Transgender Conversion Therapy

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the petitioners, and I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening this debate in what has been universally acknowledged as a sensitive and careful manner.

I think we are all aware that this discussion is taking place during the Pride Month—the 50th year since the first Pride march took place in London. This should be a month of celebration for LGBT+ people and their allies, after their history of struggle that was ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). It should be a time to celebrate the wonderful diversity of our country and for all of us in this House to recommit to doing what we can to ensure that every person in the UK is treated with dignity and respect, including LGBT people, and that they will always have the ability to love and live as they need to. The calls from my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) were extremely strong in that regard.

The Government had ambitious plans to mark the 50 years of Pride through, as was mentioned, their flagship Safe To Be Me: A Global Equality Conference. However, the resignation of Iain Anderson, and the withdrawal of more than 100 LGBT+ organisations and charities from Safe To Be Me in April, was a consequence of the Government’s decision to reverse their plans to ban trans conversion therapy, which is of course the subject of today’s debate.

The policy process has been chaotic. On 30 March, the Minister told the House that the Government were taking forward plans to ban conversion therapy in all its forms “on an urgent basis”. Just one day later, the news broke that the Prime Minister intended to ditch plans to ban all forms of conversion therapy, and one day after that the Government had to U-turn on that intention, only then to exclude trans conversion therapy from their plans. It appeared that no one covering equalities issues on the Government Benches, from the Foreign Secretary and Women and Equalities Minister down, was informed of No. 10’s intentions, as they changed from hour to hour.

At no point before April had the Government suggested that they were treating trans conversion therapy practices differently from those targeting sexual orientation. Their consultation was in fact explicit that an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same sex to being attracted to the opposite sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, would be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made clear, a ban on conversion therapy in all its forms is long overdue, so I have to ask, as so many have during this debate, why have the Government changed their mind on this subject when so many expert organisations hold a different point of view? The BMA has called conversion therapy

“an unethical and damaging practice that preys on victims of homophobia, transphobia, discrimination, and bullying.”

The Royal College of Psychiatrists says,

“Conversion therapy causes severe physical and psychological suffering”.

Many others have been mentioned in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) mentioned the comments of Mind, the mental health charity. The NHS Confederation and the British Psychological Society were mentioned. I could go on and on. The issue is at not just a national level, but a local one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) rightly said when she mentioned the organisation that she has been in contact with.

Many of the organisations that I have just listed have acknowledged, as has the Labour party, the need for clarity when introducing legislation. Labour is clear that a trans-inclusive ban must not cover psychological support and treatment, non-directive counselling, or the pastoral relationship between teachers and pupils or religious leaders and worshippers. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) made that particularly clear.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is giving a customarily excellent speech. When I went to see one of my oldest and best friends Imran last year, his child was coming out as trans—as Hope. I want to share Imran’s and Hope’s words. Hope told me,

“I’m Hope and I’m 16. I’ve decided to live my life as female. My home has been very supportive and my parents have done everything they can for me. At school it has been supportive, especially my friends and teachers who have been respectful. Some students have been unkind. The attitude that most people have shown me should be the norm. Trans People are treated differently and we need to educate people.”

Imran said to me,

“It doesn’t matter what your child does or says but it’s your job to unconditionally love and support them.”

I hope we can carry their positivity, do our best for trans people and bring forward the ban.

Arms Trade: Yemen

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Colleagues have rightly spoken about Saudi Arabia and the effects of arms sales on Yemen. I agree with the comments of my colleagues on restricting sales, but with time so short, I want to raise the role of the United Arab Emirates, which I do not want to be forgotten in this debate.

The UAE has recently concentrated its efforts in southern Yemen and the island of Socotra, establishing a military presence on Socotra and supplying arms to militias on the island. The Socotra archipelago has a population of 50,000 and an almost unique biodiversity —700 species found nowhere else on Earth. It is a UNESCO world heritage site. The UAE controls maritime access to the island and there are reports that UAE ships supplied military vehicles to local militias as recently as last month.

In the US, Democratic Senators Bob Menendez and Dianne Feinstein have tabled a Bill that could block the sale of F-35 fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates due to their involvement in Yemen. The Bill targets a pending deal that includes 50 Lockheed Martin-made F-35s worth $10.4 billion. The UAE is one of the UK arms industry biggest customers. The UK’s 2015 national security strategy and strategic defence and security review made a commitment to establish a permanent British defence staff in the Gulf, which is based in Dubai. The UK sold £144 million-worth of arms involving 122 companies in the last three years. It would be remiss of the UK Government to consider restricting arms sales to Saudi Arabia, without also considering the UAE.

