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 6 of 12.
“For eight years, I have seen how a young constituent has been able to completely control his previously life-threatening seizures with medicinal cannabis, but at huge cost to his family—a cost that is prohibitive for other people. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can make access to such treatments more affordable, accessible and safe, so that we can help more people?”
“We all know that life is more expensive for someone who is disabled, and that investing in mental health and social care would give disabled people the support that they deserve. Liberal Democrats believe that if the Government were serious about cutting welfare spending, they would get serious about fixing health and social care, and the broken Department for Work and Pensions. By fixing that, we would reduce the benefits bill in the long term, but yesterday’s changes, which slash the support offered to vulnerable people, will leave many people facing difficult choices. Can the Minister assure disabled people, including the 80,000 in Scotland who are still receiving PIP, that they will be listened to, their needs will be taken into account, and they will somehow continue to get the support that they need?”
“Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate and, if possible, keep to an informal five-minute time limit to allow everyone to get in. I call Edward Morello.”
“I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and I ask them to keep to an informal limit of about three and a half minutes, please.”
“I am afraid we are out of time for Back Benchers now, but perhaps Brendan O’Hara would like to intervene on the Minister. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.”
“They have not taken it, despite the promises that many of them, including Cabinet Ministers, made before the general election. Instead, they turned their back on the millions of pension-age women who were wronged, through no fault of their own. For years, we have pushed the Government to do something. I suspect that the WASPI women, not just in the Gallery but up and down the country, felt that a corner had been turned in July of last year: that the ombudsman’s report would be upheld, and that a Labour Government would stand by them. The time has come for the Labour Government to be as good as their word to the WASPI women, and take action.”
“I admit that when I was elected, almost eight years ago now, I did not know much about the WASPI women and their case. However, one of the first women who came to me after I was elected had been affected. Her letter from the DWP was late, and she had made financial decisions about her future before it reached her; she was less than two years away from retirement when she was told that she would have to wait an additional five years. Like many women, she lost out financially. Many women will also have been let down by this Government’s decision not to award compensation. The previous Government were criticised for kicking the issue into the long grass, and they did, but this Government had an opportunity to overturn that.”
“Last week, I was in New York at the Commission on the Status of Women, and I come back here and wonder exactly what this debate, and the situation that the WASPI women find themselves in, says about the status of women in this country. As has been said, this generation worked hard, and paid their taxes and national insurance; they are now finding that there is no compensation, even though the Government admit that they let them down. Looking at the Labour Benches, I am also struck by hope: if so many Labour MPs recognise the failing in this Government’s stance on WASPI women, perhaps the Government will listen. They are not listening to the Opposition or to the WASPI women, but perhaps they will listen to their own MPs when they say, “You’ve got this wrong; you’re letting these women down,” and we will have an end to this.”
“It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate, and I pay tribute to the many women who have come along. I would love to say that it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, but it is not. After eight years of taking part in debates, protests, meetings, all-party parliamentary groups and proceedings on private Members’ Bills about this issue, and waiting on the ombudsman’s report, it is above all frustrating that we have to do it yet again because the Government have failed in their responsibility to uphold the ombudsman’s recommendations. For me, there is a particular irony in that.”
“I take on board what the Minister says about the research, but the fact that 73% of people knew that there were would be changes to the pension age does not tell us that 73% of women, or any percentage, knew that it would affect them. That is not what the evidence tells us.”
“The Minister says that the Department will learn the lessons of this case. Does he accept that the whole point of this debate was not, as he said, to change the minds of Members who have spoken or the women who have come to watch the debate, but to change the mind of the Government? That is the lesson we would like him to learn.”
“It has been drawn to my attention this week that there is a continuing problem in this country with a reserved matter: the supply of drugs. A 22-year-old constituent of mine, who is an elite athlete and unfortunately has inoperable brain tumours, came to me to say that drug inhibitors that would help him are currently on open access trial in this country. Unfortunately, the health board in my constituency is not taking part, so drugs that could save his life and allow him to continue with his ambitions are available, but he cannot access them. Would the Leader of the House either consider having a debate on how we make access to drugs on trial universal across the UK, or set up a meeting for me with the relevant Minister to discuss this issue?”
