Oral Answers to Questions
Neale Hanvey Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Hands
Well, there is a lot of bluster there and not a few accusations. The hon. Gentleman may wish to try to stack these things up a bit. It is a cross-party programme, not a Government-only programme. Many Labour MPs, Labour peers and others are members of the programme. Gifts and hospitality are already published in departmental registers. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, two qualifications for this cross-party role are diplomacy and discretion, which might explain why not everybody has been asked to do it.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
My Department works closely with the Scottish Government and their agencies to promote Scottish products in overseas markets. We have recently delivered our Made in Scotland, Sold to the World exporter roadshow in Glasgow. On top of that, I am pleased to say that the PG Paper Company, a brilliant Scottish business, has just received an award in this year’s Made in the UK, Sold to the World awards.
Neale Hanvey
The value of Scotland’s oil exports to the EU reached £9.4 billion in 2023, with total oil exports up 14.7%, so the value of oil as an export commodity cannot be overstated. Those billions of pounds in exports can be balanced against the modest £80 million investment that would increase Grangemouth’s profitability threefold, secure its long-term future and save Grangemouth from closure. Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be absurd for Scotland to be the only major oil-producing nation without a refinery capacity, and will she agree to meet me to discuss this matter further, given that the Scottish Government are otherwise occupied?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. It is something that we are concerned about and the UK and Scottish Governments are working together to understand all the options for the future of the refinery, and working closely on the issue through forums such as the Grangemouth Future Industry Board. I am very happy to meet him—as are other Ministers—to discuss this matter further.
Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths
Neale Hanvey Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope
The hon. Gentleman has put on record what he wanted to say in that intervention. All I am saying is that, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, I receive a large number of letters, not just from my constituents but from across the country, from people who have been adversely affected. I do not think anybody is challenging the authenticity of their circumstances or the complaints they make.
I am going to close—I know a lot of other people want to participate in the debate—with one such letter that came not from one of my constituents, but somebody else. She gives her name, but I will not repeat it. She says:
“After receiving my covid-19 vaccination, I experienced severe adverse reactions that resulted in hospitalisation. These reactions encompassed stroke-like symptoms, including seizures, tremors, inability to work or talk, irregular heart palpitations, low oxygen levels, vertigo, brain fog, memory loss, balance issues, tingling, high blood pressure and more. Despite undergoing extensive examinations, a recent diagnosis of Functional Neurological Disorder has highlighted my ongoing struggles with headaches, declining eyesight, and daily seizures.
Before vaccination, I was a healthy 34-year-old; however, now I am severely disabled, unable to work, and filled with uncertainty about my future, especially with the imminent arrival of my baby. Unfortunately my situation is not unique; thousands of individuals are suffering similar consequences. Despite assurances of safety, many have been left with life-altering disabilities or worse. I am writing to urgently request an investigation into cases like mine to address the impact of vaccine-related injuries.”
She goes on to give the batch number, and to quote the rather lame response from the MHRA.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The hon. Gentleman has just illustrated very clearly the fundamental difference between some of the points that have been made about prophylaxis and anaphylaxis. When people are given a drug that could precipitate or trigger an anaphylactic reaction, they are given prophylactic cover to prevent that. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the consequences—as described by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—of spike protein embedding itself throughout the body, prompting a systemic inflammatory response that is not acute, as with anaphylaxis, but chronic. That reaction to the vaccine is very different from a normal allergic reaction that is anaphylactic and will be treated appropriately.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his scientific expertise to the debate, because I am no scientist; I am a mere lawyer.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I will begin by picking up on a few of the points that have been raised this afternoon. First, there is a parallel with a very important report that we received last week, and to which the Government responded on Monday: the Cass review. When concerns were first raised about what was happening in gender identity development services, those of us who spoke up at that time suffered both political and public pile-ons that were very uncomfortable. It gives me no pleasure to have been vindicated by the content of the Cass review. Certainly, when the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) first raised his concerns on this issue, he was also subjected to a political and public pile-on. The reason I raise that is that this cannot be how we tackle thorny issues. We must have a much more reasoned and mature approach to these things, where ideological positions are not sacrosanct and we have the flexibility to engage with, and look at, the points that are being raised.
My second point is about the discussion regarding correlation versus causation. It is fair enough to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it is sufficient evidence for us to start asking questions about what is actually there. That is a fundamental question that anybody who has been involved in any scientific endeavour must surely understand.
My next point is a slightly more difficult issue to raise, because it is quite emotive. Like many others in this Chamber, I have had two vaccines and a booster. My family had the same, but there is a question about the presumption that that is what saved lives. We cannot prove that, unfortunately—that is just not the way it works—but what we do have to grapple with is the fact that the treatment we were given, like any agent, can cause harm. We have a responsibility to interrogate those concerns, which is why I am very disappointed that module 4 of the inquiry has been delayed.
My last point is about the record-level data and the importance of how it is tabulated. The methodology for assessing excess deaths has changed; that might be a reasonable change in practice at a time of peace, if you like, but we have just come through a very difficult period with the pandemic. Changing the methodology immediately afterwards seems perverse at best and deeply concerning at worst, because it is important that from this moment on, we are able to understand how trends are changing in a directly comparable way. With a change in methodology, that becomes impossible, so it is not a good idea—just in terms of scientific rigour, it is problematic.
I will start off my contribution by expanding on some of the comments I made during the debate on 16 January, because we had very limited time to speak in that debate. I want to take us a step back, away from the emotive issue of whether there is correlation, causation, and a relationship between excess deaths and the covid vaccine, and remind ourselves of the principles that underpin how clinical trials should be conducted. The ethical principles that underpin those trials have their origin in the declaration of Helsinki and are consistent with internationally published good clinical practice guidelines and, obviously, all of the regulatory mechanisms that fall out from those guidelines.
Anybody who has been involved in clinical trials of any type will know that, as I have said, any agent has the potential to cause injury or harm. That is just the nature of the beast, and one of the things we try to establish during a clinical trial is to find out the harm, however minimal or maximal it may be, so as to mitigate it, manage it or rule the agent out because it is too risky. Performing such a test rigorously is the foundation of good clinical practice, and I make these comments as someone who has been involved in the management and delivery of clinical trials over many years. I think that, as politicians, as clinicians and as the industry, we all carry a duty of honesty and candour in these matters.
Andrew Bridgen
With the hon. Gentleman’s experience, and he has looked at the Pfizer trial documents, is it not clear that Pfizer only trialled the experimental vaccine for eight weeks with a 22,000 vaccination group and a 22,000 placebo group, and then it vaccinated the placebo group? So how can anyone tell anybody what the long-term effects of these vaccines are when people were only ever monitored for eight weeks after vaccination?
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who makes a really important point. The answer to that is that it is impossible, and that is the fundamental point. We cannot measure late effects if we do not have evidence of late effects.
Neale Hanvey
That was not actually the point I was making. I was making the point that any clinical trial, whether something is ruled in or ruled out, is subject to GCP guidelines, and it is up to the medical research ethics committee to sign off the protocol.
Neale Hanvey
Well, the hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but that is my experience. I worked at University College London Hospitals and the Royal Marsden, and those are the principles that we applied in such a context. I can only speak to my experience. I am not a member of the ABPI, so I cannot give him those types of data. I am talking about GCP as a general principle. If he does not believe in GCP as a general principle, that is a different discussion.
Wera Hobhouse
I am no apologist for big pharma companies, but does the hon. Member not acknowledge that there was time pressure in producing a vaccine to mitigate all the things we have heard about—lockdowns, our economy being stalled and all the rest of it? Does he not acknowledge that there was time pressure?
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think we all understand the situation that we were in. I am not using a retrospectoscope to say that things should not have been done in the way they were done. However, they should have been conducted absolutely in accordance with GCP guidelines, and that is the fundamental crux of the matter. I am not suggesting for a moment that that was not the spirit in which the various companies entered into this, but we are talking about—
Neale Hanvey
Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish the point I am making?
I am sorry, but I have now forgotten the point I was going to make to the hon. Lady. I do not think anybody entered into this to do the wrong thing, but there are fundamental questions about how we move things forward now and whether harm was inflicted as part of the administration of these agents.
Dr Mullan
I am very grateful. I raise this because the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made a point about timelines, saying that the trial was done in eight weeks and asking how the vaccine could possibly be safe. The reason why I mentioned longitudinal studies is that a common deliberate attempt to mislead people about what went on with the vaccine is to suggest that, because the trial was done over a short period of time, it could not possibly have been done correctly. Typically, trials take a long time because it takes a long time to recruit the right number of patients and to do the work. In such a trial, the same number of patients go through it over a longer period, but that does not change the baseline data, which is based on how many patients there are. We do not typically use longitudinal studies, and that vaccine trial was done by using a lot of people in a short space of time to create the same amount of evidence.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarifying point. People I have spoken to who were involved in those clinical trials have raised serious and significant concerns about the way that their experience after the drug was administered to them, and the impact that it had on them in an acute way, was either minimised or written out of trial data. That is a serious allegation, and everyone should be interested in understanding the detail. It is certainly not what I would understand would fit within the principles of GCP, and there are serious questions about how trial studies were conducted. As the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire said, the longitudinal element of that was impossible—we are now seeing that—but that does not mean we can ignore it, absolutely not. The principles I have been outlining are there because they are the basis on which good science is established and based.
Let me move to some of the questions that we must raise and answer today, openly and transparently, and with full access to ONS record-level data. I am not saying that that should be disclosed to all and sundry, but surely the Government cannot defend the position that they are not willing to release that information to interested clinicians and clinical academics as a minimum. Those are the people who need to interrogate the data. It is of little relevance to me—I do not have the means or academic ability to interpret it—but it is something that interested clinical academics should have access to.
Let me move on to what we know about some of the issues surrounding mRNA technology. We know that it does not replicate locally, as we were assured it would do on launch. It metastasises to distant tissue, and replicates spike protein systemically distant from the site of administration. That is problematic for a number of reasons. According to the University of London Professor of Oncology, and principal of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy, Professor Angus Dalgleish, this has precipitated various serious and sometimes fatal consequences due to antibody development mediated by the spike protein. I will not go into the detail of that, but at a meeting convened by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, Professor Dalgleish told us that the UK Government and their agencies are in serious denial about this issue, resulting in many deaths being poorly understood.
Let me give a couple of examples. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia is one of the principal causes of blood clot formation, which can cause stroke, pulmonary emboli, and other cardiac-related events including heart attacks, all of which can be life-limiting or fatal. Another antibody linked to the spike protein exerts an effect on myelin, and is associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome and transverse myelitis, which is a swelling around the spinal cord. Professor Dalgleish believes that that constitutes medical negligence, because the facts are there for all to see. He contends that many deaths are as a direct result of unnecessary vaccination. Furthermore, he advises that there are a greater number of yellow cards in MHRA for covid vaccines than for all other vaccines recorded, and nothing has really been done.
In a recent written answer to me, it was confirmed that the MHRA has received 489,004 spontaneous suspected adverse drug reaction reports relating to the covid-19 vaccine, up to and including 28 February this year. Across the United Kingdom, 2,734 of those reports were associated with a fatal outcome. Of course the true number is unknown—that is the nature of yellow card reporting, as only a fraction of adverse events are reported—and that is probably because of limited public awareness about some of the potential consequences and complications of vaccines, and the well-understood under-reporting of those adverse events. That is important, because the yellow card system is a key element of safe and effective clinical care. If things are not being evaluated properly, I can think of no greater betrayal of the MHRA’s clinical governance responsibility. I suggest that accountability for that must be swift and decisive. The rigorous assessment of these data is essential and must be actioned urgently. Will the Minister now engage with the MHRA and invite it to come to the House to explain the facts on these reports?
Another issue, which arises from a further written question that I tabled, relates to the role of the MHRA. It has a crucial role—in fact, it is a statutory function—to provide post-marketing surveillance and to operate the yellow card system, but the Minister responded to my question about the assessment of the potential implications of the BMJ article “Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is ‘likely’ responsible for deaths of some elderly patients, Norwegian review finds” by stating:
“The MHRA communicates safety advice based upon consideration of the totality of evidence from all relevant information sources, rather than the strengths and limitations of individual data sources.”
Surely, a fundamental step in any meta-analysis of published data is to interrogate the robustness of those data and for the public to have confidence that that is happening.
That point links right back to where I started, on the Cass report. One of the fundamental failings that the report identified was circular citation among various different organisations. They were validating one another’s position to create a false impression that there was an evidence base for the practice they were involved in. If the MHRA will say, “We do not interrogate the data when we do a meta-analysis,” who does? Who will validate the data? If I can hand over to the MHRA a whole load of numbers and it will just count them and accept that I have said my methodological rigour is robust, that is not good enough as far as I am concerned.
The Minister’s response to my written question was that the MHRA does not
“assign causality at the level of individual reports,”
as that is not its responsibility. If that is the case, whose responsibility is it? Who is interrogating the data and making that decision? If no one is, how can we get from correlation to a developed picture of causation? That is an essential step. It raises fundamental questions about that responsibility and the reliability of the data that the MHRA is relying on. If we are to learn anything from the general implications of the Cass report, we must have a clear steer from the MHRA on how these fundamental scientific principles will be observed and upheld.
I will canter through some important published evidence, which comes back to the correlation/causation discussion. In a 2021 study looking at cardiac inflammatory markers in patients receiving mRNA vaccines, Steven Gundry observed that mRNA vaccination numerically increased markers
“previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle”
in a patient population receiving the vaccine. A 2022 study by Fraiman et al. noted that the
“excess risk of serious adverse events”
identified in their study pointed
“to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses”.
That suggestion is wholly consistent with the principles set out in the declaration of Helsinki and is an ethical imperative.
In 2023, a pre-print Lancet study by Nicolas Hulscher et al., including leading cardiologist Peter McCullough and Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, reviewed 325 autopsies after covid vaccination and found that 74% of the deaths were attributable to the vaccine. That study, which was published online, was then swiftly removed, allegedly for issues with ideological rigour. I wonder whether it was the MHRA that did the assessment of its rigour. Surely those data and findings—however problematic some of the methodology might have been—demand further scrutiny, not removal.
A December 2023 Lancet Regional Health study by Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard et al. examined excess mortality in England post the covid-19 pandemic and the implications for secondary prevention. It stated:
“Many countries, including the UK, have continued to experience an apparent excess of deaths long after the peaks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Numbers of excess deaths estimated in this period are considerable.”
It noted that
“overall trends tend to be consistent across the various methods.”
It continued:
“The causes of these excess deaths are likely to be multiple…Further analysis by cause and by age- and sex-group may help quantify the relative contributions of these causes.”
I ask again: should we not at least be curious about this?
The study continued:
“The greatest numbers of excess deaths in the acute phase of the pandemic were in older adults. The pattern now is one of persisting excess deaths which are most prominent in relative terms in middle-aged and younger adults, with deaths from CVD causes and deaths in private homes being most affected.”
That is a completely different clinical picture. It continued:
“Timely and granular analyses are needed to describe such trends and so to inform prevention and disease management efforts.”
Documents recently disclosed as part of a freedom of information lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration indicate that the agency was aware that the safety monitoring system for Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine was “not sufficient” for assessing associated heart conditions when it licensed the company’s vaccine. Those documents also reveal numerous manufacturing concerns with Pfizer batches that were released to the public and show that the FDA knew about a phenomenon known as vaccine-associated enhanced diseases in those who were vaccinated and experienced breakthrough covid-19.
Let us move on to what we do not know. We have had no real progress on the points raised in the debate, particularly on record-level data. We need either that data to be released to clinical academics and others or a cogent explanation for why that is not happening. Why were those concerns kept hidden by the FDA? Are similar concerns or issues being hidden by the UK Government? Some of the points made about the delay in the MHRA taking action on clinical impacts is relevant to that point.
