Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I very often disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, but I agree with much that she said today. It is impossible not to be moved by some of the personal stories we have heard in this debate, although I note that those emotive stories now come from both sides of the question. As legislators, we have to move on from the emotion of stories to the hard realities of what we want the law to actually do.

Having listened to those who support the Bill, I think that we are talking about outlawing certain kinds of speech. Most of us know that physically abusive behaviour of every kind is already outlawed by existing legislation, and the Bill says nothing whatever about physical abuse, so that is not what it is targeting. What we are discussing is making criminals out of people for what they actually say. Clause 1 outlaws practices without defining those practices. It does not say electric shock therapy, which is already unlawful. In fact, it does not specify any kind of therapy, although the word “therapy” does mysteriously appear in the title of the Bill. It simply says “practice”.

We have to assume that the mere act of speaking to another person can constitute a practice. Certainly, the legal advice that has been provided on the Bill concludes that simply speaking with someone can constitute a practice. We are not talking about harmful speech. The word “harm” does not appear in the Bill—that is not the threshold—so we are proposing to outlaw certain kinds of mere speech, including objectively harmless speech.

Whose speech is the Bill targeting? What words or opinions will it outlaw? Clause 1 says it is certain kinds of assumption about gender identity and sexual orientation. I doubt there is anyone present who does not from time to time make assumptions. The dictionary says it means taking something for granted. I wonder if “assumption” is used in any other criminal law in this very broad way. I am very doubtful.

The subjects of these soon-to-be criminalised assumptions are sexual orientation and gender identity. If you think it preferable for a person to identify as their biological sex, that is the kind of assumption the Bill is targeting. If you hold to historic orthodox Christian teachings on sexual ethics, that seems to be the kind of assumption the Bill is actually targeting. Clause 1(2) states that you must also have the intention of suppressing someone’s orientation or identity. “Suppression” is the important word here. It is deliberately wide. If a mum refuses to let her trans-identifying son go to school in a dress and make-up, then surely she is suppressing his gender identity. We have heard the example from Australia where the state of Victoria says that not consenting to your child going on puberty blockers is suppressing their gender identity.

Clause 1(3) says that the penalty for making such assumptions is a level 5 fine, which we have already heard is the maximum available. I do not think the public would forgive us if we passed a law which exposed parents to huge fines simply because they do not want their kids to get caught up in the social contagion that undoubtedly exists around trans issues, and the prospect of church ministers being fined for harmlessly upholding their beliefs within their churches is not one that any democrat, Liberal or otherwise, should welcome.

This is not a good Bill. It is badly conceived because it seeks to criminalise people for their opinions and badly executed because it makes no effort to mitigate the damage to legitimate free speech and private family life. I do not think it is possible to legislate on this without causing these kinds of problems, because those who want a conversion therapy ban want it to target opinions. It is not about abuse, it is not about coercion and it is not about causing harm. None of these words appears in the Bill. It is about punishing what some people regard as wrong opinions, and that is not the kind of law any of us should be willing to go along with.

EU Relations

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, obviously I very much agree with the thrust of the question. There is a lot of commentary about the situation in Northern Ireland that does not engage with the reality and facts of the question but is a sort of proxy fight about a question that is settled. It would certainly make our job easier if we could look at the national interest questions that are at stake here, and at the need to provide stability and prosperity in a very troubled part of our country, and make our position in trying to defend that easier to push forward.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

The Minister has said here today that the talks are not at an end yet, but I am sure that he is very conscious—as we are, back in Northern Ireland—that every day the talks go on costs the Northern Ireland economy countless millions of pounds. I hope that he takes that into account. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that the people of Northern Ireland do not want Article 16 triggered. I will tell the House what Northern Ireland does not want: any trade barriers between Northern Ireland and GB. That is what it does not want.

Further, the protocol disrespects the very delicate constitutional balance—this is at the heart of the agreement, we are told. It undermines Northern Ireland’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom and it is not acceptable to any of the unionist parties in Northern Ireland. I ask this House to take cognisance of that. Why is it that only one side of the community has to be respected and not the other side? I ask the Minister: as the conditions now exist very clearly for the triggering of Article 16, why has it not been triggered?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I think the exchanges that we have had in the last few minutes show the point I was making earlier: that there are in fact starkly divided views in Northern Ireland about these questions. That is why it is impossible to make an instrument such as the protocol work effectively, in the way that the EU insists that it be implemented, when those very stark divisions exist. We need to find a solution that everybody in Northern Ireland can get behind and which supports the delicate balance in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which was so painfully negotiated and which is the key to peace in Northern Ireland.

