Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

   Birmingham: Waste Collection

   Birmingham city council is the largest local authority in the UK by population. Sadly, for many years it has struggled with severe problems that impact its residents. The Government have engaged in local government reorganisation across much of the country. Large parts of the area covered by Birmingham city council may be better administered by bodies elsewhere, outside the boundaries of the city. Will the Minister look at whether it is time to review the boundaries of Birmingham city council? The council is so large that it cannot function properly for its residents.

   Hansard source
2. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Ukraine Update

   What worries me is that President Putin has said he will not accept NATO troops on the ground. In the absence of NATO troops on the ground, could we not be back to a 1939 Sudetenland situation where the aggressor takes a slug of territory and then moves in several months later? Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is absolutely convinced—perhaps he can also convince President Trump—that in the absence of NATO troops on the ground, this is a worthless peace?

   Hansard source
3. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Ukraine Update

   It had better be good!

   Hansard source
4. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   British Steel

   Let me ask a question on behalf of my constituents who have sweated blood to keep the blast furnaces going. Unfortunately, as we know, electric arc technology cannot make virgin steel—only blast furnaces can do that. Are the Government 100% committed to maintaining our permanent ability to make virgin steel?

   Hansard source
5. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Ukraine Update

   What planning is taking place among the allies to make up for the 40% of armaments that have hitherto been supplied by the United States to Ukraine, should it become necessary to do so?

   Hansard source
6. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Birmingham: Waste Collection

   May I point out that the strike started under this Labour Government, and under a Labour council—and despite all the Minister’s hand-wringing and anguish, the strike continues under a Labour Government, and under a Labour council? It is futile for the Government to pretend it is all somebody else’s fault, least of all the fault of the previous Government. Will the Minister avoid misrepresenting what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said? He made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that the Minister should reinstate the legislation that would allow agency workers to be brought in to pick up rubbish off the streets of Birmingham. Why will the Minister not do that? Because he is pussyfooting around and kowtowing to his Labour paymasters, the trade unions.

   Hansard source
7. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   Ukraine Update

   To what extent does the 39-member coalition accept that the United States is still the indispensable partner in any so-called peacekeeping operation? Unless a peacekeeping force in Ukraine is ready and prepared to fight and defeat the Russian armed forces, there is no point in it being there. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said earlier, it would be just a victim of another tragedy. On that point, to what extent would the primacy of NATO be recognised in any proposed EU-UK defence agreement? Again, we do not want inadvertently to send a message to the United States that NATO is over, we no longer need the Americans and we are going off on our own, because we will not be capable of doing that for decades.

   Hansard source
8. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Sentencing Council

   2. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Sentencing Council.

   Hansard source
9. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Sentencing Council

   Draft guidelines from the Sentencing Council now propose substantially lower sentences for immigration offences than levels agreed by Parliament, so will the Lord Chancellor call on the Sentencing Council to revise those guidelines, so that they align with the time periods agreed by Parliament?

   Hansard source
10. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    Given that the Sentencing Council refused the Lord Chancellor’s first invitation to rewrite its guidance, is she confident that the limited nature of this Bill is sufficient? Would she not be wiser to take a broader power to ensure that in future all sentencing guidance has an affirmative vote in this place?

