Lesbian Visibility Week
Nia Griffith Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is a real privilege to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing it and on her excellent opening speech. I also thank our fantastic ally, our hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for all that she does—for the pertinent points she makes about supporting the whole LGBT community and for all the work she has done in standing up for trans people. I must not forget our hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), an outstanding champion who, long before many of us were in Parliament, was flying the flag in what was a very lonely place at the time.
It was also a real privilege to attend the event on Monday that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow organised and to meet Linda Riley, the publisher of Diva, and Professor Sue Sanders, the co-founder of LGBT History Month. Just to be among such people is such an honour for someone like me. Thinking back to 30 years ago, Diva was quite a lifeline for people as isolated as we were in south-west Wales, perhaps not knowing anyone quite like us and certainly not wanting to be open about ourselves because we were worried about society’s reaction.
At the time of section 28, I was in a relationship with another woman, both of us were teachers and this was very inhibiting. As I have previously said in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, it was a very difficult time—a time when it was not easy to challenge the homophobic bullying that was going on then and which still goes on now. I thank all those who were braver than I was and came out sooner than I did.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I apologise to the House for intervening, but I have to go with my wife to celebrate her 17 years as chancellor of the University of Hull.
The hon. Lady is rightly talking about the bullying and the fear she experienced. There has been some of that more recently. I started to become conscious of some of the issues when Kathleen Stock was being bullied mercilessly in Sussex. We ought to be careful. If I were to make a speech in this debate, I would say that two of the greatest events I have been to were the LGB Alliance conference meetings, which were picketed by people who seemed to hate the people inside. They would not come inside to listen; they were shouting outside. That kind of attitude has echoes of what speakers today have talked about.
Dame Nia Griffith
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central has said, there is real need to approach these things in a calm and appropriate way, and to respect everybody’s different ways of manifesting their humanity.
What for me is very telling is the fact that I came out when my relationship broke up. It is almost impossible to hide grief. It is ironic that, having spent a considerable period not being open and trying not to make it obvious that we were in a relationship, it was when we did not “need” that hidden approach any more that I came out. It is incredibly difficult to explain to people why you are in such a state of grief if you do not explain the relationship. What was interesting about that was not only the reaction of very supportive friends, which was great, but finding that some people had never guessed; I was quite shocked and surprised by that. It was strange to realise that we were more hidden than we understood, because people did not see lesbians. That shows the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week.
Perhaps because society is so male-dominated and women are marginalised in many respects, or perhaps because women are more likely to be seen doing things together, holding hands or going on holiday with other women, we were not even noticed. One of the important aspects of raising lesbian visibility is enabling people to be their natural selves and enabling other people to recognise that. Of course that has meant over the years that women were perhaps not the subject of homophobic legislation. In many ways, it reflected the role of women as society was then and that women were very marginalised and not seen. That is perhaps part of the wider picture of where women were.
There have been workplace stereotypes: women have to dress in a certain way and behave in a certain way towards heterosexual men, or they are expected to do so. When they do not, be that as lesbians or as heterosexual women, it can be interpreted negatively, which has often held lesbian women back over the years. It is a form of discrimination and stereotyping that has had pernicious results.
It is not enough for us to hope that attitudes can change. Hope is not enough. We all have a responsibility to challenge, and to use our legislative powers to strengthen our challenging through legislation. We were proud, as a Labour Government from 1997 to 2010, to do a number of important things that helped LGBT rights, including ending the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces, ending discrimination against lesbian and gay partners for immigration purposes, and giving LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children. Of course, we scrapped section 28, which was very important for people like me, but we also banned discrimination in the workplace and in vocational training with the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.
We also included homophobia in the definition of hate crimes. Sadly, we have seen a rise in hate crimes in recent years, to which I draw the Government’s attention. In particular, I ask that more should be done to tackle homophobic, including transphobic, hate crime.
Of course, we created civil partnerships and awarded statutory rights to fertility treatment for lesbians on the NHS but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, there is a long way to go on equal and fair access. I hope the Minister has listened to what she said today, and to what she said to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, and I hope progress can be made on this sooner rather than later.