“As someone with two generations of their family who have depended on the North sea oil and gas industry, I know that we have to move away from fossil fuels and that we have to drive forward to the just transition, but we must also recognise that we are not there yet and that this is not the moment to push the industry off a cliff. It is declining naturally. We are leaving ourselves in a position where we will still need oil, so will we import it? We will need gas for hydrogen production, plastics, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. All of that is necessary. We also face a threat from the Chinese trying to infiltrate our renewables, so what are the Government going to do about that?”
“If economic growth in Scotland is to succeed, our world-class universities—the knowledge, the skills and the jobs they provide—will be absolutely vital. Last week, Edinburgh University announced that it faced a £140 million deficit, which is projected to be the largest in the UK. That is hugely concerning for my constituents and I am sure also for the Secretary of State. The principal cited several issues, including the national insurance changes. This morning, visiting universities told Scottish MPs that they also have funding concerns. They cited the immigration laws in this country as a disincentive. What are the Government going to do to stop further damage to this vital sector inhibiting economic growth?”
“The list grows longer almost daily. We must strengthen and make clear our response to China and stop more of our citizens and brave activists being threatened on British soil. How will the Government bring these bounty hunters to justice? Will they enforce Magnitsky sanctions to crack down on those in Hong Kong and Beijing who are responsible for this and every other insidious attack on our freedoms and democracy?”
“I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for raising these appalling incidents. I also thank him on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), whose constituents have been affected and have received some of these letters. For me, these incidents are a reminder of the pernicious threat we all face as the Chinese Government try to infiltrate every level of British society. I have been filmed by a drone while filming at a pro-Hong Kong democracy rally in Edinburgh; Members have been sanctioned by the CCP; secret police stations have operated across the UK, including in Glasgow; there is the issue of the embassy in London; and the attempts of Chinese companies to be involved in our energy provision in a way that, if not mitigated, will threaten our energy security and national security.”
“The measures announced today are a welcome start, but we stand ready to support sanctions, and I hope the Government will go further and faster. I am pleased to see the Government working closely with territorial police forces across the United Kingdom to give officers at all levels the skills and confidence to identify these threats on our own shores, particularly those to communities that remain vulnerable, so I also welcome the reference to the threat faced by our Jewish communities across the country and the rising tensions on our streets. I hope the Minister can outline how his Department will work with the Community Security Trust and other groups to keep all Jewish communities safe at a time when those abroad seek to undermine our whole country. We must not let them succeed.”
“Of course we welcome the placing of the whole Iranian state on the FIRS enhanced tier, and that will include Iran’s revolutionary guard, which is a vital part of the infrastructure that makes Iran’s Government such a threat, acting as it does with impunity, supplying terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, and contributing so much to the tension and violence across the middle east. If we are to achieve lasting peace, it is also essential to curtail the influence and threat of Iran to the west. We welcome the review by Mr Hall that has been outlined. I am glad to hear that the Government continue to keep the list of proscribed groups under review, but I hope that a decision on the IRGC will come sooner rather than later. I would like to hear how we will strengthen sanction regimes to start tackling the influence of Iran.”
“I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats of course welcome the steps he has outlined and recognise the existential threat that Iran now poses not only to Israel but to western democracies, including here in the UK. Last year, the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, laid bare this very serious threat—Iran and other nations such as Russia intensifying their efforts to interfere in all aspects of British life, including the 20 plots backed by the “emboldened” Iranian Government, as he described them, that MI5 has identified in the past three years.”
“The fact that she will be the first Roman Catholic to hold the post of Lord High Commissioner is significant, and further enhances her position as a role model. Everyone I have spoken to from the Church is delighted that she will be in position. We Liberal Democrats completely support the Bill, and hope that it goes through quickly.”
“The fact that it has taken this long to overturn the injustice of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829—a piece of discrimination against Roman Catholics—is something that we should bear in mind, and we should promise never to allow this to happen again. Although it is important that we get this legislation through quickly, so that we can appoint Lady Elish Angiolini, I hope that we address the wider discrimination left in Scottish society. This is an important day. Lady Elish has been a role model for so many young women in Scotland. She was the first female Solicitor General, Lord Advocate and Lord Clerk Register, and, as the Minister mentioned, she has been the principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, since 2012.”