I beseech the Minister to reverse the decision to almost halve humanitarian aid to Yemen. If any country should be exempt from cuts to aid, it is Yemen, although I absolutely oppose abandoning our commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. However, with UNICEF stating Yemen is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with more than 24 million people— 80% of the population—needing humanitarian assistance, including more than 12 million children, it is up to us to act. Our country has a noble history of assisting people in countries ravished by famine and war. People in this country have voluntarily donated hundreds of millions of pounds in the past four years to save people from starvation. The Government should back the will of the British people and not cut a penny, especially as the UN penholder.

Trade Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) [V]]

Let me speak to the Lords amendment tabled in the name of Lord Alton. I join colleagues in utterly condemning the human rights abuses in Xinjiang with the Uyghurs. They are awful; it shames the perpetrators and to put it bluntly they should stop, immediately. However, like many colleagues, I am concerned about subcontracting Government policy to a bunch of unelected judges and lawyers. We cannot, as a Government, put ourselves in the position, however noble the intent, of allowing an agreement by a democratically elected Government with another Government to be struck down or put in jeopardy by a court, no matter how morally correct the case may be and how much I would personally agree with it. I say this because trade is just too important to our people—to the businesses and communities of South Ribble, Lancashire and beyond.

We heard recently in this House about global Britain—quite right. This Government are creating opportunities. We had 60-odd trade deals signed last year and there are more under negotiation. These are brilliant times. Instead of involving the courts, we should put all our focus on encouraging and supporting small businesses and breaking down barriers to trade. We should do everything we can as a Government and strain every sinew to encourage small businesses to trade globally, exporting their goods and services.

Practically, I am calling on the Government to use and build on their brilliant work in this area to further the take-up of this challenge in two main areas. The first is practical help. If somebody is thinking about exporting and they put “How to export” into Google, they get a list of nonsense. We need simple, clear “how to” guidelines to get people started and to build their confidence so that they believe that this is something for them. We need to invest in start-up units at affordable rates to make sure that somebody with a great idea or somebody wanting to expand is not getting caught with huge capital costs up front. Let us make exporting the everyday thing it so easily is, as I know from my own experience.

Secondly, we need to address the emotions of pride and ambition, and community pride. If a businessperson starts exporting and they create a job for somebody in their community because of it, the whole pub should buy them a drink, because what they are doing is on a par with the amazing community spirit that we have seen during these covid times of volunteers. They are doing a community service and they should be celebrated. Let us have a national award scheme for businesses that start exporting, and let us give them a plaque to put up on their business’s wall, “Here resides a great British exporter”.

I will oppose the Lords amendments today because I do not think this is the right place, but I welcome this whole Trade Bill. Ultimately, I believe that global Britain wins arguments against repressive regimes by proudly sharing how our way is better for all of our peoples.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We were told that we were going to take back control and we were going to ensure our sovereignty, and that to do that, we must be allowed a say on the rules and standards by which we are governed—to be rule makers, not rule takers. These are phrases we have heard many times over the last few years, and these amendments coming back from the Lords today will do precisely that—give our sovereign Parliament a say over any trade agreements made by the Executive.

When we were members of the European Union, our MEPs had, on any trade deal negotiated, a guaranteed debate and vote in the European Parliament, and if a trade deal was not deemed acceptable, it could be rejected. Why would we now accept a lesser say in this Parliament? Our constituents expect representation. It is not just in Europe, but in Japan and the United States that they have higher standards.

I welcome President Biden’s inauguration tomorrow, and he will be working with a new Senate and a new House. The new Congress will enjoy scrutiny over its trade deals, but without these amendments, we will not. Before negotiations, Congress can see and vote on general objectives, which are then published for public consultation. Once negotiations are complete, the agreement must then be ratified by Congress. Why would we hold ourselves to a lesser standard than that?

I know these principles have wide cross-Bench and public support, including from the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Greener UK, the CBI, Which? and so on—we should pass Lords amendment 1. However, that is not the only amendment in front of us today. Half a million people have signed a petition calling on the Government to protect our food standards in law. Lords amendment 6 provides that

“a Minister of the Crown ensures as far as possible that a future trade agreement is consistent with United Kingdom levels of statutory protection”

for food standards, as well as animal welfare, employment and welfare standards, and environmental protections.

If this year has taught us anything, it is that we need to ensure that we do not have a race to the bottom. We must keep our qualities and standards, and we cannot leave the quality of our food on the table in any trade negotiation. In addition, we need a robust TAC that defends public health, protects the environment and ensures the future of our farming communities. As president of COP26, one of the weapons in our armoury for a binding agreement is trade deals, and we would not want to have trade pulling one way and diplomacy another.

