Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill (Instructions)

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows]

I do not think that was an edifying intervention.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend take an edifying intervention?

[Marion Fellows]

Yes.

[Joanna Cherry]

Is my hon. Friend as surprised as me that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), a former prosecutor, does not understand that prosecutions do not go through the Scottish Parliament? The prosecution service in Scotland is completely independent of Parliament. That is a fundamental aspect of our constitution. Is she as shocked as me that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, and does she agree that the fact that he misses such a fundamental point rather undermines the force of his argument?

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for making that point. The body responsible for bringing miscarriages of justice before the court of appeal in Scotland is the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is not under the spell of the Lord Advocate. That argument is spurious to say the least.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I am very aware that the regius professor of law at the University of Glasgow made that very point to the Justice Committee. There has been widespread disquiet; I think the Chair of that Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), would agree that no one in the legal profession really wants this Bill. It is breaking all precedent, but for a really good reason.

Postmasters have suffered. Robert Thomson, the postmaster who was going to be sitting in the Gallery, was convicted in 2006 while his mother was still alive. He is the man who had to talk to his sons and tell them, “I might not be here tomorrow.” He did not go to prison, but he could not get a job that gave him the income that he had when he was a postmaster. He has been in penury, his life has been turned upside down, and his children have suffered enormously. That is the case for so many sub-postmasters across the United Kingdom: they did nothing wrong, yet people were pointing at them in the street and whispering. Another sub-postmaster who was going to be in the Gallery watching us all today had to move back to his hometown because, five years later, he heard people in the supermarket saying, “There’s the guy who stole from the Post Office.” This kind of thing never leaves those victims—they will carry it to their dying day. Robert Thomson’s mother died before her son spent two years going through the Scottish courts to be exonerated.

Every time I have been in this place when any legal issue comes up, I am told that this Parliament is sovereign. Well, prove it: put the provisions of this Bill into Scotland-wide use as well. [Interruption.] Members can stand at the back, smile and snigger, but I mean it—it is absolutely disgraceful that you are saying to Scottish sub-postmasters who were convicted that they cannot get justice at the same time as their English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts. This is a Westminster problem. Westminster must and should sort it out, and it is easily done. Ask for a legislative consent motion, and you will get it. The Scottish Parliament will put a Bill through to exonerate these postmasters, but it cannot do it—it cannot mirror exactly what is done in this place—until this Bill has gone through all of its stages.

[Joanna Cherry]

Having regard to the evidence of Professor Chalmers, who of course is regius professor of criminal law at Glasgow University—that addressing this problem would be best done in this place—does my hon. Friend agree that we often hear sanctimonious lectures from the UK Government about how Scotland’s two Governments should work together to benefit Scotland? This legislation deals with a problem made on the UK Government’s watch; is it not the perfect example of an issue on which Scotland’s two Governments should act together, with the UK Government taking the lead in the same way that they have done for Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government consenting, so that we can get justice done swiftly for Scottish postmasters and postmistresses in the same way as it has been done for other people in this glorious Union that Tory Members are always telling us about?

[Marion Fellows]

Yes. I was appalled, upset and disturbed by the fact that the Scottish Government had been trying to contact Westminster Ministers to get this Bill to cover Scotland as well, and there was no comeback and no correspondence—nobody bothered. One afternoon, within a two-hour period, the Minister—who I greatly admire, as he knows; I have a very good working relationship with him—was able to phone the Northern Irish First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Justice Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

Has the Minister taken the time to read the evidence taken at the Justice Committee when Professor Chalmers said that the purpose of the Bill is to make sure convictions can be quashed so that innocent people can be compensated? The scandal originated with a faulty computer system and dubious investigatory procedures within a UK-wide institution. The scheme for compensation is to be UK-wide, so the paving legislation should be UK-wide, too. That is the opinion of the regius professor of criminal law at the University of Glasgow. Has the Minister given that any thought, and can he tell me why it is wrong?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for her point, and I heard the points she raised earlier. It is very clear that all that is required for someone to access the compensation is the overturning of a conviction, and that can be done by means chosen by the Scottish Parliament or the means that have been chosen by the UK Parliament. There will be identical access to the compensation schemes: it makes no difference by whatever mechanism those convictions are overturned.

As I said earlier, the Lord Advocate has said very clearly that

“It is important to recognise that in Scotland, there is an established route of appeal in circumstances such as this…and that due process must be followed.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 January 2024; c. 14.]

She is of course entitled to that view. These are difficult political choices, which we have taken in defining the cohort criteria, and it is right that responsible Ministers remain accountable for those decisions. The buck stops here, and it must also stop with the Scottish Government.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said earlier, Scottish Ministers have the responsibility and the means to be able to form this legislation. We think it is important that they take responsibility for their decisions in this area, given the nature of these issues.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make some progress, if I may.

I note that the First Minister stated on Thursday 18 April that the Scottish Government are prepared to introduce legislation to the Scottish Parliament to overturn convictions—I understand from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that that legislation has actually been drafted—and I believe it is possible and necessary for the Scottish Government to do so swiftly. Our position on Scotland’s inclusion in the Bill is very clear. The Government made a statement on 22 February to that effect, and I have written to the Scottish Government on this point. Indeed, the First Minister’s comments, together with the proposed draft amendment to the UK Bill that the Scottish Government have published, suggest that they should be in a position to do so.

The UK Government remain committed to supporting the Scottish Government to progress their own approach to their legislation. I have met Scottish Government Ministers multiple times since this Bill was introduced, and officials at the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice hold weekly meetings with officials in the Scottish Government to discuss these issues.