Although we have made progress, we know that, in many respects, there is a lot to do to stop attitudes regressing in this country but also internationally. Women are hardly noticed or recognised in many countries and, if they are, they are certainly not allowed to be in same- sex relationships.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. With others in this House, I hope I can play my part in securing greater lesbian visibility.
Post Office Board and Governance
Nia Griffith Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Hollinrake
I will be very pleased to ensure that that happens. I met the Northern Ireland Justice Minister virtually a few days ago to discuss these matters. I know that the Northern Ireland Administration’s preference is for UK-wide legislation; we do not think that is the right approach, but we will continue to work with the Administration to ensure that they can deliver the right legislation or process to make sure that the compensation is paid. Clearly, once convictions are overturned anywhere in the United Kingdom, people enter exactly the same compensation scheme—they can get rapid compensation through the fixed-sum award of £600,000, or go through the full assessment process. We are determined to make the process quicker, easier and fairer. I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that that is the case.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work on the Horizon scandal, and for answering my letter concerning a constituent. In that answer, he confirmed that former post office clerks and those working for a franchise who lost money, jobs and reputation through the Horizon scandal are not eligible for compensation under the current scheme. Will he look into ways to include them in a compensation scheme?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for representing her constituents so effectively. I am keen to have continued conversation with her. All the schemes that have been established thus far require a contractual relationship between the Post Office and the individual, and I know that was not the case for her constituent. A number of Members of this House have addressed the issue, and we will continue to look at it.
Horizon: Compensation and Convictions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
Let me be clear about this. I am not taking the position that we should remove the CBE, and that should not be our position, because we have not yet assigned blame to individuals. However, given that during that critical period the Post Office clearly failed in so many areas and in so many shocking ways, it would be sensible and reasonable for the former CEO to hand back an honour that was given for services to the Post Office. There may be other avenues, and my hon. Friend was right to identify some of the potential avenues, but we think that Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is the best way to identify who was responsible.
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not about retribution but about justice. I have spoken to some of the victims of this scandal and others, and there are two things that they want. Obviously they want compensation, but they also want people to be held to account, and I entirely share my hon. Friend’s ambition for that to be done.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
We have all been appalled by the fact that the Post Office went on and on, for so many years, prosecuting and ruining the lives of sub-postmasters. It certainly makes us ask who knew what. As the Minister said, we want to ensure that this type of scandal can never happen again, so perhaps he will understand how disappointing it was that in December the Government stopped short of agreeing to introduce a Hillsborough law to ensure that victims could secure the disclosure of crucial information and to place a duty of candour on all public servants. Will he now talk to ministerial colleagues about reconsidering that decision?
Kevin Hollinrake
We are very keen to find out exactly who knew what, and Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry was made statutory so that people could have access to all the information. There is nothing to which they should not have access, and all the disclosures should be available to the inquiry. That should lead to people being held to account, and the exploring of other avenues in respect of what might be done at that point and the evidence that is uncovered. I am not aware of the issue that the hon. Lady raised about what happened in December, but I am happy to take it away and look at it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
We work very closely with the Financial Reporting Council. No one can deny that the FRC has changed its approach completely and is now a much more effective regulator. Sir Jon Thompson did a fantastic job when he was there, and the current chief executive, Richard Moriarty, and chair, Jan du Plessis, are following his work. We are confident that the FRC can make sure that the UK’s corporate regime works effectively, without tying businesses up in red tape.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Government consulted on a draft statutory code of practice on fire and rehire earlier this year. The Government response and the final version of the code will be published in spring next year. The code sets out employers’ responsibilities when seeking to change contractual terms and conditions of employment, and is designed to ensure that dismissal and re-engagement is used only as the last resort.