    Hansard source
11. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    This Bill is unfortunately necessary because of the unwise actions of the Sentencing Council. While the Lord Chancellor is right to bring the Bill forward, she did so only at the very last moment. It was on Monday 31 March, mere hours before the guidelines were due to come into force, that the Sentencing Council was forced to perform a U-turn. Those guidelines would have led to a two-tier justice system in England and Wales. The Sentencing Council did not withdraw those guidelines out of wisdom or principle—it did so because it was caught out. Its backtrack was quietly communicated to judges and magistrates several hours after courts had already opened on Tuesday. To make matters worse, the Sentencing Council’s message said that it still believed the policy was necessary. There was nothing necessary about that policy. Under the proposed guidelines, judges and magistrates were told that pre-sentence reports should normally be required when sentencing individuals from ethnic, faith or cultural minority groups. What about those who are white, male and not part of a specified minority? They would not have fallen within that description. The implication was clear: defendants will be treated differently, not based on their actions or the harm they have caused, but based on their identity, and that is wrong. It was only after the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Justice Secretary, that the Lord Chancellor rightly took action. Race, culture and religion should never determine whether someone goes to prison. The Lord Chancellor said that she was willing to legislate to stop this travesty if the Sentencing Council refused to back down, and that is what we are now doing. This is about the most fundamental principle in a free society: equality before the law. The question we must now ask ourselves is how the Sentencing Council got this so badly wrong and, judging by the comments of Lord Justice Davis, would continue to get wrong. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines would have had real consequences. In borderline cases where a judge is unsure whether to issue a custodial sentence, the presence or absence of a pre-sentence report can be decisive. The whole purpose of these reports is to influence the outcome. By tilting the system toward giving those reports preferentially to certain identity groups, the council would effectively be tipping the scales of justice, and the council knows it. Baroness Falkner, chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, has warned that the guidelines may violate the Equality Act 2010. If we allow sentencing outcomes to be guided by race, faith or cultural identity, we abandon the core British principle that the law applies equally to all of us. I agree with the Lord Chancellor that we should pass this legislation to override this guidance, but how confident is she that we will not face a similar situation again? I would like her to go further and ensure that Parliament is given oversight of all future sentencing guidance. We must put into law the principle that no factor like race, religion or cultural minority status should ever influence sentencing procedures. Justice must remain blind, not selectively blinkered. If we lose equal justice, we lose the foundation of a free society.

    Hansard source
12. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Birmingham: Waste Collection

    Will the Minister make a point of thanking the well-run and cost-effective Conservative councils that have either helped or offered to help clear up this terrible mess? Will he bear in mind that it is not just the bin strike that my poor, long-suffering constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield have had to endure, but the pending closure of our libraries and the massive hike in council tax? Does he understand why so many of us want to see a proper judge-led inquiry into how bankrupt Birmingham city council has got Britain’s second city into this mess? Will he also bear in mind that this is a dispute between two wings of the Labour party? Whatever I may think of the council that he leads, it is quite wrong that my constituent, the leader of the council, should have had a photograph of his house put on social media by Unite. Will the Minister condemn that action by Unite?

    Hansard source
13. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Ukraine Update

    May I thank the Secretary of State for taking the first opportunity to make this important statement? I congratulate him on his work with the coalition of the willing. It will be important in that—building on the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge)—to understand the terms of engagement if that is to happen and peace is to be secured. We cannot permit woolly thinking, because that could allow another situation like Srebrenica to happen again. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he is working hard, that what any terms of engagement would be is on the agenda, and that people are crystal clear about what those terms could be to secure peace?

    Hansard source
14. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Shivani Raja

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

    Will the Secretary of State take action to ensure that policies and lessons in schools are not led by external organisations that have been captured by contested gender ideology?

    Hansard source
15. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Female Offenders

    It has been six days since the Supreme Court handed down its landmark judgment in the case brought by For Women Scotland—a judgment that confirms basic biological reality and protects women and girls. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the policy to stop male offenders, however they identify, being held in the women’s estate, especially those convicted of violence or sexual offences. Will the Lord Chancellor and her Ministers confirm that the Government will implement the Supreme Court judgment in full and that they will take personal responsibility for ensuring that it is in every aspect of our justice system, or do they agree with senior Ministers in their party who now appear to be actively plotting to undermine the Supreme Court’s judgment?

    Hansard source
16. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Council

    Today, the Justice Secretary is belatedly introducing a Bill to restore fairness in who receives a pre-sentence report, but it will not correct what the pre-sentence report says. Under brand-new guidance that the Justice Secretary’s Department issued in January, pre-sentence reports must consider the “culture” of an offender and take into account whether they have suffered “intergenerational trauma” from “important historical events”. Evidently, the Labour party does not believe in individual responsibility and agency. Instead of treating people equally, it believes in cultural relativism. This time the Justice Secretary has nobody else to blame but herself. Will she change that or is there two-tier justice? Is that the Labour party’s policy now?