In conclusion, I remain of the view that the Scottish Government should introduce their own legislation to quash convictions in their jurisdiction. As such, the Government oppose this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for organising the briefing for us today. I attended it; I think there was only one sub-postmaster and one solicitor present at the time, but it was useful to hear from them. I pay tribute, as I have done before, to her for the work that she has done.

I suppose it is a consequence of the motion before the House that we have emphasised its procedural aspects more heavily than the outcomes, but the House today needs to focus on the best possible outcomes for sub-postmasters. If there had been insistence on the Northern Ireland Assembly drawing up legislation, that would have required a 12-week minimum statutory consultation period, and that would have produced a worse outcome for sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland. For that reason, I thought that the direction in which the Minister moved was absolutely sensible.

I am afraid that I do not take the same view on the position in Scotland. Including Scotland in the Bill would leave unresolved issues, and the Bill would therefore leave Scottish postmasters in a poorer position than those in the rest of the country.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. and learned Lady let me explain why I take that view? On 16 January, the Lord Advocate made the following observations, and I think that she is quite right:

“The vast majority of the cases that may be affected by the issue were cases in which the accused pled guilty to the offence. Often, those pleas were tendered under legal representation. Although it is impossible to comment on every case, prosecutors do not mark cases to proceed in the absence of corroboration—they simply do not do that. Defence solicitors do not advise clients to plead guilty in the absence of corroboration. In cases that proceed to trial, the sheriffs do not convict in the absence of corroboration. As a result, it is reasonable to infer that, in cases that resulted in a conviction—whether by guilty plea or conviction after trial—other evidence was available that was capable of supporting the finding of guilt…As I have explained, not every Horizon case will involve a miscarriage of justice. In some cases, there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 January 2024; c. 22-27]

That is the view and analysis of the Lord Advocate. Essentially, what she is saying—I have always believed that this is right—is that because of the way that the laws of evidence and procedure operate in Scotland, and in particular because of the need for corroboration, qualitative safeguards that bring better outcomes are available to people who are before the Scottish courts. The presence of corroboration is an important part of Scots law, and the Lord Advocate is right to highlight that. As she has raised these issues, I believe that it is better for legislation to be made in the Scottish Parliament, where the equivalent to this stage would take place in a committee, and not in the Chamber, as is the case here; again, that is preferable.

[Joanna Cherry]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the concerns that the Lord Advocate has expressed are similar to those expressed by lawyers from across these islands about this legislation? Ultimately, it is Parliament’s decision whether to exonerate. Has he read the evidence given to the Criminal Justice Committee, and does he disagree with Professor Chalmers, who said that the purpose of the Bill is to make sure that convictions can be quashed, so that innocent people can be compensated quickly; that the scandal originated with a faulty computer system and dubious investigating procedures in a UK-wide institution; and that the scheme for compensation is UK-wide, so the paving legislation should be UK wide? That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of one of Scotland’s most pre-eminent criminal lawyers, the regius professor at Glasgow. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why he is wrong?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. and learned Lady has said herself that this is a matter of opinion. I put great confidence in the opinion of Professor Chalmers, but I come to a different conclusion, because the route to conviction lay through civil servants employed by the Scottish Government—[Interruption.] As the hon. and learned Lady reminds us, almost three decades ago, I was one of them, so I understand perfectly how the system works, and I also understand that if I ever got it wrong—incredible though that suggestion may seem—the accountability for my mistake would be through the Lord Advocate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Lady knows that I agree with her a lot more than either of us would ever admit, but on this matter, there is clearly a difference of opinion. The decision on whether the route to exoneration should be through the Scottish Parliament or through this place is a political choice.

[Joanna Cherry]

I sense that the right hon. Gentleman is reaching his peroration, and as we are both Scots lawyers, I wonder if he will join me in correcting the Labour party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). She said repeatedly that the Scottish judiciary did not want this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Scottish judiciary, like the English judiciary, would never comment on the desirability of legislation. Does he agree that the hon. Lady was getting mixed up with the Lord Advocate? Perhaps she should have a chance to correct the record later, because it is very important that the House does not give the impression that the Scottish judiciary have been criticising Parliament when they have not.

[Mr Carmichael]

I say gently to the hon. and learned Lady that the Scottish judiciary would never comment publicly because, in my experience, they have ways of making their views known. But she is right to point out that on this occasion, the Opposition spokesperson confused the office of the Lord Advocate with the judiciary. I would say to the hon. and learned Lady, however, that that in itself demonstrates to me the need for this matter to be dealt with where the expertise lies, which is the Scottish Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

May I make a bit of progress? I will then give way.

There is also the question of the evidence used around corroboration. There are differences in the convictions.

More importantly, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw spoke about one of the organisations involved—the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which she rightly said was the body that brought cases for review in Scotland—but she did not mention the accountability aspect. The commission was created by an Act of the Scottish Parliament, is responsible to the Scottish Parliament and gets its budget from the Scottish Government. There is a clear line of accountability between the Scottish Justice Secretary, the Scottish Government and the bodies responsible for reviewing these convictions, so the accountability is clearly with the Scottish Parliament.

[Joanna Cherry]

May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he is completely misunderstanding what we are dealing with? We are dealing with absolutely extraordinary legislation that is quashing convictions as a gateway to compensation. Giving us a lecture of dubious accuracy on the lines of accountability of the Crown Office in Scotland does not address that. This legislation is going over the head of the Crown Prosecution Service in England, just as it would go over the head of the Crown Office in Scotland. Why cannot he appreciate that point? Is it because he is playing politics with the issue, like his Front-Bench colleagues?