According to a House of Commons Library briefing, the Government-operated vaccine damage payment scheme, which has been discussed in both this debate and the previous one, provides only a one-off tax-free payment, which is currently a modest £120,000, to applicants where a vaccine has caused severe disablement. Data on VDPS claims relating to covid-19 vaccination is not routinely published, so we do not have particular metrics that establish how many claims are being made against those vaccines.
The most recent data is from September 2023. According to the NHS Business Services Authority, at that time it had received 7,160 claims relating to covid-19. Following medical assessment, 142 claims—just under 2%—were awarded, and 3,030 were rejected. A further 192 claims were found to be “invalid”. We need to understand why that was. What are claims being measured against and who is interpreting the clinical assessment information? We must also ask whether the exclusion criteria are reliable, given the concerns raised in the debate.
Based on the data that I have here, there are currently 3,796 unresolved claims, 1,010 of which have been unresolved for more than six months. If the 142 successful claims receive the full payment, the total cost will be around £17 million. If there are a further 177 successful claims from the unresolved cases, the associated cost will be a further £21 million. I am advised that the Government set aside some funding for this issue, but this has the hallmarks of the contaminated blood scandal written all over it. We must get ahead of the game and make sure that people get the compensation that they desperately need at a time when it is important to them.
There is another question: why are the Government so willing to pick up the tab on vaccine injury, however inadequate the scheme is, given the fatalities and the significant life-limiting impact on the victims? These concerns have been amplified significantly following the publication in The Spectator Australia of an account by genomics scientist Kevin McKernan of his accidental discovery. It states:
“While running an experiment in his Boston lab, McKernan used some vials of mRNA Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines as controls. He was ‘shocked’ to find that they were allegedly contaminated with tiny fragments of plasmid DNA.”
His concern has been considered further by Professor Angus Dalgleish, who noted that the contaminant, simian virus 40, is
“a sequence that is ‘used to drive DNA into the nucleus, especially in gene therapies’ and that this is ‘something that regulatory agencies around the world have specifically said is not possible with the mRNA vaccines’. These SV40 promotors are also well recognised as being oncogenic”—
or cancer-inducing genetic material. Other scientists have confirmed those findings. Professor Dalgleish further notes:
“To put it bluntly, this means that they are not vaccines at all but a…Genetically Modified Organism that should have been subject to totally different regulatory conditions and certainly not be classed as vaccines.”
Worryingly, Professor Dalgleish also notes that oncologists have contacted him from across the world, and the consensus is that this is thought to be precipitating relapse in melanoma, lymphoma, leukaemia and kidney cancers. He concludes with the following warning:
“To advise booster vaccines, as is the current case, is no more and no less than medical incompetence; to continue to do so”—
with his cited evidence—
“is medical negligence which can carry a custodial sentence.”
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his quotes from Professor Angus Dalgleish, who I remind the House is the most cited oncologist in the UK. I invited him here to witness this debate since he had some input into it. He could not attend, because he is speaking at a conference in Berlin on this very issue.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of information and for acknowledging an important scientist in this debate. It is a great honour to have worked in the same institutions as Professor Dalgleish, as he provides great leadership on this technology. He makes a valuable and impeccable contribution to this problem. He concluded that piece by saying:
“No ifs or buts any longer. All mRNA vaccines must be halted and banned now.”
Will the Minister answer the following question? Is big pharma being exempted from liability, and if so, why? The loss of trust in big pharma is substantial and, worryingly, because of that the value of vaccination itself has been deeply damaged. Personally—I say this frankly—I will never accept another mRNA vaccine, and I am far from alone. Will the Minster agree to full disclosure of the data and an investigation of the facts? Will she also commit to instructing the Office for National Statistics to release the record level data, or will it take someone like New Zealander Barry Young, a whistleblower imprisoned for publishing its record level data, to surface concerns about the covid vaccine programme? As we have seen with the Horizon scandal, the Government must never bury the facts when lives are being lost and futures destroyed. There is no greater betrayal.
In closing, the foundations of good clinical practice are under threat. I will put that in context with the December 2023 Pathology Research and Practice paper on “Gene-based covid-19 vaccines” from Rhodes and Parry. They gave the following warning:
“Pandemic management requires societal coordination, global orchestration, respect for human rights and defence of ethical principles. Yet some approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by socioeconomic, corporate, and political interests, have undermined key pillars of ethical medical science.”
None of these clinical experts are quacks or conspiracy theorists. As the Government said so often during the pandemic, we must follow the science.
Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Gender Non-conforming Young People
Neale Hanvey Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The subject of this debate has been thrust into the spotlight in recent weeks. Michael Shellenberger’s WPATH—World Professional Association for Transgender Health—files report by Mia Hughes was published on 4 March, swiftly followed last week by Dr Hilary Cass’s eponymous report. Both make it clear that gender identity and sex are completely different things, but ideological capture has blurred the lines.
In the early 1990s, I was asked a question by a relative who was volunteering for the Samaritans and speaking to a transvestite male who was struggling with his mental health. Did I, as a gay man, have any advice? I was bemused by the question, because the only advice I could muster was that I had absolutely no insight whatsoever into cross-dressing behaviours, as most transvestites were heterosexual males.
The notion that there is such a thing as an “LGBT person” is ludicrous. Homosexuality is an innate sexual orientation centred on one’s natal sex. I am not a lesbian, bisexual or trans; I am a gay male. Working with others who are same-sex attracted on shared LGB rights has always made sense to me. As I have illustrated, there was a time in the not-too-distant past when heterosexual cross-dressers were confused with what it meant to be a gay male. There is little evidence of any T in the LGB. As they were then, what we now call gender identity and sex remain completely unconnected concepts, and they must not be confused.
I started working in the NHS when I was 19 years old. Since then, I have had a responsibility for child safeguarding that continues to this day. In 2019, I assumed that my professional knowledge and academic experience would have been of value to my then political party, the SNP, as it attempted to grapple with gender recognition reform legislation, but I was wrong. I was an SNP candidate and the chair of Fife Pride when I met my then friend Shirley-Anne Somerville for a coffee to discuss my safeguarding concerns about gender recognition reform. In addition to her Cabinet Secretary role in the Scottish Government, she was also covering the equalities brief. This was someone I had known for years—someone who knew my family.
I covered all the bases, emphasising exemplar cases such as that of local sex offender Lennon Dolatowski, also known as Katie, who had been accused of sex offences in Ms Somerville’s constituency and convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old in the Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency, which I was contesting. Despite assuring me throughout the conversation that she fully understood the concerns I raised, Ms Somerville concluded by telling me in no uncertain terms that the policy approach was Nicola’s priority, so I would have to keep my views to myself. In other words, I was being told to be silent on safeguarding. I told her that I would not be able to do that—I could not be silent on the matter of safeguarding children.
Soon after that meeting, the attacks from the gender-radical wings of the SNP, the Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems began. Since 2019, and indeed before that, people who have had concerns about LGB rights and the safeguarding of children and young people have been systematically silenced, and not just by the SNP. As recognised by the Minister for Women and Equalities, and again today in the Chamber by the Secretary of State for Health, there has been a deep-rooted capture within our institutions, with senior leaders ignoring the actual law and ideologically captured groups such as Stonewall misrepresenting it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue, which we touched on in the statement earlier today. Does he agree that we have a duty to protect children of all backgrounds from the lobbying groups that abuse the system to promote a harmful ideology? For example, multinational companies such as Starbucks have supported charities such as Mermaids. It is time that those types of charities, which advocate for those as young as 14, rethink their charitable endeavours. Charities should instead help to protect our children, who must be left alone. Let kids be kids.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I made this point earlier today during in the statement, but the tentacles and influence of Stonewall need to be rooted out of every institution across these islands. It has been my long-held view that the agenda that Stonewall has pushed has seen queer theory-based policies insinuate their way into every public body—
Neale Hanvey
I will go back a step. Stonewall has pushed queer theory-based policies into every public body, including in policing, education, and health, and even on to the Floor of the House of Commons, where straight women tell gay men to get back in their closet. The decision by Stonewall to add the T and incorporate cross-dressing heterosexual males under the wide banner of “trans”, or the more recently added “Q+”, was directly responsible for the elevation of concern among LGB people, women and transsexuals.
The damage done by Stonewall has been immeasurable. LGB people, women and transsexuals have all been subjected to vitriolic attacks from queer-theory activists who hide their vicious and vindictive mob behaviour behind hashtags such as BeKind. I could give a roll call of those who have stood up to that mob, or been dragged through the media and the courts for vexatious purposes, but I would be on my feet all week.
I also want to put on the record that the Labour party leadership needs to come out of hiding on this issue. The shadow Health Secretary’s recent Damascene moment of realisation does not mask the continued silence from the Leader of the Opposition, nor quell the ideological contingent of the parliamentary Labour party. That is not good enough in a general election year. People across these islands need to know that this nightmare is coming to an end before they cast their vote. I am encouraged by the emergence of sex equality and equity networks—known as SEENs—across the public sector, which challenge this harmful ideological capture. Silence will not cut it.
This indoctrination is causing very real and lasting damage, but the impact on those of us who spoke up has been nothing in comparison to the evil of medical malpractice visited on many vulnerable young people. Many of them were just lesbian, gay or bisexual, or young people dealing with trauma, mental health issues or neurodivergence, or in the care system. As Sex Matters, now a recognised human rights charity, has highlighted:
“A false global consensus around a ‘gender affirming’ approach has emerged because of ideological actors putting their individual belief-systems ahead of the protection of distressed young people, many of whom are lesbian, gay and bisexual.”
The WPATH files shone a light on the lack of evidence to support so-called gender-affirming care, and the ideological bias of documents masquerading as clinical standards. Tragically for children in the UK, WPATH’s standards of care have been extremely influential in shaping NHS protocols since 2011. Young people and many others have been badly failed.
The Cass review must be the final nail in the coffin for a “gender-affirming” model of care for gender-distressed children. Dr Cass builds on the concerns set out in the WPATH files report, which lifted the lid on the culture inside the World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare. The Cass report also criticises WPATH guidelines as lacking in evidence and developmental rigour, and emphasises the vital need for fully informed consent, especially for young people with mental health conditions or other diagnosable co-morbidities.
I would ask the Minister to consider, and discuss with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, an urgent package of investment in child and adolescent mental health services as a starting point. That WPATH’s unscientific standards of care guidelines have repeatedly been lauded by Governments as international best practice is another issue of deep concern, and I ask the Minister if he will commit to looking into the reasons why that was allowed to happen.
Dr Cass dismisses any notion that puberty blockers or hormones have any part in standard treatment for under-18s. The report explicitly states that the medical pathway will not be right for most young people with gender distress:
“the focus on the use of puberty blockers for managing gender-related distress has overshadowed the possibility that other evidence-based treatments may be more effective… clinicians have told us they are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.”
Dr Cass decisively refutes the idea that suicide prevention is a reason for medicalising gender distress in youth:
“It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.”
Gender distress has been treated within the NHS in a way that is different from other sorts of distress, to the detriment of vulnerable children.
The Cass review definitively shows that young people with gender distress have been badly let down by those who claim to be protecting them. It substantiates what so many, including Hannah Barnes and Helen Joyce, have argued: that gender-affirming care is not underpinned by a credible or developed evidence base. It leads to sub-optimal outcomes and the diagnostic overshadowing of complex underlying health and social issues. Dr Cass emphasises that there has been undue ideological influence on healthcare decision making, specifically noting a suppression of evidence and a rush to medicalise vulnerable young people.
This has been facilitated close to home in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, too. Carolyn Brown, a retired depute principal educational psychologist for Fife Council, said in The Sunday Post this weekend:
“The same harmful ideologies identified in the Cass report have been happening across Scotland for years now as senior officials in health, education and social work failed to listen to concerned voices and adopted the ‘Three Wise Monkeys’ attitude while vulnerable children were harmed…
Many children going through puberty do question their gender, their identity and their bodies. That’s just part of growing up. The danger comes when officials affirm those questionings and tell a child they can change their gender. This is ethically and morally irresponsible as well as psychologically harmful and more likely to compound the mental health issues the child already has and reinforce the child’s self-perception that he/she really is trans.”
According to queer theory extremists, these children were born in the wrong body.
Once again, I commend the bravery and strength of those who have de-transitioned and have had the courage to tell their stories—Keira Bell, Ritchie Herron and Sinead Watson and those yet to find their voice. It is a double scandal that we do not know how many other young people have been affected, and whose lives have been irreversibly altered, by medical malpractice. These young people were exceptionalised and subjected to life-altering treatments without due regard for safeguarding, and they were denied the necessary follow up expected in every other sphere of clinical practice.
The cohort of Gender Identity Development Service patients was disproportionately made up of girls. Prior to the publication of the Cass review, Tavistock whistleblower Dr David Bell spoke of young LGB people, especially lesbians, having their sexuality “transed away,” yet it is women’s voices that have been sidelined the most, and none more so than the voice of lesbians.
It will not have escaped the few people left in the Chamber that I am not, and never can be, a lesbian, so I turned to lesbian activists in Scotland to give me their perspective on the impact that Stonewall’s queer theory practices have had on their life. These are their words:
“It has become very difficult to exclude men from lesbian spaces, especially if those spaces, events, or groups are advertised publicly. Males are demanding access to lesbians for dating, and to shame, bully or threaten lesbians who refuse. This has had the effect of driving lesbian culture underground, which means it is very difficult for young or isolated lesbians to make connections…
Young lesbians tell us that they are under a great deal of pressure to accept men in their spaces and as romantic partners. Some of the lesbians in the group have been pressured to identify as trans because of their same-sex attraction… The campaigns around Gender ideology legislation has emboldened homophobes, who make lesbians feel that there is something shameful or bigoted about our sexual orientation. Lesbians who assert their sexual boundaries are described as being obsessed with genitals or as having a ‘fetish’ or ‘kink’.”
This is undeniable and unacceptable homophobia.
In Scotland, the Sandyford clinic is continuing with these discredited hormone treatments, and to date the Scottish Government have persisted with the claim that this amounts to “international best practice”. That is a claim we now know to be manifestly false and worthless.
As highlighted by the LGB Alliance, Dr Cass found that 89% of girls and 81% of boys referred to GIDS were ultimately not trans but were homosexual or bisexual. That indicates an alarming pattern of misdiagnosis and inappropriate, unnecessary and irreversible medical and surgical interventions, and confirms what many have feared: that the NHS GIDS’ adoption of gender affirmation as a model of care has led to their, whether inadvertently or not, practising medical and surgical gay conversion therapy. It is incoherent to put sexual orientation and gender identity under the same conversion therapy umbrella. Parliament should not legislate in this area until sound clinical evidence on the best model of care has been properly developed and validated.
In a letter to First Minister Humza Yousaf raising my concerns about so-called “trans-inclusive conversion therapy”, which we now know is gay conversion therapy, I made the following point:
“Legislating to compel belief in gender ideology runs counter to provisions in the Equality Act 2010 put beyond doubt by the Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others ruling. Forcing an ideology or belief on others...would transform the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscals Service into a pseudo-theocratic enforcement agency and would thus preclude any notion of receiving a fair trial. ”
The Scottish Government, under Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf, have abandoned any pretence they are upholding their public sector equality duty, putting women, children and LGB people at risk. They have been warned repeatedly, but they called such concerns invalid and went ahead anyway. This place must not do the same.
Both First Minister Humza Yousaf and Ms Somerville have defended the introduction of non-statutory schools guidance, enabling non-expert teachers to affirm and enable the so-called “social transitioning” of minors in the absence of parental involvement or consent, but in a landmark legal opinion, human rights barrister Karon Monaghan concludes that schools and councils using such an approach are very likely to be in breach of equality and human rights legislation, and at risk of being sued by excluded parents. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) noted recently, both the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 are reserved matters, so the same risk of litigation should hold true in Scotland. There is little personal or professional protection for an activist teacher, given that this guidance is non-statutory, so the personal repercussions could be significant if they are pursued directly by excluded parents.