Dame Nia Griffith
The very fact that only last week P&O Cruises felt able to say it would impose new contractual terms on workers through fire and rehire tactics shows that some employers still feel that they can use these tactics with impunity, in spite of the Government’s promise to clamp down on them. I thank the Minister for his answer, but is there any way he could bring in the legislation more urgently, so that we can protect our workers properly?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s question in terms of bringing legislation forward as quickly as possible. Of course, we have to get this right. I have to say that P&O was not a fire and rehire situation; it was a fire-only situation, which was strongly condemned by this Government and by many other stakeholders, and a civil investigation is ongoing into the matters surrounding that case. But yes, the hon. Lady is right, and we are keen to get the new statutory code of practice in place as soon as possible. We expect that to be in spring next year, and once it is in force, the employment tribunal can increase employees’ compensation by up to 25% when an employer fails unreasonably to comply with the code.
Section 28 Repeal: 20th Anniversary
Nia Griffith Excerpts(5 months, 1 week 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
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Sharma, for coming to our rescue and saving our debate this afternoon—we very much appreciate that.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate marking the 20 years since 18 November 2003, when the repeal of section 28 came into effect. It is very fitting indeed that he should lead the debate: as many Members here will know, and as he referenced in his speech, he was brave enough to stand as an openly gay parliamentary candidate in 1997 and endured a vicious and abusive campaign.
I pay huge tribute to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), Lord Cashman and others who did so much to pioneer gay rights—leading the way, speaking out when it was much more difficult to do so, taking risks and campaigning ceaselessly to create a society in which no one is disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Of course, they are still campaigning.
My right hon. Friend described in detail the build-up of negative views and attacks on gay people in the lead-up to the introduction of section 28. He set out clearly that we are, worryingly, hearing echoes of the section 28 times from the present Conservative Government, leading to fear and prejudice, particularly against trans people. He detailed clearly the tirade of attacks that make things ever more difficult for young trans people.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) described the change we have seen in society, but noted that further action is needed and spoke of the challenges across the globe. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) described her campaigning against section 28 and reminded us of the toll that the HIV/AIDS epidemic took on the gay community. She also reminded us that the Labour Government in Scotland repealed the Scottish equivalent of section 28 three years before the UK Government did.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) mentioned the dangers of toxic speech and its effect on people, including himself, as well as the importance of role models. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), speaking from the Scottish National party Front Bench, mentioned how easy it would be to allow backsliding and how our job is to speak up and not allow hateful attitudes to take hold. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is a good friend, reminded us of the common-sense approach of the Welsh Government, who insist that all children should have fully inclusive LGBT education because that is the society we live in.
On a personal note, celebrating the repeal of section 28 brings back some awkward memories of 30 years ago for me. At the time, I was teaching in a large comprehensive school and in a relationship with another female teacher. Same-sex relationships were little acknowledged, and we knew very few other same-sex couples, so we were already quite isolated. Then, in 1988, the Thatcher Government introduced the homophobic law, section 28, which stipulated that local authorities must not “promote homosexuality” or
“promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”
That language was hateful, threatening and intimidating, and I was conscious that the force of the law could be used against me. Back in 1988, there were no anti-discrimination laws that covered a person’s sexual orientation, meaning that they could be fired just for being gay. All of that made it difficult for gay teachers to be open about their sexuality, thus taking away valuable opportunities to provide positive role models for young people. It undoubtedly delayed my own coming out, and I just got into the habit of never mentioning anything at all about my personal life to anyone at work. In fact, it was not until 1995 that I came out to my friends and family, and I was very conscious that, standing for town council in a multi-member ward, I would be putting my fellow Labour candidates in a position of having to defend me. But they were great about it.
Perhaps the worst thing about section 28, and the fear that it instilled in gay teachers like me, was that it made it very difficult to challenge homophobic bullying effectively. At the time, homophobic insults in the classroom were commonplace, thus making the lives of many students a misery. If we had called out those comments as homophobia, we risked being accused of promoting homosexuality. When a pupil made a homophobic remark, I did not want it to go unchallenged, but all I could manage was something feeble, like, “Don’t you think that could be a bit hurtful to some people?”
If the classroom was hard, the staff room was even worse, especially when trying to challenge male teachers exchanging homophobic banter. Some colleagues were already quick to mock me as a lefty feminist, so could I risk the suspicion of being gay, when that could be used against me in my employment? I am ashamed to say that I did let comments go unchallenged. I could and should have spoken up, and I am immensely grateful to all those who were brave, who did speak up and who helped society to become more accepting of LGBT people.