[Michael Shanks]

The suggestion of dubious lectures coming from the Scottish National party is slightly misguided. I accept the point that the legislation goes above normal legal precedent, but there is no reason why the Scottish Parliament could not invoke its emergency Bill procedures as it has done in the past, recognising that this is an extraordinary situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I would share that distaste, but those comments were reflecting what the Lord Advocate has said. I have letters from the Lord Advocate in my hand that repeat that point a number of times. Of course, the Lord Advocate sits around the Cabinet table with, I think—I will need to check—the current First Minister, Humza Yousaf.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Michael Shanks]

No. I have taken a lot of interventions and am going to make a bit of progress.

My second point is about timing. I do not accept the SNP’s argument at all that the timing is an issue. I have heard the Minister make the point on a number of occasions that the compensation regime will be available to people who have been exonerated—by whatever means that is—at the moment they are exonerated, so there is no question about that.

On the point about the Scottish Parliament not being able to rush through legislation, it does not have the same processes as the Northern Ireland Assembly—it does not have to go through a lengthy consultation process—so it could introduce a Bill tomorrow and have it passed before there is a vote on any of the confidence motions on Thursday. Indeed, in 2020, the Scottish Parliament passed an emergency Bill on covid—a considerably more difficult piece of legislation, stretching to 138 pages—in just two days, and the idea that this Bill is somehow more complicated than that is ridiculous.

There is no reason why the Scottish Parliament cannot take responsibility and introduce a Bill now. Indeed, if there was a question about not being able to finalise the Bill until the UK Bill had passed, the Scottish Parliament could take it all the way to the final amendment stage and amend it as necessary. But actually, again, the Minister has said that the Scottish Bill does not have to mirror directly the UK legislation for people to have access to the same compensation, which is what the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw and I both want to see.

If the SNP is unwilling to act in the Scottish Parliament to introduce the Bill, my colleague Michael Marra MSP has already drafted a Members’ Bill and will introduce that Bill this week.

Lesbian Visibility Week

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Lesbian Visibility Week should be about lesbians, but the website put up this week says it is about

“celebrating the power of sisterhood by uplifting incredible LGBTQIA women and non-binary people”.

I think it is a real shame that, in the week about our visibility, the lesbian identity is being subsumed into a number of other identities that have nothing to do with being a same-sex-attracted woman.

Many lesbians fundamentally disagree with this, and I want to speak up for them today. They need someone to speak up for them. It is a mark of how marginalised lesbians have become in our society that so few hon. Members have turned up today. It is the reason I am speaking from the SNP Front Bench, despite having been removed from it several years ago, partly for being the wrong sort of lesbian and one who does not believe that the rights of men who say they are women should trump those of lesbians.

Before I go any further, I declare an interest as a supporter of LGB Alliance and a member of the advisory boards of both the Lesbian Project and Sex Matters. But my main interest in this issue is that I am a lesbian. I came out in the 1980s, when homophobia and lesbophobia were still rife across the UK, and my first activism was against clause 28. In those times, like many other lesbians, I was physically assaulted in the street and mocked for being a lesbian. Lesbians of my generation also faced losing our jobs and our children.

For a long time, we thought that lesbophobia had gone, but lesbophobia is back, and it has been created by those who think that the rights of lesbians are conditional on them accepting gender identity ideology. They are not. Lesbians are same-sex-attracted women, and we are protected on that basis from discrimination, bullying and harassment under the Equality Act, under which our protected characteristic is sexual orientation. Our protection is on the basis of our sex, not our gender. And as J. K. Rowling has said, without sex there can be no same-sex attraction. That is why lesbians like me fight the replacement of the biological reality of sex with the nebulous concept of gender.

I said a moment ago that the rights of lesbians are “not conditional” on accepting gender identity theory. That is a direct quote from my friend Allison Bailey. As some Members will know, Allison Bailey is a black lesbian barrister who nearly lost her job for standing up for the rights of lesbians. Other lesbians have faced similar persecution.

My friends Kate Harris, Bev Jackson and Eileen Gallagher had to fight a lengthy court battle to protect their charity, LGB Alliance, from being removed from the charity register as a result of malicious legal action. Justice prevailed and they won the case but, shamefully, those who sought to destroy a charity run by lesbians for lesbians included Members of this House, and it was not the first time that Members of this House have displayed hostility towards lesbians.

As the Father of the House said a moment ago, when I was invited to speak on a cross-party panel at the first LGB Alliance conference back in October 2021, I faced the challenge of crossing a picket line that included a heterosexual female MP who, together with self-styled trans rights activists, was protesting against the rights of lesbians to organise a conference to talk about lesbian and gay rights. Just let that sink in. That is where we have got to—heterosexuals telling lesbians that we cannot hold a conference.

Many lesbians have been persecuted for refusing to bend their knee to gender identity ideology. Some have faced losing their job and their livelihood, and some have also faced violence or the threat of violence. I will name a few of them this afternoon. All are or have become my friends as a result of our struggle: Lucy Masoud, Professor Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel, Professor Jo Phoenix and my dear friend Dr Shereen Benjamin, a Labour activist who has been treated appallingly by the University of Edinburgh.

There are many other lesbians whose lives have been severely restricted by gender identity zealots. We are not allowed to have lesbian-only social events. The only venues left for lesbians say that they are inclusive, which means that men are included. Women’s sports are also now inclusive, which means that they include men while excluding lesbians who want to play on women-only teams.

Recently, a lesbian coming to view democracy in action at the Scottish Parliament was told by security that she could not enter the building wearing a small pin badge reading “Scottish Lesbians.” I am wearing that same badge today in solidarity with Scottish Lesbians, which is an excellent grassroots lesbian collective.

