Lesbian Visibility Week

Kate Osborne Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week; and believes LGBTQIA women and non-binary people should be recognised for the work they do and the joy they bring.

Lesbian Visibility Week was founded in 2019 by the publisher of DIVA Magazine, my good friend Linda Riley—and I am delighted to welcome Linda to the House today. For the past five years we have set aside this week in April to celebrate and uplift lesbians everywhere, from all backgrounds and all walks of life, and we are a community that grows stronger each and every year for it.

Forty years ago this year, I took my mum to see the “Rocky Horror Show”, and at dinner I told her that I was a lesbian. I distinctly remember her response: “Yeah—and?” Of course she already knew; as a colleague pointed out yesterday, if I was ever in the closet, the closet must have been made of glass. I was incredibly lucky to have friends and family to lean on when I faced and overcame the many barriers that most lesbians have to deal with because, sadly, it is still the case that for so many such support is just not there. However, that does not mean that my journey and dealing with coming out was easy. There was stigma, and there were people our community was losing and not talking about. The feeling of loneliness and isolation led me to move to Newcastle in 1989, and until I was elected to represent my wonderful Jarrow constituency in 2019, I barely came back to London.

Seeing so many people celebrating and recognising Lesbian Visibility Week gives me hope that this and future generations of lesbians will be accepted—and that is thanks to those who came before us, paving the way. When I hosted a reception in Parliament on Monday night in partnership with DIVA magazine and the LGBT Foundation, there was an incredible turnout from activists, campaigning organisations, and Members of both Houses. I am so grateful for the fact that so many friends and colleagues joined us at our first ever parliamentary reception: I think that was the largest number of lesbians that we have ever had in Parliament at any one time. At the event we heard about the media narrative that lesbians are disappearing, but we are not. We are in our ascendancy: there are more lesbians than ever. The number of women who identify as lesbian has increased by 64% since 2014. Instead of being erased, we are multiplying.

As many Members will know, I have dedicated most of my political career to campaigning for LGBTQIA+ equality. My first political activism was campaigning against section 28, and highlighting the damage that it did and continues to do to our community. To go from campaigning against section 28, to stop LGBTQIA+ people being forced to hide, to holding a debate on lesbian visibility in the gayest Parliament in the world is some feat, and something that an 18-year-old me could never have imagined. However, I also could not have imagined that 40 years later I would still be challenging the same homophobic language, including comments about LGBTQIA+ people being a danger to children. It has to be said that the slurs currently being thrown at the trans community, and at me for being supportive of that community, are a carbon copy of the hate we faced in the 1980s.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredible speech. Does she agree that hate is hate? Some of the hate we hear reminds me of the hate that my parents heard when they were being subjected to vile racist abuse.

[Kate Osborne]

Yes, hate is hate, and it is unacceptable in any form. We defeated it then, in the ’80s, and we will defeat this hate and discrimination now.

Let me return to my coming out. Although I had a supportive family, when I came out “lesbian” was still a dirty word, a word thrown at me at school in a derogatory way. If you were a lesbian you were seen as unnatural. You were chased out of girls’ bathrooms—that has, in fact, happened to me in recent years—and you were sexualised by men far older than you, which is something that lesbians still face today.

It was 10 years after I came out that I bought my first copy of a magazine called DIVA. There was nothing else like it at the time; there was nothing else for my generation that helped lesbians to feel included, and that magazine helped me to feel less alone. That was 30 years ago—so happy birthday, DIVA, and thank you.

In the last 30 years DIVA has been a lifeline for many women, and it was DIVA and Linda Riley who launched Lesbian Visibility Week. DIVA is much more than a magazine: as it tells us, it is a movement. It has an annual Power List, and for the first time, in 2024, I have made it. To travel from being that young, lonely lesbian 30 years ago buying my first copy to being included in this list has made me feel honoured and deeply grateful. It is a privilege to be named alongside colleagues and other brilliant activists, including the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). Today, I feel proud to see so many LGBTQIA+ women basking in the freedom to explore their sexuality in ways that many women could not, only a few years ago.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady has reminded me of a thought that I once had: something that I felt very strongly when the Bill that became the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed. I had a young daughter, and I felt that if I had two daughters and one was straight and the other was a lesbian, I would want them to have the same quality of life, the same protection under the law, and the same right to love whoever they wanted to love. Does the hon. Lady feel that we have made progress towards a situation in which that will be the case?