Finally, I come to Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the many excellent speeches from around this Chamber already on human rights and democracy. We have a responsibility to people across the globe who are suffering tyranny and genocide. While others have mentioned the impact that these amendments will have in relation to the Uyghurs, these amendments would also be powerful in challenging transactions in Hong Kong as well as the human rights abuses by several other countries, such as Egypt.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made an excellent speech about Cameroon, and the suppression of the Anglophone people there. We have signed a trade agreement with Cameroon that we have not yet seen, which is quite unbelievable. We have future trade negotiations with Indonesia. The Department for International Trade met the Indonesians in November. Future trade discussions must take into account the horrific human rights abuses in West Papua, which many universities have classified as a genocide. We need only look at the current beating and intimidation of voters and Opposition politicians in Uganda to know that situations emerging around the world are important to consider in future trade negotiations.

UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We know that this deal is almost a carbon copy of the EU-Japan deal. We can discuss the ironies of this Government plagiarising the EU’s work on another occasion. However, I would like to focus on the small but significant differences and what they might mean for the UK.

We will undoubtedly hear a lot of concern about digital rights today, and it would be remiss of me not to voice my concerns and the concerns of my constituents—I am also a graduate of the School of Computing at the University of Leeds—about what the deal means for data privacy. The deal allows for the

“free flow of data between Japan and the UK”,

and from there on to other trade partners, undermining existing data protection frameworks.

Perhaps most concerningly, this means our data being transferred to a range of countries, including the USA, and obviously the other countries that have recently signed the CPTPP. US data protection laws are some of the weakest in the western world. There is no federal oversight, just a patchwork of state enforcement models. By allowing data to be sold off to the US, the Government are removing the right of UK citizens to know where their data is held and for what purpose. We will not be able to stop our data being used in discriminatory ways, and we will not be able to have it deleted. This could well undermine the provisions of the online harms Bill that the Government plan to lay before the House.

It is also worth noting that despite e-commerce and online retail being wrapped up in digital tech services, they are not mentioned in the deal. Instead, the deal only specifically refers to FinTech, which gives us a crucial clue about the Government’s plans. FinTech firms, usually backed by venture capitalists, are necessarily globalised. The deal fails to support small start-ups or individuals. It tells us what we already know: the Conservatives are not the party of business, they are the party of the financial elites. This deal does not create a level playing field.

The lack of concrete and enforceable environmental and sustainable provisions is another real concern of mine. This deal was a golden opportunity to outline and to aspire to establish world-leading practices as both countries work to reduce their carbon emissions to zero by 2050, and to lay the groundwork for COP26 in Glasgow. How many golden opportunities on the climate are the Government prepared to squander in the run-up to COP?

I think it is fair to say that the natural environment is at best an afterthought here. Little consideration was made of the deal’s effect on biodiversity, which is particularly pertinent as we export more agricultural goods and import large quantities of chemicals and plastics. There is an over-reliance on future technologies to excuse the potential increase in carbon emissions caused by international trade. This is worrying, and yet to be addressed.

Japan’s track record on animal welfare and sustainability is shaky, to say the least. Last year, it resumed catching whales for profit in defiance of international criticism, yet the majority of the environmental provisions in this deal are non-enforceable. Flimsy, unenforceable terms present a real barrier to upholding high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. The Conservatives promised us in their manifesto that they would not compromise on that, so why are they compromising on it in this first deal?

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend perhaps notice a pattern emerging here? We have seen the Agriculture Bill, and the widespread concern about chlorinated chicken and other abhorrent practices. We have heard today of the deep concern about some of the things that are happening in Japan. While we obviously welcome the deal, does he agree that there is a pattern emerging of the Government putting serious environmental concerns at the back of the list of the matters they are addressing in these deals?

[Alex Sobel]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. I sat on the Environment Bill Committee many months ago, when the Bill first came in and before there was a huge pause, and this was also clear in relation to that Bill, so we are seeing a pattern across these Bills and these deals.

Moving on to the wider ambitions of the Government, I would like to ask—I see that the Secretary of State is leaving her place, but perhaps the Minister for Trade Policy will respond—whether this is the first step towards joining the regional comprehensive economic partnership, or just clearing the way to become a member of or a signatory to the CPTPP through the British overseas territory of the Pitcairn Islands.