    Hansard source
17. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Topical Questions

    I support the Lord Chancellor’s decision to commission a full statutory inquiry into the terrible attack in Nottingham. I know it will be welcomed by the families and everyone in the city and across my home county of Nottinghamshire. I fully support her welcome decision. Greg Ó Ceallaigh is a serving immigration judge who decides asylum and deportation appeals. It took nothing more than a basic Google search to uncover his past comments that the Conservative party should be treated the same way as Nazis and cancer. As a sitting judge, he has publicly supported Labour’s plans to scrap the Rwanda scheme and for illegal entry into the United Kingdom to be decriminalised. Does the Lord Chancellor believe this is compatible with judicial impartiality? If not, what does she intend to do about it?

    Hansard source
18. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Topical Questions

    Mr Speaker, it is important that judges and the manner in which they are appointed are properly scrutinised in this House, and I will not shy away from doing so. Helen Pitcher was forced to resign in disgrace as the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission after a formal panel found that she had failed in her duties during one of the worst miscarriages of justice in recent memory. But she is still in charge of judicial appointments, despite judges appearing in the media every week for their activism. Her commission has failed to conduct the most basic checks on potential judges, either out of sheer incompetence, or out of sympathy with their hard-left views on open borders. The commission is broken and is bringing the independence of the judiciary into disrepute. How much longer will it take for the Justice Secretary to act and remove the chair of this commission from her position and defend the independence and reputation of the judiciary?

    Hansard source
19. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    How did we get here? It takes a special kind of uselessness to engineer a crisis entirely of your own making and then to come to this House asking for applause as you legislate your way out of it. Let us remind ourselves what actually happened here. The Sentencing Council, an unelected unaccountable quango created by the Labour party, issued guidance that would have divided our criminal justice system by race, religion and identity; a two-tier system as offensive to common sense as it was to the most basic and important principle of equality before the law. The Justice Secretary, asleep at the wheel, either did not know or did not care. Her officials signed off the guidance, her Ministry nodded it through, and the council published it; the guidance was due to come into force. Only then, after I raised this issue with her in this House, and in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives, the press and the public, did she rouse herself from her stupor—only then did she discover her principles. Even at that point, however, the Justice Secretary did not act decisively. She did not use her powers to sack the architects of this shameful guidance, support my legislation or bring forward immediate legislation of her own to stop it. What did she do instead? She wrote a letter begging the council to reconsider. Such is the pace at which she moves—or, rather, crawls—that it took a further seven days to put her thoughts in writing after a meeting. When the council did not move, the Justice Secretary threatened action—only to be humiliated by the chair of the council, who made clear that if she tried, he would take legal action and potentially challenge his own Justice Secretary. So incompetent was she that the Opposition had to take it upon ourselves to prepare a judicial review to do the Justice Secretary’s job for her, and such was the level of chaos over which she nominally presided that the Government’s own legal service was trooped out against us to defend the very sentencing guidelines that the Justice Secretary had denounced as two tier.

    Hansard source
20. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    I have to applaud the hon. Gentleman for reading out his Whips’ questions there. I have said it before and I will say it again, however: I do wish that he and those on the Labour Front Bench would stop perpetuating something that is obviously untrue. They know it is untrue. It has been said numerous times. The Sentencing Council itself—[Interruption.] Let me finish my point, because it is important.

