Rosie Duffield MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. It is no surprise at all that my constituency has the second highest number of signatures to the petition. For at least six years now, Whitstable in my constituency has been plagued by frequent releases of sewage pouring out into our sea. Combined sewage overflows are supposed to occur only in the event of extremely heavy rainfall or storms, yet every single time a drop or two of rain falls from the sky, we get alerts, and within minutes my inbox will start to ping. In 2021, I held my first public meeting at which residents were able to directly challenge the bosses of Southern Water. It was very similar to the public meetings shown in “Dirty Business”, Channel 4’s outstanding docudrama. The executives seemed taken aback by the frustration and anger and by the demand for answers; I suspect they really thought we might all be fobbed off by the kind of generic non-answers that I had been receiving as the local MP and as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Whitstable has been plagued by this for years, and by the smell of an unmanned treatment works. The smell was so bad that people could not hang out their washing or allow their children to play in the nearby play area. They had headaches, the visible sanitary products and human waste were revolting, and in the early hours of the morning they regularly heard alarms in the unmanned building—alarms to which nobody responded. SOS Whitstable met at that meeting and formed an extremely active campaigning group that went on to raise a petition on water privatisation, which we delivered to No. 10 in December 2022. It has now received more than 250,000 signatures, all to make the water companies public again. I held more public meetings over the next two summers, which were essentially for all those who were being so let down. Southern Water showed us a slideshow of excuses and investments that it had been making. But fast-forward through campaigns and debates in this place and endless private meetings, and all my constituents agree: we need public ownership now.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and her considerable experience in this area. We hear a lot about coercion. Those with learning disabilities are surely extremely vulnerable to that, as well as the elderly and people with dementia. Before my dad lost the ability to speak, he could absolutely have presented as being capable of signing on the dotted line to medical professionals who did not know him like the family did. In reality, he would have forgotten almost immediately what had just taken place, but he retained an ability to be jovial, and to mask his confusion and memory issues, for quite some time. As for the slippery slope, every single example in other nations proves without a doubt that at the start, the intention may be that assisted dying legislation will apply only to terminal illness—dementia and Alzheimer’s are, of course, terminal—but the scope ends up expanding alarmingly, as it has done in Canada, and in the Netherlands, which is so much closer to home.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Rarely do we debate legislation that represents such a seismic shift in the relationships between individuals, the state, health providers and civic society. There is so much at stake. When Members believe strongly that a Bill is flawed and could be abused, resulting in serious harm, we have an absolute duty to implore others not to simply let it pass and hope for the best, but to consider it fully and deeply and to accept that our duty is first and foremost to protect lives. The potential consequences of poorly drafted legislation without robust safeguards are ultimately the responsibility of every single Member in this Chamber. I come to this debate wearing several hats. I come as the representative for Canterbury, the home of this country’s Christian faith. Rather than removing that aspect from this debate, as others may have chosen to do, I must consider the views of the Church, and the archbishop has made her view clear again this week. There have also been representations from our sizeable mosque and that community. I come as a daughter who, this week last year, was sitting at my father’s bedside as he was dying from early onset Alzheimer’s, which so cruelly began when he was not much older than I am now. I come also as the partner of a filmmaker who directed the BBC documentary “Better Off Dead?”, which was led by Liz Carr and based on her decades of disability rights activism. I was already aware of Liz’s work through her Not Dead Yet campaign, but the opportunity to learn much more by discussing this subject at home in depth for so many months was invaluable. Lifelong campaigner Baroness Jane Campbell has seen off so many attempts to pass assisted suicide legislation in the other place that she likens it to groundhog day. In the documentary, she says: “People are decent, kind. They think that they’re doing us a great favour by giving us this choice. But what they don’t realise is how deadly that choice can be.” It is worth repeating that not a single disabled rights organisation or professional body supports this legislation. If this place were truly representative of the UK’s population, there would be almost 100 physically disabled Members of Parliament, but we are nowhere near that.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We talk a lot about Canada, but the Netherlands is practically next door to my constituency and has a democracy very similar to ours. People in their 20s have been allowed to take this path there, which is absolutely shocking. Mental ill health, and even solvable temporary social problems, have entered the fray in those other nations; I am talking about depression and homelessness. There are young people opting to end their life. Those in favour of this Bill may dismiss that as scaremongering, but it happens in one of our neighbouring democracies. One of our most powerful speakers here, the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), this week hosted Alicia Duncan, whose story featured in “Better Off Dead?”