[Kate Osborne]

Unfortunately, I have to say that we have gone backwards in recent times. I thought we would be further forward than we are, but when I look back to some years ago, I see that that is not the case.

Weeks like this really matter. They show solidarity, and they enable us to support each other and help us to celebrate our differences, embracing the whole LGBTQIA+ community. Too often people seek to divide us, but as the theme of this Lesbian Visibility Week shows, we are unified, not uniform. We are here to be fabulous in our differences and to be seen, to let others know that they can be their true selves. We have to use our own experiences to help people, and to use our platforms to give LGBTQIA+ people spaces. That is what Lesbian Visibility Week is about. That is why I am holding this debate.

An often-used expression is that we stand on the shoulders of giants, which we do, and I want to honour just a few of the wonderful women who have given so much to our community and been inspirational to me and to so many others. In the 1970s, Maureen Colquhoun made history by becoming the first openly out lesbian in Parliament. Her courageous act in the face of media hostility has meant that so many of us can stand in this Chamber today and follow in her footsteps.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) is an iconic lesbian in Parliament. The first to come out in office, and now a dame, she is a role model to many, breaking down barriers as the first lesbian Minister and always fighting for equality by using her platform to stand up for our community.

Of course, there are brilliant women who are the driving force behind so many political and campaigning movements. Lisa Power was one of the founding members of Stonewall in 1989. Like me, she was a volunteer at the Lesbian and Gay Switchboard. Lisa has led a decade-long fight on behalf of people living with HIV.

There are women such as the brilliant Sue Sanders, the founder of LGBT+ History Month, and Baroness Barker, who led the first ever debate in the other place on lesbian, bisexual and transgender women’s health. There are historic queer trailblazers such as Anne Lister, who was fabulously represented by Suranne Jones in “Gentleman Jack”. I was distraught when I found out that “Gentleman Jack” would not be returning for a third season. For the first time, I saw someone on TV who represented me, so much so that I was even told that we look alike, to which I responded, “I wish!”—but I do love wearing a waistcoat.

The wonderful Sophie Ward is a trailblazer for LGBTQIA+ rights. As an actress and model, she was one of the first high-profile women to come out as a lesbian in 1997. The brilliant Phyll Opoku-Gyimah is a wonderful campaigner and the founder of UK Black Pride. Dame Kelly Holmes is a sports hero to us all. She is an icon who was instrumental in the fight to address the vile mistreatment of LGBTQIA+ veterans and those who are still in the Army, and she is now empowering women through her Athena Effect events.

Of course, there is also Linda Riley, one of my best friends, who is the founder of Lesbian Visibility Week and publisher of DIVA magazine. She is a titan who has done so much for lesbians, and who I know will do so much more in her lifetime.

Let us not forget another good friend of mine, Nancy Kelley, who is in the Gallery today. Nancy has recently been appointed as the director of Lesbian Visibility Week. She has already been a trailblazer as chief executive of Stonewall and an award-winning human rights and social justice campaigner. She is a champion of LGBTQIA+ rights who always stands up for our community, so I am excited to see what bigger and brighter things are next for Lesbian Visibility Week in the years to come.

Although there is a lot to celebrate, it is important that we do not forget the challenges that lesbians still face. In fact, in celebrating Lesbian Visibility Week, I have faced some awful homophobic remarks on social media, simply for being open about my sexuality. I have been called a “nonce” and had threats on Twitter— or X. I receive a constant barrage of homophobic abuse, but such abuse will not stop me standing here or speaking up on behalf of my community. The toxic culture on social media, and the toxic narrative from the Government, at times, in pushing their war on woke makes LGBTQIA+ people less safe. We have seen a rise in hate crime, and we must make active efforts to support our non-binary and trans community, who still face unique day-to-day challenges simply for being themselves and loving who they love.