All of those warnings were stated long before the Cass report was published, but the virulent opposition to reason fostered and facilitated by Stonewall’s ideological capture across our public sphere has kept too many silent about the unfolding tragedy. Last week, I wrote to the Clerk of the House setting out in detail the legal and political incongruence and substantiated risk of harm from ropey ideologically-driven legislation. Therefore, I am seeking confirmation from the Minister that any such legislation will be excluded from the upcoming Criminal Justice Bill—I am referring to new clause 37—given the weight of evidence that Dr Cass has published about the dangers of embedding such practice in statute.
When I read the Cass Report and contrast its findings with the meticulous follow-up so carefully developed and provided to the children and young people I cared for during their cancer journey, it makes me furious and ashamed that clinicians could ever behave in such a cavalier manner. The LGB and other vulnerable young people who went to GIDS were subjected to life-altering treatments, only to be cast aside without follow-up. That must never be allowed to happen again—it is unethical and unprofessional, and the damage inflicted is, frustratingly, unknown. The evidence contained in the Cass report and the WPATH files is incontrovertible: in more than 80% of cases, gender-affirming “care” is gay conversion therapy.
Ending the routine prescribing of hormone supressing treatments is very much to be welcomed, but I wish to press the Minister further on the steps the Government will take to ensure that clinicians operating in private clinical practice and online pharmacies adhere to the NHS clinical guidelines issued by NHS England. This is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Justice and the equality hub to work on in concert.
What further steps will the Government take to ensure that private clinics and online pharmacies are not able to circumvent these clinical guidelines? What sanctions and enforcement measures will be put in place? Will the Minister make it clear that never again will services for children and young people be exceptionalised in the way that they have been, and that Dr Cass’s recommendations will be implemented in full so that healthcare, clinical practice and equalities will be based on evidence, the best interests of every child and young person, and clinical expertise?
In closing, I agree with Dr Cass that LGB and gender non-conforming young people “deserve very much better”. Members of this House no longer have any excuse to look the other way or to hide.
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
I thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) for securing this important debate. He has raised a number of very serious issues. As he will understand, we are still considering a lot of them, so I may not be able to go into too much detail at this moment, but I will be more than happy to write to him and update him on progress in each area.
I completely agree with him on the need for us always to think about the safeguarding of children and young people, regardless of whether they are LGBT. We need to ensure we uphold our obligations in that regard. We welcome much in the Cass report—it is a comprehensive report. As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said to the House earlier, we will be considering and responding to a lot of points made in the report in due course. Much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that we need evidence-based decisions, which will clearly be incredibly important.
As I have mentioned at the Dispatch Box a number of times, this debate sometimes gets toxic, which does not help anybody. There are strong views on all sides of the debate, but for me it is really important that we base the debate on evidence and ensure we are careful in the way that we articulate our arguments. There are people out there, particularly young people, who will listen to some of those words and feel very affected and pressurised, in whatever direction that may be.
That is why the Government and I are committed to improving the outcomes of young people, especially recognising that LGBT young people can face very specific challenges, which may include bullying at school, an increased risk of mental health issues, which the hon. Gentleman alluded to, difficult family environments or, occasionally, even homelessness as a result of their sexuality. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the other equality hub Ministers and I regularly engage with our counterparts across Government Departments on these important issues.
To help achieve the goal of improving outcomes for LGBT people, we have ensured that spending for children and young people’s mental health services has increased. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise that important point. We have increased spending from £841 million in 2019-20 to just over £1 billion, but I will ensure that I write to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to raise the points that the hon. Gentleman has made this evening.
Neale Hanvey
The Minister has raised the issue of mental healthcare for young people, including child and adolescent mental health services, which is extremely important to me. I wish to reflect on the statement that was made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and some of the comments that came from the Opposition decrying the long waiting lists for good services. I would just like to make this point: in this area, there is an attrition rate of upwards of 80% of young people. Most of those were on a waiting list for a long time, during which they worked out that they were just lesbian, gay or bisexual, so they did not go through with the surgical medical treatments. Does he not agree that those long waiting lists may have saved some young people from the harm that has been inflicted on others, and that the focus now needs to be on CAMHS funding to make sure that young people get the mental health support they need before they make these irreversible and irrevocable decisions?
Stuart Andrew
That is exactly why the Cass report is so important. It is very carefully considered, and the Government now need to take the time to consider our response. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right: when young people are deciding to come out or are wondering whether they are lesbian or gay, they should have the support that they need to help them to do that. We recognise that some may not have the sort of family support that I was fortunate enough to enjoy. I am blessed with an amazing family who were very supportive of me, but I do recognise that that is not the case for many others. The hon. Gentleman has made some important points and, as I committed to a moment ago, I will ensure that I write to my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care with the questions that he raises.
It is important to point out that we work in partnership with the Department for Education as well, because we need to ensure that there is plenty of work going on in the anti-bullying arena. The hon. Gentleman alluded to some of the pressures that the people he has spoken to have felt. That is why we have allocated a further £3 million of funding, divided between five anti-bullying organisations, to tackle bullying in school. That is on top of the £4 million that has already been spent in this area since 2016, and this includes projects that specifically target anti-LGBT hate-related bullying.
In October 2022, we launched a victim support service for anyone affected by, or at risk of, conversion practices, regardless of sexual orientation, sex or transgender identity, and the helpline is there to provide support and information to anyone over the age of 13. As I have said on many occasions, conversion practices are not a one-way street. Conversion practices—changing somebody from what they believe they are to something else—are, in my view, abhorrent and clearly wrong. As I say, it can go either way, and it is really important that we acknowledge that.
I have also done a lot of work on homelessness. I have seen so many instances of young people who find themselves in these challenging areas ending up homeless. That could be because of that lack of family support that I mentioned or because of mental health issues. That is why last year I and the Minister responsible for homelessness convened a roundtable for local authorities and charitable organisations to ensure that we provide tailored support for LGBT people, which is something that we take incredibly seriously.
The hon. Member also mentioned the issues in Scotland. It would not be responsible for me to answer on the Scottish Government’s behalf, and I do not want to do that. But in terms of what we are doing here, we want to ensure that children are prepared for life in modern Britain, and they need to understand the world in which they are growing up. That is why the statutory guidance states that all pupils should receive teaching on LGBT content during their school years, including in secondary schools.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is a good sport, as always. Just for clarity on the issues in Scotland, the fundamental question is about the implementation and observation of responsibilities in the Equality Act 2010 and upholding the Human Rights Act, which are both reserved matters. In particular, the public sector equality duty has been an issue across a whole range of public bodies, not least the Scottish Government, who seem to have their own, perhaps Stonewall, view of how that should be interpreted. It is incumbent on all of us to refocus on the fundamental principles contained within that duty.
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the issues in regard to the Equality Act. This can get quite complex and I would be terrified of saying the wrong words at the Dispatch Box, but if he allows me, I will write to him with a few more details on those important points.
I was talking about the processes in the statutory guidance. Our colleagues in the Department for Education are reviewing the statutory guidance and we expect that to go out to public consultation later this year. The review has been informed by an independent expert panel, which brought together inputs from health, curriculum and safeguarding. We hope that that will be a good piece of work that provides updates on the guidance.
As for guidance relating to gender-questioning students, the hon. Member will be aware that the Department for Education published comprehensive draft guidance for teachers on how best to support pupils questioning their gender in schools. Parents, teachers and school leaders were encouraged to respond to that 12-week consultation, which closed on 12 March. A range of views will be considered, and I look forward to the publication of the consultation response as we continue to work in this sensitive area. It is important that we get that absolutely right and that parents are involved; that is incredibly important.
I feel like I have not given the hon. Member a million answers at this stage, but I hope he will understand that we have just had the Cass report, and it is important that we take the time to consider it. We are going through the review of the guidance that I mentioned. It is important that those proper processes take place. On the other issues that he has raised, I will write to my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care, and I will update him when I have had a response.
In the meantime, I thank the hon. Member for raising this important area of work. My view is that we all want to help people to live their lives as they wish, without prejudice or pressure, and there is a responsibility on all of us in this House to do that in a way that is humane and compassionate. I am grateful for the opportunity to outline what we are doing as a Government to support that.
Question put and agreed to.
Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill
Neale Hanvey ExcerptsFriday 1st March 2024
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill 2023-24 View all Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I totally agree. Everyone in the House will know that I am not immune to getting stuck into this debate. We have had sparring partners across the Chamber on these issues, but that has led us nowhere. It has led to the delay itself and given a green light to many who think this practice might now be acceptable, rather than the abhorrence we all think it to be.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The hon. Gentleman makes the important and strong inference that this is a commonplace occurrence. Will he give some evidence of the distribution of conversion practices, their incidence, and who is being affected? What is the true data on the matter?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I will come to exactly that in a moment, but the hon. Member makes valid points that we should address.
Some were worried when I was drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot that I would produce, as one Whip put it, a “batshit crazy” Bill. Others were worried that I would produce a Bill that would not stop this practice and would have too many loopholes. But after months of meetings, quiet conversations, going on BBC “Politics Live”, offering a meeting to anyone who wanted one and meeting colleagues across this House, all with different views, I hope that the words of the same Whip, saying “Blimey, he’s actually produced something quite sensible” will ring in the ears of everyone in this debate.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I am often asked why I fight for a ban on conversion therapy. People say, “Surely there must be some personal connection. Surely you must have some personal history,” but I do not. In fact, there is no one in my family who is LGBT; we may be the only family in the UK without someone who is LGBT. The reason I do it is because fundamentally, as a Conservative, I have a duty to defend individual freedoms. I believe that the state should stay out of people’s lives, but it should protect the most vulnerable—defend those who others seek to harm, and recognise that the first and foremost duty of any Government is to protect their people.
This is not some woke frontier for politicians to weaponise for clickbait, and I am shamed by the debate that is increasingly taking place on conversion therapy. I remember the first debate I secured in this place on conversion therapy. It was moderate; we sat and debated the intricacies of legislation that was not yet there. Unfortunately, that has changed.
People in positions of trust are abusing those who they tell they are sinful, broken and need correcting, which causes lifelong hate. There are survivors in this place—in Parliament. The reason I fight so hard is that so many LGBT colleagues do not feel that they can come here and be labelled as fighting for themselves. They should be free to do that, but sometimes they cannot, and—do you know what?—allyship matters. We have a duty in this place to not impose our own personal views on things, but recognise that our rights—potentially to religious freedoms—can be protected while we also protect those who live a life different from ours.
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Lady has made a really important point about LGB people coming to this place and feeling safe to argue their position on this important matter. I have experienced the most horrendous bullying in this place because I take a contrary view, or a more guarded view, than some in the LGB community. In fact, people in the LGB community are often referred to as “bigots”, “transphobes” and other slurs just because we have concerns about legislation such as this and want to make sure that young LGB people are protected —and trans people. Does the hon. Lady agree that that rule must apply to all sides of any debate, not just to the side that she favours?
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, but there was one letter missing in his LGB: the letter T. We do not divide the LGBT community in this place. Members can say that they have concerns about what we are doing, but by removing the T, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that transgender people do not exist. He is suggesting that they are less than other LGB people, and I will not stand for that, because it was trans people who stood with gay people at Stonewall; it was trans people who fought alongside them for LGB rights. I will happily discuss the intricacies of legislation with the hon. Gentleman, but when he chooses to eradicate, that is wrong.
Elliot Colburn
As my hon. Friend well knows, there was no definition offered at the time, but that is exactly what this Bill attempts to do: to bring forward a definition.
I want to pick up on a point that has been made a number of times. A number of colleagues have suggested that there is an epidemic of people being forced to be gay or being forced to be trans. This is a two-way Bill —it does it in both directions.
Neale Hanvey
Does the data that the hon. Gentleman refers to come from the self-referral survey administered at Pride marches? That is not really research but a survey. Does he think that a survey conducted in that way is sufficient to inform legislation?
Elliot Colburn
The survey was only the start. It has been backed up by research commissioned by the Government two years ago. It has also been backed up by a number of independent organisations, including the NSPCC, Mind and Galop, which have had calls about it. We have the data to show it is happening. The idea that people would phone a support service such as the NSPCC and pretend that they are being offered conversion therapy is, I am afraid, for the birds.
I agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) about how we are perceived in this place. I thought back to when this House debated same-sex marriage in 2012. I listened to the debate, obviously not as a Member of Parliament, and I remember how powerless I felt then as a young gay man having my future and my rights discussed by a group of people. I had nothing to do but sit and watch and listen to some awful things. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said, that is necessary in a free and democratic society. The Bill does not seek to curtail free expression via legitimate conversations, but we have evidence that harm is being done to people and we do not have the laws in place to prevent it.
Elliot Colburn
I am sorry, but my hon. Friend seems to have forgotten the point: this is the first time we are debating a Bill. We have failed because we have taken five years to arrive at a position where we can actually debate legislation. That is the failure. We passed Brexit faster than we have discussed this!
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. The fundamental problem is that we have not been able to define the problem. There is anecdotal data from a survey that suggests that some people have reported that they have been subjected to what they define as conversion therapy, but we do not know what it is. It is not defined. What exactly are we legislating about?
I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman another question. I listened very carefully to his view on other people talking about his sexuality. Does he think it is acceptable for a gay man to be told across this Chamber what he should do, how he should define himself and who he should associate himself with? Does he feel that that is homophobic?
Elliot Colburn
I do not think anybody should be told what they should do. That is the entire reason I am backing the Bill. I totally accept that there will be people who will never, ever believe that LGBT+ identities are real or valid. I do not agree with that, and I and other people can find that hurtful, but that is what we have to accept in a free and democratic society.
I have been part of these conversations now for many years and I have seen the incredible work that has gone in to work across the divide to try to bring people together. I saw myself, when I sat on the Women and Equalities Committee and we conducted an inquiry into this issue, how much agreement there was between different sides about what needs to be done, especially on improving the provision of healthcare and mental healthcare. They might have different ideas on outcomes. For example, some people might think we need to improve healthcare for younger people so they do not go down a route of being trans, while other people might think we need to do that because waiting lists are too long and we want to get people on a course of treatment faster.
Both those views are, of course, absolutely valid. As parliamentarians and as individuals, we have to accept views that we do not agree with. I totally accept, as I have said, that there will be people who never think that my right to exist as a gay man is valid or that trans identities are valid. That might be upsetting and difficult for people to accept, but that is what happens in a free and democratic society, and the Bill does not encroach on that.
I want to come back to the legal test of “predetermined outcome”, as that is where we must focus. That legal test provides the safeguards necessary to address both those sets of concerns, so that we can get to a place where if someone embarks on a course of action that has a predetermined outcome to change someone’s identity, we have a legal mechanism to deal with that, but we also provide the freedoms for people to express views, to engage in legitimate conversation and, yes, to say things that other people might find distasteful and hurtful. We just have to accept that that is the case, but this is what good law is all about.
I hope that colleagues allow the Bill through to Committee. There have been many discussions of what constitutes conversion therapy and how we define these concepts. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown was right to use existing legal concepts, but we must be allowed to get the Bill through to Committee so that we can have this discussion in greater detail, because so far all we have heard is anecdote; we have had debates, but we have never had discussion on an actual legislative proposal. That is the opportunity we have today and it would not be right to let the Bill fall at this hurdle. We need to get it through to Committee so that we can thrash this matter out in more detail.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Let me begin by telling a little story that may surprise some Members who have made assumptions and judgments about my position on policies of this type.
When my party leader, Alex Salmond, introduced equal marriage to Scotland, it was done in a collaborative and supportive way, involving proper engagement with all members of the community. All the Churches were involved, through an assembly process. It was a smooth and positive campaign that delivered real, meaningful change. I have not availed myself of it, because I am happy to stick with the old-style civil partnership—my partner and I are very comfortable with that—but for those who want a marriage ceremony, it is brilliant.