Across the United Kingdom, lesbians have been intimidated at Pride marches, spat on and assaulted for simply asserting their right to say that lesbians are same-sex attracted. At a recent event for women in Edinburgh, men counter-protesters held up vile, abusive lesbophobic signs. The police did nothing because, for all the furore in Scotland about hate crime, it seems that hate directed at lesbians does not count.

I do not believe that the interests of lesbians are being properly represented by organisations such as Stonewall and the organisers of Lesbian Visibility Week because, in their determination to promote gender identity ideology and to keep themselves in a job by doing so, not only do they fail to represent lesbians but they actually promote lesbian invisibility and lesbian erasure.

Most people think it is absurd to say that a man can be a lesbian, or to say that lesbians can have penises, and they are right. It is absurd. I am proud to be able to stand up in Lesbian Visibility Week in the House of Commons and say so. I am proud that I can stand up to speak for the lesbians who reject the forced teaming of lesbians with other groups that have completely different issues from us. I say: stop lumping us together with those other groups, as it has the effect that our interests are obscured or overlooked altogether, and it renders us invisible.

Interestingly, back in 2021 the “Inclusive Britain” report found that aggregate terms such as BAME were “no longer helpful”, took no account of the differing needs and outcomes of those included under that umbrella, and should be dropped. The report’s findings were adopted and the acronym BAME is no longer used in government. I, like many other lesbians, think that the same principles should be applied to acronyms such as LGBTQIA+, so that lesbians are not force-teamed with other identities.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am reflecting on the speech we heard from the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), and what we could all benefit from in this debate is a bit more love and compassion. Anybody who is setting out to do anything other than demonstrate love to people who do or think differently perhaps needs to think again.

[Joanna Cherry]

Yes, but there also has to be room for difference and for someone such as me to speak up on behalf of some lesbians who feel the way that I do—we are quite large in number. I do not pretend to speak for all lesbians, but none of the other lesbians in this House speak for all lesbians either. I am putting forward what I consider to be a valid viewpoint. Most importantly, it is one backed by the law of this land.

I am constrained by not having as much time as I would have liked. I would have liked to have talked about the Cass report and how it has identified that a large percentage of girls presenting with gender dysphoria are same-sex attracted young women. I would like to have had time to talk about how important it is that we do not shut down holistic talking therapy for such young women. However, I am going to bring my comments to a close by saying this: in my belief, in the view of many lesbians and in the eyes of the law, a lesbian is a woman whose sexual orientation is towards other women. Those who think lesbians include men are deluded. You cannot be a responsible lawmaker if you believe that any man can be a woman just by saying so. That is an old joke worthy of the worst nights in student union bars back in my youth, with drunk testosterone-fuelled men telling me and other lesbians that all we needed was the right man. In future, let us try to retain our grasp on what a lesbian is. Many lesbians are sick of being bossed about by all those who promote their cult beliefs that gender trumps sex—it does not; it never has and it never will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) must really not use such language. I think she should withdraw that comment.

Post Office Ltd

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Member, and I thank Della Robinson for her work. She was one of the trailblazers who were so important in getting to where we are today and to our getting compensation to the people affected. As I said in response to earlier questions, I believe the Post Office brand is not damaged; it is the centre of the Post Office—those who ran it from the centre—that is damaged. I think we should all get behind our post offices, and of course support them wherever we can. This is not about the brand itself. As I say, when I hear about any closures from colleagues or in my constituency, I know that the local populations are opposed to them, which identifies the high esteem in which people regard their post offices. I am very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member, if necessary.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It has been very concerning over the last few days to read that a senior UK Government civil servant colluded with the Post Office to shut down the independent investigation by forensic accountants back in 2014, and that he did so with the full knowledge of the coalition Government. Now that the Metropolitan police are finally investigating possible criminality on the part of the Post Office and high-up employees, does the Minister agree that they should also be looking at the possibility of misfeasance in public office?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is certainly of concern to the Government as well. The inquiry is there to ascertain exactly who did what, or who did not do anything when they could have done something. The Met police will conduct investigations and take forward prosecutions wherever they choose. That is not something we seek to influence, although as I have said from this Dispatch Box before, I would welcome somebody being charged or criminal charges being brought against somebody for what has happened in this horrendous scandal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is an interesting point that the hon. Gentleman makes from a sedentary position. The actual numbers of closures—although of course we are concerned about increases—are below pre-pandemic averages, but nevertheless we have stepped in to help by freezing fuel duty, maintaining the 5p cut and announcing £4.3 billion of business rates support, all to help our SMEs. Closure rates are lower in England than in Labour- run Wales.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

4. If she will take steps to ensure that the proposed trade deal with India includes legal commitments on upholding human rights.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

The UK is a leading advocate for human rights around the world. When we have concerns on human rights, they are raised directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level, and that includes India. Trade negotiations with India are continuing, to build on our £38 billion trading relationship and get better access to 1.4 billion consumers.

[Joanna Cherry]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but an industry risk analysis dataset shows that India ranks among the worst performing countries for human rights abuses across a host of key industries. My question is a specific one and I would like an answer please: have the Government consulted human rights monitoring bodies and experts, and are the Government actively considering the impact of this deal on human rights abuses in India?

[Greg Hands]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Lady on her recent election as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The UK engages regularly with the Indian Government and other Governments around the world, bilaterally and multilaterally. Where we have concerns on human rights, we raise them directly with the partner Government, including at ministerial level.

