Pride Month

Janet Daby Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Pride Month.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I associate myself with the comments you have just made.

As one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) rights, very ably co-chaired by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), I wish everyone a very happy Pride Month indeed. I have looked over some of the Hansard records of Pride debates we have had in this place over the course of the past few years, and I think it is always right and positive to start with the good news and the progress that we have made—not only in the UK but globally—towards further equality for LGBT+ people around the world. Last year and the year so far have been no exceptions, with new conversion therapy bans brought in around the world and more countries achieving decriminalisation.

However, sadly, we meet here against the backdrop of a very worrying and concerning backwards step in many parts of the world, where we are seeing attacks against LGBT+ people—not just where we might expect them, but here in the UK as well. I will touch on some of those attacks throughout the course of my speech. Having looked at Hansard records of Pride debates since the start of this Parliament—they have become an annual tradition—I note that a lot of the concerns that were raised in those debates are, sadly, still very much relevant today. We have not yet seen enough action on some of the points we have raised, and indeed, some points I want to raise today are new.

I will start with the global perspective. I reiterate the good news that we have seen new conversion therapy bans and decriminalisation. That is to be welcomed, but it has to considered alongside the extremely serious and worrying backwards steps and the anti-human- rights agenda that we are seeing in many parts of the world. The best example we can give of that is the Anti- Homosexuality Bill that Uganda has shamefully just passed. I know full well that that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has expressed its deep concern and is having conversations, and I appreciate its efforts. Again, to touch on a positive, I have seen examples of British missions around the world doing incredible work, liaising with activists on the ground, sometimes in extremely difficult circumstances. Our ambassadors and the mission staff around the world are to be congratulated. However, I urge the Government to go further by ensuring that this is a foreign policy objective and an aid objective; that they are using every tool at their disposal to influence change and support activists in very difficult circumstances, and indeed to support those who will inevitably try to flee such discrimination.

The Bill in Uganda carries the death penalty. We know full well that people will be scared for their lives, and we need to make sure that we are there for them, not just in Uganda but in the many other places where we are seeing backward steps on LGBT+ rights. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance that he is having conversations with the FCDO and that decriminalisation, stopping legislation of that kind, and tackling discrimination against LGBT+ people around the world remain foreign policy objectives for this Government. I commend the good work that I have seen missions do.

To bring the debate back to home, I want to repeat a lot of what has been said in previous Pride debates—we have to say it again, sadly, because we have not seen progress. The obvious thing to start with is conversion practices and conversion therapy. We have been raising this issue for years now and a Bill has been promised several times, but we are still waiting for the draft Bill to be published. The Government have cross-party support to get the Bill through the House, and to get it through quickly.

I remind the House and those watching that every single day in the UK, right now, people are being subjected to dehumanising torture—that is essentially what conversion practices amount to—but they are without recourse to justice because those practices are perfectly legal at the moment. It is urgent that we act with speed to bring forward that legislation as soon as possible, so I hope the Minister can give us an update. I know that we spoke about this during business questions, but I hope he will be able to tell us a little more about the timetable for the conversion practices Bill. I can guarantee him massive cross-party support to get it through this House.

Another issue that we have raised before but again needs focus is the increase in LGBT+ hate crime across the United Kingdom, and particularly the level of hate crime towards transgender people—I will touch on the toxicity around trans issues a bit later.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for making such a significant opening speech. Over 24% of young people experiencing homelessness identify as LGBTQ+. Does he agree that the Government need to do more to address this issue, and that one of the ways of doing so would be to improve the monitoring of gender identity and sexuality in housing and homelessness services?

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I do think she is right. Perhaps the Minister could update us on the conversations he is having with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the issue, because it is a fact that around a quarter of all young homeless people identify as LGBT+. We know full well what the reasons are: they are fleeing unsupportive households, but many do not know where to go for support, do not have the capacity to access support, or—for whatever reason—do not get that help and support. It is a massive cohort of people, so I hope the Minister can tell us a little more about the conversations that the Government Equalities Office and DLUHC are having to tackle that specific issue. I thank the hon. Lady for raising it.

I want to touch on something that has appeared on the horizon since our last Pride Month debate: the Government’s recent announcement on their review into relationship and sex education in schools. I do have concerns, which I know are shared by many in the education sector and further afield—this also relates to the Department for Education’s new trans guidance for schools—that the RSE review will lead to a backwards step and will, potentially, bring back section 28 by the back door, which we do not want. Section 28 is something that our party had to apologise for, and we have come so far since that moment. We do not want to see it brought back. Many might say, “That could never happen,” but I ask colleagues to look to the United States, where several states have introduced section 28-style legislation. We cannot allow that to happen here in the United Kingdom.

