Gender Self-identification

Martin Rhodes Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

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

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Family Visas: Income Requirement

Martin Rhodes Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend agree that an underlying problem is not only the size of the proposed increase, but the arbitrary nature of the level? As has been mentioned, perhaps it is linked to the skilled workers level, but that seems to be an arbitrary figure as well. Would he agree that we need to ensure that people out there have faith in the system by ensuring that the levels at which it is set are not arbitrary?

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely correct. Although I am pleased and delighted that the Government have commissioned a Migration Advisory Committee review, which represents a step forward towards evidence-based policy making, the harm caused in the meantime cannot be ignored. The review is due in June, but in the interim thousands of families are still separated.

The policy disproportionately affects many groups, including, as I have said, women and single parents—often mothers with caring responsibilities, particularly those outside London and the south-east, which is a particular concern. It affects regions where wages are low, such as in Wales and Scotland. In regions such as the north-east, where median annual earnings are £15,000 lower than those in London, many hard-working families simply cannot meet the £29,000 per annum threshold. These regional disparities exacerbate existing inequalities and penalise those who simply do not earn as much. The Migration Observatory’s 2023 research shows that 16% of British men working as employees do not earn enough to sponsor a spouse visa, but for women the figure skyrockets to 35%. That means that over a third of British women are currently ineligible to apply for a spousal visa should they need to do so.

I have permission to share the story of my constituent Lindsay Thompson, who contacted me last year. She has been married to her husband Orlando for six years. He still lives in Jamaica owing to the Home Office policy. He did not meet their son until the little boy was two years old because of the pandemic and travel bans, compounded by their inability to meet the mandatory visa threshold. Lindsay is a dedicated mother. She works tirelessly to provide for her son. She has applied for and secured multiple promotions at work and now only just earns £29,000 a year. She must sustain that income for six months before being eligible to apply for a visa. She lives in constant fear that the Government will raise the threshold even further to the £38,700 proposed by the Conservative party.