The Minister responded that thorough checks were conducted by collaborating with FCDO, but did not specify bilateral engagements with affected countries. She stressed the importance of maintaining rigorous evidential requirements in line with UK standards.

The Minister responded by defending her side's unity on the issue against Labour's alleged divisions. She criticised Labour for their handling of the gender recognition law and promised to take questions in sequence, beginning by addressing why countries like Germany have been removed from the list despite approving self-ID.

The Minister expressed support for efforts to clarify the law but emphasised that no child should be put on a pathway towards irreversible medical transition. She acknowledged discussing growing problems with social transitioning and expressed willingness to work with the MP to ensure legislation works properly.

I disagree with the hon. Lady, stating that it is her Government who allowed rapists to be housed in women’s prisons while using self-identity as a cover. The system is more rigorous, so there's no reason for others to stop accepting our certificates because they have not changed. Self-ID is not something this Government supports due to concerns raised by the Isla Bryson case.

This is one area where we are trying to provide clarity. The Haldane judgment has created confusion between biological sex and legal sex, which needs addressing because it changes what could be obtained until this judgment.

I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s assertion; self-ID is something we differ in opinion with from other countries. We do not have to follow what everybody else does.

In the majority of physical sports, it is fairer and safer to separate on the basis of biological sex. A poor understanding of equalities law has led to women such as Lynne Pinches having to take legal action to ensure fair competition.

We carried out extensive consultations but many groups support self-ID, which is not this Government’s policy. Stonewall does not decide the law in this country.

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue as it needs addressing. We should look at some of the measures put in place earlier and see what we can do to repair it.

I, too, will speak very gently. The hon. Gentleman says that my rhetoric chills him to the bone. I would be really keen to hear what exactly it is that I have said, either in this statement or previously, that is so chilling. I will tell him what chilled me. In May 2021, against official advice—I stress that officials said, “You should not have this meeting”—I met a young lady called Keira Bell, a lesbian, who told me of the horrific experience she had had at the Tavistock clinic. It was an eye-opening experience. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) talked about “transing away the gay” in his speech in Westminster Hall. We are seeing, I would say, almost an epidemic of young gay children being told that they are trans and being put on a medical pathway for irreversible decisions, and they are regretting it. This is what I am doing for young LGBT children: I am making sure that they do not find themselves being sterilised because they are being exploited by people who do not understand what these issues are. I am saying this on the advice of clinicians and academics, because clinicians from the Tavistock clinic have been whistleblowing, talking about what these issues are. The hon. Gentleman says that he is traumatised; we are traumatised by what is happening to young children, and we will run away from this issue no longer.

I do agree, and I agree that it has to be across the board in Government. Some of that work is already under way. But I think it goes far beyond that. This cannot be a left or right issue, and it cannot be an issue on which certain people are personally invested in their own campaigns and cannot see the other point of view; it needs to be something that we work on together, on both sides of the House. If, while I am making a technical statement and explaining our thinking, Members across the House are talking about how they are traumatised, that is not serious policymaking. We need to be able to have a proper conversation, take the heat out of the debate and speak properly, as Members of Parliament representing all our constituents.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise that issue. That is why I mentioned the work that we are doing on clarifying the difference between sex and gender. As I said, these terms were used interchangeably when we originally legislated in the House, which has created confusion in terms of understanding. Public authorities should aim for clarity in what they do. Many organisations, particularly hospitals, think that removing the term “women” is more inclusive. It really is not—it is excluding. I would gently say to them that if they are using phrases such as “chest feeding” or removing words such as “mother” from paperwork and forms, they are not helping. They are making things worse and they are creating confusion. I am going to work with public authorities. The Minister for Women is also a Health Minister. We take this issue very seriously, and we will see what more we can do to provide clarity. Providing clarity is the key point.