I therefore urge the Minister to give us some assurance that the RSE review will not break our pledge to ensure that RSE is mandatory, because it is not just about LGBT+ people; it also teaches about consent, it teaches women and girls about healthy relationships and to avoid sexual violence where possible, and it teaches boys not to avoid dangerous behaviour. RSE is a great achievement that we should be proud of. We should not be shy about the fact that this Government introduced it. The House should send a strong message that we will not accept a watering down of those protections.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Janet Daby Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make some progress. Lords amendment 2 would require a consultation be carried out and reviewed before use was made of the power to make regulations setting minimum service levels. The primary stated motivation for tabling the amendment was to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations implementing minimum service levels. Although there may be some merit to the intentions behind the amendment, it is, in the Government’s view, duplicative, and would ultimately delay the implementation of the policy. For those reasons, we disagree with it.

I turn to Lords amendments 4 and 5, and the associated tidying amendments, Lords amendments 6 and 7. In the Government’s view, the amendments were tabled to make the Bill inoperable.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain how the legislation complies with all International Labour Organisation conventions?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We believe that it does. The ILO endorses the use of minimum service levels to make sure that the provision of public services is maintained during periods of industrial action. We are happy with our position on that.

We resist Lords amendments 4 to 7 on the principle that the Government have a duty to pass effective legislation. It is regrettable that Opposition Lords have sought to undermine that principle. Lords amendment 4 would mean that there were no consequences for a worker who did not comply with a work notice. The Government disagree with the amendment, as without those consequences, employers would be powerless to manage instances of non-compliance, and strikes would continue to have a disproportionate impact on the public. That would severely undermine the effectiveness of the legislation. Given that the amendment would make the Bill ineffective, as I suspect the Opposition intended, the Government cannot support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member makes a crucial point, which I was trying to make to the Minister: on non-strike days, minimum service levels do not apply at the moment. Many of the people providing our public services are absolutely screaming at the Government, “We need more people working in those services. We are having record vacancies. We are having people leave the profession because of the mismanagement by this Conservative Government.” Take our fire and rescue services: how does the closure of 80 fire stations across the UK keep the public and our brave firefighters safe? Take our precious NHS: how does having 7.3 million patients left on waiting lists keep people safe? And take our overstretched schools: how do record teacher vacancies keep our children safe?

[Janet Daby]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion, published on 21 February, red-rated the Government’s impact assessment for the Bill as “not fit for purpose”? Does she agree that, in fact, it is the Government who are not fit to govern?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. How will threatening key workers with the sack in the middle of an unprecedented recruitment and retention crisis do anything to provide the level of services that the public deserve?

We will also hear tonight that the Bill brings us into line with international standards, but what does the Minister have to say to the ILO’s director general who slammed down the Bill in January? The Minister did not effectively answer the questions that were put to him during his opening statement. What does he say to President Biden’s labour Secretary, who also raised concerns?

We are going to hear that the Bill is the only way to bring strikes to a close. We are now in May and there is no end in sight to the current wave of industrial action, harming the public, small businesses and, not to mention, the workers who lose a day’s pay. Might I give the Minister some friendly advice? Strikes are ended by getting round the table, not by insulting the very workers who kept the country going during the depths of the pandemic.

The Bill is one of the most sinister attacks on working people I have seen, and I speak as a trade unionist, an employer and a Member of this House. It gives Ministers the power to threaten every nurse, firefighter, health worker, rail worker or paramedic with the sack. Other Government Members wanted even more people to be in scope. I do not think they want anybody anywhere to have trade union rights in this country. This is being done at their whim. They have literally gone from clapping nurses to sacking nurses.

In the words of my noble Friend Baroness O’Grady, Lords amendment 4 is about

“the individual freedoms, dignity and livelihoods of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 2023; Vol. 829, c. 1242.]

Labour is proud to support that amendment. We ask any Government Member—there are not many of them here—who believes in the right to protection from unfair dismissal to vote with us tonight.

We also stand by the provision in Lords amendment 4 to require employers to serve work notices and to prove that individuals have received them. The Government’s proposal not only threatens workers, but burdens employers, including our overstretched public services and small businesses. That only goes to show the Bill’s complete unworkability and proves the point of all employers who have condemned it.

The Bill also represents an almighty attack on trade unions—unions made up of ordinary working men and women. We are all grown up enough to acknowledge the integral role they play in our economy and our democracy. I think we can all agree that attempts to attack their ability to represent their members is morally, economically and democratically wrong. In its original form, the Bill would require them to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance work with notices, without any clarity on what that means. The Government have effectively conceded the flaws in their drafting of the Bill in their concession on Lords amendment 3. That is welcome, but not enough. The Minister asks us to vote tonight for vague and unclear wording that gives us no idea of what they actually require trade unions to do. So we will vote to keep Lords amendment 5 and by extension, Lords amendments 6 and 7.