. Her mother was put on the Canadian MAID—medical assistance in dying—system’s track 1, which is for those who have a terminal health diagnosis, despite her not having one. Alicia’s family believes that she was essentially coerced, through an abusive relationship, and her children were not able to prevent her death. These horrifying cases may seem isolated, but there are many, many more stories, trust me, that did not make the final cut of the documentary—stories not told to anyone. We make laws based on worst-case scenarios every single week, so why is this Bill so almost uniquely optimistic? If we have any doubt, we must vote against this Bill today. It does not mean that we believe that the principles of it are entirely wrong, but I urge colleagues to listen to disabled activists like Liz Carr, Tanni Grey-Thompson and Jane Campbell, and experts in palliative care in the other place, such as Ilora Finlay and Professor Katherine Sleeman. I ask them to please vote against this Bill if they have any doubt.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. This week, Professor Susan Ayers launches her report, “The Cost of Birth Trauma”, in Parliament. It is a first, as it goes beyond the more obvious health and social care implications, and follows the 2024 inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma. Lifelong care, litigation and the impact on the workplace come at a high price, as, of course, do many other women’s health scandals, such as the sodium valproate issue. Will the relevant Minister or the Chancellor read Susan Ayers’ report and meet me and the professor to discuss it?

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  Our APPG on birth trauma report in 2024 was the first in Parliament on that subject. We heard from more than 1,300 women and families. The report was titled, “Listen to Mums”. I am glad that an independent maternity commissioner will finally be implemented, after our years of calls for one. Bill Kirkup’s headline finding in his 2023 review of east Kent was also that we should listen to women. The Health Secretary has repeated the importance of listening to women—the mothers, midwives, and experts, and even the MPs who have worked for years on this issue. Why does he think that we have not been listened to, and are often not even invited into the room? How will he work to demonstrably change that in his time in the Department?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  In the 25 months since Theo Clarke and I produced the first ever parliamentary report on birth trauma, and nearly four years since we discussed the East Kent Kirkup report in this place, we have seen more and more reports, more and more scandals, more and more heartbreaking stories, and several Health Secretaries. Campaigners are grateful to the brilliant Donna Ockenden but, frankly, expectations are pretty low about ending this crisis in maternity care all these years later. Does the Secretary of State agree that as well as training, we have to end this patchwork postcode lottery of care, and introduce basic, nationwide standards and accountability across all NHS trusts?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  Last autumn, on the announcement of the trial of puberty blockers on children, a cross-party coalition of Members and peers assembled who have serious concerns and are campaigning together for the Government to reverse this terrible decision. These are Members from across the political spectrum—as diverse as the independent group, the Lib Dems, the DUP, Tories, Reform, Labour and Restore, who are not usually in agreement on most political issues—working together on something that we believe is about the fundamental safeguarding and protection of children. The previous Secretary of State held a meeting for Members and peers that allowed us to directly question those responsible for overseeing the trial. I had one main question: is there a lower age limit? I was told no—categorically no—so a child presenting with possible gender dysphoria pre puberty could actually have been as young as eight years old. Thankfully in this latest evolution, the trial seems to have now excluded those younger children, and we are told that it is for those aged 11 and over, but an 11-year-old child also has no possible way of envisaging life-changing pathways, future, possibly serious, health issues, regret, infertility or damaged sexual function. The Health Secretary talked yesterday of “consent or assent” being given by those children. We are told that at least one parent must consent, but you do not have to be a genius to work out that is a future nuclear missile aimed directly at the family courts. Separated parents, many of whom will not agree with each other about whether to affirm their child’s chosen gender identity, how to treat their gender distress or what, if any, social transition to accommodate at home or school, will be potentially battling each other over whether or not their child should be participating in this or future trials, all while their pre-pubescent son or daughter begs for the medical treatment that they believe with all their heart will save all of their discomfort and distress. Many expert clinicians who worked at the Tavistock and who informed journalist Hannah Barnes’ award-winning investigations for “Newsnight”, and subsequent book “Time to Think”, are totally opposed to this trial. We have had meetings with several of them, including Marcus Evans and Susan Evans. Marcus is a former Tavistock consultant, psychotherapist and psychoanalyst, employed by the Portman NHS trust for 35 years, including as the head of nursing. Sue is also a psychoanalytic psychotherapist