“It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor). In the almost eight years that I have been here, I do not think I have ever looked forward to a debate this much, or taken this much pleasure from one, not just because there is no real party divide to worry about, but because it feels as if the Church of Scotland—of which I was, but am no longer, a member—is finally standing up for the sort of Scotland that we all want to see and work towards. I am no longer a member of the Church, but I was for many years, and my late husband was an elder in the Kirk, not so very far from the constituency of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The Church is still a huge part of community life in Scotland.”
“I represent a different part of Edinburgh, where one in four or five pupils goes to independent school. I have already received representations from parents who have had to take their children out of their schools and are concerned about where they can be placed in the city, given that the Labour council has already said that at least 15, and possibly 16, schools will be at capacity by the end of the decade even if there are no extra pupils.”
“I agree with the hon. Lady that the state of the education system in Scotland is appalling, and the blame lies squarely with the SNP, but how does she think the state sector will be helped to recover by putting extra pressure on it through forcing parents to move their children to places that do not exist?”
“There were 740 signatures from my constituency, which is a higher number than for any other petition that I remember from my almost eight years in this place. That fact is also reflected in my mailbox and in the concern that parents in Edinburgh regularly express to me. They do not always have their children in the independent sector; a lot of them have their children in the state sector. Every week, parents come to me who cannot get a place for their child in the local state school because it is close to capacity. That problem will only be made worse if many of those one in four children are forced, by this Government, into the state sector because their parents can no longer afford the choice that they made.”
“It was originally the town school—anyone from Glasgow knows which one I mean—and it had a tradition of awarding a large number of bursaries every year. A lot of the children who were at her school and are now doing well would not have got that place otherwise. A lot of them faced challenges, and the school helped them. We need to remember that we are talking not about the Etons and the Harrows—the big schools—but about a lot of independent schools that often provide a service in communities. It is a choice made by parents who are not always rich. My city of Edinburgh is one of the areas of the country with the highest proportion of children educated in independent school—it is one in four. That is reflected in the figures in the petition.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, and to follow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). I feel as if the speakers so far have been talking about me, because they have been talking about parents who are not rich but who send their children to independent schools. I no longer have a declarable interest, but my daughter did go to an independent school. We were not wealthy, and it was not easy, but it was our choice. We never regretted it, but we often struggled to finance it. I know that there are thousands of parents, many in my constituency, who face an even bigger challenge because of this change. My daughter went to an independent school in the west of Scotland.”
“They may have more than one child at a school that they can no longer afford due to the increase in school fees. That is why so many people are writing to me every weekend to say that they are having to think about what they will do about their child’s education and where they will find a place.”
“I accept that point and absolutely agree. It reminds me of the point that for a lot of parents, their children are in independent schools because they were struggling in the state sector. They moved their children into the independent sector, where they are thriving. Rightly or wrongly, that was the parents’ choice, and we—or, at least, the Labour Government—would be taking that choice away from them, because of the fee increase. I also find it difficult to understand a Labour Government who would support the principle of taxing education. As well as the practical issues with the policy, they are taxing education, which is surely not something that they would support. Introducing the change halfway through the school year has caused issues for many parents, who have suddenly found that all the budgeting they have done is out the window.”
“The problem is that where there are places, they are not necessarily convenient for the children who will be forced, by this policy, to look for a new school place. State school rolls are already stretched in Scotland because of the SNP’s cuts to local government, and this change can only make that situation worse.”
“Like the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), I would like to see the evidence that half of the people in Edinburgh voted for this policy. I have to tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) that there are 311 signatories to this petition from his constituency. More than half of the people in Edinburgh West voted for me, so I would like to see where he is getting the figure that parents in the city have voted for the measure. Where does the hon. Gentleman think that the City of Edinburgh council will find the places, when its own figures, produced by a Labour Administration before this policy was announced, showed that 16 schools in the city will be at capacity by 2030?”
“The alternatives are there, and they would not be a tax on education—an ill-thought-through, ideologically driven policy that does not take account of the unintended consequences.”
“It is not just about Edinburgh; it is about the entire country. I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents, but I feel that their fears are reflected elsewhere in the country. If this Labour Government can tell us how they are going to make that money effective in protecting state education, and how they will get it into schools like ones in my constituency, then we might listen. The problem is that all they say is, “Find a different way of making the cuts.” Well, we did put forward different ways of raising money. They could have raised money by reforming capital gains tax. They could raise money for schools by putting a tax on social media platforms, which we suggested.”
