Martin Rhodes MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  Thank you, Mr Mundell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairing. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her introduction on the petition. My constituency has the second-highest number of signatories to this petition—after Brighton Pavilion—which has also been reflected in my inbox. I thank those constituents for making their views known through signing the petition and through correspondence, and those with a range of different views on the issue for contacting me. [Gill Furniss in the Chair ] This petition refers to people’s self-identity. Let us be clear: all of us have our own identity. How we see ourselves is an integral part of the human condition, and is universal. It is part of how we understand ourselves, how we seek to relate to others, and how we feel about who we are. We all have our own journey to self-identity, and hopefully to acceptance of that identity. Legislation cannot stop that innate self-identification of human nature, but legislation can frame how easily we can live that identity honestly, openly and safely. That is as relevant for trans men and trans women as it is for any human being. Supporting trans people to have their self-identity respected is as important for all of us. That is not a claim for special treatment; it is a call for equality in how people are treated. I believe that we need to modernise, simplify and reform the Gender Recognition Act. That particularly means reviewing adult identity services to ensure that all trans people can access appropriate, timely and high-quality care. Trans people are so often let down by healthcare and support services. That said, I recognise that easier access to gender recognition certificates is meaningful only if it enables trans women and trans men to live with dignity and respect. That brings me to the recent Supreme Court case. It is extremely important to highlight that the Court warned against “reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”, and noted that transgender people are protected under the Equality Act through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Although the ruling clarifies the legal definition of sex in the Equality Act, it does not clarify how the Act should be implemented, or how the Gender Recognition Act interacts with the Equality Act and the right to privacy. There needs to be an inclusive process of working through the Equality Act and its range of protected characteristics. The Supreme Court judgment provides clarity on the legal definition of one of those protected characteristics, but does not in any way negate the importance of the other protected characteristics, including gender reassignment. It is clear that there are complexities in how these protections interrelate, and careful thought must be given to guidance on this. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is due to provide an updated code of practice. I believe that its deliberations must be informed by the voices and lived experience of those affected, and I have written to the commission to that effect. The interim guidance that it has published so far has only highlighted the complexity and the urgent need for appropriate and inclusive consultation and engagement. That process is necessary to avoid institutions and businesses acting in ways that fail to fully take into account the full range of responsibilities in relation to all protected characteristics. Action without a full recognition of responsibilities risks causing harm not only to trans people, but to non-binary individuals and those whose gender expression does not conform to stereotypical expectations of their sex. There is a danger that the law could be implemented in such a way that it forces trans individuals into distressing and unsafe scenarios simply for existing in public spaces. At the same time, it could put public and private organisations potentially in breach of their legal responsibilities and at risk of not protecting effectively those they seek to protect. That is why broad, inclusive consultation is vital. There is a need for actions that are proportionate, risk-based, trauma-informed and inclusive and that have appropriate safeguards and protections for all. The Supreme Court judgment that “sex” in the Equality Act means “biological sex” creates an impossible dilemma for many trans people in everyday situations. A trans man could be legally required to use a women’s changing room because he was assigned female at birth, but because he presents as male he may be challenged or even excluded by staff or other users, who assume he is in the wrong place. At the same time, if he tries to use the men’s changing room—the one that matches his gender identity and appearance—he risks being accused of unlawfully accessing a single-sex service that is not intended for him. Essentially, the situation leaves him and other users of those facilities without a dignified option. I have long campaigned for LGBT+ rights and will continue to do so. We must never lose sight of the fact that real people’s lives are at the heart of the issue. Equality depends on our upholding our shared values such as open-mindedness, and it requires continued advocacy for groups of individuals who are too often marginalised in our society. Trans people have the right to live with dignity, safety and equality under the law. These are worrying times for many, and I share many of the anxieties. I regret the nature of too many of the discussions about these issues, but I remain hopeful that if we listen calmly to each other, there is a way forward rooted in the shared values of inclusivity, respect and equality. With those values, and the actions that need to lead from them, we can all benefit. The denial of the right of one community or one person to be openly and genuinely themselves diminishes us all. It is our challenge as legislators to address these issues. I commend the petitioners for taking the opportunity to remind us in this place of that responsibility. To them, I say thanks.

