Legislative Definition of Sex
Debate between Jess Phillips and Maria Caulfield(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. For most people, their sex in law is the same as their biological sex. It is different where a transgender person has legally changed their sex to their acquired gender on their birth certificate by obtaining a gender recognition certificate. If “sex” meant someone’s sex in law, references to a woman in the Equality Act would include a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate but not a trans woman without a gender recognition certificate. That said, the Equality Act protection applies on the basis of perceived characteristic as well as actual characteristics, so a trans woman who passes as a woman can claim protection from discrimination on that basis. The debate today is about whether that basis of sex, based on law rather than on biology, needs changing to ensure that the rights of biological women are also protected. That is the crux of the matter that we have been debating today.
It is in that spirit that the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), sought advice from the EHRC as the independent equality regulator for Great Britain. When seeking that advice, she set out that she is concerned that the Equality Act may not be sufficiently clear in the balance that it strikes between the interests of people with different protected characteristics. It is everyone’s best interests that we establish whether the law in its existing format is sufficiently clear, because not doing so, as we have heard today, could have very practical consequences. The continued debate on this matter inevitably creates additional considerations for organisations and service providers to navigate, potentially preventing them from carrying out their functions or indeed from complying with the responsibility for equality.
The Prime Minister has also publicly given his views on this issue. In April he said:
“We should always have compassion and understanding…for those who are thinking about…their gender. But when comes to these issues of protecting women's rights, women's spaces, I think the issue of biological sex is fundamentally important when we think about those questions”.
That is why, when it comes to women’s health, sports or spaces, we need to make sure that we are protecting those rights.
Jess Phillips
It is interesting to hear the words from the very top of Government. I wonder if the Minister will be joining us in the Lobbies during the Victims and Prisoners Bill to ensure that specialist women’s services are defined in law and are protected in commissioning at a local level, where currently they are being let go.
Maria Caulfield
I know that the hon. Lady campaigns passionately on those issues from her experience of working in the sector. As a Government, we have done a huge amount for women in the space of domestic violence and abuse.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published its considered response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, stating that on balance it believes that redefining sex in the Equality Act to mean biological sex would
“create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reduction in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.”
It has, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, said that it could cause some ambiguity as well. That is why it is important that we consider, both in policy terms and in legal terms, the potential implications of this change before we take any further decisions.
The Government have taken that advice and are considering the next steps at the moment.
Baby Loss Awareness Week
Debate between Jess Phillips and Maria Caulfield(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Caulfield
I take the hon. Lady’s point. There was a lot of misinformation earlier in the year that made pregnant women reluctant to come forward, and there is a lot of work we can do to improve that communication.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I wish to raise a specific point about covid that I learned of from an obstetric consultant: the number of preemie births dramatically dropped during covid because women were at home. It was a doctor from Reading who told me this. He had to be dispatched somewhere else in the NHS because his services in dealing with premature babies were no longer needed as the number had dropped so greatly because women were at home. Will that form part of the strategy, to make sure that in terms of baby loss we are looking after women throughout their pregnancies?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. We need to be guided by clinical evidence and practice, and we will look back and reflect on some of the lessons that can be learned from the period of covid.
Many hon. Members mentioned the staff who look after women and families who have lost a baby. It is incredibly important that we support those staff, because the impact is huge. May I put on the record my thanks to every one of those maternity staff who look after women and families, because the toll on them is sometimes greatly underestimated? It is assumed that because they go into that speciality they can cope with this, but it is extremely difficult for them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), may I too welcome Jane Scott and her colleague, one of the midwives from St Mary’s Hospital, who have set up the UK National Bereavement Midwife Forum? I would be delighted to visit them and learn from their experience, because we are committed to supporting staff and making sure that they are able to undertake the special work that they do.
In conclusion, there are multiple and complex issues associated with baby loss and we need to do more not only to support families through such a difficult experience, but to reduce the numbers of people experiencing baby loss in the first place. Crucially, as I said in my opening remarks, we have made some good progress on our national maternity safety plans. We have seen a 25% reduction in the stillbirth rate since 2010 and a 29% reduction in the neonatal mortality rate for babies over 24 weeks’ gestation. That means hundreds more mothers and families are going home with a live and healthy baby each year, but, as this debate has ably demonstrated, there is still much more to be done. I hope to return to the Chamber next year during Baby Loss Awareness Week to be able to show the further progress we have made on this important issue.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(5)
Debate between Jess Phillips and Maria Caulfield(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I had not intended to speak. I do not know that this necessarily needs to be an argument about the rights and wrongs of abortion, although it seems to have strayed into that.