Last October I led a debate calling on the Government to remove the additional financial burdens for same-sex couples who need to access in vitro fertilisation. The Minister committed then to a timetable to remove the barriers and bring forward a statutory instrument to end the postcode lottery for same-sex couples seeking IVF, so where is it? The legislation has still not materialised. Before qualifying for IVF on the NHS, same-sex female couples must fund six cycles of artificial insemination, so it comes as no surprise that too often people are being priced out of starting a family. My constituents Holly and Leanne have had to choose between buying a house or having a baby—a decision that couples should never be forced to make. They have been unable to afford IVF and are now, like so many, looking at alternative routes. We need to see action, because many cannot wait any longer.

Today we are told that young people are too woke and that it is fine for young LGBTQIA+ people when they come out, yet the reality is often very different. LGBTQIA+ children are twice as likely as others to be bullied. Some young LGBTQIA+ people are still kicked out and made homeless when they come out, and many do not feel safe where they live. The Albert Kennedy Trust reported that 77% of young LGBTQ+ people gave family rejection, abuse or being asked to leave home as a cause for their homelessness.

A DIVA survey in 2024 showed that less than a third of LBQ+ women and trans people in the UK feel safe where they live. To have this continue today is dystopian. Just yesterday, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about IVF provision and pointed out that the LGBTQIA+ community are being let down. His response was that the Government have been “excellent”, but I can tell the House that none of the lesbians I have spoken to this week thinks the Government are excellent at anything.

We must use our platforms and our ability to speak up, to highlight our diversity and to look at the impact of intersectionality. We must consider how the world is for lesbians of colour and lesbians with disabilities, and how the gender health gap and gender pay gap negatively impact on us all but in different ways.

I am privileged to be able to stand up in Parliament and say all this, because in a third of countries across the world, including 64 UN member states, it is illegal to be LGBTQIA+. Until we have won equality for all people globally, the fight goes on. I wish everyone a happy and safe Lesbian Visibility Week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osborne]

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate today. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who is no longer in her place, for all that she did to ensure that same-sex marriage was achieved. My huge thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) for her continuous support and allyship, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)— I hope that I have pronounced her constituency correctly—for her activism and her very moving contribution today.

It was disappointing to hear the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), using problematic language such as “deluded” and “forced teaming” in a debate designed to celebrate all lesbians. To bring so much hate and toxicity as the formal Front-Bench speaker is upsetting and this Parliament deserves better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) must really not use such language. I think she should withdraw that comment.

[Kate Osborne]

I am not sure which bit you would like me to withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The bit referring to hate language.

[Kate Osborne]

Okay, I withdraw it. But it is astonishing to claim that Lesbian Visibility Week is marginalising lesbians. It is because of Lesbian Visibility Week that we are here in this Chamber, bringing to Parliament the issues that lesbians face. The reality is that trans-inclusive lesbians like me are very much in the majority of cis lesbians, so I take offence at any insinuation that I am marginalising or misrepresenting lesbians. As a cis lesbian, I will not shy away from my trans-inclusive lesbianism and feminism. This year’s theme is “unified, not uniform”. To embrace that, we should all be celebrating the wonderful diversity among the spectrum of LGBTQIA+ women.

I thank the Minister for his constructive contribution and his support for the LGBTQIA community and I look forward to receiving his response regarding IVF. I also thank Labour’s Front-Bench spokesperson for setting out that Labour will treat all LGBTQIA+ people fairly and with dignity and respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week; and believes LGBTQIA women and non-binary people should be recognised for the work they do and the joy they bring.

Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Kate Osborne Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I hope it does.

Yesterday, all the major counselling, therapeutic and health organisations provisionally agreed an indicative vote to support the Bill, with no organisation voting against. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing support a ban on conversion practices.

Let us come to the evidence I have been asked for. The Government themselves did a survey in 2017, and more recently commissioned a piece of work in 2023, indicating that this is a live issue. According to the research, one in five people have been subject to someone trying to change, cure or suppress their sexual orientation or transgender identity. More than one in five people from a religious and faith background, and one in six from a non-religious background, have experienced conversion therapy.