After the introduction of equal marriage at the beginning of 2015, the Equality Network, which had led the campaign for it, organised a consultation on what the priority should be for equalities campaigning in Scotland. So I trundled off to Edinburgh on a cold dark March evening to sit in a room with a large group of people—transexual people, transgender people and gay people. I was the only politician who had turned up on that cold evening, and I was full-throated in my support for advancing disability and inclusion rights and the rights of transgender people. What I had never signed up for, however, was the insinuation of queer theory into the rights movement and the equality movement, and the pernicious effect that it would have. I had not realised how dangerous and disruptive that movement was until I spoke up, very politely, and said a simple thing: “Women are not being listened to in the trans debate.”
The response that stemmed from that simple statement of absolute fact has been horrific. People describe me as gender critical, but I am not transphobic—absolutely not. I have led my local Pride march for two years, I have introduced safe spaces for trans people, and I have relationships and friendships with people who are transgender and transexual. However, when I look at a policy through the lens of someone who has been involved in safeguarding and child protection throughout his professional life and I see a risk in that policy, it is my duty to point that out to legislators and to say, “This is dangerous.”
The reason I have brought that up and the reason it is relevant to the debate—I am coming to that; I can see that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) is getting anxious—is that this policy does not sit in isolation from queer theory. It is part of the queer theory movement, and despite all the reassurances and despite the hon. Gentleman’s best efforts—and I believe that his speech and his engagement have been entirely sincere—he cannot divorce what he is attempting to do with this legislation from the activists who will have a very different reading of the words that he has spoken today, and the reassurances that he has given us. That is my great fear and concern.
I have risen to oppose the Bill not despite but because of the fact that I am a gay male who can see the dangers that it presents to gender non-conforming young people. I came out in the 1980s, when being gay was not fashionable and people could still be sacked for it, with no recourse or redress in employment law. In those days, my greatest allies were women: Women in the Workplace, the feminists who volunteered alongside me at Scottish AIDS Monitor, the women who worked alongside me in schools delivering drug and sexual health education to young people in response to the particular AIDS problem that we had in Edinburgh, and the women who walked alongside me on Pride marches. I remember that, and I value it.
It is so sad that the cause of improving the lives of transgender and transsexual people in the UK has been blighted by a campaign that can be described as, at best, divisive and aggressive. My family and I have been subjected to the full force of that campaign, which is the problem with this Bill. I believe the intentions of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown are genuine, but it is against a backdrop of queer theory activists and heterosexual people telling me how I should define myself and what I should accept as a gay man. That is unacceptable. It is homophobia, and I do not care what anyone says.
Balancing rights and protections requires the consideration of every affected community, and every affected category within each community. Despite what is often said, neither queer theory nor gender ideology is about inclusion or diversity. It is an anarchic, authoritarian movement, the purpose of which is to disrupt and silence. Speaking up has not been easy, and the impact on my family has been enormous.
As a voter, I want to vote for a politician who I believe is telling me the truth. I do not want to vote for a politician who lies to me, who says that black is white or that Y is X. That will never be acceptable, which is why I feel a responsibility to live up to that standard. I have made this point before, but conversion therapy bans are part of a slate of policies which, in my view, are intended to insinuate queer theory into every facet of our culture and to control and limit freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The clearest example is that I am somehow not same-sex attracted but same-gender attracted, and that I should therefore accept trans-identifying females as an acceptable partner. Thankfully, that is never going to happen because my partner and I have been together for 30 years and there is no way that will change—I do not have the energy to think about it.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I try to listen carefully to these debates, and each time I learn much that is new. The hon. Gentleman brings a perspective to this debate that is completely outside my own experience, for which I thank him. He makes an important point about inclusivity, and I want to understand the implications. Is he saying that this Bill is effectively promoting an exclusivity, and that it is not inclusive? By describing the slate of queer theory policy, is he saying that this Bill would be unintentionally harmful well beyond its actual scope?
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will address some of those complex issues.
If we look at the Bill through a utilitarian lens, there is a desire to protect the few, which is a laudable and noble aim, but it would limit the freedoms of so many and would potentially inflict serious criminal harm upon them because of a lack of foresight of the consequences of some of the proposals.
As a counterpoint, and this speaks to events that have happened today, can Members imagine a circumstance in which it would be remotely acceptable for me to lecture my partner about how he should feel when somebody expresses a racist view towards him, how he should manage it and how he should respond to it? I would never presume to do that as that is absolutely not my place. By the same token, it is not anyone’s place to lecture women or LGB people, or force-team them with others and say, “You must campaign with them. You must accept their demands.” That is what queer theory is doing to our society
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is making a really important speech. Is it not extraordinary how that demand that was made of him, and that is made all the time, is done under the guise of freedom? It is said that it is an assertion of liberty, and a protection of individual rights and free speech. Is it not a bizarre inversion of truth when those sorts of arguments are made?
Neale Hanvey
That is a really important point. That campaign is supposed to be about equality and inclusivity, but one of its main activities is to find people to exclude, dox, deplatform, cast aside and force out of their jobs. How is that inclusion? How does that win anyone over to the noble aim of preventing harm? Harm can be prevented through legislation that is already in place, whether that is the Equality Act 2010 or statutes that deal with torture and abuse. The legislation is already there, so what exactly are we trying to fix? I cannot understand what that is. There is a shiny Bill here that says that conversion therapy is bad—of course it is bad; nobody disagrees with that. The Bill will not solve that. In fact, it will probably make it a whole lot worse.
Miriam Cates
The hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant speech and laying out not just what the Bill could do, but the background and culture against which we are speaking. He is right that the Bill would interfere with people’s freedom and freedom of expression. Does he also agree that it would interfere with fundamental human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights? The Bill, even with the suggested amendments, would interfere with some of the basic rights to freedom of speech, religion and conscience?
Neale Hanvey
I will come to that specific point and I will challenge the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown about some of his assurances that the Bill is compatible with human rights legislation because I have taken the view of a couple of King’s counsel, one of whom is a double KC, who disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment.
My experience is imbued with the naked bullying and harassment that I experienced in my political group in this place. That was not because I was transphobic or anything like that—that is a ridiculous accusation—but because I will not submit to queer theory. I will not submit to gender ideology or to anyone telling me that I am same-gender attracted because that is a nonsense. That is not the truth. It is not hyperbole to say that this type of legislation is the thin end of the wedge and it has the potential to be the most dangerous, regressive, illiberal and authoritarian policy proposal that I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. [Interruption.] If the shadow Minister, hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), wants to make an intervention, I am happy for her do so, but if she wants to mutter under her breath that is entirely up to her, but it is not a particularly great look.
This legislation is not about fixing a problem. It has the potential to actively and seriously visit harm on those it purports to protect. If it were genuine in its aims to protect LGB and T people, then we would be debating the policy proposal put forward by Sex Matters for legislation to ban modern conversion therapy, where queer theory adherents use affirmation as a vehicle for the medical and surgical conversion of many gender non-conforming young people and other vulnerable young people, wrecking their futures.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I do not believe and I have not seen evidence that modern conversion therapy is a widespread practice. However, the hon. Member must recognise that the Bill does not say that one thing is banned for the other; it says that both, if they are happening, are abhorrent and should stop. Surely he should support the Bill so that it can go to Committee and provide the safeguards he wants, because it will ban the thing that he says is an abhorrent practice?
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Gentleman made that point to me some days ago in the media, and I agree with him. I said, “I believe that you are earnestly trying to fix the problem and you are trying to reach across both sides”— I genuinely do believe that. But you cannot divorce yourself from the backdrop of queer theory activists who are causing mayhem, and will interpret, despite your reassurances and clarifications—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not address another Member directly. Please do so through the Chair.
Neale Hanvey
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The reassurances given to the Chamber will not be carried forward with activists—we know that that is not the behaviour of activists—so there is a real concern around the backdrop to the legislation. We have heard a little about a survey as evidence to support the legislation. That was a self-administered survey, so nobody could really verify the data, and anyone could have entered those figures. The definition of the reported practices is absolutely spurious—nobody knows what it means. It could be a bit of a giggle, let us be honest; people could fill the form in for any reason.
What little evidence there is of those practices has been described in a qualitative literature review conducted by Coventry University and submitted to the UK Government. It has been criticised by important rights organisations Sex Matters and the Gay Men’s Network for its narrow historical scope and its lack of relevance to the constituent countries of the UK, given that 85% of the data reviewed in that study relate to practices outwith the UK. Furthermore, it is understood in academia that a qualitative literature review is of limited use; all it really does is inform the backdrop to a piece of primary research. It is not generalisable or transferable to general populations; its purpose is to analyse a situation and come up with an idea for research. That evidence is insufficient to qualify for legislative decision making. Coupled with the survey, that data is not particularly reliable; it ignores the very real conversion therapy of queer theory affirmation. I do not think that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is seeking to mislead anyone, but I must point out the backdrop of queer theory in this context.
When it comes to fundamental freedoms and the impingement of this legislation on human rights in the United Kingdom, it is not just me and other hon. Members who have concerns, as I said earlier. Jason Coppell KC said in his written opinion for the Christian Institute:
“I consider that the Bill…if passed, would constitute a serious intrusion into the legitimate activities and practices of Christian churches and religious communities, which would be contrary to their rights protected by the ECHR, and so to the Human Rights Act 1998. They would also interfere with the legitimate expression of gender critical views, again in a manner which would be likely to breach ECHR rights.”
The Bill is “broad in scope.” It
“would apply both to practices which seek to ‘change’ sexual orientation or transgender identity and practices which seek to ‘suppress’ sexual orientation or transgender identity i.e., to change conduct.”
It
“would apply to acts which cause no injury or distress; and, indeed, to acts to which the person in question consents.”
It
“would apply across a wide range of settings, including social and religious settings (although, the Bill…would exempt at least some conduct of parents vis-à-vis their children). Whilst some attempt has been made to craft exemptions or exceptions so as to ensure that the practice of religion is not prohibited, the central prohibition in the Bill…remains a wide one, applying to churches and other religious organisations, and to those expressing certain views, including gender critical views, outside those settings.
The Bill…would, if enacted, interfere with a number of rights protected by the ECHR.”
It
“would (by way of example) restrict the ability of religious organisations to express their beliefs (both within their own communities and to the wider world) and the ability of gender-critical persons to express their beliefs to persons who profess a gender identity which is inconsistent with those beliefs. Such restrictions are likely to interfere with (at least) the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR); the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…the right to freedom of expression…and the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 ECHR)… It is very difficult to see how the wide-ranging interference with fundamental rights contemplated by the Bill…could be justified. Put shortly, the Bill…would criminalise expressions of personal conviction even if they are made without expressions of hatred or intolerance, or improper purpose or coercion, or abuse of power. Restrictions of that nature run contrary to the consistent case law of the European Court of Human Rights”.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Member is making such a long speech that we might as well have a bit of a dialogue about some of these things. Such bans have been introduced with similar assurances and clarifications in other European countries that are under the convention. Why is it that that legislation has not ended up in the European courts, but he thinks that this Bill, which is even more cautious, suddenly will? It does not make sense to me.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he needs to field that question to the King’s counsel. That is not a question I can respond to on his behalf.
Hon. Members
Neale Hanvey
Well, that is a matter of fact. If Members want to engage with the KC, please go right ahead.
Sir William Cash
Vicariously, this is about criminal law, not matters relating to the European Union’s general administrative arrangements.
Neale Hanvey
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the opinion of the King’s counsel is that enacting the legislation would have the effect of infringing those European convention on human rights freedoms that we all have every right to expect within extant legislation.
Danny Kruger
For me, the answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is that there is something about the culture of the British courts that means they use the ECHR to pursue their particular political purposes, as we see constantly. There is something about the culture of the European courts that means they do not. We are familiar with this phenomenon whereby European countries have arrangements that do not entangle the European convention on human rights or the European Court. Here in the UK, our lawyers delight in using the European Court to pursue their politics, and that is exactly what would happen in this circumstance.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which is helpful. The point I will make next is that in Scotland there was similar legislation. In a 46-page legal opinion, Aidan O’Neill KC, who is a double silk, talked about these types of proposals, which would see faith leaders and others imprisoned for up to seven years and hit by unlimited fines if convicted of involvement in so-called conversion practices. He states:
“This is perhaps best described as ‘jellyfish legislation’. The concepts it uses are impossible to grasp; its limits are wholly undefined; it contains a sting in the tail in the form of criminal sanction of up to 7 years and unlimited fines; and thus it will have an undoubted and intended effect of dissuading persons from ever even entering the now murky waters of what may or may not constitute unlawful ‘conversion practices’.”
Some have argued that there is a nervousness among some gay Members on the Government Benches that failing to support a ban would hold some equivalence to the impact of the controversial section 28 amendment introduced by the Thatcher Government in 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools. It is well understood by those of us who lived through that and opposed the legislation that it reinforced the then ubiquitous homophobia that stifled education and support for gender non-conforming young people. Thankfully, that policy was repealed in 2003 under a Labour Government, and that is a good thing. However, this proposal would undo all the value of that repeal. The effect of this Bill is much more likely to be directly comparable to the chilling effect of section 28 than in any way enhancing its repeal.
Let us consider, for example, a young gender non-conforming person who has a positive relationship with a member of the teaching staff. In the current situation, they are free to discuss and explore their emerging sexuality, and to be challenged on some of the views they hold. That is no easy conversation even in today’s context, but given that social media is full of misinformation and enticements that there is some magical, simple fix to complex problems, these are matters that a young person could choose to explore with a trusted adult or a parent. The introduction of this legislation would make that nigh-on impossible. Teachers, youth workers, nurses, doctors, social workers, church leaders and parents would be forced to think twice or refuse to entertain such a conversation, for fear of accusation and criminal prosecution.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I applaud the hon. Gentleman for his powerful and compelling speech. Parents have come to me in tears with their young adult child who had undergone transition some years earlier and has subsequently come to regret the decision. These parents are upset and distraught, as is the young person. They are filled with regret and pain, and they ask me, as their constituency MP, what I can do to help with detransition. There is really no answer to that. How does the hon. Gentleman think that parents in that very difficult situation, with a teenager experiencing gender dysphoria or exploring their sexuality, will be able to cope under this proposed law?
Neale Hanvey
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her intervention, which raises important points. They would do so with a sword of Damocles hanging over their head. They would do so with the risk that if their child wanted to be belligerent, to challenge them and push boundaries—the normal actions of any adolescent—they would be able to use that as a weapon and say, “I’ll go to the police if you don’t give me what I want.” That is the reality. That would be one of the pernicious effects of this proposed legislation. It would have a direct impact on family life and the normal functioning of the family by undermining parents’ role in providing counsel and guidance, and in testing things out with their child. Being open and able to speak freely with their child about difficult issues at the dinner table is one of the most important roles a parent has, but this would snuff out the ability to facilitate such conversations.
The Bill would affect a broad range of people and it would leave the young person at the mercy of radicalised activists and social media influencers who operate under the pseudo-theocratic rules of a doctrine that, as I have said, is chaotic, anarchic and disruptive.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Member is making an excellent and thoughtful speech. He talked earlier about how equal marriage was passed in Scotland and how many of the faith communities were brought together with the Scottish Government at the time in order to achieve that. Does he understand it is not just Christian communities that have major concerns about the Bill? In Peterborough we have a large Muslim community who are very concerned about how their work will be impacted by the Bill, and how some of the madrassahs and schools will be impacted. Does he recognise that is a challenge as well?
Neale Hanvey
Yes, that is an important point and refers back to the points made in the previous intervention. I have a very busy constituency office and I meet church leaders and different faith groups to talk about these issues. They are relieved that they have a Member of Parliament who is prepared to stand up on their behalf and ask the difficult questions. I have parents with children who are contemplating transition or who are desisting, so I deal with that.
I also have members of staff in the local health service who are finding themselves in a very difficult situation because queer theory has insinuated itself into the culture of all our institutions. The staff have no sense of privacy or dignity, and they are concerned about the privacy and dignity of their patients. That is why it is so important to name queer theory as the backdrop against which this legislation is being proposed, and my concern is that it would be the thin end of the wedge. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said that the Bill would be reviewed in four years’ time. Yes, we can have amendments and new clauses added to the legislation, but that goes both ways. The next time it is reviewed, all caveats could be removed. The full-throated queer theory doctrine could be forced into every part of our society, which is a risk that I am not prepared to leave unchallenged.