I very much sympathise with the points that were made on timing. Trade diversion is obviously happening every day and is very much on our mind, but we think that the responsible thing to do is to do everything we can, push as hard as we can and explore every possible avenue in and around the talks to see whether we can find an agreement that everybody can get behind. That will be my aim until I have concluded that it is impossible—and we are not at that point yet.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister’s announcement today and I want to pay tribute to him for his constructive and helpful approach during the week. He is a man who is not afraid to meet and to listen—the hallmark of a good Minister. Much that was going to be said undoubtedly will now not be, and I am aware that that applies throughout the House. However, I do want to make a few brief remarks.

It is difficult to understand why a Bill that relates to maternity leave does not once use the word “woman”. That, as we would say here in Ulster, is quite bizarre. While I support all the amendments, I am down to speak to just one. I have stated that my colleagues and I fully support the legislation; indeed, everyone who has spoken, irrespective of their views about the wording, supports the Bill itself. It is just regrettable that the wording did not come up to the standard that some of us felt we could have supported.

A Bill being fast-tracked always raises my suspicions, and I do wonder why this Bill is being fast-tracked. I know that sometimes there are very good reasons, and I think we all accept that this Bill has to be got through. However, unfortunately, this Bill, which is about ensuring the rights of pregnant women, was quite disrespectful to women in its original wording, in that it referred to them as “persons”. In all good conscience, I could not have supported the language used throughout, which made no mention of “women” anywhere.

The terminology stands in sharp contrast to all other UK legislation affording maternity rights and protection. I refer to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. Some advocates of inclusion and diversity in Parliament, with whom I would not always agree, have rightly opposed the move towards gender-neutral language, on the basis that you cannot grant new rights to certain groups by taking away the rights enjoyed by others. The Bill would, regrettably, have anonymised and dehumanised the status and life experience of women. But we know that has now been changed, thanks to the Minister’s constructive approach. I believe listening is the sign and hallmark of a good Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord True, has certainly done that.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this Bill will now pass unamended and I welcome that. But we recognise that our debate has touched on wider issues and that we are likely to return to them, in spite of our agreement on the government concession, on other Bills.

When I first joined this House a quarter of a century ago, it was dominated by men, most of them hereditary Peers. A Conservative woman Peer told me the hereditary Peers in her group treated the women Peers as if they were “day boys”. Having been at a boarding school myself, I knew exactly what this meant. In my first Session, I objected to some sections of that year’s defence review, which included women in the section on “equalities”, but gays in the section on “disciplinary problems”. When I dared to refer to great commanders of the past whose sexuality might have been called into question if aggressive efforts had been made to investigate them, I was attacked from both the Labour and the Conservative Benches and thought it wise to apologise before the debate wound up. Happily, this House and the country as a whole have moved on a great deal since then. We have all become more inclusive and openly diverse. None of us, I hope, wishes to return to the attitudes or the language of that earlier generation.

It is not only in Britain where we have moved towards gender-neutral language in political discourse. In Germany and France, which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, mentioned, similar changes have been debated and carried into effect. There have been similar protests over attempts at political correctness—although I am not aware that people in France or Germany have taken over the term “woke” from its American origins. The general direction of change has been towards gender neutrality in language, where possible, to remove the implicit biases against women and LGBT people that were often embedded in language.

We all appreciate that this is a sensitive area where passions can easily be aroused. The last thing we want in this country is to slip towards the aggressive culture wars that have been stoked up in the United States, with partisans of opposing viewpoints more interested in the battle itself than in finding common ground, with well-funded organisations feeding the fire. We have all seen American battles spill over into British debate, from the student rebellions and protests that the Vietnam war provoked, to those over Black Lives Matter and opposing interpretations of each country’s history, glorious or inglorious. I hope all of us wish to resist sliding down the road that has led to such bitter divisions in American society, stoked by rival lobbies and highly partisan media. I hope we are all committed to an inclusive society and inclusive language. I also hope we are united in wanting to avoid moves to secure equality for women and moves to provide equal rights to LGBT people being pitched against each other.

