Christine Jardine
MP for Edinburgh West · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, and those of the Secretary of State. Figures quoted today by the BBC suggest that as many as one in five young people in education may not be attending college courses regularly, so the situation may be even worse than outlined in the Milburn report.”
“I completely agree, and it did the other place no credit at all that they did that. There is something interesting and noticeable about all the experiences we have heard today. I have personal experience, which I admit influences my view. I saw my mother go through a very painful death and wished that she had had the choice.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) for reintroducing this Bill and giving us another chance to debate the issue—although part of me regrets, as I will explain, that we have that chance.”
“That hope has been snatched away from them—and not by us. We fulfilled our responsibility to the electorate. We spent hundreds of hours in Committee, in private discussions, in debates and on Report, going over this Bill in minute detail until we could, with confidence, send to the other place the best Bill we thought possible.”
“I do, but they are each one individual, and each of the professional organisations is neutral, and believe me, I envy them on that. We have the responsibility to make the decision. The majority of us have already said that this is the best Bill we can produce.”
“I apologise for the earlier slip, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I echo the comments about the fantastic job done safeguarding the British public by the staff at NATS? Just recently, I visited air traffic control in our control tower at Edinburgh airport, and I saw at first hand the amount of work that goes into keeping the public safe.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Christine Jardine, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill spoke about the right of women to decide not to have an abortion. That is as important to me as the right to have an abortion. I have often said in this place that I do not know what I would do in that situation. I have never had to make that choice. But I do not have the right to make that choice for any other woman; she has the right to make that choice based on her faith, her beliefs or her medical or personal situation and without any interference from me or anybody else. The fact that we are still debating this question is a failure: a failure of our system to recognise the rights of every individual to their own healthcare decisions. The only way that we can effectively protect people from being criminalised is to make abortion a human right in the way that we did in Northern Ireland.”
“I find it unfortunate that at times today we have argued about how we decriminalise abortion and remove it from the statute books. Surely, the thing to do is to remove it altogether, not partially remove it or decriminalise it—to remove it altogether. The way we do that is by making it a human right, as it is in other countries. I also take issue with those who say that it is not a human right for women who have to go through an abortion when that goes against what their choice would be in other circumstances, often because they have been raped or because they have been told that it is a medical necessity. They deserve the protection of going through that in private and the right to do so. It should be a completely private personal choice and decision. The hon.”
“I believe that everyone, regardless of their gender identity, has a right to make independent decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the state or the law. Access to reproductive healthcare is a human right, as has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in relation to Northern Ireland. Why are we debating this issue today? Because in this country we are seeing a rise in the number of prosecutions of women who have had abortions. We have heard about the tactics. In her powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) spoke about the stories of women like Sammy and Sophie, who are going through trauma because they made a decision. That is wholly unacceptable to me.”
“Amnesty International state that abortion is a human rights issue.” I wonder how many people watching the debate, or at home this evening, are surprised that we still need to have this debate. They might be astonished that women in this country can be criminalised for having an abortion, because they believe that in 1967 the Abortion Act made abortion legal. Actually, what it did was to make it legal in certain circumstances, and more than half a century later we are still debating when and how it is appropriate and when women can have the choice. As the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, so much has changed in the intervening years and so much about our society, laws and the political situation in which we live today is different from when that law was passed in 1967.”
“It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for his powerful introduction to this very timeous petition debate. This is a conscience issue, and my Liberal Democrat colleagues may have very different views, but I find it ironic that it is a conscience issue as to whether women should have a choice over their own reproductive healthcare. The petition calls on the UK Government to: “remove abortion from criminal law so that no pregnant person can be criminalised for procuring their own abortion. The UK is out of step with World Health Organization who in 2022 recommended that barriers to abortion such as criminalisation, or approval of others or institutions should be removed.”
