Section 28 Repeal: 20th Anniversary

Debate between Stuart Andrew and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew]

Unfortunately, I am. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. We are marking two decades since the repeal of section 28, and even though there have been differing views, the tone of the debate has been respectful. I wish there was more of that when we have debates about this area of policy.

I, too, speak from personal experience as a gay man. The Britain of the ’80s and ’90s is a world away from the Britain we call home today. There is no way I would have come out in school in Anglesey, but it is great when I go round the constituency today and see young people proud of their sexuality and their identity.

I stood for election in Wrexham in 1997. Unfortunately —I have spoken about this before—just before the election campaign I was beaten up, and the press got hold of the story. I remember being frightened to admit that it was a gay bashing, and I tried to hide it. It was only a year later that I had the courage to stand up and say that it was because of my sexuality.

In 1988, when section 28 was introduced, only 11% of the public approved of same-sex relationships. Anti-LGBT sentiment was rife across society, schools and the workplace. LGBT people were all but invisible in the media, and I am sad to say that our politics harboured a great deal of the same prejudices.

The Britain of today is a nation transformed. Our cities, towns and counties annually play host to the colour and sounds of a hundred Pride parades. We are a nation of all kinds of families, of out and proud LGBT pupils and teachers, and of inclusive businesses. Our media, from sport to family programming, not only includes LGBT people but celebrates them. I take pride in the fact that this Parliament is the most LGBT Parliament in the world.

And yet, despite those great strides, the harmful legacy of section 28 lingers on. Through a combination of silence and fear, young LGBT people were denied knowledge of what healthy same-sex relationships looked like. They were denied information about how to keep themselves safe when embarking on future sexual relationships. Perhaps most painfully of all, everyone who was part of the LGBT community was marked as “other”. Teachers prohibited from discussing LGBT issues were themselves stifled and negatively affected by the policy, as we so movingly heard from the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). Some were forced to remain in the closet for fear of the impact on their careers and others felt they had no choice but to leave education behind altogether.

The bullying of LGBT people all too often went unchallenged because of the chilling effects of section 28. Compounding that problem further was the lack of positive role models for young people. All but a handful of celebrities were closeted, and LGBT people were confined to the fringes of our media. I am glad to say that that has changed for the better in recent years. LGBT characters and stories are prominent across TV, streaming and books, and the impact of such stories on young people can be profound. To see your own journey and hopes reflected back at you in shows such as “Heartstopper” is both comforting and empowering.

But television is no replacement for formal education about healthy, consenting relationships and sex education. As a society, we have long understood that education is empowering and equips our young people with the tools to succeed, but it is vital that we also instil in them our values of tolerance and acceptance. In 2020, the LGBT-inclusive relationships, sex and health education was introduced in England, and in the vote on that a significant majority was in favour: 538 for and only 21 against. Today, primary-age students are taught the reality of modern Britain: that families come in all shapes and sizes. Some children have two mothers, some children have two fathers. This is a reflection of our diverse society, and of the importance of tolerance and respect in binding our nation together.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is helpfully describing the type of inclusive education that we all want, but does he agree that there is a significant problem with groups—often some religious fundamentalist groups and others—spreading misinformation about what is actually taught in schools? Teachers do an excellent job in ensuring, in an age-appropriate way, that young people understand the inclusive society that we all live in.

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have to make sure that what we are talking about are facts, not descriptions of things that are not happening just to try to advance a fear.

Older students in their final years of secondary education are also taught the importance of healthy relationships and of consent and safe sex, ensuring that all our young people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are given the knowledge they need to keep themselves safe and healthy. As colleagues will be aware, a review of the statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education is under way. The review is looking at whether the coverage of the statutory guidance is right, in terms of ensuring that teaching is safe and age-appropriate, making sure it is based on the facts and seeing whether it can be strengthened on certain topics such as suicide prevention and the dangers of vaping.

We expect to release the draft statutory guidance as soon as possible. It will then be open to a public consultation. Following the consultation, a decision will be made about any new or revised contents to be included in the guidance, including the use of resources and whether any further action would be appropriate, with revised guidance to be published in 2024. It is important that all material is factual and age appropriate.

The UK is concerned by the introduction of any legislation that restricts the teaching of the aforementioned age-appropriate relationship and sexual education. The UK deeply regrets introducing similar discriminatory legislation in the form of section 28 in 1988. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It is clear that such legislation had a profoundly negative effect on the physical and mental wellbeing of LGBT people, and it was rightly repealed across the UK in 2003. We encourage other countries not to repeat the mistakes of history.