I must say, though, that I am not entirely sure that whatever we do on human rights will make any difference to whether the SNP will support this trade deal. It is not only fans of free trade agreements who have noticed; we have all noticed that the SNP has never supported any trade deal negotiated by either the EU or the UK. It has abstained on Japan and Singapore and has been against Canada, Australia and South Korea—and even against Ukraine. [Interruption.]

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am keen to engage with my hon. Friend to make sure that we get what he needs. Malevolence is the right word in this respect and it is important that we learn the lessons from that, in terms of both private prosecutions and the wider inquiry. We are very keen to do that, but of course I am happy to engage with him to make sure that we address any lessons he thinks we need to learn. This is not just a lessons-learned exercise; we want to hold people to account, but there are also lessons we can learn. It is important that we learn them, and I am happy to talk to him about what he thinks we should do, in addition to what we have set out already.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

No one, particularly nobody in public life, should get away with perjury, perverting the course of justice or attempting or conspiring to do that. I am therefore glad to hear the Minister say today, as he did in response to me earlier this week, that the question of further prosecutions arising out of this scandal should be carefully looked at.

On financial redress, does the Minister agree that it is important that those who have been convicted should get legal advice? If, as I suspect, those prosecutions were malicious ones, the damages to which those people are entitled could be very hefty and they would be unwise to accept an offer from the Minister, generous as it might be, before they had received legal advice about what they would be entitled to if they could prove that the prosecutions were malicious.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady again for her remarks. Yes, I would like to see prosecutions flow from this. The inquiry will help with that of course, and other investigations by prosecution authorities will be ongoing. Legal advice is hugely important and the compensation schemes we are running do provide legal advice to individuals thinking of taking an offer. That should be carefully considered before people choose one route or another. We are trying to make sure that the choice is as easy as possible, and that where people have made that choice the compensation is delivered as quickly as possible.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Certainly, the Horizon shortfall scheme should compensate anybody who was directly affected by the scandal—not just financially but through other, non-pecuniary issues they faced and suffered from. I am happy to take her point away and see what information we might have in that area.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Many of my constituents have emailed me over the past few days because they, too, watched the powerful dramatisation that we have all seen. What they want most is for the Post Office and individuals within it to be held to account, as other hon. Members have said. Does the Minister agree that looking to the facts of what has happened, many of these people may well have claims for malicious prosecution and that where evidence has been withheld or lies told in court, the police should look at whether there has been perjury and—seriously—a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, which would of course carry with it an extremely hefty prison sentence?

Gender Recognition

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

This is something that I have said it is crucial that sporting bodies understand. They are responsible for managing the rules in this space, and quite a lot of them have updated their guidance to reflect that, but not all of them. Young women in competitive sports should not have to silently accept that biological men will always beat them and take their chances to win gold. Generations of women before them have worked really hard to ensure that women have a place in sports and that those who excel are rewarded for that and are recognised.

The Equality Act 2010 is not a barrier to fair sport for women. It permits it, and it even requires it, so I shall work with my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—the Minister for Equalities is a DCMS Minister—to ensure that fair sport is a right that every woman and every girl can enjoy.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I welcome the commitment by the Secretary of State to evidence-based policymaking and to awaiting the outcome of the Cass review. She will be aware, like me, that the interim report from the review stated that it had heard from young lesbians who felt pressurised to identify as transgender male. As a lesbian, that is something that concerns me.

As well as having evidence-based policymaking, does the Secretary of State think that it is important to be clear about what are and are not our obligations under international law? Does she agree that there is no international treaty to which the United Kingdom is a signatory that requires us to have a system of self-identification? The current system we have is legally compliant and is compliant with the European convention on human rights. While some people talk about self-ID as best practice, that is no more than an expression of their opinion. Does she recognise that self-identification raises real issues not just for the safety of women and girls but for their privacy and dignity, as well as for the rights of same-sex-attracted people freely to associate?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right. Self-ID impacts on all the things she mentioned. We speak less about freedom of association and the impact on that. It goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) that we need in many respects to separate sexual orientation from what we refer to now as gender identity—that is, what is under the “T”. We have lumped them together before. That was helpful in many circumstances, but I have seen this issue arise in other equalities work that I have done around race, where we use the term BAME to lump together lots of different groups. When that occurred, we missed a lot of information about what was happening within those groups. We need as much granularity as possible if we are to serve people who are LGB as well as people who are T.

The hon. and learned Lady asks what work we are doing to stop lesbians being made to feel as if they have to be trans-identified males. I have asked the Equality Hub to do some work with The Lesbian Project, which I know is interested in fixing this problem. On the point of international treaties, she is absolutely right in what she says. So much of the criticism about how our international standing will fall is not evidence-based policy, but “not a good look-ism”. It says, “This is not a good look and we probably should not do it,” but that is not how we should be making policy. We should be looking at the facts, thinking clearly about the outcomes we want and acting accordingly. That is the way the Equality Hub, under my leadership, will continue to behave.

Conversion Practices

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I come to the debate as a feminist and a lesbian who has been out since 1987. Like my friend the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), I have been active in the gay rights movement since the late ’80s, when I first campaigned against the introduction of section 28. Of course I oppose conversion therapy as it is conventionally understood, but I share the concerns of many feminists and lesbians that the inclusion of the concept of gender identity in any Bill risks threatening the professionals working with children and vulnerable people who are having issues with their gender if they seek to explore the reasons for that distress.

Over the past few years, there has been a worrying rise in the number of children, particularly girls, becoming convinced that they were born in the wrong body and seeking to take puberty-blocking drugs and sex hormones. Looking at the statistics, about 74% of teenagers referred to the gender identity development service at the Tavistock Centre are girls. Only 8.5% of those girls say that they are exclusively attracted to boys; almost 70% of them say that they are attracted only to other girls, and 20% are attracted to both sexes. In other words, the vast majority of teenage girls being referred to the GIDS clinic are lesbian or bisexual.