“My generation—my friends—went through hell then. Well, now another generation needs our help and support in protecting their rights. If we do not protect their rights, we risk losing all our rights. Women’s rights, children’s rights, men’s rights, minority rights and trans rights are all human rights. If we do not protect one, we risk losing them all. I ask the Government to examine what they are doing at the moment. A friend of mine said to me today that we should judge our society by how we treat our vulnerable minorities. I ask the Government to do that: to look at the legislation, look at how it is treating our vulnerable minorities, and ask themselves if that is acceptable. Or, if they are prepared to put an end to the confusion, the anxiety and the fear—”
“Yes, there are questions that we have to overcome about prisons and single-sex spaces, but those problems should not come before protecting the rights of anyone. Somehow that has been lost in the toxic debate, but we have to stop. We have to change the narrative around this issue. It is clear today that people want us to find a way forward, stop rehearsing bitter arguments and look for ways to help one another, help people find a way forward and allow everyone to be free to live the life that they want to lead. I remember a time not unlike this one, when another campaign of fear—the threat of HIV and AIDS—made life insufferable for the gay community in this country. That we would now live in a society that embraces same-sex relationships and allows us all to be free to love who we love was unimaginable then, but we have changed.”
“Just recently, a friend of mine whose child is trans told me that since the ruling she now worries about how they are expected to go about their life every day and do simple things that we take for granted—like going to the toilet at work, for goodness’ sake. Funnily enough, not so long ago she told me how wonderful it was, now that they had completed their transition, to see them happy in themselves, living the life that they had always wanted to live. That is why I believe that we need to think seriously about self-ID. We need to think seriously about how we can put an end to the confusion and the anxiety that are being felt by too many people in this country. Just think for a moment: what if we had been talking about your child, brother, sister or friend?”
“I completely understand and sympathise with the arguments put forward by those who fear that women could be vulnerable to attack in certain circumstances and single-sex spaces unless we protect them. Of course we should protect them, but that is not anything to do with the rights of the trans community. They are not the problem, and their rights should not be impacted by the rights of women. One person’s rights should never be contingent on another’s, and yet that is what we have done. The statistics we have heard are frightening; hon. Members have outlined how we have made people from the trans community into targets. It saddens me to my core that the debate around fundamental rights—maybe those of your friends, your family, your neighbours or your work colleagues—has been so toxic.”
“For so many of them, that has meant that the lives they have led, in some cases for decades, quite straightforwardly, simply and happily—recognised by their peers—have been thrown into doubt. Suddenly it seems that in this country, rather than making progress and protecting people’s rights, we are regressing. We have had this toxic debate for three years in Scotland; I suppose in some places it has been much longer. We have had three years of pitting one vulnerable group against another: on the one hand the rights of women, and on the other hand the rights of the trans community. To me, it is utterly ridiculous to pit against each other two vulnerable groups who are both afraid and continually victims of discrimination and violence. We are completely losing sight of the damage that we are doing to both groups.”
“Over the past year of listening to various groups and hearing their views on what is needed to protect the trans community and the LGBTQ community in general, I have learned that it is, more than anything else, about valuing people. It is about recognising their worth, their human rights and their right to live a life free of victimisation, discrimination, fear and anxiety. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds said, this is not about an abstract debate, but about real lives and real people. That is where I begin to struggle with many of the things that have been said over the past three years. This is about people who are living in distress that has been caused by the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC interim guidance.”
“The Conservative Government’s 2018 proposals to reform the gender recognition process, which we first endorsed in 2014, are at the heart of it. The proposals would remove the requirement to provide medical reports confirming a gender dysphoria diagnosis, as well as the spousal veto—a horrible requirement for the person applying for a GRC to provide a statutory declaration of consent from their spouse. Applicants would still have to prove that they have lived in their affirmed gender for at least two years and make a legal declaration that they intend to live permanently in that gender for the rest of their life—put simply, self-ID. It would be clearer, simpler and less intrusive. However, that is just the paperwork. It is not really what this issue is about.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on leading the debate with such a powerful speech on behalf of the 120,000 people who want us to consider the petition carefully. I thank them for bringing the voice of the trans community into this Chamber. They need to be heard. More than that, they need to be listened to. For the past six to eight months, and in fact the past three and a half years, this debate has been a big part of my life. That is not just because I am a Scottish MP— I recognise what the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was talking about—but because I have been at the centre of the formation of Liberal Democrat policy on this issue. The revised policy that we came up with sets out our continued commitment to self-ID.”
“I think I have made it absolutely clear that I include women and I include all the LGBT community. But what I object to, with every fibre of my being, is those vulnerable groups being pitted against each other. I think we all do. Every vulnerable group in this society deserves the protection of not just their Government but their community. I ask the Government to think about that and think about whether it is time to allow trans people in this country to have the same freedom as others. That is not a privilege, but a right. I mean the same freedom to live the life that they want to live—the life that they would have in Ireland, Germany, Iceland and so many other countries. We are falling behind and letting our people down.”
