Christine Jardine MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker—I suspect you may be relieved that we cannot sing in the Chamber. I was recently approached by a small business owner in my constituency of Edinburgh West who faces bill of almost £30,000 for the period of lockdown when her business was closed. She is getting no sense out of British Gas Lite about why she is facing this bill, and I am getting no response from it. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can find out what is happening?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mass Transit: West Yorkshire · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. A recent cyber-attack on schools and early learning IT in my constituency knocked out online access, but also underlined the need for a positive interaction between Scotland’s two Governments, rather than the constant constitutional bickering we have seen in recent years. With cyber-security about to move out of the Cabinet Office, can the Minister assure us about the way in which a positive cross-governmental and intergovernmental approach to these relationships will be secured?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Prosecutions for Violence against Women and Girls: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. Before I call the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, I remind hon. Members that they should not refer to any court cases that are currently active and are therefore sub judice. Hon. Members will also want to be careful about raising matters that might prejudice ongoing police investigations or a future court case. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West for his courtesy in consulting with the Table Office prior to the debate.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Swimming Facilities · Hansard source

  More

  Order. To get everybody in, we will have to reduce the time limit to one minute.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Swimming Facilities · Hansard source

  More

  I call Louie French.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Swimming Facilities · Hansard source

  More

  Order. We are going to struggle to get everybody in. I will have to ask hon. Members to keep to a formal two-minute limit, and if you intervene, unfortunately I will have to take you off the list. I have to call the Front-Bench spokespersons by 5.10 pm.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I call the Minister, James Murray.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  That is not a matter for me at the moment.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and ask them to keep their speeches to within four minutes so that everyone can get in.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) about the success of Aberdeen football club. The strategic defence review makes it clear that housing must be a priority, and that the money from the sale of housing must be reinvested, but veterans continually come to me who have been discharged into homelessness. Can the Minister reassure us that we will ensure that houses that are sold or redeveloped are available to veterans’ families?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am disappointed that there are no SNP Members in the Chamber— [ Interruption. ] Nobody is here from the Scottish National party. I have to take issue with the Chief Secretary, because economic growth in any part of the United Kingdom affects not just England but all of the United Kingdom. I am sure that if SNP Members were here, their constituents, like mine in Edinburgh West, would want to know what consequential implications he anticipates for Scotland. Specifically, will there be Barnett consequentials from this investment?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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 was part of that campaign, along with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). It is right that women in every part of the United Kingdom should have the same protection, choice and rights.

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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—

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  We are going to struggle to get everybody in, so can Members please keep any interventions brief?

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, but I will have to reduce the time limit to two minutes.

• 15 May 2025 · Accountability for Daesh Crimes · Hansard source

  More

  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.