In addition to ensuring that future generations are well equipped with knowledge, we must ensure that they are also safe to be themselves. We believe that no one in this country should be harmed or harassed for who they are. Attempts at so-called conversion therapy or conversion practices to change someone else due to a wrongful belief that a certain identity is preferable are, frankly, abhorrent.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Stuart Andrew and Stephen Doughty

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

The Building Safety Regulator will continue to make sure that all building safety regulations are adhered to. Mention has been made of social housing tenants, social housing and affordable housing; we will consult on that further down the line so that we can be absolutely sure we have got this right. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

On 13 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to Members to update them on the progress in the negotiations with industry. We will now see the vast majority of developers fix all the buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing in the past 30 years. My right hon. Friend announced last week that, in addition to the existing building safety fund, the Government will establish a new cladding remediation scheme, funded by industry contributions, to cover all other unsafe residential buildings of 11 to 18 metres that contain private leasehold properties but a developer has not accepted responsibility for fixing them or cannot be identified.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for what he is saying. He will be aware that I have had significant issues in my constituency, with many affected developments. In respect of the Celestia development in particular, there have been long-standing challenges in getting answers to the questions that residents are asking. Redrow wrote to the Secretary of State to say that it will now take responsibility for paying, but it has not made clear whether that applies to Wales—the letter refers only to England. Will the Minister clarify whether he understands that such commitments are going to be UK-wide, given that it is a UK-wide issue? If they are not, what pressure will he put on Redrow to make sure that that commitment applies to Wales as well?

[Stuart Andrew]

I do not know the specifics, to be really honest with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that I have picked this issue up lately, and if he does not mind, I will come back to him with a definitive answer.

The leaseholder protections that were introduced in the other place put our commitments into law. Qualifying leaseholders—defined as those living in their own homes or with up to three UK properties in total in buildings that are above 11 metres or five storeys—will be legally protected from all costs associated with the remediation of unsafe cladding, as will all leaseholders in buildings owned by or associated with the developer. Leaseholders in buildings above 18 metres are already protected by the Government’s £5.1 billion building safety fund for the removal of unsafe cladding. It is the Government’s expectation that developers will pay to fix buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has also been heavily involved in all this work. Yes, I can confirm that. I will elaborate later in my speech.

Let me turn now to the Government amendments to the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 94 inserts a clause that sets out the meaning of “relevant building”. The clause defines the categories of buildings to which the leaseholder protection measures apply. The Government originally proposed to apply the leaseholder protection measures to buildings containing at least two dwellings above 11 metres in height, or with at least five storeys. Amendments made in the other place extended the definition of “relevant building” to buildings of all heights containing two or more dwellings. We will take a very dim view of freeholders who seek to exploit leaseholders to pay for unnecessary works. The Department is aware of a handful of low-rise buildings where freeholders have been commissioning such works and we are addressing such buildings, as I said a moment ago, on a case-by-case basis, but we must restore proportionality to the system. That is why the Government do not agree with the extension of the scope of leaseholder protections to include buildings under 11 metres. There is no systematic risk of fire with buildings below 11 metres. Low-rise buildings are therefore unlikely to need costly remediation to make them safe. Lower-cost mitigations such as fire alarms are likely to be far more appropriate and proportionate. Assessments carried out in accordance with the new PAS 9980 principles should produce more proportionate responses than costly and, ultimately, unnecessary remediation. The Government have been clear in their view that an EWS1 form should not be required for buildings below 18 metres in height.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way again. What is his advice to leaseholders who believe that they have been wrongly charged for unnecessary works, or works that are not actually required in the way that he is describing? Many residents have raised concerns with me about what has been put forward and whether it was actually required. What should they do? What is the Minister’s practical advice?

[Stuart Andrew]

My door is always open, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise specific cases with me I would be more than happy to take them up and make sure that we get relevant answers for him.

Freeholders and landlords should not be commissioning costly remediation in buildings below 11 metres except in exceptional circumstances, which is where there is no more proportionate option available. They certainly should not be pointing to old EWS assessments to justify those costs. Given the small number of buildings involved, a blanket legislative intervention bringing hundreds of thousands more buildings into scope to deal with an issue affecting just a handful of buildings would be entirely disproportionate. The Government amendments therefore reinstate the definition of “relevant building” as one that is at least 11 metres, or five storeys in height, and contains at least two dwellings.

Business of the House

Debate between Stuart Andrew and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

There was deep disappointment among my constituents about the Government’s decision not to vote for the extremely reasonable amendments to the Fire Safety Bill. Beyond Government action, will the hon. Gentleman find time for an urgent debate about the responsibility of original building developers and the insurance industry? Companies such as Taylor Wimpey, Laing O’Rourke, Redrow and others are simply not living up to their responsibilities when fire safety and other building defects are found, as they have been in my own constituency.

[Stuart Andrew]

I reiterate the points that the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), made at this Dispatch Box: we are determined to bring in that legislation, but we need to go through the sequential way in which it has to be done. The points the hon. Gentleman raised are important and I will certainly write to the Minister for him and ask for an answer.