When the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) attended one of my drop-in briefings on the Bill, he asked about the number of young people who have been affected by such practices. In a weighted YouGov survey—using its usual weighting metrics—of 2,000 people in 2023, 10% of those aged over 65 said they had undergone or been offered conversion therapy, whereas the figure was 8% for 16 to 17-year-olds, and 7% for 18 to 34-year-olds—shockingly high. It shows that this is a live issue. It is the same with the NSPCC, as we have heard: over 50 young people phoned its helpline last year, saying that they were being threatened with, or subjected to, conversion practices.

I know that some Members would prefer to bring in a ban on sexual orientation conversion practices—LGB only—and not touch on the transgender elements. There are a couple of reasons why I think that would be a foolish approach. First, the Government have themselves carried out reviews and repeatedly said that we need a trans-inclusive ban. In fact, Ministers have said that trans conversion is their main concern. They cannot say it is a huge concern that people might be converted from being transgender, and then say we do not need a ban on either-way conversion therapy.

Secondly, we must recognise that LGB and transgender are separate, but they are interlinked. People exploring their sexual orientation will sometimes come to consider their transgender status. To not include transgender would allow a loophole whereby people who wanted to force someone to be gay, but not trans, could claim that they were offering transgender therapy, rather than LGB therapy, which would make the Bill useless.

Thirdly, there is pretty well-established research on the LGB conversion therapy problem, but there is significant and growing research, from Britain and around the world, that conversion therapy is a problem for the transgender community as well. In fact, the Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), said in a letter on 7 February that she had significant evidence that children might be subjected to conversion practices for being transgender. I have not seen the evidence—I do not endorse it per se—but I have seen significant accounts from many survivors who have been forced not to be transgender. All sides are saying this is happening. The direction of conversion is irrelevant, but it is an indication that we need to take action, and my Bill does so.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the NSPCC’s report on the challenges that young people are facing about sexuality and gender identity. The findings include that 3,400 children and young people in the last year wanted to talk to counsellors about their worries about sexuality or gender identity. Some of these children described instances of emotional abuse in the family home, including constant shouting, hurtful comments and threats of violence. Some children had been threatened with, or had undergone, some form of conversion practice intended to cure their sexuality or gender identity. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in passing this Bill, we will help prevent more children from being subjected to that, and send a clear message that we will not allow people to suffer the painful abuse of so-called conversion practices?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I quite agree. This Bill stops parents sending their children to conversion practices; it does not promise to solve the world for LGBT people. I cannot promise that parents will not shout or be abusive, or that people will not say nasty things—I am afraid that is the nature of a democratic society sometimes. But what we can do is stop premeditated purposes, processes, courses of conduct and activities that aim to do something that cannot be done. That is what every other Bill in the world on this topic has done. The Bill goes in both directions. Whatever the direction of the conversion, it is abhorrent and must be stopped.

Some have said to me that the existing legislation covers violent and physical acts, and of course it does—violent, abusive and bullying coercion and harassment can be caught under current crimes—but the Government’s 2021 consultation said that new criminal law is needed to fill the gap between physical abuse and a process that causes long-term harm. The Bill therefore makes a clear statement that conversion practices should be illegal and that the most egregious cases should be prosecuted. It avoids clashing with existing laws focused on harm—doing so would result in survivors being retraumatised through lengthy court battles—and instead looks at the intent behind the actions. To get the balance right, the Bill clarifies that certain actions will not constitute an offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

The obligation in this debate is to set out the current threats that are not already covered by existing legislation or that we would want to legislate against. The Bill also needs to do so in a clear, precise way that is straightforward to interpret and enforce, without causing great uncertainty and triggering a chilling effect on free speech and healthy family life.

Over many years, the issue of sex and identity has developed and evolved substantially. When I was younger, I never saw these topics on the news. It was rare and unusual for them ever to appear. In terms of being aware of lesbians and gays and the challenges they face in life, for any Member of Parliament—for any decent person—there is huge concern and sympathy for those people. There was a debate among that community about bisexuals joining it. That was not a straightforward process. There was a debate and a dispute over that.

One thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) touched upon was acceptance of other people and inclusiveness, and not imposing upon people. That was one key feature, I thought, in the debate about conversion practices. Many people, for example represented by the LGB Alliance, are concerned that they feel imposed upon. Society is adapting and learning to understand and appreciate the challenges that changes in society bring.

My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) highlighted a point about LGB and LGBT identity. The hon. Gentleman then added the plus symbol, the A and the I. That highlights the complexity of the issue and the clarity needed when some groups are being included and others excluded. The language is diverse, depending on who we are speaking to and when we are speaking. A few years ago, this conversation would have been different from how it is now.

We have to reflect on the number of genders that are commonly used or reasonably frequently used, and this is by no means an exhaustive list: bi-gendered, cross-dresser, drag king, drag queen, femme queen, female-to-male or FTM, gender bender, genderqueer, male-to-female or MTF, non-op, hijra, pangender, transsexual, trans person, woman, man, butch, two-spirit, trans, agender, third sex, gender fluid, non-binary transgender, androgyne, gender gifted, gender blender, femme, person of transgender experience and androgynous. If people go on Wikipedia, there will see far, far more. I have missed out huge numbers, but it serves the purpose of highlighting the complexity and involvement of the issue. When we are discussing this topic, it should be respectful, but also we should try to keep society with us.

[Kate Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman talks about being respectful. Does he not believe that people should be able to identify in whatever way they choose?

[Chris Green]

I do agree with people identifying in any way they choose, but society is still getting to grips with this issue. One concern is not just individuals being able to make choices about their identity for themselves, but how other people relate to them. That is a huge concern in relation to changing the law and imposing upon society a set of views, when those views and values are evolving over time.

I will highlight one aspect. As things change, that is reflected in society, for example in architecture. Parents came to my surgery to raise concerns about mixed-sex facilities at a local swimming pool. They raised those concerns because they were interested in protecting their daughters. Regardless of whether the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and other colleagues agree or disagree about the issue, it is a fact that parents are coming to me to say that they are concerned about the architecture of the new health centre in Horwich. That architecture cements in place a particular form of behaviour—everyone together rather than male and female changing rooms—and that lends itself to a lot of misunderstanding, concern and fear in society. That was expressed to me by mothers of daughters and I, as a Member of Parliament, ought to be respectful and concerned about what my constituents are raising with me.

On transition, as I pointed out before, societal understanding has been gradual. Such topics were very rarely in the news and now they frequently are. Most days on the “Today” programme we hear about sex and identity. As it is on our media so much, we have to reflect on legislation and application, but it is only relatively recently, in 2005, that the transgender or transsexual side of the issue came into the mainstream and the forefront of people’s understanding. I bought at the time the album “I am a Bird Now” by Antony and the Johnsons, and it was an interesting listen; it is good music with interesting and challenging lyrics. It highlights some of the challenges that people go through, and which many people in society would not know about. Many people would not know about the transition process and how challenging it is. Before the debate developed in the way it has, most people when hearing about trans people would try to be understanding, supportive and sympathetic and would want to encourage those people on the path they had chosen to go down, but that is not universal; many people are hostile and toxic about that. But 2005 was, at least for me, the transition point when trans identity became far more public an issue.

We have to understand how difficult it is for society to adjust, especially given certain aspects of trans; for example, significant surgery is done to people as part of that process, and quite significant pharmaceuticals are used in the process. These are not easy things to adjust to for mums, dads, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, the wider family and the wider community, such as, perhaps, churches, mosques or other organisations, when seeing and hearing that someone is concerned and thinking about transitioning. How protected are those people from the threats of conversion practices or illegalisation of what they would consider a normal if challenging conversation? If someone wants to go down a route involving significant surgery and life-changing drugs, that might be irreversible, especially for a child reaching puberty; drugs that stop the process of puberty can have substantial impacts and there should be some understanding of the lifelong impacts of taking those drugs, especially if someone wants to detransition. It is very challenging for those people to make that decision in the first place. It is challenging for their families watching them try to understand the issues, which are far better understood these days than they were previously, to say, “Is that the right choice? Is that the route you want to go down?” We have to be 100% certain that normal family conversations will not be taken through the courts.