This is something that I have said it is crucial that sporting bodies understand. They are responsible for managing the rules in this space, and quite a lot of them have updated their guidance to reflect that, but not all of them. Young women in competitive sports should not have to silently accept that biological men will always beat them and take their chances to win gold. Generations of women before them have worked really hard to ensure that women have a place in sports and that those who excel are rewarded for that and are recognised. The Equality Act 2010 is not a barrier to fair sport for women. It permits it, and it even requires it, so I shall work with my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—the Minister for Equalities is a DCMS Minister—to ensure that fair sport is a right that every woman and every girl can enjoy.

The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right. Self-ID impacts on all the things she mentioned. We speak less about freedom of association and the impact on that. It goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) that we need in many respects to separate sexual orientation from what we refer to now as gender identity—that is, what is under the “T”. We have lumped them together before. That was helpful in many circumstances, but I have seen this issue arise in other equalities work that I have done around race, where we use the term BAME to lump together lots of different groups. When that occurred, we missed a lot of information about what was happening within those groups. We need as much granularity as possible if we are to serve people who are LGB as well as people who are T. The hon. and learned Lady asks what work we are doing to stop lesbians being made to feel as if they have to be trans-identified males. I have asked the Equality Hub to do some work with The Lesbian Project, which I know is interested in fixing this problem. On the point of international treaties, she is absolutely right in what she says. So much of the criticism about how our international standing will fall is not evidence-based policy, but “not a good look-ism”. It says, “This is not a good look and we probably should not do it,” but that is not how we should be making policy. We should be looking at the facts, thinking clearly about the outcomes we want and acting accordingly. That is the way the Equality Hub, under my leadership, will continue to behave.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am happy to meet Members from across the House on this issue, but I stress that changing the law is not going to be easy. It will not be straightforward and it will need consensus, broadly, across the House, because of many of the issues I alluded to earlier.

We do need to make sure that there is clarity across the board that it is Ministers in this country who are making those decisions clearly and being held to account in Parliament. A lot of loopholes have become apparent that allow people to change things through different means other than via Parliament. Some of that is about changing the colloquial meaning of quite a lot of expressions. Bringing as much as possible into law to provide clarity will be really important.

I am very happy to confirm that, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the measured tone in which he asked his question—it is a model for Opposition Members. We have done so much work under this specific Government and even under my watch, including on our HIV action plan and on trans healthcare. We have established five new community-based clinics for adults in this country. There is a lot that we are doing, so it is wrong to characterise us as not caring about LGBT people, and it also sends the wrong signal to our international partners.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman about the statutory instrument. As far as I was aware, it had been laid. That is what I was told, so it is news to me. That should have been the case.

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend—he has said it far better than I could. Let us have the debate in this House, rather than having people out there have the debate, which creates the climate of fear that many have referred to. The harder they make it for people to speak honestly in this Chamber, the worse the situation will get, so I urge Members across the House to listen to my right hon. Friend, because the point he has made is really important.

The hon. Lady asks a good question. The way I would explain it is that this is not an issue that we had before. I wish that we did not have to make these changes, but the fact is that many trans people were living their lives peacefully and with dignity until others started exploiting the loopholes. It is not trans people whom we are trying to limit; it is the predators who are using the loopholes and giving the trans community a bad name.

My hon. Friend raises important points. We must ensure clarity in law to prevent dubious organisations from pushing unscientific material in schools. The Secretary of State will look into materials under relationships, sex and health education. Guidance will address the issue with clinical advice, except in extreme cases.

My hon. Friend highlights critical issues. We need accurate data so public authorities, especially hospitals, know who they are dealing with. The ONS is revising census questions for clarity. We should legislate carefully without rushing to avoid negative impacts.

I confirm that we want to ensure parent involvement. It is absurd for significant changes to occur without parental knowledge, barring extreme cases. Parents need to know what is happening because they care for their children.

Yes, I agree. The purpose of this Statutory Instrument is to provide clarity on the law, which has not been updated since 2011.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We need careful safeguarding and clarity in schools. This Statutory Instrument is one step, with more measures coming.

I cannot control other countries but emphasise our policies based on evidence. We are showing others how to get it right with careful policymaking.