We owe it to today’s young people and the teachers who are delivering LGBT education to give them our full backing and ensure that there is no backsliding in this important step towards creating a genuinely inclusive society. But, of course, it was not just teaching that was affected by section 28. It set back local council initiatives and fomented prejudice and hate, and who knows how much misery, how many additional suicides, how many late diagnoses of HIV and how many additional deaths it led to?
Thankfully, the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010 faced down fierce opposition and championed LGBT rights, including by repealing section 28. Not only did Labour repeal section 28, with the repeal taking effect on 18 November 2003, but we achieved an equal age of consent; ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces; ended discrimination against lesbian and gay partners for immigration purposes; created civil partnerships, allowing same-sex couples to have the same rights as married couples; gave LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children; awarded statutory rights to fertility treatment on the NHS for lesbians; banned discrimination in the workplace and vocational training; outlawed discrimination in goods and services; included homophobia in the definition of hate crime; brought in the Gender Recognition Act; and brought in the Equality Act.
By 2010, it was encouraging to see a growing acceptance of LGBT issues by the Conservative Government. We were pleased to support their legislation for same-sex marriage, although far too many Conservative Members voted against the Bill, some of whom, it must be said, have since apologised. Sadly, as Opposition Members have already said, LGBT+ people have been badly let down by the recent Conservative Government, who killed off their own LGBT action plan, disbanded their LGBT advisory panel, cancelled their international LGBT conference and have still not honoured the promise to ban the insidious practice of so-called conversion therapy. Instead of standing up for LGBT+ rights and bringing people together, the Conservatives have stoked a culture war and pitted different groups against each other.
Hate crimes against LGBT+ people have soared in the past decade. In 2022-23, almost 30,000 hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity were reported. It is not difficult to see the connection between that shocking increase in hate crime and the bandying about of LGBT-phobic remarks, particularly transphobic remarks, especially by people of influence, including, sadly, Conservative Members.
Hate crime figures are not just statistics. Behind each number is a real person who has been attacked or even killed, and many more who live in fear. Not long ago, I was speaking to a trans woman in my constituency, and this is what she said to me about the debate on the Equality Act that we had in this very room:
“As a transwoman I find the idea of this change to the equalities act terrifying. The change that has been suggested is purely out of contempt and malice.”
Dame Nia Griffith
May I just finish the quote from my constituent? She went on to say:
“I have been a patient with the NHS for my gender affirming care since 2017-18. The soonest I will be offered surgery is still at least 12 months away. Despite being fully transitioned in all but 1 final surgery, this will segregate me and make me vulnerable to violence. This isn’t moving goal posts to protect cisgender women: this is just cruel.
Every time politicians open their mouths to peddle hate to stoke up a culture war, I become more afraid to open my door for fear of the people they have riled up. You do not protect anyone by taking rights away from minorities.”
Joanna Cherry
I take issue with the hon. Lady on that point. I am one of the people who support amending the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex, and it is not because I have any hatred against trans people—it is because I want to ensure the rights of women to safety, dignity and privacy and the right of lesbians and gay men to freedom of association. Does the hon. Lady oppose those rights?
Dame Nia Griffith
As the hon. and learned Member would acknowledge, there is already provision in the Equality Act for specific spaces for biological women, where that was deemed appropriate. She knows that perfectly well. Things like women’s refuges provide one of the obvious examples of a biological single-sex space—
Joanna Cherry
That is not the case. Many once single-sex women’s refuges now have male-bodied individuals in them. That is why some other people have set up women-only spaces. Equally, lesbians are now unable to run lesbian-only events without men insisting on being admitted. As a lesbian, does the hon. Lady not find that concerning?
Dame Nia Griffith
The point is that we know perfectly well that there are one or two extremely far-reaching and far-thinking women’s refuges that have a very inclusive policy, but the vast majority are very aware of the importance of that single-sex space. I think the hon. and learned Member knows that. I am sure she understands why we want to make sure that trans women feel fully included and fully accepted in our society. We can manage to find a way to do that without prejudice and hate and without whipping up hate against each other. I hope she would agree with me on that point.