and mental health nurse, formerly of the Gender Identity Development Service. They both argue against the affirmative-only model of treatment, such as the use of puberty-blocking drugs, as it masks underlying issues, such as childhood trauma or autism. Along with psychologists Stella O’Malley and James Esses, both with years of experience of treating children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria, they are completely against the Pathways trial and the treatment pathway it puts very young people on. Detransitioners often experience years of extreme distress and choose not to speak publicly about their own personal stories, but some would willingly engage with Ministers and Members. Keira Bell, Ritchie Herron, Philippa Roberts and Jonni Skinner, to name a few, have bravely shared their heartbreaking experiences of severe treatments, irreversible surgeries, mental health battles and years of painful regret. Although we have had nine Health Secretaries in just nine years, anyone in this post, however briefly, given the power to sign off such an enormously consequential trial, with huge potential for future investigations, must at the very least engage with those who have treated and been treated for this condition. I cannot think of any valid arguments against doing so and hearing from both sides of the argument. There are many other reasons for stopping the plans for this trial—most important of all is proper analysis of the data that already exists, along with the Conservative Government’s previous decision to ban the use of these drugs on children. The data linkage study completion is the strongest reason, along with the social, psychological and physical reasons already heard. The cross-party coalition and I will not stop campaigning until this dangerous experiment on children is cancelled for good. Puberty is a natural, necessary life stage—a right. We should be able to help and support young people through it, until they are old enough to make life-changing decisions with certainty and the maturity they lack as young children.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State mentioned following the advice of clinical experts, but has he sought any meetings with whistleblowers, former clinicians at the now closed Tavistock clinic, detransitioners and psychologists such as James Esses and Marcus and Sue Evans, who are all campaigning to stop this trial and the testing of children as young as 11 years old, who are too young to access social media and certainly too young to give meaningful consent to taking banned drugs?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Whitstable’s latest drought was a few weeks ago during a heatwave, leaving many residents and local businesses high and dry. South East Water tells me and my neighbours that it cannot guarantee meeting current demand, so it will be unable to guarantee meeting additional demand from new homes. Has the Secretary of State met South East Water or Canterbury city council to discuss this issue?

• 3 Jun 2026 · South East Water: Disruption of Supply · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister, who has been engaged on this issue for a long time—she talks to me and my neighbours, and I know she really cares. My neighbours and I spend far too much of our time talking about the latest water shortages. Heat seems to equate to a lack of water in the taps. Whitstable has been devastated yet again, and we are really worried about too many new houses whose demand for water will not be met, as well as about local businesses in the summer. The excellent Nomad Pizza, an independent company, had to close for days during a peak time for tourism. By the way, lots of my constituents are very behind the nationalisation model; I get a lot of emails about that. With our reservoir 10 years away from being built, how can I assure my constituents that the tanks will not still be empty in July and August? If they are, businesses will suffer.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. This week, Tom Kerridge and UKHospitality launched their “VAT’s the Problem” campaign, and yesterday my neighbour the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and I hosted industry bodies, chefs Matt Tebbutt and Thomasina Myers and hospitality leaders from Manchester, Liverpool, London and Kent, including Andy Burnham’s night-time economy adviser Sacha Lord. They all agree with campaigners such as Andy Lennox that the UK’s rate of 20% VAT on hospitality is killing businesses daily. Does the Prime Minister agree that VAT’s the problem? Will he match the pledge of his candidate in Makerfield to slash VAT in line with the rest of Europe?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is fairly obvious that the hon. Gentleman is a man, to be honest. I think the majority of the human race could tell that. If there is a much smaller person running in that category, they simply do not belong there. The Government have had the guidance since September, but this is the law of this country. No Minister or Government MP needs guidance from the EHRC to suggest ways in which organisations could uphold the law. We made this law, and we are there to advise people how to enact it and adhere to it. We do not need the EHRC. That is just another way of pushing this down the road. It is great to have that guidance. It has done a really good job—that is what it does—but the Government do not need it. It is just another red herring—a delay tactic.