Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Debate between Alicia Kearns and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I quite agree. I understand from previous conversations that the Government do not outright oppose the Bill—we will see how the Minister responds today, as that might have slightly changed. It is quite right that they do not oppose it, because they have put forward this proposal numerous times. They are reserving judgment on some of the technicalities. I have given the Government two opportunities to propose amendments in the public consultations that I have run. They proposed no amendments. In fact, the Government agreed to do pre-legislative scrutiny of their own Bill but, six months later, that has not happened.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

On 31 January 2023 I tabled an amendment to the Online Safety Bill on conversion therapy. We had the numbers, but I told the Government that if they said in a written ministerial statement and on the Floor of this House that they would commit to pre-legislative security that would be completed by October, I would not push the amendment. I did not push the amendment because that commitment was given. Does the hon. Member agree that we have been brought to this place because the Government have not delivered on their manifesto commitment, despite having made promises on the Floor of this House to Conservative Members?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I quite agree. That is why it is important that the Government support the Bill, and thrash out the details later in Committee.

When I met the Secretary of State we talked about two-track progress: get the Bill in Committee, and use it to thrash out the details and allow the Government to keep developing their own plans, informed by the Committee. I hope the Government will honour the spirit of those discussions as I have entered into this process. I hope we can have a full debate and get to a natural end. But if need be, with the permission of Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, I believe that we have the numbers to divide on a closure motion. It would be much better to air the views of the House without dividing, and allow this new collaborative tone to sort out the issue in Committee.

I remind hon. Members that Conservative Members have tabled two amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that provide less protection and, rather than the fines under my Bill, prison sentences. This is an opportunity to get consensus before further-reaching measures are pushed to a vote in this House. If this Bill is talked out today, I will support those measures.

I will spend the rest of my speech on the technical aspects of the Bill and why we have come to the judgments that we have. Much of that is outlined in my explanatory notes, which my office has drafted. I am sure that other colleagues will want to talk about the experiences of their constituents, and I am happy to take as many interventions as I can, but I will try to make some progress.

This is not a debate on the wide trans issue—that will continue outside the Bill—or the merits of affirming or exploratory healthcare. We have the Cass review, and other evidence will come forward down the line. This is a framework Bill on conversion practices. It is not the same as the Scottish proposals or proposals in other countries. It addresses the concerns raised in the House of Lords, and I thank Baroness Burt for introducing a Bill to allow those views to be expressed. I have taken them on board. I beg Members to focus on the Bill, not the adjunct. However interesting the wider debate may be, this is a debate about how we ensure that people do not have a premeditated purpose to intend to change someone’s sexual orientation and transgender identity —terms that exist in British law today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the wording does not give parents a blank cheque for abuse, because the law already does not allow that. The law already sets the bar for courts’ determination on the welfare of a child. The courts already have a system to determine if there is a dispute between parents. The courts, or local authorities, already have a requirement to intervene where there is serious risk to a child. That is why I have used that body of law. Again, I do not think that it is our place to meddle with that body of well-established practice law. If he feels that there are words that would make that clearer, that is a case for sending the Bill to Committee and tabling amendments, and I will genuinely ensure that they get a hearing.

[Alicia Kearns]

The Bill reflects the limits in existing statute about where parents’ behaviour can go from supporting their child, through challenging conversations, to abuse. I am slightly concerned that there is a risk that some who oppose the Bill are suggesting that, if a parent’s challenging of their child’s LGBT inherent nature—who they are—becomes abuse, that is somehow acceptable: that being LGBT is a perversion and therefore that someone can be abusive to their child if they are LGBT, something they have not chosen but is inherent to who they are. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I quite agree. I have spoken to lots of people who have undergone conversion practices, often pushed by their parents. Almost none of them has said to me that they want their parents prosecuted; almost all have said that they want the practice to stop. That is the difference. That is what the Bill will do.

I acknowledge that there are many areas in which we may need clarity when the Bill is in operation. The Bill would require the Secretary of State to produce full guidance, and it would require devolved bodies to do so if the Bill is applied in their areas. While there is no ability to change the core offence in the Bill, clarificatory amendments are allowed under the affirmative procedure, which requires a vote in both Houses. It can never look back, but it can change things going forward when it needs to. The Bill would create an offence of sending someone abroad, using the same framework as that for female genital mutilation, an established piece of law that is already on the statute book.

