threats, abuse and misinformation? I ask myself that. However, perhaps there is a bit more of the glass half full about me after all. I think that we can and we do ask young women to do that—I think of the strong and powerful young women I know, who will always stand up for women’s rights and equality.

My reflection on equality is that if someone is coming after my rights as a woman, it is clear that the rights of every other group will be next on the agenda. I am aware that I perhaps sound a bit crabbit, as I would be described at home. Perhaps I am an increasingly crabbit middle-aged feminist, but I am happy to point out that my rights as a woman and my feminism are not at all imperilled—in fact, they are more than likely strengthened —by my making sure that I stand up for the rights of other groups.

I am grateful that hon. Members have reflected on the situation of women across the world whose rights are imperilled. We need to be clear that rights are not carved in stone forever, as we have seen tellingly in the US. We have seen grave and terrible situations for women in Afghanistan and Iran, and they need not only our solidarity but our practical support and assistance. That is our job. We need to take practical steps and stand with them. Uyghur Muslim women are forced into sterilisations and labour camps. Women across the world are in difficult situations, and I include women in small boats.

Closer to home, there are policies that cause detriment to women. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) speak about the future of work and supporting women in work. We need to do that, but the reality is that there is a 15% pay gap, and warm words will not deal with that. It will take concerted action, and the strong WASPI women who I spoke to yesterday know that there is a problem. The situation is not fair for them as older women, and nor will it be for younger women. It will take decades for that issue to correct itself, if it ever does. We need to accept that reality.

I am always happy to talk at length about the positive policy in Scotland, as hon. Members will be aware. It is important that much of that policy focuses on gender and women. I would like to focus on one particular woman, as she stands down as the first female First Minister of Scotland and the first woman to lead the Scottish National party. I pay tribute to Nicola Sturgeon, a politician who has inspired me greatly and influenced many others. Many women and girls will be interested and engaged in politics and public life because of her consistent and solid support for women’s rights and making lives better.

I will close by mentioning some other women who inspire me, because we need to finish on a positive note. East Renfrewshire councillors Caroline Bamforth, Angela Convery and Annette Ireland day and daily work hard to make lives better for women. They champion women and girls in all they do, and I am very proud to have them as my colleagues.

Laura Young is a young influencer who is campaigning hard on environmental issues, including to get rid of disposable vapes, which cause problems for both the environment and young people. For her pains, she too is involved in the horrible, toxic morass of online abuse. Shame on all the people who deal with her like that. She is a young woman making a difference to the world, and she does not have to do that. Women such as her will continue to make a difference. None of the online abuse will make a difference—she is going nowhere.

Rahima Mahmut is a Uyghur human rights activist who, despite the challenges she faces, stands up day and daily for the rights of Uyghur women. Hon. Members will not have heard of Rena McGuire, but they will all be the better for knowing her. Rena is a woman from Barrhead whose community activism spans decades. She has made every effort at every point to make life better for women in her community. Although we have many challenges and we should not minimise them, there is a space for us to appreciate the sterling and tireless work of women such as Rena, who make all our lives better.