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for clearing that up, Mr Stringer. The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points. Sex Matters has been pointing out, especially in its new leaflet, that so many people, whom we do not get to talk about every day, are still being subjected to these ridiculous tribunals. Jennifer Melle, whom the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned, was simply a nurse referring to a biological man as a biological man in her notes. Without wanting to get into too much horrible detail, I believe she was catheterising a man, which is very different from catheterising a woman, yet she was the one subjected to hideous racial abuse and suspended from work. These things happen every day. We know about them because we are involved with the organisations that help those people, but the general public do not necessarily hear about them and the Government seem very far removed from the reality that not stepping in is causing. Many of those cases would not have taken place if the Government had introduced guidance, spoken on the issue, or had the front to say what I know many of them secretly believe, but do not articulate because they are afraid of their own activists—I am living proof of that. That is a real shame.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate. We are so used to having small time limits for these debates that I am afraid I have not prepared anything like as much as I would want to say. On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, sex means biological sex, not gender. A woman is an adult human female, and a male is an adult human male. That is, of course, what the vast majority of the public know simply to be true. The Supreme Court judgment was won by three courageous and formidable women: Susan, Marion and Trina, known as For Women Scotland. It was a victory for women’s rights and for gay rights as well. Lesbians have been at the sharp end of this campaign to erode women’s rights. If the Scottish Government, Amnesty International and activist groups such as the so-called Good Law Project had their way, anyone at all could call themselves a lesbian. A lesbian would no longer simply be a woman who is attracted to other women, but could be any man calling himself a lesbian. Biological men—mostly those without any reassignment surgery—label themselves as lesbian, but they are simply men attracted to women, so straight men. Yet the lesbians are the “bigots” and “transphobes” if they dare to point that out. This also plays out daily in the political sphere. Many activists in political parties and politicians, and some political leaders themselves, are wedded firmly to this nonsensical ideology.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has a really good point. That lack of clarity is why we need the Government to explain fully what the EHRC is saying and how it pertains to the Equality Act. With or without a gender recognition certificate, biological men are not able to access women’s spaces—women’s toilets, women’s sports. The Supreme Court made that incredibly clear. The area of gender recognition certificates is a bit grey, and I can understand why some trans-identifying people are confused by that. That is why the Government have to step in. This is a matter of legislation. None of the activists on my side—feminists—is saying that we want to exclude those people, make them feel terrible or give them a hard time. Bodies can introduce single-sex spaces, unisex toilets and all kinds of other activities for those people that they are allowed to take part in. We just do not want our rights to make way for biological men, who are bigger, stronger and faster, and physically potentially more dangerous to us. That is a fundamental right that many of us have fought for generations to get. Yes, there are some confusing parts, but not in the Supreme Court judgment. The Court made it very clear; the Government just have to get on with it, instead of hiding behind the judgment.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  That is extraordinary, but we are talking about a country of 70 million-odd people, 51% of whom are women. The majority of people know what a man or a woman is. If one has a problem with that, that is a specific personal problem. That is a man; these are women. We all know. It is an absolute load of rubbish that we do not, so I reject that. I say to the Government: women are watching, women will be voting, and most people in the country are women.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  For the very last time.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member clarify, as the Liberal Democrats are opposed to what they see as the interpretation of the law—specifically the Equality Act 2010 —whether they propose a change to that Act? The EHRC is simplify clarifying the Supreme Court’s clarification of that existing law.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly right. We are not talking about gender identity. We are talking about the law as it adheres to biological men and women.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a good point. MPs on my side of the argument will certainly hear that time and time again from parents. There is a group called the Bayswater group whose members have gone through the problems and difficulties of their children wanting to transition from a very early age, with all the categories of sport that they should or should not go into. Guidance would really help those parents, but certainly girls should not feel that they should not participate. All women on this side of the argument have felt intimidated at some point, not just by the death threats—those are passé by now—but by the signs and the balaclavas outside, and by the rubbish about it coming from both sides. I have lived this for nearly a decade; it is not both sides. It would be lovely to end all the intimidation. I have been in the Labour party for a long time, and, sadly, there are women now in government who have always been on my side in secret gender-critical groups but do not have the courage to speak up when in government. That is a drastic lack of leadership and lack of courage. I feel very sorry for them. I say to the Government that women are watching and men are watching. Women will be voting at the local elections, and most people in this country are women. The Government have a problem. Their problem is not that the Supreme Court ruling is too complicated to understand or implement, but that it is too clear for people to continue to misrepresent our activists.