Post Office Horizon: Compensation and Legislation

Kate Osborne Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I believe he has contributed to every debate in which I have been involved in this House on this matter, so I thank him for his work. Clearly, justice and the judicial system are devolved to Northern Ireland. The difference here is that this is not simply legislating for general matters across the piece; it is about overturning individual cases, which I understand is unprecedented—it certainly is in my experience. We have engaged with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and I am happy to continue to do so and to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about the points he has raised. These are difficult decisions to make. This was the decision we have taken but, as I say, I am happy to have a further conversation with him.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

The sub-postmasters have no trust or faith in the compensation processes being handled by the Post Office or the Government. Today’s commitments will still not deal with all the inequalities in the schemes or the undue influence that the Post Office still has on the process. Echoing the sentiments of some of my hon. Friends, may I ask the Minister to agree to place the compensation schemes into an external independent body, completely outside the influence of the Post Office? I asked the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) has asked, about the timescales for the legislation to overturn the convictions, but we still have not got an answer. If it is not before the general election, will it be before the summer recess? Finally, when will people be held to account for this miscarriage of justice, be it within the Government, the Post Office or Fujitsu?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her campaigning on this issue. Again, she has been a key part of the campaign to ensure that people receive justice. Let me deal with the point about fair compensation. As I say, on the GLO scheme, 41 of the 58 full claims that have been submitted have been accepted without even going to the next stage. That would tend to indicate that those first offers are fair. I am aware of some people who feel that their offers are not fair, but I think it is wrong to look at individual cases in this context; it is right that we look to make all the schemes fair. As for undue influence, let me be clear that every part of this process has an independent element to it. Under the GLO scheme and the overturned convictions schemes, that is provided by retired judges, Sir Ross Cranston and Sir Gary Hickinbottom, in order to ensure that those schemes are independent of any “undue influence”, as she puts it. Clearly, the GLO scheme is not being run by the Post Office; it is run by my Department. We are looking at recommendations from the advisory board about what we do with new cases of overturned convictions. On timescales, we have been clear today that we will table the legislation in March and we hope it completes its passage through both Houses by July at the latest. Again, that is not entirely within our gift.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Kate Osborne Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I know exactly the sort of people my hon. Friend is talking about, and it is really awful to hear about everything they have been through. I have a constituent who has talked to me about how this scandal has ruined her life. We owe it to them to do everything we can to ensure that they are fully compensated, and I can assure him that Ministers and officials are working on this every day. I know it is not always as quick as people would like, but we want to ensure that it is done properly and that there are no issues following that. I do not have the specific details of that case, but they can apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme, and if my hon. Friend brings it to the attention of the postal affairs Minister, we will look at it specifically.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Ministers have promised that the Government will bring in a new law to swiftly exonerate and compensate victims, so can the Secretary of State tell me why my constituent Chris Head has been offered only 13% of his compensation claim? How can sub-postmasters trust the Government or the Post Office to deliver full and fair compensation when they are still facing so much pushback on their compensation claims and receiving offers that go nowhere near financial restoration, let alone compensation for the injustice? Can I quickly add that the Secretary of State’s suggestion that the Government would have acted in the same way had the ITV drama not been shown is thought to be completely unbelievable by most, and none more so than by the sub-postmasters themselves?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The fact is that when we took the legislation through the House in December, the Opposition Benches were empty. Opposition Members are the ones who decided to take a more keen interest after the drama; we have been working flat out. I do not have the specific details of her constituent’s case, as she knows, but I will continue to repeat what I have said, which is that where people have not received compensation, we can look at that. There is a process, and there is also an independent panel they can appeal to, but the vast majority of people who have been getting offers are taking them.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Kate Osborne Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not quite agree with that. Clearly, it has not been the Post Office’s finest hour by a long chalk, but the Post Office brand itself is revered around the country. The reputation of Post Office Ltd—the central organisation—has been tarnished, and we are keen to move on and help the Post Office to rebuild that relationship. It has, for example, recruited 100 area managers to try to improve its relationship with sub-postmasters, which I think is helping. But there is work to do to improve the relationship between the centre and the network. As a constituency MP, my experience is that my constituents very much appreciate, value and revere the post offices in their community.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for some of the detail around today’s announcement regarding the convictions; it will come as a relief to many.