“I find this confusing and incomprehensible. Why do the Government need that data? Is there not also a danger that it will get into the hands of the wrong people and there will be a breach of privacy? I just do not understand why we need it. Medical records need it, yes, but do the Government?”
“I appreciate the hon. Lady giving way, given the time constraints. Does she acknowledge the concern that many of us have about not telling patients all the options, particularly young people who are now so social-media literate? Their automatic reaction is to Google everything; in fact, we all do it. The danger is that, if they are not told all the options and given the guidance that is available, they will go to Google and see yet more of the dangerous suicide attempts that we see at the moment.”
“This is a very personal one for me, because much of my motivation for supporting the Bill comes from having watched a member of my family die of motor neurone disease. Although perhaps it would have been preferable if motor neurone disease and other degenerative diseases could have been included, I accept that we do not want to go down the slippery slope. However, there is a difference between extending the Bill to degenerative diseases such as motor neurone disease and extending it to other conditions. Perhaps we could consider supporting that, because I would not want anyone to go through what I witnessed, without the choice to end it without going through more pain.”
“We begin with the Select Committee statement. Tom Gordon will speak on the publication of the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ second report of the Session “Accountability for Daesh crimes” for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Tom Gordon to respond to these in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may only ask one question each. I remind Members that they should bob if they wished to be called to ask a question.”
“Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Unfortunately, because of its popularity, I will have to impose a time limit of three minutes from the beginning. I intend to go to the Front Benchers at 2.38 pm.”
“I am sure that we would all agree that the wellbeing of our universities is vital to the economic wellbeing of this country. As the Member for Edinburgh West, I know that the wellbeing of our four universities in Edinburgh is vital not just to the economy, but to the livelihoods of many of my constituents. International students, in turn, are vital to the wellbeing of those universities. Universities Scotland says that, under the immigration measures proposed this week by the Government, the levy could cost universities in Scotland £85 million a year. There is a great deal of concern about this, so will the Leader of the House arrange for me to have a meeting with the relevant Minister to see how we can address this issue and perhaps reassure our university sector?”
“Every year, an estimated 5,000 British citizens are arrested abroad, many of them under false pretences. Many are used as hostages and denied access to legal representation, and their families are left without information, not knowing what has happened to them. High-profile cases at the moment include those of Alaa Abd el-Fattah in Egypt and of Jagtar Singh Johal in India. None of these people has an automatic right to support, as is the case with other countries such as the United States, so can the Minister give us more details about exactly what the consular assistance will be and whether it will be automatic for everyone?”
“A number of constituents of mine in Edinburgh West—former police officers, and former and current NHS staff—have come to me with concerns about the way the McCloud judgment on public sector pensions is being implemented, and worries that they will be negatively impacted at great cost. How will the Government ensure that there is no negative impact?”
“The Home Secretary spoke about attracting the best and the brightest to this country. One area in which our universities do that is the medical profession. During the covid crisis and the rebuilding after it, a lot of the people on the frontline were immigrants. When she looks at the resettlement and reassurance of existing migrants, will she consider indefinite leave to remain for those who worked through that crisis?”
“I appreciate that the hon. Member is speaking about St George’s day and English affairs, but I would just take issue with his use of the phrase “break up” to describe the effect of devolution on our country. We devolved some of the power closer to the people so that they felt more represented. That was not an attempt to break up the country. I say as a member of the party which, along with the Labour party, was instrumental in achieving devolution that it was to hold the country together while allowing people to feel closer to where decisions are made.”
“When such a drug comes up and can save people’s lives, surely we should ensure that it is available throughout the country, without geographical limits.”
“After battling through an awake brain surgery, months of rehabilitation, waking up every day battling this disease in my own head, putting a smile on my face for those around me, just to have to go through another year of turmoil and appointments, only to be left with potential long-term cognitive issues and even further away from the 24-year-old I knew on 9 April 2021. That is not a cure.” It is no longer good enough to say that treatment is too difficult or expensive. Families are crowdfunding for treatment and looking abroad. This is not the NHS that Bevan envisaged; it is not the NHS that any of us wants. We are letting people down if we do not do as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden suggested by testing such drugs on everyone and making them available everywhere.”