As I said, the Bill leaves young people at the mercy of radicalised activists online, and such activity is to be tolerated. There is no amendment to the Online Safety Act 2023 to prevent access to people who encourage and entice young people to sign up to irreversible medical and surgical treatments from which they can never row back. When someone stops puberty, they cannot restart it—that is it—and all the important developmental changes that happen during puberty are gone. Transitioning is not just about affirmation; it involves coercion, persuasion and unrealistic enticements, which lead young people who are living through desperately difficult times to believe that there is a quick fix for their problem.
The ideology underpinning all this is the real threat, and makes this legislation much more illiberal and much more difficult for young gender non-conforming people than section 28 could ever have been. That is the effect of this legislation: it would block therapeutic support for gender non-conforming young people and channel them, through unquestioning affirmation, into a lifetime of medical treatment and surgical limbo. We know that gender non-conforming behaviour is being used as evidence of gender dysphoria by non-experts in the classroom and in other professions. A significant finding of the Cass review was about the culture that existed at the GIDS clinic, and I ask all Members to reflect on the words of the brave detransitioners who were discarded by the “be kind” brigade of radicalised activists when they decided to desist. Kiera said:
“I became attracted to girls, but I had never had a positive association with the term ‘lesbian’ or the idea that two girls could be in a relationship. I wondered if something was wrong with me. I was adamant that I needed to transition. It was the kind of brash assertion that’s typical of teenagers. After a series of superficial conversations with social workers, I was put on puberty blockers at age 16. A year later, I was receiving testosterone shots. When 20, I had a double mastectomy. As I matured, I recognised that gender dysphoria was a symptom of my overall misery, not its cause.”
Ritchie said:
“Homophobia was rife in the local culture, my family and school and it seemed to be the worst outcome ever to end up gay. My behaviours were policed by others for being too flamboyant or eccentric, and I struggled with fitting in with others. I latched onto the idea with an unfounded zeal, and not a single medical professional stopped me thereafter. I delayed my appointment for surgery for over two years, because I had doubts. But then they gave me an ultimatum and I knew that if was not going to go through with the surgery I would have lost my therapist. As soon as I was conscious, I knew I had made the biggest mistake of my life. My sex has been lobotomised.”
That is manifestly not informed consent. It is coercive and abusive, and it breaks all ethical principles of respect for personal autonomy. We need positive LGB and T messages, not false promises that personal struggles can be fixed by mutilating surgery and experimental drugs.
But it is not just lesbian and gay young people at risk. Sinead said:
“Transitioning evangelists on the forums tell young people like me that all will be well. After cutting my long hair short and wearing men’s clothes for a year, I was put on a 12-month waiting list for treatment at a gender clinic in Glasgow. I could not believe how easy it was. What I needed was counselling to uncover why I had come to loathe my body. Instead the professionals appeared to take what I said at face value. When I said I was in the wrong sex and wanted to be a man, they agreed and prescribed me with testosterone. No one ever told me the truth: ‘You’re not a man. It’s impossible to de-sex yourself.’”
The effects on those young people have been devastating, because they were denied the help they needed.
I pay tribute to Sex Matters and the team at LGB Alliance for their invaluable work standing up for the rights of young LGB people. I want to challenge a comment that was made earlier. Being lesbian, gay or bisexual is a sexuality. That is manifestly different from being transsexual. I am not indifferent; in fact, I feel passionate about trans people being looked after properly. But to say that, in order for my identity to matter, I have to be teamed with the trans community is completely unacceptable; it is homophobic. Those organisations that I mentioned have protected young people from a tsunami of lies. I cannot put into words how strongly I feel about this. I thank Keira Bell, Ritchie Herron, Sinead Watson and every other detrans person who has had the courage to stand up and speak out. I am absolutely humbled by the experience that they have gone through and their courage to put that into words. As Keira put it:
“it was the job of the professionals to consider all my co-morbidities, not just to affirm my naïve hope that everything could be solved with hormones and surgery.”
I acknowledge that this Bill seeks to provide access to therapy and, as we mentioned a moment ago, to address affirmation conversion practices. However, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, where are the therapists? Where will they come from? Child and adolescent mental health services are already under enormous pressure. If through threat, fear or a chilling effect the trusted adults who can engage with gender-questioning young people or those who think they might be gay will be limited in who they can interface with, who will pick that up? Those young people will be left isolated, unable to speak to anyone about their sexuality. The chilling effect that this Bill risks is enormous. Where will the therapists come from?
The reality is that young people will be redirected to the quacks on social media. They will not be able to speak to a trusted adult. That risk has to be understood. The reality is that this Bill puts those it seeks to protect in harm’s way and restricts the support that they can draw on. This is the wrong legislation for young gay, lesbian and transgender people. It attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, and fosters a new, chilling homophobic culture—just like section 28.
I agree with the proposal from Sex Matters that any legislation should meet the following four policy aims: outlaw all medical or surgical treatment of minors to modify their sexual characteristics; outlaw medical surgical treatments performed on anyone who has not had the full implications of the treatment explained to them; make it a specific offence not to provide adequate information and ensure informed consent; and make it an offence to take a child abroad to get around the prohibition of modern conversion therapy. Sex Matters helpfully suggests that the legislation could use the model that was used for legislation on female genital mutilation and virginity testing.
The not-for-profit organisation the Gay Men’s Network was established to tackle modern homophobia, and I engage with it regularly. It agrees that the Bill is the extant modern conversion therapy scandal affecting gender non-conforming young people and others struggling with normal yet distressing pubertal body dysmorphia. Furthermore, the Bill risks embedding in statute the lie that gender non-conforming behaviour is evidence that some of those young people were born in the wrong body; that the normal development of puberty, which can never be restarted or repaired, should be arrested with chemicals; and that trauma or emotional distress can be fixed with cross-sex hormones or affirming the person on to an accelerated and irreversible pathway, which amounts to a policy of transing away the gay. That is wrong, and that practice must be the urgent focus. The evidence is there; it is widespread. We know of the huge explosion of referrals into GIDS, which is closing, but the service does not provide any follow-up. For lack of a better phrase, how can it do that to someone? How can it give surgical treatment and fail to follow it up? I cannot imagine that happening in any other field of medicine. It is completely unacceptable.
The Gay Men’s Network is concerned that an affirmation-only approach could easily be inserted as an amendment or a new clause if the Bill goes to Committee. Going to Committee does not mean that the Bill will be repaired; it could get worse, and we must be mindful of that.
Robin Millar
It is very generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way a second time. I am again struck by his perspective on the process of conversion, and specifically on the length of time. He is describing a situation whereby people are on a journey, making decisions and wrestling with something existential—their identity—and I wonder whether the Bill adequately addresses that. It seems to me that it addresses a one-off moment—an incident or an action, reprehensible though it may be —but does not deal with a lifetime of wrestling with one’s sexuality or sex.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Member for that observation. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said that a young person has to wait 10 years, for example, for gender reassignment surgery, but during that time they will start on puberty blockers and other such medicines, and possibly cross-sex hormones, and the damage is done. Whether they have surgery or not is pretty academic at that stage, because irreversible treatment will have been administered.
The other point I would make in response to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) is that there was an option not to introduce this Bill and move the issue forward. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown could withdraw the Bill and we could establish a process of community engagement, through community assemblies, citizens’ assemblies or something of that nature. We could thereby have the debate we should have had five or six years ago, where everybody’s voice is valued, everybody gets to have a say, the Churches are involved right at the beginning and an accommodation is found that makes this kind of practice absolutely unacceptable—there is a clear output that this will never happen, but it does not have the strand of queer theory running all the way through it. That is the real problem.
Let me move on to the document on the Bill published recently by the Gay Men’s Network, because the hon. Gentleman addressed this in some detail and it is important to respond on some of the legal points. The GMN has among its number some legal experts, including a criminal barrister and an award-winning legal academic. It makes comments about the legislation under a few headings, the first of which is
“The wide net of criminal liability in the bill”.
The document states:
“The bill provides via clause 1, 4 and the Sentencing Act 2020 that:
a. a single act
b. the purpose and intent of which
c. is to change or suppress
d. sexual orientation or transgender identity
e. be a criminal offence if not excused by a defence in clause 1(2)
We draw attention to the terms ‘suppress’, ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘transgender identity’.
‘Suppress’ in comparative Scottish proposed legislation is defined widely, it includes, for example, a concerned parent forbidding an autistic daughter from wearing a breast binder because regulation of clothing is specifically cited as an act of suppression.
This bill proposes that the terms ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘transgender identity’ mean the same as in the Sentencing Act…this is problematic because that act defined neither term. It is important to note that the meaning of ‘sex’ (and therefore sexual orientation) is not settled in law and a Supreme Court Case on the subject is pending.”
Luke Pollard
I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, but I am curious because the Bill he is referring to is not the Bill we are considering. Where is “suppress” in the Bill that we are considering? It would help me to follow his thoughts if he could help us with that.
Neale Hanvey
I have stated where it says “suppress” and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown mentioned “suppress” in his contribution.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should carry on.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman referring to clause 4 and line 10 on page 3 of the Bill, where there a specific reference:
“to suppress a sexual orientation”?
Neale Hanvey
Yes. As I was saying, the document points out that the use of the Sentencing Acts definitions is “problematic” because the definition of
“‘sex’…is not settled in law and a Supreme Court Case on the subject is pending. ‘Transgender Identity’ is similarly problematic because the concept of ‘identity’ is wider than the equivalent protected characteristic”
in the Equality Act.
The document moves on to the ineffectiveness of statutory defences, saying:
“While Clause 1(2) of the bill makes serious efforts to deal with concerns around prosecutions each defence raises serious issues in the following terms:
a. The religion defence is not a statutory defence at all because it cannot apply where a conversion practice has taken place. This means it is not an excusatory defence in criminal law.
b. The ‘approval/disapproval’ defence is vague and ‘disapproval’ is not defined
c. The ‘health practitioner’ defence is a complex three-part defence which places the ‘reverse burden’ on a Defendant. The definition of a ‘health practitioner’ at Clause 4 covers most but not all clinical roles, (unregulated therapists, counsellor, helpline operators or online forum moderators would not qualify). To rely on this defence, a health practitioner must also prove to the civil standard (i) they were complying with regulations (this term is not defined) (ii) that the action they took was reasonable and (iii) that there was no ‘predetermined outcome’. Placing reverse burdens on Defendants (particularly clinicians or similar) is generally considered to be undesirable because Defendants are not expected to prove their innocence. Legitimate clinical practice will sometimes have a predetermined outcome where a confident and clear diagnosis is made.”
I can think of examples where that would apply in clinical practice.
The document continues:
“d. The ‘assisting’ defence is unclear and undefined.
e. The ‘exploring or questioning’ defence suffers from the same flaw as the religion defence, it applies only where a conversion practice is not proved and so is not a statutory defence at all.
f. The ‘parental responsibility’ defence applies only where a person having parental responsibility (i) is exercising it and (ii) where they prove on reverse burden that the welfare of the child was their paramount consideration. As children get older parental responsibility in law is ‘exercised’ less and less. Requiring a parent to prove that welfare was not simply a consideration, but a ‘paramount’ consideration is onerous and likely impossible for a Defendant parent to prove.”
The Gay Men’s Network also addresses the human rights issues we heard about from the two KCs earlier:
“We take the view that the bill as drafted is not compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and would likely be declared incompatible with the convention for the following reasons:
Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6)
A prosecution alleging a parent supressed an identity by regulating clothing would require a parent to accept that such an identity exist. That is contrary to Article 6 which requires criminal tribunals be independent. It would also compel belief in the criminal sphere in such a concept while disbelief in such a concept is a protected characteristic in the civil sphere. That would create a serious inconsistency in law.”
That is very clear. The document continues:
“The bill leaves key terms undefined which is contrary to the Article 6 right that a Defendant understand the case against them in ordinary and clear language. The reverse burdens in clause 1(2) impose significant and onerous burdens on Defendants and in some cases do not amount to statutory defences at all.
Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8)
The bill makes significant incursions into family life by potentially criminalising parental guidance or regulation that touches on sexual orientation or ‘transgender identity’. Difficult conversations that parents have”—
as we spoke about some time ago—
“as a matter of course would potentially be criminalised. Further, a parent can only rely on the relevant defence as outlined above. This is highly likely to be viewed as significant state overreach by domestic and supra national courts.
Right to freedom of conscience (Article 9) and expression (Article 10)
This bill would significantly curtail both religious and political expression. A similar bill passed in Victoria, Australia, led to the domestic human rights body regulating public prayer. The fact that criminal liability can trigger from a single incident and the wide meaning of the term “supress” casts the net of criminal liability so widely the offence is likely to be declared incompatible with the convention.”
The document concludes:
“While the member for Brighton Kemptown has made significant efforts to deal with such concerns our position is that a bill based on the self-reported phenomenon of ‘identity’ and the wide term ‘supress’ might, despite best efforts, perversely fuel the very problem that it intends to solve.”
As I mentioned earlier, like section 28, the Bill would likely prevent a young person from securing an explorative conversation with even the most supportive and receptive trusted adult, due to its chilling effect. I have also raised the question of who would then provide the approved therapy.
Moving on to therapists, in a recent paper, educational psychologists Dr Claire McGuiggan, Dr Peter D’Lima and Lucy Robertson highlight the assumption that psychologists will be the ones who will guide the response and who have the skills to do so, but observe that psychologists are divided on this issue, too. They note the following:
“In response to the interim findings of the Cass review…the Association of Clinical Psychologists-United Kingdom…published a statement demanding a radical shift in the support for young people with gender concerns. They called for more comprehensive multi-disciplinary assessments and increased consideration of sociocultural factors, such as homophobia. The ACP-UK also strongly conveyed the uncertainty about how best to intervene related to the dearth of robust and high-quality data on the safety and effectiveness of medical transition, and the inability of clinicians to ascertain clearly who will persist or desist in their gender dysphoria…The ACP-UK statement was met with a rebuttal from a group of clinical psychologists in an open letter to the ACP-UK…They disassociated themselves from the ACP-UK response…Within educational psychology professions, however, only two educational psychologists have publicly referenced the concerns reflected in the Cass review.”
Apart from those two voices, the psychologists claim that there is silence, avoidance and suppression.
Silence: there is no response from the Association of Educational Psychologists or the Division of Educational and Child Psychology, and no guidance or caution, despite it being reported that educational psychologists are expertly placed to support trans-identified young people. Avoidance within the profession: it almost appears as if the Cass review did not happen at all, and that there is clear consensus on how best to support trans-identified youth. Their approach is affirmation, and that is the problem. Alongside that, there is suppression. That is being enacted on social media, where clear messages have been put out that if anyone asks a difficult questions, they are to be shut down and reported to the regulator and will face disciplinary action. That is the culture at the back of all of these pieces of legislation. That is the risk: professionals cannot become activists. That is happening in education and in educational psychology.
The paper led the authors to raise the fundamental position—I absolutely agree with it, and it applies to so many disciplines—that surely a healthy profession, a profession which prides itself on child-centred, evidence-based reflective practice, cannot continue to avoid, ignore or suppress the issue any longer. It must openly, explicitly and deeply engage with it. Disagreement must be tolerated and explored. The alternative is avoidance of the issue to protect educational psychologists from discomfort at the expense of the needs of children.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. I live by this quote of Thomas Sowell:
“There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young.”
It has stuck with me ever since I read it. The House needs to remember that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we can only affirm a child’s choice, to believe that they are in the wrong body, we are in a desperate situation and would be in a place where we were misleading the young? That would be absolutely tragic for every child, every parent, every teacher, every member of the clergy and every practitioner, not just in this country, but across the world.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. This is a question that every single Member of the House needs to bear in mind: what will they do in five or 10 years’ time, when a sea of people who were affirmed and rapidly put on to a pathway of irreversible treatment, come to the politicians and say, “You did this to me. You said this was okay. You made this policy. You stopped me from accessing therapy. I needed therapy”?