[Jonathan Edwards]

From my understanding of the trans-Pacific partnership, it includes very strict provisions on state aid and an investor-state dispute resolution mechanism, both of which mean conceding a great deal of sovereignty. Does it not just go to show that the great Brexit slogans of “take back control” and “a global Britain” are inherently contradictory?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

The provisions of the investor-state dispute settlement are exceedingly worrying. We have seen previous trade deals founder on them because they give private entities a whip hand over Government and the state. We are meant to be taking back control, not handing it to private courts.

Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me on the points I have raised about his ambitions towards the CPTPP and the RCEP through that great overseas territory, the Pitcairn islands—which qualifies as it is in the Pacific.

Ultimately, we have to ask what kind of deal we want. Do we want a deal that puts the data privacy and security of the everyday person at its heart, or one that furthers British financial services? Do we want a deal that protects the natural environment or one that encourages lower standards? I would ask the Government to do better in future.

International Education Strategy

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bailey]

I will touch on that when I talk about the impact the visa regime has had.

The revised target in the strategy is to have 600,000 students contributing a net £35 billion to the economy by 2030. That would require a growth rate of something like 4% per annum. Whatever the headline figures, that seems an unambitious target. It is lower than we achieved between 2013 and 2018, which in itself was a long way behind our major competitors. The target would perpetuate a system where we are lagging behind in building market share in the very important world market in education.

There is constant repetition within the strategy about the opportunities that we will have once we have left the EU. In all my dealings on this issue, I have never heard anyone say that we are losing our market share because of the EU. I have heard plenty of other explanations, but I do not want our discussion to become hostage to a more partisan debate on our membership of the EU. Whether we are in or out, it is vital that we take the right steps now to maximise the contribution of international students to our economy.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the flagship programmes for our student exchange is the Erasmus programme. Non-EU countries can take part in that, but they must accept freedom of movement. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be hugely detrimental for the UK to leave the Erasmus programme and that the Government must do everything they can to ensure we remain within it?

[Mr Bailey]

Absolutely. I do not intend to go into the detail of the issues with the EU and students, but obviously the Erasmus programme is enormously attractive. Notwithstanding the Government’s good intentions to perpetuate it, there is still a huge degree of uncertainty. Any future strategy must involve perpetuating that programme.

In 2013, the tier 1 post-study work visa was abolished and stringent requirements were placed on international graduates who wanted to work in the UK following their studies. As a result, the number of students remaining to work following their studies fell by 87% between 2011 and 2016, from nearly 47,000 to just over 6,000. When the BIS Committee visited China in 2012, that was a big issue raised by our Chinese hosts. Similarly, in India it is a highly contentious issue, which I know has been raised by the host Government with our Government and business deputations ever since. The perception is that Britain no longer welcomes foreign students. However often the Government repeat the mantra that we are open for business, while we have a restrictive visa regime, and reported difficulties in obtaining visas, potential applicants will be deterred and our ability to compete with rival countries will be inhibited.

It is understandable that the brightest and best from other countries will want to come here not only for their education, but to use and contribute to our top class research, either in the private sector or the field of academia. From the UK’s perspective, it is ridiculous to invest money in developing talent only to then export it to other countries to use in their private sectors, sometimes in competition with companies in this country.

The fact is that far more generous post-study work offers are available in our competitor countries. That is why we are lagging. My disappointment with the strategy is that it does not identify the core problem, which explains what I consider to be our second rate performance, or provide evidence that the Home Office is willing to change it. The best the strategy offers are the so-called actions 3 and 4. Action 3 is:

“Government will strengthen the UK's visa offer for international higher education students”.

Action 4 is:

“The UK Government will keep the visa application process for international students under review”.

Those are warm words, but they are not strong or specific enough to motivate the brightest and best foreign students to choose the UK as opposed to other countries with a more generous and specific offer.

Why has this come about? The reason is the Government’s flawed and failed target to reduce net migration to below 100,000. The compilation of statistics of student movements within the net migration figures is worthy of a debate in itself. I do not have time to go into it in depth, but I will make two observations. First, there is considerable polling evidence that the public are far more supportive of the right of students to study and to work for at least two years thereafter than they are tolerant of other forms of immigration. About 75% of people support that approach.

Secondly, the statistical basis of compiling student immigration statistics using the international passenger survey, which was the basis used to introduce the visa policy, was seriously flawed. It overstated the number of students overstaying—the proportion is now considered to be less than 3%. In short, we have a student visa regime that is based on flawed statistics, that runs contrary to public opinion, and that undermines both our ability to recruit the maximum number of students and the economic benefits of our amazing institutions. That is one reason I will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who I am glad is present, to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.