I start with the point that we are now in a Trumpian time, when we talk about big issues on Twitter rather than in these Chambers. The Secretary of State commented on Twitter that the Government had discussed this issue with Church groups. I ask the Minister what other health matters on the UK mainland and in Northern Ireland we have discussed with Church groups. I wonder whether on, for example, the hormone replacement therapy crisis—there is a lack of HRT—the Government have spoken to St Mary’s Church in Moseley, Birmingham.
Jess Phillips
I don’t have to give way if I don’t want to. I shall give way when I am ready.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State has spoken to any Church groups about medicinal cannabis.
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady may not be aware of many of the sensitive issues in Northern Ireland, but Church groups have been talked to particularly around historical institutional abuse. Many young children were abused by Church institutions. It is a particularly sensitive issue, and we are asking the Churches to be involved in the compensation process.
Jess Phillips
My father is from Northern Ireland and I have grown up in the shadow of some of the issues of Northern Ireland, given where I come from. I understand the issues incredibly well, and the problems that Northern Ireland has faced over the years, including with the Church and institutional abuse. There is a difference between talking about institutional abuse that the Church was a perpetrator of with Church groups and discussing whether we should file prescriptions for certain things with them. The point I am making is that there is no other health issue in this country that we would first discuss with Church groups, so why is this clinical, health matter being discussed with Church groups rather than clinicians or women’s groups? I ask the Minister to let us know. I am sure that the people who scurry along to the Minister with bits of paper can tell us which women’s groups the Government have spoken to—here we go. I will be fascinated to hear the answer.
Early Parliamentary General Election
Debate between Jess Phillips and Maria Caulfield(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips
I could not agree more. There are thousands of EU migrants in my constituency, and lots of them have absolutely no idea what their situation will be. I have to represent those people as much as I represent the people who would be allowed to vote in a general election or a referendum.
Maria Caulfield
Is not the truth that the hon. Lady and many of her colleagues do not want a general election because they are as scared as we are of the Leader of the Opposition becoming Prime Minister?
Jess Phillips
Let us make no bones about the suggestion that I am not able to be completely critical when I think that things are wrong, both in my party and in the governing party. It is just a shame that quite a lot of the people sitting in front of me know that what has happened over the last two days is wrong, but are too cowardly to say in the House, in public, what they are all saying in the Tea Room. They know what has happened here. It is as if we were kicking out my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). That is what it feels like. I say to those people: the way your party has behaved is an abomination. You have all crowed and given sympathy to me about the problems that we have in the Labour party, but you have just sat by silently while your colleagues have been marched out.
Women and the Economy
Debate between Jess Phillips and Maria Caulfield(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have worked in the care sector all my life, and I am frustrated with the lack of campaigning for better wages, as that would mean that women would not need to rely on tax credits.
Key decisions in the spending review will benefit men and women alike. The increase in free childcare will help mums and dads, and the introduction of a national living wage will help men and women on low incomes. The funding that we discussed in the previous debate on mental health services will also benefit men and women.
Maria Caulfield
I will not because many other Members still want to speak. I am thankful that women still outlive men, and therefore the increase in the basic state pension will benefit women more than men—long may that continue. On women-only issues in the spending review, it cannot be denied that the investment of £1 billion to provide 15 to 30 hours of free childcare a week will benefit women. The introduction of tax-free childcare by 2017—that is up to £2,000 of childcare support per child per year for working families—will benefit women. Female employment is at a record high, and the gender pay gap has fallen to 9.4%—the lowest level since records began. We should be celebrating that, not criticising Members for achieving it.
The tampon tax has been much debated today. I am pleased that while the Chancellor negotiates with EU member states for the ability to zero-rate sanitary products, as he has pledged to do, the £5 million generated by the tax will be ring-fenced for women. The national living wage will benefit women—as we have heard, women in the care sector are disproportionately affected by low incomes—while 60% of the 660,000 individuals taken out of tax by the increase in the personal tax allowance will be women. I also welcome the £1.1 million investment from the superfast broadband roll-out programme that is helping to deliver the Swift project. I have been to sessions in my constituency where women just starting out in business are benefiting from that investment.
I could go on, but I will not, which will please Labour Members. If they want to be political, I am quite happy to be as well. I will not take any lectures from the Labour party, whose leader suggested that violence against women on the railways can be resolved with women-only carriages; from a party whose leader condones the segregation of women at public meetings; from a party whose leader was shamed into appointing women to the shadow Cabinet, and even then was selective in the positions he handed out; and from a party that uses all-women shortlists to force women into Parliament.
Talk is cheap. Labour Members should be supporting women, but this has been a wasted opportunity. The effective Opposition, the SNP, have really shamed Labour Members by raising important issues that we could have debated properly today. Talk is cheap, and the actions of Labour Members speak louder than words.