As highlighted by the ITV show, the 555 worked tirelessly for justice, and that, of course, opened the door for so many others, but they feel they are being penalised for taking this litigation forward, with compensation still not being paid to so many. As well as others, the Post Office needs to be held responsible for the part it has played in this scandal at every stage, including the lies and the blocking of justice, yet it is the Post Office and the Government’s expensive lawyers who are currently litigating every case. I have to ask whether that is right.

Will the Minister look to remove the Post Office from all the roles that it currently plays in relation to compensation decisions and, instead, put in place a more independent arm’s length body that will deliver full and fair compensation to all?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Member for her work. We have engaged with her on this issue regularly, and she works very hard on behalf of her constituents. We are keen to make the compensation available more quickly. As announced today, her constituents, if they were a part of the 555—the GLO—will have access to the fixed-sum award of £75,000, which is a much quicker route. But if they go down the full assessment route, which they have every right to do, we have committed that, once a claim is submitted, the dispute resolution process will respond to that claim within 40 days in 90% of cases.

The hon. Member is wrong to talk about the cases being litigated against; the process is done by dispute resolution with my Department, not with the Post Office. If that cannot be agreed, it is sent to an independent panel, which will then recommend what award should be given. The Post Office is not involved and independence is at the very heart of this process, so I believe that her constituents will get full and fair outcomes, but we want to make sure that is done as quickly as possible, and we are working on that on a daily basis.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Kate Osborne Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Once again, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s constituent, Alan Bates, who was very much the star of the show, both in the dramatisation and in reality. It is because of his tenacity and his commitment that this has come to light. The Horizon system is being rebuilt. Fujitsu is not rebuilding it, so the Post Office will move away from the current Horizon system, but it needs a system today to cover one of the largest retail networks in the world. We need to make sure that it has a system it can use right now, but it will no longer be Fujitsu’s responsibility.

As for other Government contracts, we are of course looking at those. Whether it is contributing to compensation or looking at access to Government contracts, our view is that we should let Sir Wyn Williams complete his inquiries and report, and then make a decision on what happened, who is responsible and exactly what we will do about individuals or organisations at that point in time.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for recognising the work that I and others have done to highlight this scandal over many years. Of course, the recognition should go to the many sub-postmasters, including my constituent, Chris Head, one of the 555, for their tireless campaigning for justice.

I want to pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). Last October, I asked the then Minister whether, in light of the Horizon and sub-postmaster scandal, he would pause existing contracts with Fujitsu and undertake a review. I am pleased to hear that that is happening. We should pause existing contracts and stop awarding Fujitsu multimillion-pound contracts. Fujitsu continues to take billions of pounds in profits, including £10 billion a year in Government contracts, while our sub-postmasters await compensation. Will the Minister agree to stop awarding contracts to Fujitsu, and can he tell me how many contracts have been given to it since this scandal came to light?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her work on this, both in the House and in her engagement with others who have taken a particular interest in the scandal. I also thank her constituent, Chris Head, who is a regular commenter on various points on Twitter, and I read his contributions all the time. He gets his message across very effectively.

Let me be clear that we think that the right process is that we use Sir Wyn Williams’s statutory inquiry to identify exactly who is responsible and what they are responsible for. At that point in time, we will decide whether it is right to give any organisation access to Government contracts. That is the right process. Of course we have concerns about what has happened in the past and about that particular organisation, but we have to follow the process in order to make a decision about how we move forward.

IVF Provision

Kate Osborne Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of IVF provision.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Robertson. I start by thanking everyone who came along to the briefing on this matter yesterday, and in particular, Megan and Whitney, Laura-Rose Thorogood from LGBT Mummies, and Michael Johnson-Ellis from TwoDads UK for sharing their deeply personal stories and for the time they spent talking to MPs about this important issue.