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
Order. I think that is enough interventions, and you have already spoken.
Dame Nia Griffith
Thank you. I would like to leave the Minister some time.
I say to the Minister that if the Government have the will, it is not too late for them to act. The Minister, a fellow Welshman and a fellow member of the LGBT community, will be taking the flak, but I am sure he would like to do some of the things we are going to suggest. We would like him to be able to push hard with his colleagues to carry this out. I say to him that it is not too late for the Government to act.
Will the Minister’s Government now make time to bring forward legislation for an outright ban on all forms of so-called gay conversion therapy to protect all LGBT+ people from this abhorrent practice, or agree to give full support and speedy passage to a private Member’s Bill to do the same? Will he also push his Government to move forward on the consultation that they held back in 2018 on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act to modernise the law on gender recognition by removing the futile indignities that people currently have to go through to obtain a gender recognition certificate, which do not contribute to the integrity of the process? Will the Government also do more to tackle LGBT hate crime as a matter of urgency? Finally, and very importantly, will the Government ensure that the rhetoric they use is not in any way homophobic or transphobic? Action on those four fronts would be a fitting tribute to mark 20 years since the repeal of section 28.
Free Trade Agreements: Scrutiny
Nia Griffith Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Business and Trade Committee, following the demise of the International Trade Committee.
There are two important points. First, the 21-day period under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act needs to be reformed. One such reform might be that the Committee needs more than 21 sitting days to be able to take a view on often complicated and full free trade agreements. No doubt the Minister for International Trade, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, will have heard that request.
Secondly, it is not for me to commit other Committees to a work programme, but it is right to point out that there are many issues, such as agriculture, defence, human rights and environmental issues, on which colleagues on other Committees take an interest.
I gave evidence this morning to the International Agreements Committee in the other place, and it does significant work on trade agreements among other things. One of the commitments we made was that, between our Clerks and between both Houses, we will co-ordinate our action to try to improve our capacity for reviewing trade agreements.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and his Committee for their important work on this report. As the report points out,
“we operate within finite resources and recognise that attempting exhaustively to scrutinise every aspect of the Department’s work is impractical… We intend, therefore, to adopt a case-by-case approach to scrutiny of prospective free trade agreements in future.”
Given that important and entirely understandable finding, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to overhaul the wider scrutiny process on trade negotiations to allow greater opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny of these agreements?
I applaud the Committee for highlighting the importance of a debate on negotiation objectives. Does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to be timely and meaningful, so that Members have a genuine opportunity to contribute? Does he also agree that more should be done to allow scrutiny earlier in negotiations, so that the parameters of trade talks can be better informed? As a Welsh MP, I am particularly keen to ensure that the nations and regions of the UK are able to contribute properly.
The report notes that the former International Trade Committee criticised the Government for a lack of transparency on the timetabling of the CRaG period, and for the difficulty of securing oral evidence from the Secretary of State in relation to the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. Does my hon. Friend think the Government might have been concerned about a backlash, given the criticism of the Australia deal from some of their own MPs, such as the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)?
Finally, does my hon. Friend have any concerns that the resource implications of the Committee’s scrutiny of trade deals will undermine any of its other vital work?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions and comments from the Dispatch Box, and I will take each in turn.
My hon. Friend is right about resource allocation. As I said in my speech, we have subsumed not only the responsibilities of the International Trade Committee but those of our former colleagues on the European Parliament committee that had power and resources to scrutinise trade agreements on our behalf when we were a member of the European Union. I gently suggest to the House that this is just one example of where, post Brexit, Committees ought to have greater resources, both financial and otherwise, for the additional work we have taken on after leaving the European Union.
The issue of time has been raised both by me today and by the predecessor Committee and our colleagues in the other place. These agreements are long and complicated, and the House’s Select Committees have other work to do in holding Departments to account. Having as much time as possible is always very welcome.
On access to information, let me add that I have learned, having taken on these responsibilities, that it is often easier to look at the press coverage in the other country to find out what is going on than it is to try to get information from the Government. If this information is on the public record, albeit in another country, it ought to be readily shared with us in this Parliament. I encourage Ministers to take that action.