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Of course, that is the hon. Member’s area of expertise. I know many health professionals who are incredibly frustrated at this simple twisting of facts, which should not be done at all in the NHS. I thank her for pointing that out. With a few admirable exceptions, many Members of Parliament are unable to identify or define a woman. They reject that women’s spaces must be exclusively for biological women and have decided that those of us intent on the Equality Act being upheld are evil incarnate. For centuries, women have had to fight for our rights. We have had to fight male threats of violence and male acts of violence. We are used to having to protect ourselves and our spaces. The very least we should expect from our own Government is the leadership and conviction to back those rights with basic and fundamental legislation. The Labour Government did that in 2010, yet here we are, 16 years later, having to force the current Government to uphold and enforce the law, and make it crystal clear to the NHS, sporting bodies, membership organisations and Government Departments that the law must be followed and adhered to—that is their job. While the Secretary of State says that her Government have “always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”, men who choose to identify as women are still permitted to receive care on women’s hospital wards, access women’s toilets—including in this building—compete in the women’s category in parkrun and take women’s places in grassroots sports, and there are still men in women’s prisons. Actions speak louder than words. The law is the law, so what exactly are the Government waiting for, and why are they incapable of showing even the most basic leadership? The Supreme Court has been clear, and trans-identifying people remain protected in law under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. None of their protections or rights have been taken away.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. First, I should acknowledge that, having been steeped in this issue for many years, I know James Esses, the therapist who organised this petition. He, the formidable Keira Bell and the Bayswater Support Group have managed to halt this trial, so no children are to be recruited until the High Court makes its decision, until at least July. It is clear that we are talking about an extremely vulnerable cohort of children. Recently, James told MPs and peers that, first and foremost, most of his patients—almost all of them, in fact—are autistic. As recognised by the Cass review, children or adolescents on the autism spectrum experience difficulties with social belonging and can be particularly sensitive to seeking affirmation from others. James explained to us that many of his patients rely on rigid and regressive stereotypes, including the trope that a preference for activities or even friendships associated with the opposite sex must mean that they actually are that sex. That is the basic foundation for the so-called gender critical movement: a rejection of labelling, and the pigeonholing or aggressive stereotyping of what constitutes boy or girl behaviours, clothes preferences or activities. For over 20 years, medical professionals voicing their sound judgment and concern about ethics and child safeguarding at the Tavistock were ignored, their concerns buried and they themselves punished, sidelined and vilified for challenging an entirely ideological project. It is thanks to medical professionals such as Sue and Marcus Evans, Dr David Taylor, Dr David Bell and Sonia Appleby, to name just a few brave medics, and the committed reporting of journalists such as Hannah Barnes and Julie Bindel that we are having this debate today. In all the years I have been actively campaigning against the impossible notion that anyone is born in the wrong body, I have been labelled far-right, bigoted, transphobic and all kinds of other ridiculous slurs that would be unparliamentary to repeat here. We must stop this trial because of the incredibly vulnerable cohort of children as young as 12 who cannot possibly give consent.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Meningitis Outbreak · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their engagement with this awful situation in Canterbury. As he can imagine, all in my constituency have been devastated by the tragic death of Juliette Kenny and another student from this cruel disease, and I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for her lovely tribute to my constituent. We have been inundated by questions from extremely worried constituents, and the Secretary of State has answered some of them in his statement. The main question has been about the roll-out of the vaccine, and I was really pleased to hear that that will happen soon. Worried parents and vulnerable students are telling me that communications from their education settings are not consistently clear, and one school has been closed to those in year 13. What is the Secretary of State’s message about attendance in person? There are reports from medics on the frontline in the hubs that the service has been overwhelmed by requests for antibiotics, with people presenting with mild colds and coughs. Will the Secretary of State make very clear once again exactly why and when people should turn up? The time for addressing the concerns about the roll-out of information is not now, but hopefully we can drill down on that when this horrible event is over.

• 2 Mar 2026 · SEND Provision: Kent · Hansard source

  More

  5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of SEND provision in Kent.