Protocol on Northern Ireland: Disruption to Trade

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

Yes, my noble friend is right: the protocol and our implementation of it fully protects Northern Ireland’s status as an integral part of our United Kingdom. That must remain the case. As I have said, there are teething problems and we have to address these, but if they ever become disproportionate, then that is the time, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, when further action would have to be considered.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

The Minister has acknowledged that there are problems and difficulties at the ports and elsewhere, and it is reported that some freight companies are losing tens of thousands of pounds per week because of the confusion that reigns there. We also have a problem with a Secretary of State who refuses to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a border at all. Will the Minister give his assessment today of the impact that the protocol and the sea border will have on the Northern Ireland economy? In light of the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, will he clarify the specific conditions in which the Government would act to invoke Article 16 of the protocol and restore unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom’s internal market?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord the assurance that we will work extremely hard to overcome difficulties. As I just said in reply to my noble friend Lord Caine, the Prime Minister stated the position on the record in the House of Commons yesterday as far as Article 16 is concerned. Obviously, I stand by his words. As for movement of traffic, everybody should feel that they can and must send goods to every part of our kingdom normally. Flows of trucks into Belfast are now normal. There have been issues at Holyhead, but movements there are increasing and we hope to see that trend continue.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, there are some of us who have spent a political lifetime opposed to the UK’s membership of the European Union, who look on with a sense of sadness that the Brexit that is being delivered for GB will not be enjoyed by the people of Northern Ireland. Those who live in Northern Ireland and contributed to the 17.4 million people who voted leave were entitled to expect that they would leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, as recently as Christmas Eve, the Prime Minister declared:

“We have taken back control of our laws and our destiny. We have taken back control of every jot and tittle of our regulation in a way that is complete and unfettered. From January 1 we are outside the customs union and outside the single market. British laws will be made solely by the British Parliament, interpreted by UK judges sitting in UK courts and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will come to an end.”


As a Member of this House, I think I am entitled, and indeed have a duty, to ask the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who is this “we” that he speaks of? Because as “we” will become all too common to hear in the time ahead, this offer does not extend to Northern Ireland. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister must know that.

I do not deny that the work done by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his team in the JCC has blunted some of the worst aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol, and I hope more progress can still be made. But the reality is that reducing friction in trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain cannot remedy the constitutional outrage that laws will be made for Northern Ireland over which people who live in the EU will have more say than the people in Northern Ireland.

Yesterday the ERG star chamber concluded that the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement preserved the UK’s sovereignty as a matter of law. It did not and could not conclude that the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol preserved the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Had that rigorous legal analysis been conducted 12 months ago, I doubt we would find ourselves in the position that we do now.

There are those who are claiming victory today although, if it is a victory at all, it is a pyrrhic victory, for a clean Brexit for Great Britain comes at the cost of the economic integrity of the United Kingdom. I am just sorry that, although we joined the EEC as one country, we are not, in a meaningful sense, leaving the European Union as one country. It would appear that the military saying “leave no man behind” lacks any political equivalent.

Finally, the protocol under which Northern Ireland will now operate is a travesty and I and my party have consistently opposed it. No consent has been given to the protocol by the people of Northern Ireland.

UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the movement of chemicals brings particular complexities, as the noble Lord rightly points out, but the Government are committing an enormous amount of resource to the support of Northern Ireland businesses in terms of the movement of goods. That had already been announced. Indeed, I was criticised by the noble Baroness opposite for the scale of support the Government are giving to Northern Ireland and to business generally in confronting the new regime.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

Under Article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland will remain part of the EU VAT regime as well as being subject to the UK VAT rules. In practice, that will increase the amount of debt that businesses in Northern Ireland have to collect, which will in some cases lead to higher payments, with a knock-on effect for the consumer. For those in the second-hand car sales trade, the threat is particularly grave. Cars brought in from GB will now have VAT imposed on the full value rather than on the profits made on the sale. Can the Minister tell us why this disruption to the UK internal market was not prioritised in negotiations and why there is no mention of relief for affected businesses in his Statement? Can he outline what unilateral support the Government will provide to small and medium-sized businesses caught by these damaging rules?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat the very substantial announcements of financial support for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland business that I referred to in earlier responses. On VAT, as part of implementing the VAT elements of the Northern Ireland protocol, the UK and the EU Commission have needed to agree how EU VAT rules will apply in the unique circumstances created in Northern Ireland, where traders will continue to be part of both the UK and the EU system. That agreement has been reached and is laid out in the Statement. Further guidance on these topics is being published for traders.