    Hansard source
21. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    It is, I hope, inadvertent, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Sentencing Council wrote to the Lord Chancellor correcting her on this very point, and made clear that the guidance that was put before the previous Conservative Government was materially different from the one—

    Hansard source
22. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    Let me finish the point. If hon. Members do not like the answer, perhaps they should hear it in full. The Sentencing Council made it clear that the guidance that was put before the previous Conservative Government was materially different from what was ultimately put before this Labour Government. The council said in the previous iteration that pre-sentencing reports would usually be required. There was a presumption that pre- sentencing reports would come forward, but importantly, it preserved full discretion. The guidance that was ultimately brought forward, which was given the nod by the Justice Secretary’s officials who were present at the final meeting of the Sentencing Council, made a significant distinction: it said that such reports “must” be requested. That removed the discretion available to judges, which was a very significant difference.

    Hansard source
23. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    The guidance does not use that phrase. It says a report would “usually” be required. That is an important point, because it removes discretion. Of course, there might be instances in which a judge would not request a report, but I think it would be extremely unlikely, in practice, that a judge would choose not to take forward a pre-sentence report, in the light of the new guidance. That is why we felt it so important to take action.

    Hansard source
24. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    Let me make some progress. Eventually the Sentencing Council did U-turn, but not before the guidance had briefly come into force. The council took until midday on 1 April, which was several hours after the guidance had come into force, to update magistrates and judges. Its email undermined the Lord Chancellor yet again. It stated that it still believed that the guidance was “necessary and appropriate”. The whole saga has been nothing short of farcical. It has been an embarrassment. It has damaged public confidence in the justice system, and the Justice Secretary’s Bill does not fix that trust deficit. It is half-baked. It is a half-job that stores up problems for another day—because, make no mistake, we will be back here again and again; it will be like Groundhog Day. The Justice Secretary has left in post at the Sentencing Council the very people who drafted these rules and declined her initial invitation to change them. She has left the system intact, and she has left the door wide open for this to happen again. That is not hypothetical. We know for a fact that more offensive two-tier sentencing guidelines are incoming. The Sentencing Council is consulting on new immigration guidelines that water down sentences for people smugglers. If they come into force, hundreds of immigration offenders a year will not meet the 12-month threshold for automatic deportation, blowing a hole in border controls. If the Justice Secretary wanted to stop that—there are plenty of open-border activists who would oppose her—this Bill leaves her powerless to do so. She has chosen to be powerless. It is the definition of madness to repeat the same decisions and expect different results. History will keep repeating itself until Ministers take back control of sentencing frameworks. But still the Justice Secretary stands at the Dispatch Box and claims that there will be no two-tier justice under her leadership. The Bill fixes one small element of the problem and leaves the rest of it entirely intact. It does nothing to stop the two-tier pre-sentence report guidance, which still instructs probation officers to take into account so-called intergenerational trauma—trauma suffered not by the defendant, but presumably by their ancestors. It does nothing to stop the bail guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice, which instructs officials to “prioritise” ethnic minority defendants for bail decisions—not on the facts of the offence, not on the basis of risk to the public, but because of their racial or cultural identity. It does nothing to stop the “Equal Treatment Bench Book”, the official handbook for judges, which is riddled with activist talking points, including the claim that migrants are mistreated by the press, and the adoption of a dangerously expansive definition of Islamophobia that could amount to a back-door blasphemy law. Everywhere we look—more examples emerge every week—this ideology runs through the Ministry of Justice like rot through the rafters. The principle of equality before the law, one of the great inheritances of our country, is being systematically inverted, replaced by cultural relativism, by a hierarchy of victimhood. Some defendants are to be treated gently; others are to face the full force of the law—all depending on their background, race, religion or self-declared identity. That is not justice. It is injustice, wrapped in the language of compassion. But who is it compassionate to? The victims? Of course not; they do not get a look in.

    Hansard source
25. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    That is the very real risk of what we see, not just in these aborted sentencing guidelines, but in the broader fabric of two-tier justice that we are revealing with every passing day. What we all want to see, and what I believe the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) wants to see as well, is equality before the law. That means that in no instance should the law be applied differently depending on the colour of people’s skin or the faith that they abide by. We must all fight against that, because it is immensely corrosive to public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system.