Other Bills have tried to lock people up for these practices. To me, that seems totally foolish. Broadly, I do not believe in sending people to prison if we can find other ways to stop the practice. Therefore, I propose a fine not exceeding level 5 for conviction of an either-way offence in the magistrates court or the Crown Court, depending on the defendant or the prosecutor. Some ask: “Why not a civil fine rather than a criminal fine?” It is quite simple. The balance of probabilities is the test in civil law, and beyond reasonable doubt the test in criminal law. Do people want a lower threshold or a higher threshold? I have chosen the higher threshold to ensure that we get only the egregious cases.

We have seen the scandal of the Post Office, and many people have expressed a fear of activist groups on either side—using money from America or big donors—bringing private prosecutions and creating a chilling effect. At the suggestion of the Gay Men’s Network, but supported by all the people I have spoken to, I have prevented that from happening by allowing prosecutions only with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the Bill is enacted by the Scottish Government, those protections already exist in Scotland.

Finally, on penalties, we have sought to ensure that those with responsibility as charity trustees who are convicted under the Bill will be debarred from holding office. Being a trustee is a position of trust, and these practices often happen in those settings. The Charity Commission could, on application, remove that debarring if it wished to do so.

On the review clause, which the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned, almost everyone I spoke to was clear that the Bill is a start, but that they want to go further—some in one direction, by giving the Bill greater scope, and others in the direction of greater clarification. I have deliberately written the Bill to be narrow in scope. It will not have the ability to overreach. Many people feel that it will not capture all practices, but I understand that we must start somewhere and then move forward. That is why I included in the Bill, using wording from the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011—a process that we have already used—a four-year review clause, requiring the Secretary of State to set up a committee that has a majority of Members of this House but also other experts, to recommend amendments to the Bill. Of course, that committee would not be binding on this House; we would still have a vote.

Having met with numerous people, I believe I have created a balanced and fair Bill. Is it perfect? No. Is it a good start to the process? Yes. Should we take it to Committee and continue our work? Yes. For too long, this place has found reasons to take no action; we have allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The Bill should go to Committee, and I promise to appoint a diverse range of voices to that Committee. We should continue the dialogue and find practical solutions via amendments and tweaks, but not the grandstanding that we have had up to this point, of which I am as guilty as anyone. We should go to Committee and suggest amendments and greater clarifications.

To frustrate this Bill today when we have pledged for so many years to pass this legislation would be an indictment of this place. To frustrate this Bill today would be to break the pledges of the last five Prime Ministers, and the promises made at the last election and before that. Most importantly, to frustrate this Bill today would be to let down the survivors and future victims, and it is to them that I give the very last word. In the last year—not in the last decade, but in the last 12 months—Childline has had over 50 testimonies from young people. I will read one, from a girl aged 18:

“When I was younger, I told my parents I thought I was bi and they sent me to a counsellor who tried to convince me I was straight, and that my desire to be ‘different’ was purely for attention. Even though that was years ago, the effects of the counselling are still ongoing. It’s left me with a lot of guilt and confusion around who I am and how I’m supposed to act around other people.”

This Bill would stop that. It is for those people that we must act today. This is our first chance to do so; let us not let them down.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Alicia Kearns and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

This evening’s debate should focus on the specifics of the Bill in front of us. The right of Israel to exist and defend itself is not up for debate. The right of Palestine to exist and defend itself is also not up for debate. The UK supports a two-state solution, and I believe that everyone in the Chamber would also be of that mind. I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the implications of the current drafting of the Bill. It has implications on our historic commitments and responsibilities and ability to play the role of honest arbiter within the region, and risks undermining our commitments as a United Nations Security Council member.

My concerns about the Bill fall within four areas: first, foreign policy implications; secondly, exceptionalism in legislation; thirdly, protection of freedom of speech; and finally, the legality of what we are being asked to support. Let me begin with the implications of the Bill on foreign policy and international obligations. My first concern, as was raised in earlier interventions, is the conflation of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Conflating East Jerusalem, the west bank and the Golan Heights breaks with our position, because the UK recognises the Golan Heights as annexed and the west bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is a departure from our foreign policy.