Lastly, on Australia and New Zealand, my hon. Friend pointed out that an unusual approach was taken in the use of primary legislation and highlighted what that meant for this House’s ability to debate and intervene in the details of those agreements. I am not privy as to why Ministers chose to do that, but it is unusual. If it were a symbol, at least, that the Government are minded to update the processes for scrutinising FTAs, perhaps we could take the opportunity to do that.
Heritage Sites: Sustainability
Nia Griffith Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks 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
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing a debate on the sustainability of heritage sites across the UK.
I should like to discuss the Llanelli railway goods shed in my constituency. When the local planning authority conservation officer deals with the application for solar panels, the matter will of course come under Welsh Government guidance, which has much in common with the guidelines elsewhere; the same issues are raised. It is a huge challenge to finance the renovation of a large, grade II listed building. The building has featured in TV programmes by Michael Portillo and Huw Edwards. The dedication of volunteers, and the desire of local residents to see it restored to its former glory, is immense.
If a building is commercially viable, it will be snapped up, and there will be plenty of options—it can be done up for flats or whatever—but so many of these buildings are not in that category. The costs of renovation far outweigh any easy profit for commercial investors, so the buildings remain there until local volunteers get together, start raising money, including through grant funding, and make a business plan that stacks up. It is very important that they can show that the building is sustainable. In our case, we have gone for a mixture of commercial and business start-ups, plus community and educational use. We are already bringing in schools and showing the children material about Llanelli’s industrial heritage. For us, putting on solar panels is extremely important, because we want to tackle climate change. Every level of Government—the UK Government, the Welsh Government and the local county council, which is the local planning authority—has professed its commitment to getting to net zero. We have a huge south-facing roof, which is not visible from the front of the building—from the road, where people go in. The building backs on to the railway; somebody has to be right over the other side of the railway to see that part of the roof.
We were concerned not only to tackle climate change, but to make the building more viable and save on running costs, all the more so given that energy costs have soared recently. However, our local planning authority conservation officer has been adamant that the guidance will not permit solar panels. It was strange; they would not contemplate the modern solar panels that we liked, which look so much like slates that it is hardly possible to tell the difference. We were told that we had to have the ones that stand proud. I can understand the theory, which is that restoration to the original would be required; that might be the reasoning. Anyway, neither option is apparently acceptable, and we have been flatly refused permission to put solar panels on the roof.
This is a listed building that we want to be preserved and to look as it has looked. It is an industrial building, and we want to move with the times. We want to use technologies that are up to date, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned, just as the builders used the technologies of their day. We want to conserve the building and preserve the planet. We want to contribute to tackling climate change, and make the building more viable.
Even well known buildings with high footfall do not necessarily find it easy to make ends meet, because running costs can be so high. With a building in a less well-off part of the country, which probably will not attract such high footfall and is wanted principally for community use, it matters even more that we should have the opportunity to put on solar panels, out of sight, and in a way that helps the sustainability of the building, and ensures its preservation for the future.
Legislative Definition of Sex
Nia Griffith Excerpts(11 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
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.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on her balanced approach at the start and on listening to all sides of the debate.
I start by making it very clear that no one here is looking for some sort of culture war, despite what some may think. No one here is trying to pit different people against each other; in fact, I firmly believe that both women and the trans community have the right to be protected. They are already well protected under many existing laws, including the Equality Act, the Gender Recognition Act and the Human Rights Act. There are plenty of laws in place. If we are being asked to clarify the law—not change, but clarify it—this Parliament has the right to do so as long as the majority vote for that.
I speak passionately about this issue. I have someone in my life—a woman—who fled domestic violence and found a refuge with her young daughter. She would have been terrified to have been near anyone, whether male or a trans woman, in that system, because of the abuse, rape and torture that they had both suffered. This is about them having the safety of a women’s refuge, to be around other female survivors. I regularly commend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for being such a passionate champion of the cause.