    Hansard source
26. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    The guidelines we are talking about came into force—or would have done—under this Labour Government. I will not return to everything I said earlier, but those of us who were in this Chamber on the day that I revealed this issue all know that neither the Justice Secretary nor any of her Ministers had the faintest idea that any of this was happening. I watched the Justice Secretary look to her Ministers; she was greeted by blank faces. They had no grip on what was happening in their Department. The hon. Member for Hartlepool makes the good point that the issues that we are discussing predate this Labour Government. This is a broader issue facing our country. We all have to be defenders of equality under the law. I do not seek equality of outcome in our criminal justice system; I seek equality of treatment. That is the heart of a fair criminal justice system. That may be a point of difference between some of us in this House. All I seek is for every person in this country—man or woman, regardless of their religion or the colour of their skin—to be treated exactly the same by the law. Everywhere we look in the Ministry of Justice, we see this ideology. The most worrying part is that I think the Justice Secretary knows this. She stood here and said that the appearance of differential treatment before the law is particularly corrosive, and I agree wholeheartedly with her.

    Hansard source
27. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robert Jenrick

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    I will make progress. The guidance does not just create the appearance of two-tier justice; it is two-tier justice. The Secretary of State cannot wash her hands of that. The bail guidance comes from her own Ministry. The pre-sentence guidance is issued by officials she oversees. The bench book is sanctioned by the Judicial College, under the watch of the Lady Chief Justice. If the Justice Secretary truly believes in equality before the law, and if her words are more than empty slogans, why is any of this happening on her watch? The truth is simple. This Bill is not the solution. It is a fig leaf. It is damage control. It is political theatre to distract from the deeper rot that the Government have permitted to fester. Until this type of guidance is ripped out, root and branch, from sentencing, bail, judicial training and appointments, the principle of equality before the law remains under direct assault. We will not vote against the Bill, because we will never support two-tier justice, but we will not let the Justice Secretary rewrite history, either. She did not stop these rules or fight against them. She did not even know about them until we pointed them out to her. She allowed them to happen, and then panicked when the backlash came. Now she is using this House’s time to clean up her mess. She wears the robes and she dons the wig, but she is not in control of the justice system. Despite the big talk today, there is still two-tier justice on her watch. If she continues to do so little about it, we can only conclude that, at heart, she truly supports it.

    Hansard source
28. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Bail Guidelines

    16. If she will have discussions with the HM Prison and Probation Service on the potential merits of reviewing its guidelines on bail.

    Hansard source
29. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Bail Guidelines

    After the conviction of eight men for a string of horrendous child rape offences in Keighley, I wish I could stand here and say that justice has been fully served, but I cannot, because two of these men—dual nationals—absconded during their trial, are still evading justice and are known to be abroad. Does the Secretary of State agree that in such serious cases, where dual or foreign nationals are charged with the most grotesque and serious sexual crimes against children, the court should be under a duty to impose stricter bail conditions, including surrendering passports and electronic monitoring, or even to provide no bail conditions, to stop them fleeing the country and evading justice?

    Hansard source
30. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Topical Questions

    T3. In a single week in Bradford, we have seen council leaders once again reject my calls for a full rape gangs inquiry. An ex-police officer has been threatened with arrest for investigating these horrific crimes, and now a judge is blocking the release of official transcripts from a major rape gang trial in Bradford. Can the Lord Chancellor explain why our justice system is being used to block the truth about these trials?

    Hansard source
31. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

    I am sure the Minister will recognise that there are many women, including former supporters of her own party, who voted for candidates like me entirely because of our record of supporting biological women. However, in the meantime, given that a number of trade unions claim that they will ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court, and in some cases even campaign against it, what plans do the Government have to ensure that all trade unions are made to recognise that the Supreme Court ruling applies to them too?

    Hansard source
32. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Standard Determinate Sentences: Early Release

    14. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the standard determinate sentences 40% early release scheme.