In chapter 1.7 of the strategy, titled “A whole-of-government approach”, different Departments are listed as supporting the strategy, including the Foreign Office, the Department for Education, the Department for International Trade, the Department for International Development, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The conspicuous absentee is the Home Office. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Home Office is missing from the whole-of-Government approach, when its particular responsibilities are central to the policy’s success.

It is vital that the Home Office is signed up to both the policy and the processes if we are to meet, and hopefully exceed, our targets. The policy will be successful only if we have a visa regime that is competitive with rival providers. I ask the Minister what work the Department is doing with the Home Office to ensure that the visa offer, and the associated costs and processes, are at least as attractive—preferably more attractive—than other national providers?

I would like to discuss many other issues, but I will leave time for other Members to contribute. Unless the Minister can provide an adequate answer on the core issue, I suspect that in five years’ time our successors will debate it again, and we will be further behind in the vital race to secure the potential economic benefits from this market.

UK-Israel Trade

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, is not one of the issues with the agreement, as pointed out to us earlier by the European Council on Foreign Relations, the fact that Israel defines the borders? We have the issues of the green line, the blue line, the purple line and the status of Jerusalem. If we are to negotiate ourselves, should there not be international recognition of what the borders are, not Israeli definitions?

[Andy Slaughter]

Absolutely. We are dealing with matters of law here, and there is a lot of picking and choosing. It is all very well for Members to say, “Well, there was a business in the occupied territories.” How would Members here like it if foreign entities were operating in this country without our consent, which is what happens to the Palestinians? The demands placed on business could equally be placed on the Government in negotiating a new treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and there are few in this House who have done more to champion apprenticeships and the benefits that they can bring, particularly to young people. We want all young people and everybody in work to benefit from the apprenticeship scheme, which is why we are committed to having 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. So far, we have achieved 1.2 million. It is also why we are spending some £2.45 billion in cash terms, double the amount we spent in 2010.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. Have the Government made any assessment of whether local councils are meeting their duties under the Equality Act 2010, by keeping pavements clear of obstructions and safe for disabled people to walk?

[Amber Rudd]

It is essential that disabled people can go about their daily lives. Particularly as we move towards the local elections, it is important that they can get out, so that we can ensure that everybody participates in voting. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I will find out from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government whether it has made any such assessment.

European Affairs

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a bit of progress.

FTAs with the BRIC countries would be worth just over 2%. Any such trade deals, even if they could be secured reasonably quickly, would in all likelihood also involve detrimental trade-offs and compromises in standards and regulations with which the British public would rightly take issue.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point about regulation, the Government’s leaked cross-Whitehall EU exit analysis paper outlines the regulatory opportunities of Brexit and states:

“A cross-Whitehall work-stream is working through these opportunities.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is code for deregulation and the ripping up of our workplace environment rights? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is already unable to give us any clarification about the European Environment Agency. Is this not just a bonfire of our rights?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is certainly the fear. I read the same analysis as he did—I had to surrender my phone to do so and then found that it had been released publicly a week later—and it does say in several places that there are opportunities to deregulate. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why those things are being modelled and to what they might refer.

One has only to listen to the noises coming from the United States Government on issues ranging from the replacement of the EU-US open skies treaty to the inclusion of agriculture in any FTA to get a sense of how difficult things will be even when it comes to new deals with some of our closest allies, and that is irrespective of who occupies the White House. The prospect of new free trade agreements might give the International Trade Secretary a purpose, but they would be good for little else.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

7. How many and what proportion of employers within the scope of the gender pay gap regulations have published gender pay gap data.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. How many and what proportion of employers within the scope of the gender pay gap regulations have published gender pay gap data.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

13. How many and what proportion of employers within the scope of the gender pay gap regulations have published gender pay gap data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We have put in place ground-breaking legislation to ensure that we close the gender pay gap. The Equality and Human Rights Commission will oversee any sorts of sanctions that are necessary. I hope that it will be its intention, as it is ours, to use persuasion and demonstration of the law to get participation, but of course it can use the full force of the law if it finds that the legislation is not being complied with.

[Alex Sobel]

What measures are the Government undertaking to work with private sector business, civil society and others to close the gender pay gap?

[Amber Rudd]

It is incredibly important that we do address closing the gender pay gap. Transparency is one of the key ways that we will achieve that. Having this compulsion of reporting on gender pay is an important first step, but we will take it further. We will engage with businesses to see what measures they will be putting in place to address the gender pay gap. My experience, when I talk to businesses about this, is that when they realise that they have such a gender pay gap—to some, it is a revelation—they are moving to put in training and other measures to address it.