Not only does the Bill break with our foreign policy, but clause 3(7) puts the UK in breach of our commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016). That is not just an international commitment; it is one that we drafted back in 2016. It states that in their “relevant dealings”, states must distinguish

“between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

The Bill does not distinguish between our treatment of Israel and the OPTs.

Why does breaching UNSCR 2334 matter? Because we rely on the rules based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies. How many of us have talked about the rule of law in this Chamber, when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, Serbia, the Balkans, and so many other parts of this world? The impact of the Bill would be significant. It will undermine our position as a respectable and reliable multilateral partner, committed to upholding UN Security Council resolutions as we should as a permanent member. It risks our losing the support of Arab states on shared issues, and their vote at the UN. We all know that western states are spending a significant amount of time trying to shore up the support of so-called non-aligned countries. I have spent most of the last few days on the phone to Arab ambassadors—the same Arab ambassadors who recognise Israel and want to normalise relations with Israel. Finally, we risk giving China, Iran, Russia, Serbia and others an easy propaganda win, because they will use this against us when we talk about the annexation of territories around the world.

I am concerned that the UN Special Coordinator would have no choice but to explicitly name the UK in their next report on how member states are adhering to compliance with UNSCR 2334. I also worry that it sends the wrong message about the achievement of sovereignty through violence. It means that if Israel breaches international law in the occupied territories, public bodies cannot express their ethical objection to those crimes. I worry that the Bill will leave the international community questioning whether Israeli settlements in the OPTs and the Golan Heights are still regarded as illegal by the UK Government.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady has given a very good list of people that the Bill could undermine. Does she also recognise that it undermines many people in Israel who oppose the occupation in the occupied territories, and it would make their life harder when making the case in Israel in a democratic sense?

[Alicia Kearns]

I have received significant representations from human rights organisations within Israel, and also from within our Jewish communities in the UK, who feel that this is not only the worst possible timing for the Bill, but that they themselves do not support it.

If we are now to have questioned our position on the OPTs legally, how is the Bill compatible with that, and with the fact that the Conservative Government recognise that settlements built on occupied Palestinian land since 1967 are illegal? We must ensure that all legislation makes a clear distinction between Israel where we support no boycott, and the illegal settlements on occupied land where a boycott would be consistent with our position on UNSCR 2334. Why are we undermining our international position by breaching our position on a two-state solution, and changing the UK’s recognition of certain territories as occupied, when the Bill can achieve the same end simply by removing clause 3(7)? The House will hear that point reiterated throughout the evening by many of my colleagues.

I was also concerned that the Secretary of State appeared not to be aware of the concerns emanating from the Foreign Office and from diplomatic posts. I ask him to clarify that when winding up this evening. I think the wording was that “no such advice had been received”. Has the Foreign Office truly not given any advice that it had concerns that the Bill breached our UN Security Council resolutions?

Overseas Territories

Debate between Alicia Kearns and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

I am sure a number of colleagues plan to talk about that in their speeches, so I will make progress with my own points so that colleagues will not have their speeches cut short.

Our debate today is one not of a paternalistic House of Commons, but of a body of representatives that recognises that within families there are responsibilities but also great opportunities. Today, I will set out specific requests but also commonalities that need to be raised within our family. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend, it is worth reiterating that all British overseas territories enjoy the right to self-determination, as set out in article 1 of the UN charter. They decide their own Government and their own constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom. The fact that they have decided to maintain a constitutional link with us does not diminish this most sacred of rights. I am sure the whole House will join me in reiterating our wholehearted and unwavering commitment to defending that principle, in spirt and in law.

While we believe that there is no question or debate over the right to self-determination, some members of our family face those seeking to undermine that fundamental right. At the G20 talks in March this year, Argentina unilaterally ended the 2016 pact on the Falkland Islands. That was wrong. The Government must continue to reject any demands from Argentina to revisit the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands. We must be clear that the right to determine the future of the Falkland Islands is the sole prerogative of its islanders. In 2013, 99.8% of all Falklanders who voted chose to remain British. There is no debate over the right to self-determination.