The treatment with puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones that I described is a controversial, experimental medical treatment for a complex problem. We have also seen an increase in the number of young people who have later regretted the irreversible damage done to their bodies and sought to de-transition. Young women, particularly those who may be internalising lesbophobia or misogyny, must be offered alternatives to such drastic medical pathways, and their teachers, parents and therapists should not be threatened with prison and fines for discussing the options with them.

In the years leading up to puberty, I, like many girls, was a tomboy and wanted to be a boy, but when I grew up, I realised I was a lesbian. It is really very common for young girls to want to be boys. Some of them grow up to be lesbians, some of them grow up to be trans, and some of them grow up to be straight, but they need time to grow up before they make irreversible decisions. What those campaigning for a ban often call “conversion therapy” is in fact legitimate protection of the time and space for a child to reconsider the conviction that they were born in the wrong body, so they can be stopped from going down a pathway of hormones and surgery, which sterilises them and can leave them with no adult sexual function.

[Christian Wakeford]

The hon. and learned Lady is making a powerful speech; I do not fully agree with it, but it is powerful none the less. It sounds very much as though she is insinuating that this is a trend or phase that young people and children will grow out of. Will she clarify that point?

[Joanna Cherry]

What I said, if the hon. Gentleman was listening, was that many young girls are confused, have gender dysphoria, want to be a boy and find the onset of puberty deeply alarming. There is a lot of internalised lesbophobia and internalised misogyny in our country at the moment, and I do not want the state to say that there must be an assumption that any girl who wants to be a boy should be told that she can become a boy. She needs to be allowed to explore whether that feeling comes from internalised lesbophobia or internalised misogyny. Sure, some of those girls may be trans, but the stats from the GIDS clinic show that most are lesbians. I do not want lesbians to be transed away. Staff at the GIDS clinic have expressed concern that that is what is happening.

As I said, many of the children who go down the medical pathway are same-sex attracted, and some of them are autistic. Of the first 70 adolescents referred to the Amsterdam clinic that pioneered puberty blockers for children, 62 were homosexual and only one was heterosexual. I am concerned that that is a form of modern conversion therapy. I want young women, particularly those who may be lesbians, to be able to discuss what is making them wish they had been born a boy, with professional support if necessary, before they embark on life-changing treatment with puberty blockers, which could leave them permanently infertile and undergoing surgery to remove their breasts. There are documented examples of girls going through the procedure, deeply regretting it and wanting to de-transition.

[Neale Hanvey]

I hoped to include in my speech this comment from a young de-transitioner:

“I delayed my appointment for surgery for over two years, because I had doubts. But then they gave me an ultimatum and I knew that if I was not going to go through surgery I would lose my therapist.”

Does the hon. and learned Lady believe that that is coercive control or informed consent?

[Joanna Cherry]

I do not know the full facts of the case, but it sounds far from ideal. We must have informed consent, and children are not always in a position to give informed consent.

One would not know it from the Library briefing for this debate, which is extraordinarily one-sided and sets out only the views of certain stakeholders, but many lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and many feminists, share the concerns that I am expressing. LGB Alliance welcomes the fact that the UK Government plan to ban gay conversion therapy, but it is worried that

“the inclusion in the proposals of ‘transgender conversion’ therapy threatens to amplify what we consider to be the greatest risk to young LGB people today: the promotion of the notion that children who have gender dysphoria can change their sex, or should begin to do so, before they are fully adult.”

My friends at LGB Alliance are concerned that, “by a tragic irony”, some of the conversion proposals could lead to thousands of children, most of whom would have gone on to be happy lesbian, gay or bisexual adults,

“having their puberty blocked by experimental drugs and”

being

“pushed into life-long medical treatment.”

In other words, the legislation could promote, not stop, gay conversion therapy.

Sex Matters—I declare an interest, because I am on its advisory board—has put forward a proposal for legislation to ban what it calls “modern conversion therapy”, which should be considered. “Modern conversion therapy” means

“treating someone with medication or surgery to modify their sexual characteristics, when they…are too young or vulnerable to make a fully informed decision”,

or where they have

“confounding mental-health issues that have not been addressed”.

I am coming to the end of my speech, Ms Fovargue, but I had two interventions so I have taken a little longer. I note that the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) said that he wanted all forms of conversion therapy banned. Would he and the Minister think about modern conversion therapy, and making sure that lesbian, gay and bisexual teenagers are not told that they were born in the wrong body?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. However, they are distinct from a ban on the practice of conversion therapy. I will come back to the exact drafting and how a ban should operate. I am slightly surprised that no one has mentioned that a review is being conducted by the paediatrician Hilary Cass into the treatment of children and young people in gender identity services. It has already produced an interim report and it is producing additional research. I think it is sensible to follow what that expert review produces. We will certainly examine its findings very closely, as we have its interim report.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady say that her party will wait for the outcome of the Cass review, but what does she have to say about the statistics I cited showing that the vast majority of young girls and teenagers referred to the gender identity clinic at Tavistock for therapy are same-sex attracted? Does she have any concern that what is going on here is a type of modern conversion therapy, converting young gay women into boys?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention, but I have actually said that a number of times before. The interim Cass review is clear about an issue that has not received any publicity from Government Members: the lack of psychological provision in general for children and young people, which is also impacting on those in gender services. That did not come as any surprise to those of us who do casework—we are well aware of that—but sadly the Government have not focused on it.