“I understand the pressures on finances, on resources and on the NHS—we all do—but that cannot mean a limit to our ambition in what we can do for those who are suffering. We are all here because we believe that we can make a difference. I certainly did not come here with the intention of sitting back and accepting that I could not help when it comes to health or that we would talk about saving money when we should talk about saving lives. I count myself lucky to have met so many dedicated and strong people since I was invited into Archie’s home to talk with him and his family about the challenges they face and how we could help them. One of those people is Dawn from the Astro Brain Tumour Fund, whose son Shay was diagnosed with a grade 2 IDH-mutant astrocytoma. He said: “Chemotherapy and radiotherapy. That’s what the future holds for me.”
“It seems the cruellest of things that a drug is available, having been partly developed in Archie’s own city, but he cannot have it. I know that the NHS is devolved, but drug policy is not. It seems unfair that we live with a situation in which lifesaving treatments are decided by postcode. People are passed from pillar to post only to be told that they cannot or will not have treatments that are available, and that the only options are radiotherapy, chemotherapy and the other interventions that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden described, which could be replaced. One word covers a lot of the excuses that we have been given: affordability—as if we are dealing with anything other than a human being whose situation is no fault of their own.”
“However, there should be good news, because there is a new highly promising drug—so promising, I am told, that the trials were stopped midway through, and those on the placebo were given the drug, because it was proving so successful in inhibiting the growth of the tumour. It was developed in Edinburgh and is available to eligible patients through a named patient programme, through which it is being administered free of charge, but not everywhere—only, in Scotland, in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and NHS Tayside areas. However, Archie has not been given access to the drug because of the routine blood-testing and the cost to NHS Lothian. I and his MSP have written to NHS Scotland and the Lothian health board, and I have written to the drug company, to ask how we can make the drug available.”
“I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). This is a debate that I wish we were not at. I wish there was no need for us to have this debate, but sadly there is. This is an issue that I have come to know more about personally in the last few months, after a young constituent came to me. Archie is a 22-year-old elite athlete from Edinburgh, training for the Commonwealth games and the Olympic trials. He was diagnosed with an inoperable and terminal IDH-mutant low-grade glioma—a rare form of brain tumour that disproportionately affects younger people. As I say, he is 22 years old.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. There has been a great deal of reassurance for the car industry and agriculture, but there has been no mention of the Scotch whisky industry or the drink and food industry in general. In Edinburgh, as in much of Scotland, that is a huge concern. Should we expect details next week, or are there assurances he can give us now?”
“Three years after Baroness Kennedy’s groundbreaking review on tackling misogyny in law, late on Friday, the SNP said that it would scrap its planned Bill to tackle widespread misogyny and hatred against women. Plans to tackle misogynistic harassment, the stirring up of hatred, and sending threatening or abusive communications to women, and an aggravated offence of misogyny—all scrapped in favour of a watered-down amendment to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. Women across the United Kingdom need action, and reassurance that politicians will root out the attitudes that lead to hatred against women in public life. If the SNP will not do it, will this Government act to give women the support that they need?”
“The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Data can be susceptible and its breach is a breach of privacy. Does he agree that one danger in new clause 21, about the data on individuals’ sex at birth, is that it risks breaching someone’s privacy if they have kept that fact private and that data becomes public knowledge through the means being discussed?”
“My constituents in Edinburgh West, like many others across Scotland and the UK, depend on energy-intensive industries for their livelihoods: defence, whisky and Grangemouth. How can the Minister reassure people who are already suffering because of high domestic energy prices that the situation will not be made worse by losing jobs in those industries?”
“A constituent wrote to me recently about problems with the financial ombudsman. He waited months for it even to begin the investigation, and despite receiving an apology for the delay, when he then had a subsequent related complaint, it again took weeks before he got any reply, and that was to say, “Sorry, we can’t begin to investigate the complaint.” He is not the only constituent who has written to me about delays in the operation of the financial ombudsman, which is leaving people facing severe financial hardship. Could the Leader of the House arrange a meeting between me and the Minister to discuss how we can support the financial ombudsman and improve this situation?”
“I welcome what the Minister has outlined and his reassurances about resilience, particularly to a cyber-attack. However, there is also the danger that if we hand over the on/off switch for vital energy supplies to a foreign country, they can be switched off without our control. What mitigations are the Government considering for projects like the vast wind farm in the North sea for which the Chinese company Mingyang wants to provide the hardware?”