We have had the warning signs from Keira and others. We know that that is a real risk and we know that detransitioning is under-reported. A lot of people are out there, suffering in silence. They are not being listened to. No services are reaching out to them. They may feel completely lost and at sea. We have to think very carefully about facilitating that and putting a new tranche of young people on to that irreversible pathway.
The EPs made a really important point, and I will take up another point from the intervention of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). My professional background is in working with young people in cancer care. I worked with older paediatric patients from the ages of 11 upwards and sometimes into young adulthood. It is quite amazing how young people can accommodate some of the most difficult information. They can face challenges that would humble most of us and make well-informed decisions, but the reality is they have no choice in that situation, because they have cancer, and nobody can make that go away. I know that young people can make courageous decisions, but there is a fundamental difference between helping and guiding a young person through those types of choices and affirming a young person on an irreversible pathway of medical surgical intervention that is completely unnecessary. I cannot for the life of me understand how any professional can say, “I did a good job today because I have allowed this young person to go down this irreversible pathway,” knowing full well the later effects of those types of treatments.
All that is important, because comprehending one’s adult self as a child is different from dealing with difficult questions that cannot be avoided. While children have aspirations and ideas about who they want to be when they grow up, based on their experiences and observations, their understanding is limited by their cognitive, emotional and physical development. Proponents of queer theory often claim that Gillick competence allows all children to consent to any treatment or process, but that is a complete misunderstanding of what Gillick competence is. It is a name conferred to a legal principle established in the UK with Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority, which states that minors under the age of 16 can consent to medical treatment without parental consent if they demonstrate sufficient understanding and intelligence to comprehend the nature and implications of the treatment.
I refer back to the comments I just made: that is simply not possible, because that is not something a young person can do. Children cannot grasp the full complexities of adulthood in the way that adults can, and they do not have the ability to project themselves into their as yet unformed future adult self. However, children can still develop a sense of their future selves, which may evolve and change as they mature. The best way to deal with that is to build a relationship with them, talk about how they feel about things and themselves and have that dialogue. This legislation limits that, and that is important parenting.
Piaget’s theory of cognitive development highlights how children’s understanding of themselves and the world evolves as they mature, and other researchers have also looked into childhood development. We know the science behind all this, and the Bill gets in the way of allowing children to actualise and become their authentic selves by limiting their exploration of these important and defining facets of who they ultimately will become.
All the above leads me to my final argument: the inversion of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle. Articulated in his work “On Liberty”, it asserts that the only justification for society or the state to interfere with an individual’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. According to Mill, individuals should have the utmost freedom to act as they please, as long as their actions do not harm others. That principle rests on the idea of individual autonomy and the importance of personal liberty in a free society, and it has profound implications for the role of Government and the limits of state power. It advocates for minimal interference in the private lives of individuals, allowing them to pursue their own interests and lifestyles without undue constraint, as long as they do not infringe on the rights and wellbeing of others. The Bill unquestionably interferes with the freedoms, rights and wellbeing of everyone, including those whom it claims to protect.
Mill’s harm principle remains a cornerstone of liberal thought, emphasising the importance of individual freedom while acknowledging the need for societal constraints when harm is involved. This Bill ushers in a wholesale redefinition of the harm principle whereby it will be illegal to say the “wrong thing” even if it inflicts no perceivable harm, while simultaneously inflicting a totalitarian queer theory world view on everyone else. That is my fundamental concern about the Bill. I think it important that we address the issue, but now is the wrong time, this is the wrong Bill, and queer theory is absolutely the wrong backdrop. If we really want to protect gender non-conforming and other vulnerable young people, we should recognise that they deserve a robust defence of free speech as a basic right, essential for the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth.
Despite the sincere attempts of the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown to carve out exemptions, we simply cannot ignore the fact that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge of the introduction of queer theory doctrine into UK law, and the survival of those exemptions is contingent on their not being amended or nullified by the insertion of new clauses and amendments. This is not a ban on conversion practices; it provides the ammunition of criminal accusations for radicalised gender activists, many of whom are vociferously homophobic. Any legislation that facilitates a process to “trans away the gay” is deeply sinister and dangerous.
As I said at the outset, legislation is supposed to fix a problem, not create a new one. This proposal does real and foreseeable harm, and it should be rejected by every Member of the House and every LGB and T person who truly values the equality and the fundamental human rights of everyone. This legislation must ultimately be defeated, or we will risk depriving a generation of young LGB and T people from becoming the fabulous, vibrant and unique gender non-conforming people they have every right to be.
I will end where I began my contribution to the recent Westminster Hall debate, by quoting Kierkegaard, who said:
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I genuinely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for bringing forward this Bill. He has behaved in an exemplary way from the very beginning, and his conduct today demonstrates what a worthy proponent he is for this cause.
I will not speak for long. I did not prepare very much because I hoped for a successful closure motion, but I want to put on record my continuing support for a comprehensive ban on conversion practices. As we have heard in many speeches today, conversion practices are simply horrific, and it is utterly disappointing that this Government have, yet again, broken their repeated promises to act on these heinous practices.
What does it say about our politics that Parliament has been denied the chance to act against the heinous abuses we have heard about today?
Ms Brown
No. Do not try my patience.
I remind all colleagues that protecting the rights of LGBT+ people and advancing equality used to be seen as a shared mission across the House. As I said earlier, I was the Government Whip on the Equality Act 2010, and we worked so hard to pass a law that carefully and cautiously addressed the genuine concerns of those who opposed those measures. There were disagreements but, with real effort, we built cross-party support. I honestly believe that we can do the same with this Bill today.
When we debated the Equality Act, people could see that our common aim was to protect the vulnerable and to help all our communities live better together. Even a few years ago, however much we argued about the detail, most of us believed that progress was being made on equality in the UK and globally. That shared understanding was the basis for the Conservative Government’s welcome pledge to ban conversion practices.
Sadly, it seems that we are losing even the aspiration to work together on improving everyone’s life. Instead, the media narrative and our politics are driven by attempts to stoke division. Frankly, I now get emails from LGBT+ constituents whose understandable emotions are often fear and panic.
I know that the issues we are discussing today are far from simple, and I have received many impassioned messages from constituents with many different views, which makes it important for us to start with compassion and common sense. I believe that we can find our way through the disagreements and distortions about the scope of the Bill, as we have on many previous equality issues. Given that the Government’s agenda has completely stalled, I had hoped that Ministers would make a commitment today to work in good faith with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown on this Bill but frankly, given today’s shenanigans, I am not holding my breath. It could not be clearer that some Conservative Members would rather pursue their politics of divisive culture wars than engage.
I know that many Conservative Members recognise the damage that is being done to our country by all this division, and want to put compassion and solidarity with victims first. That is what I stood for today, that is what I voted for today, and that is why I supported my hon. Friend’s Bill.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend brings me to my next point, which he has just made very powerfully. The existing law already protects gay and trans people from verbal and physical abuse, much as he set out. The offensive and abhorrent practices that we are talking about but cannot yet evidence include corrective rape, electroshock therapy, forced marriage, screaming in the face, holding down while praying, threats of physical violence, harassment, coercive or controlling behaviour, and other physical and verbal abuse. However, all such activity is already criminal under myriad laws, ranging from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. There is a long list, which I do not have time to go through.
Neale Hanvey
I want to make a swift point. A whole range of legislation is in place to manage many of the concerns that have been voiced across the Chamber, and no one is in any way suggesting that we support them—I certainly do not support conversion practices—but any legislation that looks at this has to have absolute precision about what exactly it is addressing. The problem with the Bill is that it is so wide in scope and it replicates legislation that is already in place. We need to look at what the current legislation covers, look for the gap and, if it does exist, then legislate precisely to address the problem.
Suella Braverman
The hon. Gentleman puts that incredibly well. It reminds me of Edmund Burke, who said:
“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”
Bad laws make bad customs, and in this place we want to avoid good people making bad laws. I am afraid that the coverage by the legislation of all sorts of horrendous behaviour that is being talked about means that there is no good reason for it. It is a bad law.
Excess Death Trends
Neale Hanvey Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Time is tight, so I will cut to the chase. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for his courage and determination on this important matter. I also challenge the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) on his assertion that these were so-called experts at that meeting. They are world-renowned experts in their field; that is just a matter of observable fact.
I want to focus on the safe use of novel mRNA agents and on concerns over their alleged role in driving excess deaths. I repeat a point that I have made previously in this place and directly with the Minister: any agent has the potential to cause harm or injury to the subject. For the avoidance of doubt, the position I have taken is based on decades of involvement in the management and delivery of clinical trials. Politicians who dismiss the data and emerging clinical evidence are acting in a wholly irresponsible manner, and posing a real threat to the duties of honesty and candour at the heart of good clinical practice. If substantiated, the concerns surfacing around falsified or concealed data are the most serious that I can imagine.
Sir George Howarth
The hon. Member is defending the “experts”, but has he actually checked their backgrounds? Has he checked the criticisms and the fact that, in some cases, they have had their medical practitioner status withdrawn?
Neale Hanvey
I am not going to get into the detail of that; I have far too little time and too many important points to make. I have worked in the same institution as Professor Dalgleish, and his credentials are impeccable.
Addressing this matter is necessary because we are talking about the standards on which good clinical practice, or GCP, is based. GCP is not about a nice bedside manner or knowing what treatment to prescribe; it is a set of internationally recognised ethical and scientific requirements, which must be followed when designing, conducting, recording and reporting on clinical trials that involve people, and have their origin in the declaration of Helsinki.
The rights, safety and wellbeing of trial subjects are the most important consideration, which should prevail over interests of science and society, including commercial or political interests, and I will conclude with a reflection on that important principle. The foundation of good clinical practice is under threat. In their December 2023 pathology research and practice paper on gene-based covid-19 vaccines, Rhodes and Parry gave the following warning:
“Pandemic management requires societal coordination, global orchestration, respect for human rights and defence of ethical principles. Yet some approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by socioeconomic, corporate, and political interests, have undermined key pillars of ethical medical science.”
None of these clinical experts are quacks or conspiracy theorists. As the Government said so often during the pandemic, we must follow the science.
Maria Caulfield
The public inquiry is independent, and the Government are under heavy scrutiny from it. It is not for me to say how the inquiry should be conducted. As a Government, we are looking at the causes of excess deaths and introducing, where we can, urgent measures to reverse that increase as quickly as possible.
No vaccine or medicine—even simple paracetamol—is completely risk free, but we have systems in place to continually monitor the safety of our medicines. For example, in April 2021, following concerns raised through the yellow card system or by GPs or clinicians, the MHRA reacted to rare cases of concurrent thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following the AZ vaccine. That resulted in actions, with adults under 30 not offered the vaccine any further. In May of that year, that was extended to adults under 40. Where there is concern, we will take action and take recommendations from bodies like the MHRA to make sure that those vaccines are as safe as they can be.
Neale Hanvey
The Minister knows as well as I do that the yellow card scheme sits at the heart of safe clinical care, but allegations are circulating that the MHRA is sitting on 50 times more yellow cards related to the covid-19 vaccine than those related to any other vaccine that have been reported to it. Will she commit to asking the MHRA to account for that and to taking urgent action if, indeed, it is sitting on the yellow card system reports?
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Minister, please leave some time for the Member in charge to wind up.
Gender Recognition
Neale Hanvey Excerpts(12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch
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.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It infuriates me to hear people in this Chamber speak about the LGBT community as if it is one homogenous group. We are not one homogenous group, and there are many LGB and T people who oppose self-ID for obvious reasons. One of the issues that I am deeply concerned about is that many public bodies have not been observing their public sector equality duty properly. In some cases they have been erasing sex from legislation, which is outwith that duty. What action can be taken to ensure that legislation is fit for purpose and matches all the protected characteristics contained in the Equality Act 2010?
Kemi Badenoch
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.
Conversion Practices
Neale Hanvey Excerpts(12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I will struggle to get what I want to say into five minutes, but I will certainly have a stab at it. I will focus principally on the assertion that there is a need for a ban on conversion therapy, including for the conversion of trans people, and I want to look at it through a slightly different lens.
I will start with a quote from Kierkegaard:
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
That is, in essence, the point I want to make. Legislation is supposed to fix a problem, not create a new one, and where evidence of conversion practices exist, they will not be mitigated but exacerbated by such proposals. The true scandal that needs to be addressed is the medical and surgical conversion of young lesbians and gay males by affirming and transing away the gay.
This proposal rests on a bed of dangerous lies, and it is but one part of an assault on the sex-based rights of women, lesbians, gay men and bisexual people. It is perpetrated by and done under the cover of once-important LGBT organisations such as Stonewall, which are erasing gay identities and are complicit in using the T to erase the LGB.
There are three legislative conceits that form part of this movement: gender self-ID, amendments to hate crime and public order legislation, and so-called conversion therapy bans. Each is the antithesis of what it purports to be. Self-ID is not about equality but about promoting supremacy, hate crime legislation is about silencing the raising of valid safeguarding concerns, and preventing conversion therapy is promoting the very thing it aims to stop. The planned Bill is today’s modern conversion therapy scandal, and it is affecting vulnerable children and young people who may be gender non-conforming or struggling with normal yet distressing pubertal body dysmorphia. It would embed the lie that those young people have been born in the wrong body, that the normal development of puberty should be arrested with chemicals—something that can never be restarted or repaired—and that emotional distress can be fixed with hormones and irreversible radical surgical intervention.
That is being facilitated in Scotland and elsewhere by Government non-statutory guidance, promoted by activist teachers and enabled by others who are bamboozled, threatened and afraid to speak out because of the attacks carried out by radicalised gender activists. Social transitioning is being arranged and encouraged in schools, with parents and carers being completely excluded from their own child’s care. The NSPCC recognises that as a form of grooming, stating:
“Groomers may introduce ‘secrets’ as a way to control or frighten the child.”
Teachers prepared to keep secrets with children, to the exclusion of their parents or child protection teams, is not only dangerous to the child but legally precarious for that teacher, and they should be open to prosecution. None of those teachers are employed as experts in psychological therapy, dysphoria or complex gender assessment. What they are doing is top-to-tail dangerous and wrong. In their zeal, and in secret from parents, they are effectively denying vulnerable children access to the very therapeutic support that they so desperately and obviously need, from real experts, not gender ideology radicals. That is chilling.
Christian Wakeford
This is not a debate about trans rights; it is about conversion therapy. I think we have all acknowledged that conversion therapy is abhorrent and evil. If it abhorrent and evil for gay and lesbian people, it is abhorrent and evil for trans people. How this conversation keeps descending to an anti-trans position is wrong. Will the hon. Gentleman think on that point: that conversion therapy is evil and just needs banning?
Neale Hanvey
I cannot really respond to the hon. Gentleman constructively because he is obviously not listening to the points I am making.
When I was a young lad—this might stretch Members’ imagination—I was a very pretty boy. In the 1970s, I had long hair and flared trousers, and I was often confused for a girl. The question I am struggling with is this. Is it possible that I would have been open to this form of conversion therapy, and would not have become the successful, happy, gay man that I am today? I can only conclude that, yes, that could easily have happened to me.
We had plenty of struggles growing up, such as section 28. My friend the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and I attended the first ever Pride event in Edinburgh, Lark in the Park. We have faced these struggles and now we face them once again. I am absolutely exhausted from listening to people using my history and my struggle against me, when I am when I am attempting to stand up for the rights of young LGB people and protect their futures.
I appreciate that I need to draw to a close, so I will conclude with this. It is not a ban on conversion therapy that the Bill proposes; rather, it is rocket fuel for radicalised ideologues, to trans away the gay, depriving a generation of young LGB people from becoming the fabulous, vibrant and unique, gender non-conforming people they have every right to be.