• 6 May 2025 · Poverty: Glasgow North East · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) on securing this debate and on her heartfelt speech about the impact of poverty in her constituency. My constituency of Glasgow North, which adjoins hers, also faces many of the same factors that contribute to low life expectancy—factors that are clearly linked to poverty. Recent data from the Office for National Statistics has shown that the average life expectancy in Glasgow North is 75.9 years, which is 8.7 years shorter than in the healthiest parts of the UK. However, in a way, that number also acts as a smokescreen. Because it is an average that includes the most affluent areas, it conceals the true life expectancy of the most deprived communities in my constituency. Where someone is born, where they live, and even which streets they grow up on, can help determine how long they live. Although the figures highlight a shocking level of health inequality, they ultimately reflect the deeper and more complex realities of poverty. Poverty does not come from one place; it stems from a web of economic, social and cultural factors. Those are shaped by issues related to class, health, social security, wages, job security, education, housing and access to credit, to name just a few. It is the way that those pressures interact, often reinforcing one another, that sustains the poverty that we see in Glasgow and across the country. The history of place can accentuate those issues, Glasgow’s history being an example. The deindustrialisation of the city combined with the lack of necessary support, planning and investment in the late ’70s and ’80s led to mass unemployment and growing inequalities that are still felt in communities today. Although the previous Labour Government made great progress combating child poverty rates, that has not been sustained. Subsequent national policy choices and global events have only made those systemic issues of poverty worse, with the financial crash, the cuts to public services from Tory austerity and the long-term impact of a global pandemic hampering Glasgow’s prosperity. Poverty can also create vicious cycles, which can appear in many different aspects of someone’s life. For example, if someone’s job is insecure, it is harder for them to afford stable housing. Without a fixed address, it is harder for them to access social security. Without that safety net, the risk of homelessness rises and the cycle continues. That is why it is not enough to talk about employment alone. We need to ensure that work provides security and pays a real living wage. I welcome this Government’s decision to uplift the minimum wage, a vital move that ensures that more people can earn enough to live with dignity. The Employment Rights Bill will go further, ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and helping to ensure that anyone in paid work has stability and protection. But let us be clear: no single policy will solve poverty. What is needed is a joined-up approach—one that brings together housing, health, education, employment and social security. That is why the Government’s focus on building houses, improving the education system, restoring the NHS and promoting economic growth is vital to helping to deliver for those who are most vulnerable. I am also confident that the work of this Labour Government’s child poverty taskforce will be vital in delivering a cross-Government child poverty strategy to reduce and alleviate child poverty. That will be essential in improving children’s lives and life chances now and address the root causes of poverty in the long term. Glasgow is a city of immense potential, rich in culture, talent and resilience. The fact that some of its communities have the lowest life expectancies in the UK is not an inevitability—it is the result of decisions taken in the past. If we make different choices, we can build a city and a country where every child has the opportunity to thrive and every community the chance to prosper. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in her response.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. Does she agree that it is important that the games bring benefits to local communities? What discussions is she having with colleagues in the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and Glasgow city council to ensure that local communities in Glasgow benefit from the games in 2026?

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that there are benefits from the Bill in all seasons. I realise that I have now set Members the challenge of intervening to speak about spring and autumn. In winter, there are fewer daylight hours and it is colder, and people may not want to go out in the dark. The Bill would make it easier for them to access postal and proxy voting. There was reference in an earlier intervention to those who are blind or partially sighted and use screen readers. Applying online is much easier for them; it lifts barriers to their involvement and engagement in the electoral process. Those are just some of the groups who would benefit if we passed this legislation, modernised access to the electoral system for the devolved Parliaments, and provided the ability to introduce such measures for local government elections, too.