Gender Self-identification

Debate between Richard Quigley and Meg Hillier

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this important debate.

Although, as MPs, we must respect the independence and authority of the judiciary, the recent ruling does not solve anything. Let us be clear that the ruling does not absolve us from our ongoing responsibility to the trans community—our duty to respect, support and advocate for their rights remains as vital as ever.

I am deeply troubled by the rhetoric that has taken hold in recent years, which has been appropriated by those seemingly seeking to sow division and manufacture culture wars at the expense of people who already face hardship and discrimination in our society. It is disheartening to see figures including the Leader of the Opposition appear to wear their transphobia as almost a badge of honour. We must not forget that our words in this House matter and can really impact the most vulnerable. Like many Members, I came into politics to champion minorities and to give a voice to the voiceless. It is vital that we remember the power we hold to raise the tone of debate, rather than lowering it, and to support the vulnerable, not scapegoat them.

Trans people simply want to live in peace, not to be demonised or turned into a convenient political target during times of national difficulty. Our constituents, by and large, are not fixated on which toilets people use. They want change, improved lives and well-funded services. I am concerned by the growing narrative that improving trans rights somehow threatens the rights or dignity of women and girls. I will not deny that in places such as the Prison Service there have been troubling examples of individuals playing the system to gain access to women’s spaces. We must acknowledge and address those concerns seriously.

But when I hear some Opposition Members declare themselves to be champions of women’s rights—well, they might if they were here—I ask not only where they are now, but where they have been for the last 15 years. When violence against women and girls skyrocketed, where was the legislation? When women’s shelters were chronically underfunded, where was the outrage? When domestic abuse cases surged while court access diminished, where was the action? When male perpetrators played the legal system to harass their victims, where was the advocacy?

I do not raise those matters just to score political points, but to prompt reflection. If a person’s defence of women’s rights surfaces only in opposition to trans rights, I question whether it is truly about supporting women or simply a way to target trans people under that guise.

I stand not to provoke argument, but to urge every hon. Member in this Chamber to remember the human beings behind our words, and their families, their communities and their lives. Hate crimes against trans people are rising. We are failing in our duty as MPs if we do not accept some responsibility for the tone and consequences of our discourse.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point. Many people have been in touch with me who are very frightened because of the Supreme Court ruling. Does he agree that not only do we need to speak here but that the Government need to make sure the interim guidance is quickly firmed up as proper guidance, because the interim guidance is causing confusion and fear for so many people?

[Mr Quigley]

I agree entirely. As we have seen many times over the last 14 years, words matter. Ultimately, the petition before us is rooted in compassion, dignity and basic respect—principles that are unmistakably British. Respect for others, fairness and standing up for the vulnerable are values in which we rightly take pride. I hope that we can all agree on the simple truth that trans people are not the enemy and that the power we hold in this place must be used to uplift, not to vilify. My message to all of us here today is that we should not lose sight of that responsibility.

Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Debate between Richard Quigley and Meg Hillier

2nd reading
Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

As ever, my hon. Friend talks enormous sense. Let us talk through the practicalities of the proposal that I have just outlined. A person graduating from a Scottish university would be able to stay on and work in Scotland without sponsorship for four years in total. To remind the House, that means two years on a UK graduate visa—or three for a PhD—followed by two years on a Scottish graduate visa.

[Mr Quigley]

rose—

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Or an Isle of Wight visa! I give way.

[Mr Quigley]

An Isle of Wight visa indeed. My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. Does she agree that this very short, 17-word Bill clearly creates more problems than it will solve?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I hope that I am beginning to explain how some of these interactions—[Laughter.] I am only just beginning. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I fear I might be cut off, which is a great shame, because I had really looked forward to going into this in more detail.

If the person completed undergraduate and postgraduate in Scotland, they would qualify for permanent residence simply by having been in the country. We might want to support that, but we ought to debate, it rather than sleepwalking into the challenges of having two systems set up for different purposes. That would be confusing for the individual and for the businesses employing them, as they might not know whether visas were needed. It would be very complicated.

On the tax code, I have spent quite a lot of time considering how our tax system works, and every time a Chancellor of any party stands up at the Dispatch Box to announce something, it adds complexity to the tax system, which can be very confusing for people.

One of the last things that we wanted to do in the previous Labour Government, but which was too complicated to deliver in time, was codify all immigration law into one Bill—but, boy, was that a big task. It is the sort of thing that a Government would need to start at the beginning of a 15-year Government. Perhaps I should suggest it to the Home Secretary, because I am sure that this Government have the prospect of seeing it through. People come to my constituency surgery—and to those of many other Members, I am sure—to ask for information about their immigration status. They could not possibly work through the system on their own without professional advice, which is costly. That is discriminatory, really. They find it very difficult. The more complication we add, the harder it will be.