Joanna Cherry
What I said, if the hon. Gentleman was listening, was that many young girls are confused, have gender dysphoria, want to be a boy and find the onset of puberty deeply alarming. There is a lot of internalised lesbophobia and internalised misogyny in our country at the moment, and I do not want the state to say that there must be an assumption that any girl who wants to be a boy should be told that she can become a boy. She needs to be allowed to explore whether that feeling comes from internalised lesbophobia or internalised misogyny. Sure, some of those girls may be trans, but the stats from the GIDS clinic show that most are lesbians. I do not want lesbians to be transed away. Staff at the GIDS clinic have expressed concern that that is what is happening.
As I said, many of the children who go down the medical pathway are same-sex attracted, and some of them are autistic. Of the first 70 adolescents referred to the Amsterdam clinic that pioneered puberty blockers for children, 62 were homosexual and only one was heterosexual. I am concerned that that is a form of modern conversion therapy. I want young women, particularly those who may be lesbians, to be able to discuss what is making them wish they had been born a boy, with professional support if necessary, before they embark on life-changing treatment with puberty blockers, which could leave them permanently infertile and undergoing surgery to remove their breasts. There are documented examples of girls going through the procedure, deeply regretting it and wanting to de-transition.
Neale Hanvey
I hoped to include in my speech this comment from a young de-transitioner:
“I delayed my appointment for surgery for over two years, because I had doubts. But then they gave me an ultimatum and I knew that if I was not going to go through surgery I would lose my therapist.”
Does the hon. and learned Lady believe that that is coercive control or informed consent?
Joanna Cherry
I do not know the full facts of the case, but it sounds far from ideal. We must have informed consent, and children are not always in a position to give informed consent.
One would not know it from the Library briefing for this debate, which is extraordinarily one-sided and sets out only the views of certain stakeholders, but many lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and many feminists, share the concerns that I am expressing. LGB Alliance welcomes the fact that the UK Government plan to ban gay conversion therapy, but it is worried that
“the inclusion in the proposals of ‘transgender conversion’ therapy threatens to amplify what we consider to be the greatest risk to young LGB people today: the promotion of the notion that children who have gender dysphoria can change their sex, or should begin to do so, before they are fully adult.”
My friends at LGB Alliance are concerned that, “by a tragic irony”, some of the conversion proposals could lead to thousands of children, most of whom would have gone on to be happy lesbian, gay or bisexual adults,
“having their puberty blocked by experimental drugs and”
being
“pushed into life-long medical treatment.”
In other words, the legislation could promote, not stop, gay conversion therapy.
Sex Matters—I declare an interest, because I am on its advisory board—has put forward a proposal for legislation to ban what it calls “modern conversion therapy”, which should be considered. “Modern conversion therapy” means
“treating someone with medication or surgery to modify their sexual characteristics, when they…are too young or vulnerable to make a fully informed decision”,
or where they have
“confounding mental-health issues that have not been addressed”.
I am coming to the end of my speech, Ms Fovargue, but I had two interventions so I have taken a little longer. I note that the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) said that he wanted all forms of conversion therapy banned. Would he and the Minister think about modern conversion therapy, and making sure that lesbian, gay and bisexual teenagers are not told that they were born in the wrong body?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention, but I have actually said that a number of times before. The interim Cass review is clear about an issue that has not received any publicity from Government Members: the lack of psychological provision in general for children and young people, which is also impacting on those in gender services. That did not come as any surprise to those of us who do casework—we are well aware of that—but sadly the Government have not focused on it.
I also want to ask the Minister about pre-legislative scrutiny of a future Bill, to which the Government are apparently still committed. When will it get under way? Is the Minister confident that we will be able to conduct meaningful scrutiny before the end of this Parliament and the general election, or is this effectively window dressing to hide the reality that the proposals have been junked by the Minister for Women and Equalities with the connivance of the Prime Minister? Does this Minister accept that, as things stand, there simply is no meaningful Government policy on conversion practices?
We have been here before, and we have already heard all the excuses for the lack of action. Eighteen months ago, I asked whether the Government had gathered any evidence about the impact of a well-drafted ban on conversion practices on the provision of legitimate talking therapies.
Anneliese Dodds
I will continue for the moment, but the hon. Gentleman is welcome to intervene on me later if I have not answered his question.
I asked for any evidence or statements from medical bodies suggesting any concerns that a conversion therapy ban would have a chilling effect, or that a trans-inclusive ban would put such treatments at risk. I did not get any answers then and I do not expect to hear any today, because these are straw-man arguments, unfortunately erected by those trying to justify inaction. I say respectfully to the hon. Member and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) that conversion refers to changing, and not to the exploration of people’s real selves, including for young gay men or young lesbian women.
Neale Hanvey
The shadow Minister is raising the central point of my contribution. Many young people who have been through gender services and have then decided to desist from transition have realised that, in fact, they were always gay. What safeguards or principles does she envisage would be introduced to prevent the acceleration through affirmation of young gay people into gender services, where they are experiencing conversion therapy of radical surgical and medical intervention, which is distorting their future lives? One young man said that his sex had been lobotomised.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I will not take any more interventions—I am conscious that there are others who need to speak. The point about surgical and medical interventions is precisely what the Cass review has been working on. I will come to the issue of precisely how a Bill would be drafted, so the hon. Member will hear my comments on that in a moment.
However, I need to ask the Minister another question. Last summer, I wondered whether we would back here in another year asking exactly the same questions. Well, here we are, asking the same questions and, I suspect, getting exactly the same answers, going round in circles. I feel sorry for the Minister; I know that his hands are tied. The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) was spot on in that regard, although perhaps even this Minister would not be able to live up to his celestial claims. Surely the Minister is getting fed up with making excuses for his colleagues, who do not have the courage to tell LGBT+ people that banning these abusive practices is not a priority for the Conservative Government.
We have a different approach; we acknowledge that there are complexities.
Stuart Andrew
Absolutely. I think we can agree that we must take particular care in this area when we consider legislative action. Any legislation targeting harmful practices must not affect the wider ability of parents, teachers, councillors, religious leaders or healthcare practitioners to have open, exploratory and sometimes even challenging conversations with young people who are expressing or exploring their identity. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) put it very well when she talked about her church and many people seeking support from that church. Protecting legitimate talking therapies is essential, especially for young people. We must not inadvertently criminalise or have a chilling effect on legitimate interventions and conversations.
I know from personal experience that it was conversations with my mum that helped me get through my period of coming out and realising what my sexuality was. I would not want my mum to feel that she could not have that honest conversation. Despite the fact that I am a big supporter of the conversion practices Bill, I have, as I have got into the detail, recognised that there are complexities that need to be addressed to ensure that those honest conversations can be had.
Stuart Andrew
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman first and then the hon. and learned Lady.
Neale Hanvey
The Minister touches on a really important point: what exactly is in scope here? For many of us with deep concerns, particularly the ones that I have raised, it is important that we understand that practices such as affirmation-only models, which accelerate young people on to irreversible pathways, would form part of any conversion therapy ban and that we ensure that young people are given the space, as he was so lucky to have—the space and time of his mother; myself likewise—to explore their identity and move forward with confidence. When will the Government set out exactly what is in scope and what is to be banned? That might assuage some of the concerns that many people have. Will it include preventing teachers who have absolutely no experience in gender ideology or gender identity care from keeping secrets from parents?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points, but there is an assumption that conversion is a one-way street. It is not. It goes both ways. That is what we are trying to address in the draft Bill. There has been some criticism, but our intention is to have pre-legislative scrutiny precisely so that we can check that we have got this right and that it will be the right legislation to bring about the banning of abhorrent practices that are happening to young people. I was not going to mention this, but I was part of a church. My faith is very important to me. But when I was coming out, some of the things that were said to me took me to the edge of ending it all—although it is something I never thought of doing—because it was so horrific.
I want to stop those practices being done to other people. Of course I do. However, I want to make sure that we get this absolutely right and make good legislation. Others have mentioned legislation around the world: yes, other countries may have introduced it, but how many prosecutions have they brought? Does the legislation cover the issue in the way that was intended? That is why we are considering other legislation carefully, to see what we can learn from it and get it right.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neale Hanvey Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Huddleston
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a moment ago, but I wish to reiterate that it is long-standing UK foreign policy that Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 boundaries are illegal.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Having regained our regulatory sovereignty now that we have left the European Union, we are now able to ensure that our regulation is tailored to the UK economy, supports our businesses and protects our consumers. Having left the single market, we can focus on UK trade with the world, where total trade is up 24%, so the answer to his question is that the effect is that total trade is up.
Neale Hanvey
Resilient and effective routes to market are essential for trade. The congestion that is currently being experienced at Dover is a significant barrier to effective trade. We can add to that the HGV miles from Scotland to the south-east and the impact on the quantities carried, on perishables and on costs, never mind the environmental impact. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we reintroduce direct links from Scotland to mainland Europe and ensure trade is friction-free from Scotland?
Ms Ghani
I do not think the hon. Member heard my answer: trade is up. The reality is that this scaremongering just has to stop. The scaremongering is basically a cover for petty nationalism, and I would ask him to be passionate about the market that matters, which is between Scotland and England.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Question Time this morning, the Minister for Industry and Economic Security, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), appears to have been confused about the nature of oral questions. I asked a supplementary question, which was ostensibly a polite request to meet the Minister to discuss matters of importance to my constituents. In her response, she chose to use a pejorative insult—clearly intended to be an insult—and that does not reflect well on the Government. I am a Member of this Parliament, just as any other Member, and I deserve to be able to ask questions about the interests of my constituency without that kind of harassment. She accused me of nationalism, but I suggest that the only nationalism on display is from those Benches—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not know whether the Minister wants to respond.
New Covid Variants: Government Preparedness
Neale Hanvey Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I rise to address this Government’s preparedness for new covid-19 variants and other biological threats. Based on past experience, it is fair to say I am yet to be convinced that this Government are making the necessary progress in this regard. I will first address the Government’s culture before moving on to extant concerns specific to pandemic preparedness.
Hindsight is of value only if we are prepared to use the lessons it reveals to ensure that the same mistakes or misjudgments are not repeated. When it comes to calamity and loss, vindication brings only a bitter taste, not solace or comfort. For those of us in this place, and beyond, who voiced genuinely held concerns about the UK Government’s response to the pandemic, yesterday’s evidence to the covid inquiry from the former Health Secretary is unlikely to elicit any sense of schadenfreude—just a deep sense of despair and sadness.
The former Health Secretary’s testimony does not reflect well on those experts who allegedly gave him deeply flawed advice but, ultimately, he accepted that he alone carried ministerial responsibility for the “calamitous state of affairs” not only in his Department but in the agencies that reported to him, as Secretary of State. In short, he admitted that, when courage called, he failed to execute the responsibilities of his office. He is, of course, correct, but his apology rings hollow and does nothing to ameliorate the damage caused.
My abiding memory of the pandemic is the former Health Secretary’s all-too-frequent glib responses from the Dispatch Box to questions intended to be helpful and constructive. I could devote further commentary to his shocking testimony, but I suggest that might be better served by a Privileges Committee inquiry or other serious investigation.
The shutting down of dissenting voices was all too commonplace, and not just in this place. Innova, the beneficiary of lucrative lateral flow test contracts, put pressure on The Scotsman for daring to publish my valid criticism of the reliability of its tests. Despite scrupulously evidencing my assertions, with the support of esteemed academics, the editorial team could not withstand the very deep pockets that Innova had, on the back of billions of pounds of public money spent on its devices.
In addition, pressure was applied to academic and clinical staff who raised concerns about the adequacy of the UK Government’s pandemic response. Although I readily give my thanks to those staff for their ongoing encouragement and support, I am unable to name them, such is my concern that we are not yet out of the woods in terms of truth and reconciliation on these matters. That such a culture was allowed to flourish at a time of grave emergency is detestable.
Although it is clear that the UK Government must change, I see few earnest attempts to do so. I have asked too many questions on these matters to count, and I have led and contributed to multiple debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, but much of that was for naught. Concerns went ignored and commitments were readily discarded, even by those few souls who maintained a position during the ministerial churn from Prime Minister to Prime Minister to Prime Minister. This may seem tangential to the matter at hand, but Government culture is central to organisational learning for future preparedness. In its basic form, the management of any infection is not rocket science, but each strand is necessarily interdependent and must be rigorous in both design and application. The continued failure to understand that fundamental relationship will fatally undermine any strategic future planning.
In essence, robust surveillance and detection should lead to prompt isolation of the threat, followed by the administration of safe and effective treatments, and supported measures, with further screening and surveillance repeated until the threat is managed. Get any step of that process wrong and the risk quickly spirals out of control. Relying on detection and isolation alone will not work. As we know only too well, an over-reliance on vaccination in the absence of robust surveillance is, similarly, a fool’s errand.
A recent briefing from the House of Commons Library set out the ambitions of the UK Health Security Agency and its Centre for Pandemic Preparedness. The CPP aims to ensure the UK’s future pandemic responses are effective and efficient, and that they reduce the negative impacts of health threats. The CCP aims to become the world-leading hub for all aspects of pandemic preparedness. In addition, the briefing notes that the HSA is working in partnership with the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to turbocharge efforts to combat global pandemics and emerging health threats. Those are grand claims, grandiose perhaps, but the question remains: what does this mean in the practice of disease management and control?
In my Adjournment debate on the UK diagnostics industry in May last year, I voiced my concerns about the UK’s lack of preparedness for a future pandemic strategy, whereas economies the world over were developing 10-year strategies for the same. I applaud the efforts of the HSA in conceptualising a detailed report and a tentative timeline to execute a 10-year science strategy. It emphasises transforming surveillance through genomic identification and characterisation of new covid-19 variants, and promoting the use of innovative diagnostics, which are promising steps in the direction I indicated last year.
However, there are still clamant concerns to be addressed on the implementation of this plan and the efficacy of the HSA as an institution to deliver on those ambitions. First, the partnerships section on page 31 of the strategy report that a
“10-year strategic collaboration with Moderna will ensure we are better prepared against future pandemic threats, including through an onshore mRNA Innovation and Technology Centre.”
What is the basis of this “focused partnership” between the HSA and this single specific pharmaceutical company and a single specific vaccine technology? Recalling the Valneva vaccine production debacle and the adverse impact it had on the Scottish based company, may I ask what the rationale is behind such a partnership, as opposed to a more diffuse and cost-effective approach?
During a Westminster Hall debate in January 2022 I raised concerns about the UK Government’s overemphasis on vaccination as the sole plank of their policy, noting that even with the vaccine success delivered by Dame Kate Bingham, they had placed all their eggs in the mRNA basket. That was, and still is, short-sighted. The Valneva vaccine was the only adjuvanted, inactivated, whole-virus vaccine technology, yet the UK Government pulled the contract just before the phase 3 results were published. They demonstrated that the vaccine was highly effective and safe. That makes it abundantly clear that Scotland does have the potential to lead the way for the world in the domain of innovation and vaccine strategy for pandemic preparedness, yet we are continually and systematically impeded by the UK Government in that ambition.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his persistence in trying to hold the Government to account on this subject. He refers to the culture, particularly in the Department of Health and Social Care, of keeping things to themselves, playing cards close to their chest, not having regulatory impact assessments and, in effect, as he says, imposing good ideas on the basis of heroic assumptions that are not being tested. May I encourage him to carry on his good work?
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention and warm words. I take them in good grace. He makes an important point. Assertations were made throughout the pandemic that things were one way and, despite interrogation, any understanding that they could not possibly be that way was continually denied. That was very frustrating, and I thank him for his encouragement.
In November 2021, Dame Kate Bingham called the decision to cancel the Valneva contract “inexplicable”. Do the UK Government still not get that? Why are they still not listening to the one person who came through the pandemic with their reputation enhanced, because she did the job she was tasked to do and did it well?