I also want to ask the Minister about pre-legislative scrutiny of a future Bill, to which the Government are apparently still committed. When will it get under way? Is the Minister confident that we will be able to conduct meaningful scrutiny before the end of this Parliament and the general election, or is this effectively window dressing to hide the reality that the proposals have been junked by the Minister for Women and Equalities with the connivance of the Prime Minister? Does this Minister accept that, as things stand, there simply is no meaningful Government policy on conversion practices?

We have been here before, and we have already heard all the excuses for the lack of action. Eighteen months ago, I asked whether the Government had gathered any evidence about the impact of a well-drafted ban on conversion practices on the provision of legitimate talking therapies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stuart Andrew]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman first and then the hon. and learned Lady.

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points, but there is an assumption that conversion is a one-way street. It is not. It goes both ways. That is what we are trying to address in the draft Bill. There has been some criticism, but our intention is to have pre-legislative scrutiny precisely so that we can check that we have got this right and that it will be the right legislation to bring about the banning of abhorrent practices that are happening to young people. I was not going to mention this, but I was part of a church. My faith is very important to me. But when I was coming out, some of the things that were said to me took me to the edge of ending it all—although it is something I never thought of doing—because it was so horrific.

I want to stop those practices being done to other people. Of course I do. However, I want to make sure that we get this absolutely right and make good legislation. Others have mentioned legislation around the world: yes, other countries may have introduced it, but how many prosecutions have they brought? Does the legislation cover the issue in the way that was intended? That is why we are considering other legislation carefully, to see what we can learn from it and get it right.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am delighted to hear that the Minister is giving this such careful thought. Has he read the interim report of the Cass review? It states:

“We have heard from young lesbians who felt pressured to identify as transgender male.”

Does he agree that we should wait until we get the final report of Hilary Cass’s review before framing any legislation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

Removing barriers to trade is one of this Government’s top priorities. My right hon. Friend will know many of the things that the Government have been doing, including subsidising energy bills, because we recognise the difficulties that manufacturers and processing plants face. At the moment I am particularly focused on resolving trade barriers. We have resolved 178 trade barriers worth more than £6.5 billion to businesses, including those in Essex, over the next five years. Food producers in her constituency specifically will be pleased to know that just last month, when I was in Japan for the G7, we resolved a barrier restricting exports of cooked poultry from the UK to Japan, which I think will provide a festive boost to UK exporters worth an estimated £10 million over five years.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

13. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of revoking arms export licences to Israel.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

15. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of revoking arms export licenses to Israel.

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)]

Since the barbaric terrorist acts by Hamas against Israel on 7 October and the subsequent conflict in the region, the Government have been monitoring the situation very closely. The UK supports Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and take action against terrorism, provided that that is within the bounds of international humanitarian law. Export licences are kept under careful and continual review as standard, and we are able to amend licences or refuse new licence applications if they are inconsistent with the strategic export licensing criteria.

[Joanna Cherry]

No one is suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend itself—but, as the Secretary of State says and we agree, within the bounds of international law. The mass killing of civilians in Gaza should concern us all. Without resorting to platitudes about the relative toughness of the UK’s arms export controls, could she please identify which arms export licences are currently in force, including open licences for end use by the Israeli defence and security forces, and provide details of them to the House?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I do not believe that is something that I am able to do or should do. I can tell the hon. and learned Lady that last year we granted 114 standard individual export licences for military goods valued at £42 million to Israel. If there is a specific issue that she would like to highlight, we are prepared to look at it, but she will know that security and defence exports are not necessarily best discussed on the Floor of the House or in public, for obvious reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Again, we have almost a full turnout of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys in the House this morning, and I commend my hon. Friend for the work he does as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy not just to one country, but to three—Angola, Zambia and Ethiopia. He rightly takes a strong interest in the UK’s forward-leaning and exemplary developing countries trading scheme. The scheme was launched on 19 June by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and provides duty-free or nearly duty-free access to goods to 37 African countries. The scheme was launched to significant media attention in Ethiopia, and there was a series of events in more than 10 countries.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson): the onus is on all of us in this House to continue to extol the virtues and the benefits of the UK’s developing countries trade scheme. We have taken the EU scheme and gone significantly further, making it more generous for developing countries. We should all be united in extolling the virtues of the UK’s scheme, and of the brilliant job the UK is doing to promote goods access to developing countries.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

T6.   Could I revisit my earlier question to the Secretary of State about arms export licences to Israel? I and many others do not agree with her secrecy approach, and I and many others believe that Members of Parliament are entitled to this information, so I will try another approach. Could she detail the classification and description of the goods, the stated end use and the licence type, including direct transfers and those via third countries, and could she place that information in the Library for Members of Parliament?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I believe there is a quarterly register that may contain some of the information the hon. and learned Member is asking for, but I am not able or going to list every single export decision that has been made by the export control joint unit. I will see what I can do to get her a fuller answer, but she will know that this is a very sensitive issue. I have a quasi-judicial role, and I must be seen to be impartial at all times. I will do what I can to provide the information she wants, but I do not have a list to provide her with this morning, and certainly not on the Floor of the House.

Section 28 Repeal: 20th Anniversary

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this important debate.

Section 28 was repealed on 21 June 2000 in Scotland—some three years before England—thanks to the Labour party, which was then in power in Scotland. As a Scot, I am very proud that the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, which repealed section 28, was one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the new Scottish Parliament. What I am not proud of is those who campaigned so viciously against the repeal of section 28, and the politicians who sat on the fence. However, I want to take a moment to applaud those who took such a brave stand, particularly the then Communities Minister, Wendy Alexander MSP, and many of my SNP colleagues who supported the repeal. However, what I want to talk about today is the campaign against the introduction of section 28 back in 1988, in which I played a small part.