I draw the House’s attention to another area where the Falklanders require our support. Under the United Nations Committee of 24, the Falkland Islands is currently classified as a non-self-governing territory, but we know that is factually incorrect, both under the first Falklands constitution, signed in 1985, and under the new constitution, signed into law by Her Majesty the Queen in 2009. The Falkland Islands is self-governing but willing to refer its foreign and defence policy to the United Kingdom. The Government should help the Falklands to correct that misclassification, so that the Falkland Islands will be recognised at the UN as the proud, self-governing territory that it is.

On the subject of sovereignty, I turn to Gibraltar and its right to remain a UK overseas territory. Under the double lock guarantee, the UK has given a solemn assurance that it will never enter into any negotiation on Gibraltar’s sovereignty in which Gibraltar is not content. The post-Brexit negotiations are not yet concluded and we must ensure they are guided by the double lock principle. I am sure the House would condemn any future compromise on that. If, for whatever reason, Gibraltar is left with no negotiated outcome, I would urge the Government to provide the support needed to deal with any economic uncertainty and ensure the continued success of the Rock.

While overseas territories choose to remain part of our global family, that does not mean we should blindly accept the status quo. We should challenge ourselves to provide the best possible support for their individual hopes and needs, and try to support them to achieve those. We should embed engagement across Government directly with overseas territories, rather than relying on all manner of priorities to be dealt with through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as some sort of arbiter.

There is widespread frustration about just how difficult it is to engage in even basic dialogue with Government Departments. Surely, given our belief in self-determination, it is only right that overseas territories make their own case to Government Departments, rather than relying on the Foreign Office to act as messenger. They make their own case best when their voices are heard. That will also help to tackle any lingering belief in paternalistic governance.

The Foreign Affairs Committee made that recommendation in 2019, because neither the territories nor their citizens are foreign. Therefore, it is fundamentally at odds to have them supported through the Foreign Office. I urge the Government to drastically change how OTs are treated. That starts with beefing up the powers of the overseas territories directorate so that it is not seen as some sort of backwater—I apologise to civil servants observing the Chamber today—and ensuring it has the powers that are needed and that Ministers give it sufficient focus. I also urge the Minister to have all Government Departments update their strategies on the OTs, because not one of them is less than a decade old. That cannot be right; we need to update the individual strategies.

The UK’s relationship with OTs is characterised by obligations and opportunities on both sides. We face problems, including in protecting our oceans. The British maritime estate is the fifth largest in the world. It offers sanctuary to a plethora of wildlife from the south Atlantic to the Indian and Pacific oceans. Some 94% of unique British wildlife can be found in the territories, from breeding turtles in Ascension, coral reefs in Pitcairn and great whales in the Falklands to the many species that call the tropical forests of St Helena and Montserrat home. In addition, I encourage all wildlife lovers to make sure they follow the long-awaited hatching of osprey eggs in Rutland, which is expected in the coming days.

Britain plays a leading role in global conservation, thanks to the partnership of our territories and two key initiatives: the Blue Belt and Darwin Plus programmes. Without our global family, this would not be the case. It is safe to say that our overseas territory communities contribute more to protecting the ocean, per head of population, than anywhere else on earth, so we should be grateful for their contribution as part of the global British family.

Environmental initiatives demonstrate the power of partnership, but there are other areas in which the UK can do more as a partner. One such area is education. All overseas territory citizens are British citizens, yet they were finally granted access to tuition loans when studying in the UK only in 2022. The process for applying for a tuition loan remains far too complicated for those from OTs, not least because they have to send in their applications by post, which may be convenient for people who live in Rutland or lovely Melton Mowbray, of pork pie fame, but is slightly more difficult for those who live in St Helena, which is nearly 5,000 miles from the UK.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady not think it is a great shame that the newly established University of Gibraltar is not entitled to accept British students on home fees or to access the UCAS system? It works one way but it is not reciprocal, and that needs to change if we are a true family.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We may not always agree, but on that we absolutely do. I am sure that if Mr Speaker was in the Chair, he would be entirely in support of the hon. Gentleman’s point, because he is the Chancellor of the University of Gibraltar —I am sure he will reward the hon. Gentleman later this afternoon.

Education is key, and another issue is that should OT citizens come here to study, they cannot access maintenance loans to support them. University life is already too expensive and we can better support those who come to the UK. It is a matter of fairness.