    Hansard source
33. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Standard Determinate Sentences: Early Release

    Last month, the Prisons Minister said that the longest time that an early-released prisoner had been left to wander the streets without an electronic tag was 53 days. However, just over a week ago, it was reported that prisoners have not been tagged for up to 78 days. Can the Secretary of State please clarify this apparent inconsistency?

    Hansard source
34. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

    I welcome the clear ruling from the Supreme Court, and I thank the Minister for her statement, but I am really disappointed that there was no mention of schools at all in the statement. Many schools are teaching gender ideology as if it is fact and are not providing single-sex facilities or single-sex sports teams. How will she ensure that schools now comply with the ruling and the law as it has always been?

    Hansard source
35. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

    The Minister says that her position on these issues is very clear and has not changed at all over the years. She is promising to work at pace now, yet nine months into her time as Education Secretary the guidance on gender-questioning children that was consulted on over a year ago has still not been published. Will she help schools by answering this question: can it ever be right for a school to socially transition a child without talking to the parents first?

    Hansard source
36. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

    I thank the Minister for Women and Equalities for advance sight of her statement, even if it was mostly a shameless work of fiction. I could not believe my eyes, or my ears, this afternoon. In 2021 the Prime Minister said it was “not right” to say that only women have a cervix. In 2022 he said it was the law that “trans women are women”. In 2023 he said, “99% of women don’t have a penis”. I know what a woman is, and I always have. The people of this country know what a woman is. We did not need the Supreme Court to tell us that, but this Government did: a Labour Government so desperate to jump on a bandwagon that they abandoned common sense, along with the Scottish National party—which put rapists in women’s prisons—and, of course, the Liberal Democrats. The Supreme Court ruling is a powerful victory for the determined women behind For Women Scotland, and for people all over the UK who know how important it is to give privacy and dignity to women and girls who need it, but it follows years of battle. Individual women took action to uphold the law at great personal cost, losing their jobs and their reputations. A few weeks ago I met the Darlington nurses who were forced to bring legal action after a male nurse started using their changing room. Even their union, the Royal College of Nursing, refused to represent them. Women should not have to battle the NHS or their employers through the courts. Why has it been such a battle? Because something as simple as biological reality became politicised and corrupted by activists pushing this ideology as foolish politicians cheered. Even the Minister—who said in her statement that this was “personal” to her—stated just last year that men should access women’s spaces. Whether it is female victims in our courts being forced to refer to their male sex attackers as “she” or the NHS using confusing “gender-neutral” language, putting the health of women at risk, this is a serious matter. At every point when we have fought for women, we have faced hostility from activist groups and the Labour party: in 2020, when we rejected Labour’s calls to introduce self-identification, and in 2021, when the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), ordered police forces to stop recording offences by trans women in female crime statistics. The current Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), said that crimes committed by men should be recorded how they wished, and that those convicted of serious sexual offences should be held in jails that matched their chosen gender. It was crazy then, and it is crazy now. I spent years battling abuse from Labour Members as I fought to uphold biological sex in government and blocked the SNP’s introduction of its mad self-identity laws, and I will take no lectures from them about what to do on this issue. Women and gay rights groups such as the LGB Alliance were even refused stands at the Labour party conference. The idea that Labour has supported this all along is for the birds. The Foreign Secretary described opponents of self-ID as “dinosaurs”. Labour now says that it knows what a woman is, and that transgender people should use services and facilities designated for their biological sex. It has never said that before, and this is a U-turn, but we welcome it. Now that we have legal clarity, will the Prime Minister show some courage and do the right thing? Will he apologise to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who faced so many security concerns as she was hounded out by the Labour party, and who was rebuked by the Prime Minister, and by many Labour MPs who are sitting there looking at me, for stating what the Supreme Court has now ruled to be true? Will the Minister apologise to the hon. Member for Canterbury? I doubt it. Will the Prime Minister crack down on the groups whom we saw defacing statues of suffragists over the weekend with the same energy that he reserves for his political opponents, or will we see more two-tier justice? Last time we saw Labour MPs standing next to them with no rebuke whatsoever. Will the Minister ensure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has the Government’s full support in its enforcement of the code of practice? In particular, will she condemn the Labour Ministers who described Baroness Falkner’s entirely correct position on the judgment as “appalling”? We need to root out gender ideology from our institutions. This Government now have a serious job to do, as many organisations will still fail women. I ask the following questions. As Minister for Women and Equalities, I published guidance for schools that made it clear that toilets and changing rooms must be provided separately for girls and boys, but the Minister scrapped that guidance. Will she stand up to the unions and urgently publish what she now admits is the law? She has also scrapped relationships, sex and health education guidance that would prevent schools from teaching contested gender ideology as fact. Will she now publish the guidance, and remove materials that mis-state the law? Will she act to stop passports and licences being issued with information on them about self-declared, rather than legal, sex? Will the Government support our amendments to the data Bill to ensure that digital ID systems record biological sex accurately? Finally, the Minister says that she is here to protect transgender people, many of whom were misled by Labour’s mis-statements on this issue. Some are now left very anxious. She has not provided any reassurance, and she should not use them as a shield to protect her failure. This is not the end of the matter, but the beginning of the end. There is so much to do, and the Conservative party, under my leadership, will be relentless in ensuring that the Government do the right thing.