“I hear what the Secretary of State is saying, but Scotland’s declining oil and gas industries have lost 40% of their jobs in the past decade, and today Grangemouth has warned that it may have to pause important projects involving a switch to greener and more sustainable forms of energy because of what it describes as soaring energy bills and the pressures of income tax. We know that Grangemouth needs investment, but it also needs more than the Government are doing at the moment. What intervention are they planning to protect jobs and the communities that could be hollowed out if Grangemouth is not saved?”
“The national insurance changes are not helpful, so it would help Scottish education if we had some changes there as well.”
“I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments about the death of Pope Francis. In a rare consensus, I agree with much of what has been said by both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State. Many universities are extremely concerned about the funding situation. Many of my constituents who are employees of universities or who have children at Scottish universities are concerned, particularly following the news of the 600 job cuts at the University of Dundee. I have spoken to the principal of the University of Edinburgh and he is also concerned about the funding model in Scotland, which is failing everyone. Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Scottish Government how they can make changes and put pressure on them to do so?”
“I have written to the Minister and asked her if we will see legislation that gives that protection, because we must remember that what we are dealing with here is not hypothetical. It is about real lives, real fears and real concerns among the LGBT community. Equality and human rights should never be the preserve of one—”
“Could she explain where transgender people fleeing violence can now go for refuge, if they are to be completely excluded from refuges? For years, we have had this intolerable debate, in which two vulnerable groups have been pitted against each other. Those two groups are afraid of the same thing—violence, mostly from men. The challenge for this Labour Government is to live up to the spirit of perhaps one of the proudest achievements of a previous Labour Government—the Equality Act—and protect everyone. If this Government are not able to do that, does the Minister think it would be acceptable to see trans women forced into men’s toilets, to face goodness knows what sort of aggression, and potentially violence, there? Will she confirm what she says about protecting trans rights? We need some leadership from this Government.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. Of course, I respect the independence of the Supreme Court and the ruling it has made, interpreting the law as it stands, just as I respect the concerns of many women, and the now increased fears of the LGBT community. I also respect what the Minister had to say about her experience of working in a refuge, and I agree that there is no length to which we should not go to ensure protection for women who are in the situation that she describes. However, given what she said, I am sure that she will agree with me that that should not come at the cost of the human rights and the security of another vulnerable group in society, which is what this ruling threatens to bring about.”
“Does the right hon. Member agree that there is a wider issue at stake: our energy security and national security? We have seen what can go wrong with a Chinese company that we do not trust, and we see Chinese influence increasing in other vital sectors, particularly our energy industry. Should that not underline our concern and act as a warning that we do not want the Chinese to have control of our energy supply?”
“I welcome the Minister’s reply to the urgent question, but I am sure he will forgive me when I say that we have heard all this before. There is a sense of hopelessness in this place at the downward spiral we seem to be on, but it must be nothing compared with the hopelessness being felt by the Gazans and also the Israeli population. The Israeli regime is not listening to us or to its own population, who are protesting and simply want the hostages home. The region needs some hope, and it has already been suggested that if we are to go down the route to a two-state solution, we need a breakthrough. That breakthrough might come if this Government recognise Palestine as a state.”
“Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that someone sitting at home watching this will be worried by the argument that it is more important to stick to some anti-EU dogma than it is to protect their children from dangerous products, or to keep dangerous electric bikes off the market and regulate for their safety?”
“Although I cannot speak immediately for all Liberal Democrats, it puzzles us that the official Opposition do not seem to recognise that if they had legislated properly when we left the European Union, this legislation would not be necessary. Do they not accept any responsibility for where we are today?”
“I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the increased co-operation with allies on this vital issue. It is critical that we stop the dangerous crossings, but without tackling the problem at its source, with aid to tackle famine and conflict and by providing safe legal routes, do we not risk the crisis continuing? How will the Minister work with colleagues across Government to address those factors to ensure that we tackle the crisis fully?”
“T4. I recently spoke at a United Nations event hosted by the French that looked at how pornography and extreme content are contributing to misogynistic and toxic behaviour towards women. Will the Secretary of State tell us what proposals this Government have to implement the recent recommendations of the report commissioned by the previous Government?”
“I will call Chris Hinchliff to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“Order. Our time is up; I am sorry. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered construction standards for new build homes.”