Section 28 Repeal: 20th Anniversary

Debate between Ben Bradshaw and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bradshaw]

I completely agree, and I will come on to talk a bit more about that in a second. Our first attempt to repeal section 28 in 2000 was thwarted in the House of Lords, but we eventually got it scrapped in the autumn of 2003—happy anniversary, everyone!

Repealing section 28 was part of a bonfire of discrimination and out-of-date laws applying to LGBT people. In my view, that was among the proudest and historically significant achievements of the Blair-Brown Governments. It included an equal age of consent, civil partnerships, an end to the ban on gays in the military, gay adoption, the ban on discrimination in the provision of goods and services, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. What is more, those advances were not reversed by the Cameron, May or even Boris Johnson Governments, but in the past year or two there have been worrying signs of a renewed moral panic, fuelled, as in the 1980s, by powerful elements in the media and politicians who should know better, targeted particularly at transgender and non-binary people.

We are not alone. We only have to look at Republican states in America, Orbán’s Hungary or Meloni’s Italy to see LGBT people under sustained attack, but Britain’s fall from equalities leader to laggard has been dramatic. Until 2015, the UK was consistently ranked among the best countries in Europe to be LGBTQ+; this year, we have fallen to 17th.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this critically important debate, not least because I, too, grew up under section 28 and was not able to be open about my sexuality. I was an incredibly repressed, closeted young gay man, and I was not fully able to express that. That did huge amounts of harm to me and my peer group. Does he agree that there has not been backsliding in all parts of the UK? In fact, in Wales, where I grew up and where I am proud to represent a diverse community, we have a fully inclusive relationship and sexuality education curriculum that represents the full breadth and diversity of our communities and society and encourages respect in an age-appropriate and culturally appropriate way.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is the difference a Labour Government make. I am sure some of our SNP colleagues will be making the same point about Scotland a little later.

The current Westminster Government have repeatedly broken their long-standing promise to ban the psychological abuse known as conversion therapy; they have abandoned the pledge made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was Prime Minister to reform the gender recognition process; they have used spurious constitutional arguments to block Scotland’s democratically agreed gender recognition reforms; and they have threatened to repeal the Equality Act, in effect, to cancel trans people. Stonewall, our main LGBT charity, which was founded in response to section 28, faces a constant onslaught from the Government and their allies in the press. Unsurprisingly, in this atmosphere, hate crime against LGBT people has rocketed. Britain’s supposedly independent Equality and Human Rights Commission has been packed with political cronies and it is now being investigated by the United Nations. Ministers brief almost every week that they intend to reverse LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education in schools—their modern-day equivalent of section 28.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Ben Bradshaw and Stephen Doughty

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I wish to draw the House’s attention to the verbal and written evidence presented by Lord Pannick, which I think addressed many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and other members of the Committee regarding the protections and legal status of various people in the Bill. His memorandum to the Bill states:

“The legal position is clear beyond doubt. The Bill states, in unambiguous terms, that no religious organisation or representative is required to marry a same sex couple;”

and he mentions the opt-in and opt-out mechanisms. He also makes clear that:

“For the European Court of Human Rights to compel a religious body or its adherents to conduct a religious marriage of a same-sex couple would require a legal miracle much greater than the parting of the Red Sea”.

He made that point clearly and ended his submission by stating:

“For the reasons set out above, the arguments of those who oppose the Bill are not assisted by legal concerns.”

[Mr Bradshaw]

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that some Government Members do not seem to believe the Education Secretary who, in clear evidence about freedom of speech for teachers, said:

“If I thought any legislation, however well intentioned, would make life more difficult for great teachers and great schools, I wouldn’t support it. I have complete confidence in the protection our law offers freedom of conscience and speech.”?

He said that no change to the proposed legislation was necessary.

[Stephen Doughty]

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. The Education Secretary made his point clearly and was put under detailed scrutiny by Government Members.

I have held conversations with members of the Church of England and the Church in Wales since the Public Bill Committee, and they seem reassured by a number of the measures put forward and the questions raised. I also point to the simple passion of witnesses such as Alice Arnold, who stated their clear wish to get married and not to have to answer questions about that ambiguously, as they do at the moment. I remind the House of the passion for equality that exists.

I regret that there have been further attempts to muddy the waters by opponents of the Bill outside the House. As I said, the debate in Committee was respectful, but matters have been raised in the press and media over the past few days that cause concern. I have received a number of confused and concerning e-mails and e-mails from people who are absolutely behind the House and the clear majority expressed on Second Reading and behind the polls that show the public’s clear support for the Bill, notwithstanding their respect for those who feel differently. I therefore feel that there is simply no need for a number of the amendments proposed, and having seen some of the evidence presented I would have thought some of them might have been withdrawn.