    Hansard source
37. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Prison Reform

    The catastrophic security failure at HMP Frankland has exposed the danger that terrorist prisoners can pose to prison officers and other inmates across the prison estate. Will the independent review also examine the culture of gang-related violence and intimidation that have contributed to such incidents in our prisons?

    Hansard source
38. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

    I want everyone treated with dignity and respect, as the Supreme Court made clear should be the case. But should women have to rely on a court ruling, followed by guidance at some point from the EHRC, rather than the clear view of this House? What would be the Government’s view of having primary legislation in this area rather than relying on a court ruling?

    Hansard source
39. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Reoffending: Young People

    Aspiration and ambition are drivers of social mobility and help to reduce deprivation and crime. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Education to increase apprenticeships and training, so that these opportunities can be extended to all and we can reduce young offending throughout the UK?

    Hansard source
40. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    What the Sentencing Council ludicrously proposed was nothing short of two-tier justice: guidelines which would mean that young black, Asian or indeed other non-white offenders could receive more lenient sentences than their white counterparts in exactly the same circumstances. Let me be clear: justice must be equality before the law. As someone once said, “justice should not only be done, but…be seen to be done”. It should not depend on your race, the colour of your skin, your culture or your religion. It is high time we reminded the unelected, unaccountable, and quite frankly woke quangos that equality means treating everyone the same, and not creating one rule for some and one rule for others. I am therefore glad that we have finally reached the Second Reading of a Bill that will stop the madness espoused by this out-of-touch, “liberal dinner party set” advisory body. For far too long, bodies such as the Sentencing Council have been allowed to rule the roost. Quangos of this kind—unserious and wasteful organisations —are costing the taxpayer more than £64 billion a year. Parliament must be sovereign, and should not continue to come up against a brick wall of regulatory and bureaucratic obstacles. I cannot help having a sense of déjà vu. I was sitting in this very place well over a month ago when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Lord Chancellor, introduced legislation that would have prevented this slide into two-tier justice—and all the while, the Lord Chancellor allowed the chairman of the Sentencing Council to effectively run rings around her, the Government and the will of the House. Let us stop pretending: sadly, two-tier justice does exist, and the British people know it. Let us look at the facts. People are being thrown into jail for making stupid comments online, while grooming gangs were able to operate unchallenged because of a fear of cultural sensitivities. This is wrong, and the British people demand that it end now. However, it is not happening just in the courts. Police forces in the UK have been caught blocking white applicants from jobs, and that was based not on ability but purely on the colour of their skin. How on earth did we get here? This is the country of the Magna Carta, the birthplace of common law and some of the greatest legal minds that the world has ever seen, yet we have enabled an unelected quango to propose guidelines that are openly discriminatory, and equality before the law has been replaced by ideology over fairness.

    Hansard source