We have heard a concern raised about the application of EU second-hand margin schemes. Obviously, these changes will not affect stock bought in advance of 1 January, even if it is sold later, but we acknowledge that this is not a long-lasting solution to these issues. We aim to minimise disruption for Northern Ireland traders to the extent possible, and we continue to explore options.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this important debate.

I begin by affirming the great importance of the provision of an article in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that explicitly and specifically protects religious freedom. Back in the 1960s, it was common to hear academics suggest that religion was generally on the wane and that we were moving towards a more secularised world. While church attendance may be less than what it was in the United Kingdom, globally the world is becoming if anything more, not less, religious. In this regard we have seen an explosion of academic interest in religion and desecularisation. In this context, Article 18 is more important than ever, and I pay special tribute to the Lebanese philosopher, Professor Charles Malik, Lebanon’s first ambassador to the United Nations, who drafted and championed Article 18.

I now turn to the application of Article 18 domestically. I would like to focus particularly on the second limb, namely,

“freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.

In Christian theology, belief without action is meaningless. We are told in the letter of James—I make no apology for quoting from the Bible because discussions of religious freedom are meaningless if not rooted in an appreciation of real and relevant theology—that,

“faith without works is dead”.

The Christian understanding of worship as living out one’s faith 24/7 and of rejecting the idea that one is just a Christian on Sunday is absolutely central to what it means to be a Christian. This was set out so very clearly by William Wilberforce in the 1797 book that he called his manifesto, in which he explained how real Christianity means transforming belief into action across the whole of life, including politics.

In this context, I have to say that I very much agree with the American first lady, Michelle Obama, when she said:

“Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon … It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well … especially in those quiet moments, when the spotlight’s not on us, and we’re making those daily choices about how to live our lives”.

In short, “doing God”, to coin a phrase, involves doing.

Secularists will generously tell us of their fierce commitment to religious freedom and then, in a move that makes them sound particularly supportive, say they believe that freedom of religious belief is an absolute right. In return for offering an absolute right to belief, however, they go on to argue that if ever there is a conflict between the right to manifest religious belief and any other right, the manifestation of religious belief should be curtailed. The truth is that the notion that providing an absolute right to religious belief in this country constitutes something meaningful and substantive is problematic on two bases. First, it means something only if you believe that the British state can get inside your head and prevent you believing what you believe, which does not seem likely. Secondly, it suggests that the centre of religious faith is belief and that one can constrain practice at will without placing religious liberty in jeopardy.

In order to see just how ridiculous this is, we must return to the active principle and that clear statement from the New Testament that,

“faith without works is dead”.

The Bible does not say that faith without works is truncated or diminished. It says that it is actually negated. There can be no faith without works. Mindful of this, it is absolutely right that Article 18 is very clear that the manifestation of religious belief is very broad based.

As I look around Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, I see many wonderful examples of people of faith properly exercising their religious freedom in both belief and practice. Leading politicians have not been slow to affirm this with respect to welfare service provision, as indeed they should if they take their Article 18 obligations seriously. The willingness of politicians to affirm the right to manifest belief, however, is, I am afraid, rather selective. I say this with regret, not because I want to suggest that, if people claim that an action is in some way related to their faith, they should be allowed to proceed regardless—that would clearly be dangerous. Rather, I am suggesting that, if we are to respect the place of religion in our society, and the place of Article 18, we must make space for mainstream religious practice: both that which the secular commentariat agrees with and that which makes them uncomfortable. Sadly, this is not happening.

I would like to have said much more, but time has caught up with me. I would like to have said something in relation to Nigeria, but I totally agree with, and want to associate myself with, the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on this matter.