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Section 35 Power

Debate between Alicia Kearns and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is difficult when we are talking about these emotional matters.

The reality of this is that this section 35 is the new Tories’ section 28. It is their continuation of a war against a group of people—their culture war—that they want to pursue, and they think it will advantage them in the polls. That is what the Australian Conservatives thought as well and what the Republicans in the US thought, but I trust it will not, because the people do not like the bigotry that we hear from the other side.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I will give way, but it is bigotry that we just heard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Could I just say to the hon. Gentleman that we are very short of time and I hope that, if he takes an intervention, he will stick to the four minutes?

[Alicia Kearns]

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this, but I would ask him to use caution about labelling a party as solely one thing, because it is Conservative party colleagues who led for the conversion therapy ban that has been announced today. When I was elected, no other MP talked about it for seven months, and we have delivered it today. I caution him to please not label all Members on certain sides of the House as transphobic or homophobic, and I also challenge anyone being labelled that in this House.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I will say that there are some very honourable Members on all sides of the House, including the Conservative side, who resisted moves from the Government and who, when trans conversion therapy was removed from that ban, pushed for it to get back in, and their work is to be applauded.

What this report says in reality is that there is no amendment this Government would accept or allow to pass. What this flimsy piece of paper indicates is that the only Bill they would accept is the current UK law, and anything that deviates from it would be blocked. I am afraid that is an undermining of the very concept of devolution. The Government should just be honest, and say that they want to remove the devolved competences in this area from the Scottish Parliament and return them back to Westminster. At least that would be an honest debate, rather than this dog-whistle debate about the safety of children, which, frankly, is not correct.

Of course there will be concerns and of course this Bill will not be perfect—no Bill is perfect—but one of the key principles of my job, and I think of the job of all of us, is not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let us see how this Bill rolls out in Scotland. We could then see the flaws that might come from it, and the Scottish Parliament could have amended it and taken action, because all Bills are living, practical documents.

I say this as a gay man who loves all-male spaces sometimes and finds that the liberation of having such spaces is important—and I am sure that many women feel that the safety of all-women spaces is important to them—but this Bill does not change that law one bit. GRCs exist at the moment, and we already have a system for people to change their passport and their driving licence without a GRC. Going into a toilet, a public facility or a refuge is not contingent on a certificate at all, so all those arguments are bogus, and to continue a bogus argument knowing that it is bogus is, I am afraid, a form of bigotry.

Commonwealth in 2020

Debate between Alicia Kearns and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Yes, we did that two years ago, in 2018, at the CHOGM London meeting, but the Government failed to put this on the agenda of that meeting and to include it in the communiqué. I agree that we should be leading by example, but that means that when we have the chairmanship of Commonwealth positions and we do not raise these things, even gently, we are failing.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of what was on the agenda at CHOGM, but does he recognise that the majority of diplomatic work that is done to achieve genuine difference is done behind the scenes? It is not about dragging our partners to the front of the stage and shaming and embarrassing them; it is about working behind the scenes to change their minds, showing them alternatives and working with them to achieve real change, so that they can own that change, rather than having it be seen as imposed as some neo-colonial viewpoint.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I worked with the Commonwealth secretariat and I have worked at the United Nations on these issues, so I know exactly what the hon. Lady is referring to. However, the proof is in the pudding, and I am afraid that the pudding is going rotten—things are going backwards. The situation of LGBT rights in these countries is deteriorating, not improving. If this is all done through private discussions, which are important, those discussions are going very poorly. Perhaps there comes a time when gently—we do not have to embarrass people—we publicly say, “We don’t think enough progress has been made on this, and we would like to move forward.”

It is important to say that all those countries have laws on their statute books because we imposed them. Those laws were not there before colonisation. In many of those countries, there was no legal discrimination and we imposed it. We have rightly seen our historical mistake and we have changed how we do things here, but we have a duty then to support others on the ground. It was right that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), apologised last year. It was a brave thing for the Government to do, but it is time now for actions. Not only did the Government fail to put LGBT rights on the agenda, but the communiqué from London failed to mention them even once. Let us contrast that with what happened at the Commonwealth youth forum, where LGBT rights were raised in the opening and in the calls for action.