Having lived with the woman I have described and heard about all the tragedy that she has had to go through, I understand why it is so important that women should have the protection of single-sex spaces and why it is wholly appropriate that we should clarify that law if we need to—to say that sex is defined by biology. Someone is not assigned their gender at birth; they are born male or female. A man is an adult human male and a woman is an adult human female. We should not be disputing those facts in the 21st century—these are the basics of biology that we talk about in our classrooms. I used to be a teacher. As head of year, I had responsibility for the safeguarding and welfare of children; I taught in an only-girls school as well as mixed-sex schools. I understand the challenges that come with some households and young individuals.
The issue is about making sure that women and girls feel protected and that the trans community have their rights and protections as well. It is befuddling to people in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke that this debate should even have to happen—to them it is obvious that in the Equality Act “sex” was talking about the biological definitions of men and women. Of course, they also accept that if there needs to be clarity, we should get on with giving it.
I want my daughter to grow up looking to heroines such as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and J. K. Rowling, who have been brave and bold enough to stand up for what they believe is important. Their rights should not be eroded because of an extremist minority shouting very loudly on social media and pursuing a very hard-line agenda that is not in keeping with the majority opinion, as we have seen during the national debate.
Sadly, women are being persecuted and facing abuse simply for speaking out, just as much as those in the trans community. The people who made money off J.K. Rowling’s hard work refused to stand beside her—they sit there in their multi-million-pound mansions, taking their private flights and trading on their position as actors and actresses because of her work. They had the gall to cancel her from being present at the show about the books that she herself wrote. It is extraordinary that we live in such times and that those individuals can be so cold and callous. That is why it is so important that we have this debate, which is about making sure that women feel and are safe and have their protections.
Dame Nia Griffith
Would the hon. Member like to clarify his understanding of the definition in the Equality Act? As I understand it, the Equality Act defines someone’s legal sex as being either the sex they were assigned at birth or the sex that they have acquired through having a gender recognition certificate. I do not think that that is what he has said in his speech.
Jonathan Gullis
I want to make it perfectly clear: sex is not assigned at birth. You are born a man or you are born a woman. Those are indisputable facts. You have XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes. Again, that is not up for debate or discussion. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) talked about XXY chromosomes, but as the NHS website points out, Klinefelter syndrome is caused by an abnormal amount of chromosomes. It does not relate to the separate debate about self-identification. Those two things are separate.
To finish, it is biologically clear that a male has XY chromosomes and a female has XX chromosomes. This is a scientific truth that should not be conflated with any constructed truth. William of Occam had it right that the simplistic approach is the best. Let us keep the Equality Act simple in order to protect the rights of everyone in a civil society. The problem with the debate we are having is that it is set in the context of a postmodern society that thinks that it can get away with dictating to those with universal convictions of truth that they must abandon them in favour of the nonsensical versions of their truth. Although the Algerian philosopher Jacques Derrida once pointed out that society is in a state of flux, he did not say that science is in a state of flux.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on his work on this report, which includes calling out the energy charter treaty used by fossil fuel companies to sue Governments for introducing climate policies. It is now nearly a year since the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), said:
“The UK cannot support an outdated treaty which holds back investment in clean energy and puts British taxpayers at increased risk from costly legal challenges”.
Can the Minister tell us when the Government will follow the example of other major European countries and commit to withdrawing from the energy charter treaty?
Ms Ghani
The energy charter treaty, which is under review, falls under the responsibilities of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which has been formed from half of my previous Department. In their negotiations to modernise the ECT, the former Departments for International Trade and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy worked in close collaboration and DIT led on the investment provisions, so there is no doubt that the hon. Lady’s question would be better focused at the other Department.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I also took part in a very sobering visit to Ukraine last month and saw for myself the utter devastation of homes, businesses and infrastructure, with World Bank estimates of reconstruction costs now at some $630 billion. In spite of warm words, we still have no clear plan from the Government for the seizure of Russian state assets that could be used for the recovery of Ukrainian businesses and the reconstruction of Ukraine. Now that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, and with the United States, the European Union and Canada already looking to seize assets, can the Secretary of State tell us when the Government will set out how they will seize frozen Russian state assets?