The British Society for Immunology has told me that it supports the use of all vaccine technologies where they have proved safe and effective in clinical trials, stating that a broad portfolio of vaccines is important as we move forward in providing protection against future variants. It also notes that mRNA vaccines were deployed first as they were the first vaccines to be approved. However, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has since approved the use of eight different covid-19 vaccines that utilise a variety of technologies, including mRNA, viral vector, whole virus and protein-based platforms. What is the Government’s strategy to harness the power of all technologies, considering their intended partnership with Moderna?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. Like the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), I understand exactly what he is trying to achieve. Lessons need to be learned. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that planning must be key to ensuring that our country can continue, Government can respond, our surgeons can operate and our teachers can teach? Should, God forbid, another pandemic emerge, we need to ensure we are better prepared and ready to do better.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman. In essence, we cannot unspill the milk. The milk was spilled and there were problems. We have to make sure that that does not happen again and that we learn from the process that led to such tragedy. We must make sure that we have not just a better approach, but the correct systems in place to ensure ongoing safety.
The BSI also emphasises a clear and urgent need for second and third-generation covid-19 vaccines, including a universal vaccine, a mucosal vaccine and vaccines that induce longer-lasting protection and immunity.
Furthermore, given that the “Innovation in diagnostics” part of the UKSHA science strategy specifically mentions
“research and development of new diagnostic technologies and innovative platforms”,
that begs the question of how closely corporate entities, such as Moderna, will be involved in directing the process. Will the Minister write to me, setting out in plain detail how such a strategy will harness the expertise of the domestic diagnostic sector, through organisations such as the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association?
During the pandemic, the UK Government stood accused of undermining the domestic diagnostic sector, driving some companies under with empty promises of orders, while innovative artificial intelligence technologies such as the Caledonia AI blood test and the Novacyt AI saliva test were sidelined. Both technologies can be adapted to screen for covid and other emerging threats, such as Ebola and dengue fever. Uploading profile information to AI would allow new, instantaneous border screening for new threats.
While the 100 days mission to respond to future pandemic threats may seem ambitious, the reality is that there are around 1.5 million people airborne at any one time, so the case for rapid deployment of accurate diagnostic screening could not be clearer. Almost everyone has a smartphone, and dongle-based AI testing could be deployed internationally at the stroke of a key.
Following my last Adjournment debate, I was given a commitment by the Minister in the then Department for Business, Energy and Industry Strategy to jointly host a UK industry roundtable. Sadly, despite my persistence, that commitment was not kept. If we lose this intellectual capability and capacity through Government inaction, that would be a further betrayal of the domestic diagnostic sector. What are the Government doing to secure and develop these technologies now, and will the Minister commit to meet me to consider a way forward?
Secondly, the timeline for the science strategy stipulates the creation of a vaccine development and evaluation centre by bringing together the UKHSA’s laboratory-based activity expertise and leadership in vaccine discovery, development and education. What is the need for the creation of yet another organisation, and what mechanism of funding and accountability does the Minister envisage for this body? Furthermore, how will this body ethically accommodate the corporate priorities of Moderna?
I am especially concerned about sustainability. In April last year, the UKHSA itself was stripped of funding as part of the living with covid strategy, putting the jobs of 40% of its workforce at risk. Yesterday, in a media interview, Cambridge virologist Dr Chris Smith warned that there is a risk that we lose focus and deprioritise funding and planning for biological threats. He argued for nimble, well-equipped public health systems in preference to top-down control. For grand strategic commitments to mean anything, funding and resources must find their way to the public health frontline. Can the Minister set out the plan and address how this new body will be insulated from political tumult and spin?
Thirdly, I remain uneasy with the undercurrent of institutional inefficacy from the days of Public Health England through to the UKHSA and the institutional vacuum in which emergencies are handled reactively by bodies such as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and Cobra. Module 1 of the current covid inquiry is a testimony to this continued trend. How does the Minister envisage the bolstering of these institutions in the face of future pandemics and, crucially, how will these institutions and partnerships be shielded from the perfidious private profiteering and VIP lanes that so compromised the UK Government throughout the pandemic?
Finally, there is another challenge at hand, which every single Member of this House will know from their inbox. It may be uncomfortable, but deal with it we must. The pandemic has driven a spike in online disinformation and misinformation, with social media the biggest source of false or misleading information about vaccines. However, we must ask, in light of the false reassurances admitted to yesterday by the former Health Secretary, whether silencing expert clinical voices is a solution to genuine concerns about the safety of novel therapeutic technologies. In my view, this challenge must be met with evidenced scientific argument and rigour, or we risk perpetuating the belief that something sinister is at hand.
My professional experience of managing cancer clinical trials and drug development teams is instructive: we need to take every reported adverse reaction seriously. That is the bedrock of developing and deploying safe therapeutic agents. There is also an opportunity to analyse outcomes on the back of the mass vaccination through a national clinical evaluation. Efforts must now be made to examine the vaccinated population and assess the efficacy and safety of the programme. That is quite normal.
Is vaccine injury possible? Of course it is. Injury is possible from exposure to any agent. The proposed mode of insult with mRNA—a systemic inflammatory response—is not a new phenomenon. There are established prophylactic protocols to manage such responses, but their efficacy must be tested. Pretending otherwise betrays the guiding words of Hippocrates—“first do no harm”. Systems for healthcare professionals and coroners to report suspected adverse drug reactions directly to MHRA already exist with the yellow card scheme, and they are very well established and used. Holding firm to principles of diligently reporting risk, minimising harm and ensuring ethical treatment do not indulge any conspiracy theory. They are fundamental to good clinical practice.
Members will also have received emails from constituents on the proposed role of the WHO international health regulations in co-ordinating future global pandemic responses. As I understand it, that proposal has now been modified to be non-binding on signatory states as a result of concerns over loss of local control and sovereignty. Yet it is of note that yesterday, the former Health Secretary attributed to the WHO the misguided advice he received. That deserves proper scrutiny. The response of Government should not be to mock, silence or ridicule Members who raise those concerns on behalf of constituents. The only way to address them is through proper clinical evaluation and absolute transparency.
Before I conclude, I want to raise some further points of challenge from the British Society for Immunology. The fact that media attention has drifted from covid-19 does not mean it is no longer a significant issue. The rolling seven-day average of deaths sits at around 30 to 100 per day over the last three months. Despite that backdrop, very few people are testing for infection. Limited testing means that strains can circulate in an unrestricted manner. The more the virus circulates, the more opportunities there will be for the evolution of variants of concern.
In the absence of regular widespread testing, it is even more important for waste water surveillance to be maintained at a relatively high level, to act as an early warning system for new variants of concern. According to the BSI, Government must prioritise the development of next-generation vaccines and long-term immune monitoring to determine how long effective immunity lasts in the vaccinated population, scale up testing capacity to ensure that previous failure is not replicated, introduce asymptomatic testing in the NHS alongside testing of patients and ensure that NHS laboratories have plans in place for infection surges of all respiratory viruses.
Therapeutic options are currently very limited, especially in groups that respond poorly to vaccination, while access to antivirals and monoclonal antibody therapies remains patchy across the UK and there is currently no recommended treatment strategy for persistent covid-19. Integrated care boards have yet to announce what will happen when the covid medicines delivery units are retired, and clarity is urgently needed so that clinicians can communicate plans properly to affected patient groups.
The delayed effects of covid are complex and difficult to quantify, but at present there is no long-term management plan for long covid. All those challenges must be met. There is no argument in support of the “pick and mix” approach of the former Health Secretary. If we do not capitalise on hindsight, we are damned to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Maria Caulfield
We know that the virus has the potential to evolve with new covid-19 variants that may evade immunity and the vaccinations that we have in place. We also know that we could face new pathogens with pandemic potential, so we remain vigilant at all times not just in the United Kingdom but with our global partners.
It is imperative that we retain the ability to detect and identify any new covid-19 variants as well as wider threats. The House will be aware that the community infection survey ended in March. It was commissioned by UKHSA as part of a suite of covid-19 surveillance programmes and delivered by the Office for National Statistics. The survey was world-leading, playing a critical role in enabling decision making during the pandemic. However, it is right to ensure that that surveillance programme remains proportionate, cost-effective and commensurate with how we monitor a range of other infectious diseases that pose a similar risk to public health. That is why we have scaled it back, but again, should we need to, we can step it up.
That does not mean that we are not taking any action going forward. We are maintaining surveillance for covid-19 and respiratory pathogens through a number of programmes. Those programmes will enable the evaluation and effectiveness of vaccination against a range of clinical outcomes, informing vaccine deployment and appropriate disease management. Our surveillance programmes are underpinned by the continuation of genomic sequencing to determine and assess variant severity and vaccine effectiveness.
A range of vaccines are still available, which clearly we monitor on an ongoing basis. mRNA vaccines are one part of our toolkit, but others are still available. That is why continued surveillance is important, but it is proportionate that it has been reduced since the peak of the pandemic. UKHSA continues to sequence covid samples each week, so should a variant of concern emerge, we would identify it relatively quickly. It publishes the results of that sequencing and surveillance in the national influenza and covid surveillance report.
Obviously, covid-19 is a global risk, so as well as looking at what is happening in the UK, we continue to support international surveillance, and we work closely in partnership with other organisations and international partners to monitor covid-19 globally. The Government continue to fund new variant assessment platforms, increasing the capacity to provide genomic sequencing in nine countries and establishing the International Pathogen Surveillance Network. That will enable us to be alive to the risks of covid-19 elsewhere in the world. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise the importance of that work and agree that it is vital to continue it to understand and respond to dangerous new variants should they emerge.
If a variant of concern with potential immune evasion is detected, the Government have proportionate contingency response capabilities in place, a range of which are set out. Those capabilities will support an initial response to any new and dangerous variant of concern. The Department for Health and Social Care and UKHSA continue to work together to ensure that appropriate commercial mechanisms are in place to support a longer response to covid-19, whether through testing or vaccination.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that vaccination is the only tool in our armoury. Our surveillance is our key weapon in identifying a new variant of concern. We still have testing capability should we need it, and of course, our vaccination programmes are nimble and can respond to any new variant should it emerge.
Neale Hanvey
The Minister is giving an interesting response to the question about surveillance. What is the surveillance mechanism exactly? Can she take us through how the virus is being monitored in the wild? What practical steps are being taken? Is waste water being assessed? How is it being identified? What border controls are expected if there is a novel threat somewhere else in the world? How are we managing our borders and ensuring that the 1.5 million passengers in the air at any one time do not immediately bring a new threat right to our door?
Maria Caulfield
There are several ways, and I did try to set some of them out. As I said, UKHSA tests samples from covid-positive patients around the country every week and does genomic sequencing to identify new variants or variants of concern.
We are not currently doing international border checks, but we are working with international partners, so should a new variant emerge in another country, we can step up that capability. We introduced border controls on new arrivals a couple of months ago due to the risk of a new variant from China, but that was stepped down because testing showed that there was no risk to the general population. Waste water testing is also still available should it be required, so there is a range of testing capabilities to identify variants of concern and respond quite quickly.
Moving on to vaccines, we are developing mRNA capability, but not just in covid-19 vaccinations. That is one way of delivering covid vaccinations, but that capability is also being used for respiratory illnesses and cancer vaccination trials. There is the potential for that technology to be used in a range of vaccines, not just for covid-19. A range of different vaccines are available, and should a variant of concern or change of variant emerge, we will take advice from the JCVI as to which vaccine is best to use and which group of the population is best to vaccinate. That is an ongoing piece of work.
On some of the hon. Gentleman’s other points, the covid inquiry is obviously ongoing. As the Minister responsible for pandemic preparedness, I am keen to learn the lessons about testing capability, PPE, and vulnerable groups that may need greater protection in future pandemics. But we also need to be live to the fact that a pathogen could emerge that is completely different from covid, flu, or avian flu, which we are also monitoring actively. We need to be nimble in our response to any future pandemic. My concern is that we may just look at covid as the only future threat, but that is absolutely not our policy; we are looking at a wide range of threats, both in the UK and abroad.
Maria Caulfield
We are certainly not putting all our eggs in the mRNA basket for covid, or for any other use of mRNA technology. Such vaccines must still pass the MHRA assessment in order to be licensed for use. As mRNA technology develops for other clinical conditions, whether cancer or respiratory illnesses, those vaccines will also have to be awarded a licence by the MHRA. It is not the case that mRNA vaccines are given carte blanche because they have been used in covid; they will have to pass the necessary research hurdles to gain licences for future use. We are certainly not just relying on mRNA for covid—although it has been effective and the technology means that it can react to variants and be altered depending on the variant. We are using other vaccines for covid, and working with other partners. I reassure my hon. Friend on that.
I am very happy to continue updating Members on the progress that we are making and any future booster vaccination programmes for covid-19 that will be running, and to update the House on the work of UKHSA regarding monitoring, surveillance, and future testing capabilities.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the Minister for being a good sport and allowing me to intervene again. I did make a couple of requests in my contribution: I asked for some written feedback from the Minister, and whether she would be able to find time in her diary for a meeting to discuss some of the finer points. I would be very grateful if she would agree to that.
Maria Caulfield
I am very happy to meet up with the hon. Gentleman, and also to write to him regarding the specific points on which he asked for clarification. It is important that we give the public confidence that our vaccine portfolio is very diverse, guarding against both current variants and future variants. The contracts that we have in place with vaccine developers are flexible, so should the need arise, we have the ability to stand up vaccinations in a speedy manner. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and to meet with him, because in order to bust some of those myths that he has pointed out exist, it is important that we are open and transparent about the arrangements that are in place, the risks that we face, and the tools that we have in our arsenal to fight any future pandemic.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will draw my remarks to a close.
Question put and agreed to.
Legislative Definition of Sex
Neale Hanvey Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I have an observation to make before I turn to my remarks. I have worked in clinical practice for 25 years and it is absolutely anathema to me that any clinical member of staff would seek to allow their feelings to trump the privacy, dignity and rights of any patient in their care.
The one thing that I hope all sides can agree on in this debate is that the principle of equality is one that we should all embrace, cherish and protect. Our understanding of what that means and how it is achieved is the nub of this debate, as is our willingness or otherwise to accommodate each other.
I want to consider that foundation first. The notion of equality and its role in law is not new. Going back millennia, Aristotle argued:
“Equals should be treated equally, and unequals treated unequally.”
That enduring principle of equality requires that individuals should be treated the same, unless, of course, they differ in ways that are relevant for consideration to maximise their equality before the law. Understanding how we differ requires a shared and clear language to delineate and apply those considerations effectively. As in the days of Aristotle, sex, who is male and who is female has been the bedrock on which we have accommodated fundamental differences.
As a same-sex-attracted male, my sex and the sex of my partner is a primary defining characteristic of my identity and my protection in law. If sex were to mean anything other than the biological category of natal male, it would no longer be possible for me to delineate or describe who I am within the law, or for other gay men like me to be protected. That is true of other protected characteristics in the Equality Act, including the protection of the trans population, under the characteristic of gender reassignment.
I remember when I was first asked whether I believed that trans women were women. I was puzzled by the question, as it implied the need to subvert and subsume the meaning of “woman” as it is commonly understood. But it was not just that, because I see absolutely nothing controversial in calling a trans woman a trans woman, and a trans man a trans man. These are necessary biological categories for society and the Equality Act to accommodate, value and protect.
To deny that a trans woman is a trans woman suggests that there is something less, something other, about a trans identity—something to be hidden away in someone else’s identity. I reject that suggestion entirely. Now, as then, I value trans people and respect those who have chosen to make such a profound change to their lives in search of inner peace. But the act of subsuming rights or clouding language around equality goes far beyond those considerations. Without a stable, codified language, the whole meaning of protected characteristics, hitherto based on sex, comes tumbling down, which risks ushering in a chaotic and anarchic approach where equality legislation based on Aristotle’s fundamental principle becomes utterly impossible. Everyone suffers.
Children should be free to be their own individual, carefree, special selves, without adults imposing their gendered stereotypes on them. Telling children there is something intrinsically wrong with them is absolutely unforgivable. But if equalities legislation is to protect anyone, it must be able to effectively describe everyone.