As a mum of two wonderful boys, one of whom was conceived through IVF—in vitro fertilisation—this subject is close to my heart. Everyone deserves a chance to start a family, no matter their sexuality or gender identity. It was around 14 or 15 years ago that I started the IVF process as part of a same-sex couple. At the time, we went through unnecessary procedures, a long waiting list and significant costs, but despite the hurdles, it was achievable and my wonderful youngest son is now 13.

In the 13 years that my son has been alive, life for LGBTQ+ people in the UK has got progressively worse, and not just in terms of IVF. In many ways, life for LGBTQ+ people has gone backwards over the past decade. Homophobic and transphobic bullying is on the rise, trans hate crime has risen, waiting lists for LGBTQ+ physical and mental healthcare are through the roof, and virtually every day we see an attack on our community from this Government. From attacks on LGBTQ+ refugees to attacks on inclusive education in schools, to language outright denying trans rights, the Government have ramped up their war on woke using divisive and inflammatory rhetoric that is designed to stoke hate and distract from the mess they have made of this country, ahead of the next general election.

Ministers have failed to keep their promise to ban so-called conversion therapy in full, allowing the barbaric practice to continue. As for IVF for same-sex couples, we are still waiting for the Government to keep their promise to remove the discriminatory practical and financial barriers that LQBTQ+ couples face.

Since the IVF journey that I was part of, NHS waiting lists have become longer and the hurdles that LQBTQ+ couples have to jump through have increased. A fragmented NHS means that there is a postcode lottery for provision, and the financial cost is significantly higher. If I were starting my journey to become a parent now, even on an MP’s salary, I doubt I would be able to afford to complete the process. It is a disgrace that 14 or 15 years later, couples like Megan and Whitney still have to go through the same unnecessary fertility tests that we had to go through.

When speaking to people ahead of this debate, it has been depressing to repeatedly hear from women who have given up on their dream to become a parent because they have run out of money. LGBTQ+ people are being priced out of having a family. Lesbian, bisexual, non-binary and trans women couples are expected to demonstrate their infertility before the NHS will fund IVF. To do so, they must pay privately for up to 12 rounds of artificial insemination.

Yesterday, MPs heard at first hand from people this is having a huge impact on, including Megan and Whitney, who are here again today to listen to this debate. Megan and Whitney spoke about their integrated care board requiring them to pay for 12 rounds of artificial insemination before they would be eligible for any treatment on the NHS, which led to their decision to take their ICB to a judicial review. I have spoken to many couples who have spent £30,000, £50,000, or £60,000 on treatment, and many more have given up because they cannot afford to start the process. They have been priced out of having children. Last week, the BBC referred to the situation as a

“‘gay tax’ facing same-sex couples starting a family”.

Megan and Whitney’s legal case more than a year ago helped to prove that NHS England’s IVF policy discriminated against same-sex couples. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends that couples who have been unsuccessful in conceiving after two years should be offered three full cycles of in vitro fertilisation for women under 40 and one cycle for women aged between 40 and 42. The current requirement is that same-sex couples are expected to self-fund up to 12 intrauterine insemination cycles before they are eligible for NHS IVF treatment.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

One thing that is becoming more dangerous as a result of same-sex couples having to pay for artificial insemination is the rise in people on Facebook offering their services at a low-cost price. This means that unofficial sperm donors are selling their sperm on social media sites, and that is not covered by the Online Safety Bill. It is really dangerous and exploits same-sex couples, and there are all the health ramifications to which this could lead.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osborne]

I thank everyone for their valued contributions and support for this important issue. I am pleased to have been able to secure this debate ahead of National Fertility Awareness Week. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for an excellent contribution and for all the work she has done on fertility and employment practices, and for highlighting the disproportionate impact on black and minority ethnic women who need fertility treatment.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the start of this debate on a subject that is very important to me. I echo the concerns about the dangers of the current system, which may drive same-sex couples towards potentially unsafe methods, such as seeking sperm donors who might not be known to them. I have friends who have experienced that very thing. If not married or in a civil partnership, the donor will be considered the legal parent of any children, giving him rights over and responsibilities for the child. The safety of sperm is also a concern as the donor might be less likely to have their health and medical history fully screened, which is important.

[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.