“Yes, I am aware of that analysis, and it does not show a healthier figure. The point that I was making in saying that it was conducted before the policy’s introduction is that the instant this Government came out with the policy, the Labour council went back and redid the figures. [ Interruption. ] No, I did not say that, but what I will say is that state schools across the country are stretched. If the hon. Gentleman is insisting that this £1.8 billion will go to Scotland, perhaps his Ministers will tell us how it will get to schools in Scotland, because they have no power to put that money into state education in Scotland. This is a national policy. It is affecting families up and down this country, and it is putting more pressure on the state education system everywhere from Caithness to Cornwall.”
“6. If the commissioners will have discussions with their counterparts in the Church of Scotland on support for places of worship with declining congregations.”
“Scotland’s Churches Trust estimates that the Church of Scotland could lose 30% of its churches in the coming years. St Andrew’s in Clermiston in my constituency could be one of them. It celebrated its 70th anniversary this year, but could face closure because of declining congregations and lower incomes. That threatens a valuable community space that is particularly used by vulnerable and elderly people. Can the Second Church Estates Commissioner outline how the Church of England could work with the Church of Scotland to share best practice on managing churches with smaller congregations to preserve those valuable community spaces?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I do not intend to say much, but it is important to have it on the record that the Liberal Democrats support the draft order, too. There should be no obstacle so great that we do not try to overcome it in protecting our children and vulnerable groups. This is an important step in that.”
“This order ensures a smooth transition from DLA to SADLA, maintains the entitlements and legal protections for recipients in Scotland at its heart, and aligns Scottish disability assistance with the social security system, separate from UK-wide benefits like the personal independence payment. If we believe in devolution and that decisions should be made at the point at which they are closest and most relevant to the community, then this is a move forward and it is something we should welcome and support.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. I intend to speak very briefly because, although I do not disagree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, it was agreed some time ago that this order should happen. While we may have reservations about how it could develop, we have to recognise the achievement of our two Governments in reaching agreement on introducing this new Scottish benefit. Historically it is something for which Liberal Democrats have advocated, because we believe in policies that promote social equality and support for individuals with disabilities.”
“I thank the Paymaster General not only for his statement, but for the clarity and commitment in his answers. As he may remember from previous occasions in the Chamber, I have the personal experience of having lost a very close family friend in the 1990s who was a victim of this. His widow died without compensation, and his children are now among those waiting to hear what will happen. I thank the Minister for his application and commitment, but as others have mentioned, there remains the issue of speed and best practice going forward. He mentioned that he will simplify the process. Can we have updates from him in future on what the Government are doing to examine best practice, and how can future victims of such scandals be assured that they will not have to wait as long as 40 years?”
“I realised that everybody under the age of about 35 or 40 was totally engaged in what was happening, cheering for Jamie and booing his opponents. It was great. Everybody over the age of about 60 looked stunned. They were looking round, thinking, “What’s going on?”. My daughter Mhairi and I came out and, as we walked along the road, I said, “Your generation really don’t care, do they?” . She said, “No, we don’t get it. We don’t know why it’s a problem, and we don’t know why politicians don’t see that.” I thought to myself, “This toxic argument, which we all want to end, will end, because the younger generation will not allow their peers to be punished for being who they are in the way that mine were.” I thank the Government for having this debate, and I thank everyone who is here.”
“We have to think about how we can support trans people in accessing better support, and how we can help non- binary people to gain recognition in law. I hope that the Government will address all these points, and today I am more confident that they will. The hon. Member for Luton North mentioned her daughter as hope for the future. My daughter is considerably older—in her 20s. A couple of years ago, we went to Edinburgh to see a play, “Everybody’s Talking About Jamie”, about a young cross-dressing guy who wants to wear a dress to the prom, which causes all sorts of hassle. We went because I had seen the film and loved it. About halfway through the play, I began to find the audience more interesting.”
“Too many people forget that at the centre of these culture wars are real people who simply want to live their life and be left alone to be who they are. It is time that we moved the debate forward. It is time that we thought about the people and not the politics, by focusing on the solutions to the issues that the LGBTQ community still faces. We must tackle the growth in hate crime, the misogyny and objectification faced by lesbians, and the intersectional issues faced by black and minority ethnic or disabled LGBTQ people. I am delighted that we will hear about the Government’s draft conversion practices ban Bill soon. How can we support schools and businesses in eradicating homophobic and transphobic bullying and harassment?”
“I grew up during that crisis, and the fear and stigma was sometimes palpable and, despite the public solidarity and support from many lesbian groups, it continued. And, of course, shame is the only word to describe the lasting impact of section 28 on a whole generation of young LGBT people who were not allowed to see themselves represented in schools or have appropriate protection from homophobic bullying. We may think that these negatives are all in the past, but in recent years we have seen horrible debates on LGBT rights, particularly trans rights, and they have become increasingly toxic. Many trans people see their identities denigrated, their experiences ignored and their lives sidelined in debates about their own rights and their own lives.”
“However, I sometimes think that focusing on the successes of the LGBT rights movement in the UK leads us to think that everything has been easy, that progress came without any great effort, and that it was quick and natural. We forget the negatives. We forget the fights we had to go through, and our country’s moments of shame. Shame is the only word for the treatment of gay men like Alan Turing, who was imprisoned, chemically castrated and shamed for his sexuality. Shame is the only word for the fact that, before 2000, anyone could be dismissed from the armed forces simply for being gay. Shame is the only word for the public distrust—indeed, hatred—that many gay men faced during the AIDS crisis.”
“In the same year, trans people gained formal recognition in law for the first time with the Gender Recognition Act. And 20 years ago, same-sex couples gained the right to adopt. My party, its politicians and activists played a key role in that fight. As for me, the fight for LGBT+ rights is not just another political issue but, like the fight for all human rights, is part of who I am, what I believe and what my party stands for. As has already been mentioned, it was thanks to the allyship and hard work of my noble Friend Baroness Featherstone that, in 2013, hundreds of thousands of campaigners and activists across the country finally had their voices heard with the achievement of marriage equality for same-sex couples.”
“Of course, much of this change has been possible only because of public figures, including: former MPs such as Robin Cook, who equalised Scots law and English law on homosexuality; Val McDermid, whose 1987 novel “Report for Murder” featured Lindsay Gordon, Britain’s first fictional lesbian detective; and award-winning author Jackie Kay, the second woman and first lesbian to hold the post of Makar, Scotland’s national poet, and whose work has dealt with race, gender, transgender identities and her own sexuality. Thanks to such people and places, so many attitudes, laws and the understanding of LGBT+ people have changed for the better. The age of consent was finally equalised for gay and straight people in England, Scotland and Wales in 2000. Same-sex couples were recognised for the first time in 2004 with civil partnerships.”
“And imagine if we had been able to tell them that, 40 years later, Glasgow would be in the top five places in Europe for LGBT people to visit and enjoy and that, despite those attitudes, a long, rich history has developed of the community across Scotland coming together to support each other. We have improved so much, as those figures show. Edinburgh Befrienders, later known as the Lothian Gay and Lesbian Switchboard, opened in 1974 and was the UK’s first bespoke helpline for gay and lesbian people—beating Switchboard, which still exists, by just one day. Edinburgh was also home to Scotland’s first LGBT bookshop, Lavender Menace, and in 1995 welcomed 3,000 people to Scotland’s first Pride march. It is now huge, the event of the year, and I have been privileged to speak at it twice.”
“According to the union president, that refusal was on the ground that the age of consent for homosexual sex was 21 and, given that most students were younger than 21, the union did not want to “give the impression that the Union in some way bestows an unofficial blessing on their activities… many members of the Gay Society are not interested in a constructive approach to changing the membership’s attitude…but using this as a ploy to gain momentum to destroy the character of the Union as we know it.” We hear an echo of that language today, but imagine how young LGBT people must have felt hearing and reading it. That was the kind of attitude they faced on a daily basis.”
“In the 1970s, and when I was a student in the 1980s, it had unfortunately garnered for itself the unenviable reputation of being one of the worst places in Europe to grow up gay. Attitudes were somehow more polarised in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK. In 1957, a poll showed that more than 80% of Scots did not want homosexuality to be decriminalised; the figure was 51% in England. In preparing for this debate, I found an article in a 1982 student newspaper from the University of Liverpool, whose student union disaffiliated with the University of Glasgow because it refused to allow a gay society to form.”