When section 28 was first mooted in 1988, I was 21 and at university in Edinburgh.

I had just come out as a lesbian and most of my close friends were lesbians and gay men. There was a really vibrant gay scene in Edinburgh and we had hoped that maybe society was changing. Section 28 dented our optimism, but it did not stop us campaigning vigorously against it. The wonderful Blue Moon café set up by friends of mine at the Lesbian and Gay Centre in Broughton Street in Edinburgh was the hub of our activism and a group was set up called the Scottish Homosexual Action Group, or SHAG for short. It organised rallies and a march in Edinburgh, and buses went to London for the mass demos here. We also went to the big demonstration in Manchester in February 1988. I was proud to attend all those rallies and marches with my then girlfriend; I wonder where she is now.

The Scottish Homosexual Action Group also organised a big event in Edinburgh called the Lark in the Park, which took place in the Ross Bandstand in Princes Street Gardens. It was a festival of music and comedy with a political agenda and Sir Ian McKellen, who had just come out in response to the proposal of clause 28, spoke in Princes Street Gardens. That event went on for another couple of years and was the precursor of the first Pride marches in Scotland.

One of the interesting things about the campaign against section 28 back in 1988 was that lesbian feminists played a big role. Many of them had never worked with men before or had not done so for many years. Gay men were sometimes a bit taken aback by all these feisty women, but we worked well together in the end. I want to take a moment to remember that that was going on at the height of the AIDS pandemic when young men, including some of my contemporaries at university, were dying of AIDS. I want to take a moment to remember some of those young men, who had such great promise but who did not make it.

Returning to the involvement of lesbians, many lesbian feminists brought to the fight against section 28 experience of direct action from their campaigns against pornography and violence against women. Some of the lesbians involved had children and they took particular offence at their families being called a “pretended family relationship”. Those who were around at the time, or who have studied the history of the period, will remember the lesbians who abseiled into the House of Lords and who stormed “BBC News” live at 6 pm. I remember I was sitting in my flat with my flatmates watching the news when we saw all these women, who were obviously lesbians, shouting about section 28. One of them even handcuffed herself to Sue Lawley’s chair, which was highly amusing. As my friend Julie Bindel reminded me the other day, lesbians even stormed the Ideal Home exhibition just to remind everyone that, as she said, lesbians make the best families. I mention all that because I fear that lesbian activism is rather frowned upon today, unless it has been approved of in advance by straight people and some men who think they can set our boundaries for us. They cannot and should not try to do so.

I want to remind hon. Members of what section 28 actually said. It prohibited local authorities from “promoting homosexuality” or promoting the teaching of

“the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”

It was all about the state clamping down on any support for the idea that it might be normal to be homosexual.

To be homosexual means to be sexually interested in and attracted to members of one’s own sex. That might not always have been popular, but it has been well understood for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Our movement at that time was a movement for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights; the rights of the same-sex attracted. Yes, we had supporters from the trans community, and I particularly remember the wonderful magician Fay Presto, a trans woman who was very involved in the Lark in the Park. However, section 28 was not about an attack on trans people; it was an attack on the same-sex attracted.

When Stonewall was founded in response to section 28, it focused exclusively at that time on same-sex rights. The initials LGBT or LGBTQ were not used until after the CEO Ben Summerskill left in 2014. As a recent survey by my friends at LGB Alliance shows, many lesbians and gays, including myself, do not like being called “queer”. To me, queer is about being bashed. I was queer-bashed in the 1980s and many of my friends have been queer-bashed. I do not accept the word “queer”. If others want to, that is fine, but many of us do not like it.

I want to make it unequivocally clear that I believe in equal rights for everyone and equal rights for trans people, but the protection of gay people is a separate thing. The protection for gay people and trans people that was achieved in the Equality Act 2010 was a triumph for two distinct and different movements that were campaigning separately. If Members want to know whether that is true or not, they can go back to Stonewall’s 2011 guide to the Equality Act for employers, which is 48 pages long and focuses on the rights of the same-sex attracted. It does not use the acronym LGBT. Human rights and equal rights are for everyone but, as my friend Allison Bailey has said, the rights of lesbians and gay men are not dependent on accepting gender identity theory, and many of us do not.

I therefore disagree with the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), for whom I have the utmost respect, that there is an equivalence between the fight against section 28 and the fight that some lesbians and gay men are undertaking to prevent gender identity theory from erasing the notion of same-sex attraction. I know that there is no equivalence between those two fights because, unlike a lot of the people in this room, I was there in 1988; I was out in 1988, and I was part of the struggle against section 28. I know what I was campaigning for; I was campaigning against an attack on the rights of same-sex attracted people, like me, and on our very right to be who we were.

Section 28 meant that many teenage girls were left confused and ashamed of their exclusive sexual attraction to other girls, with no one to talk to about that. I am afraid to say that that is the situation for many young lesbians today. I have been approached by constituents whose daughters are lesbians and have been told at school that, because they are attracted to girls, they must be a boy trapped in a girl’s body. Many young lesbians feel under pressure to deny their exclusive same-sex attraction and are bamboozled by a welter of indefinable niche identities such as bigender, gender queer and demifluid, which overlap and confuse them. The tragedy is that, in both cases—back in section 28 days and now—it is the state that is enforcing an ideology that undermines the rights of the same-sex attracted. Thank goodness we have organisations, like my friends in LGB Alliance, who exist to promote the rights of same-sex attracted people, now that Stonewall have given up on us. The fight against section 28 was a fight against those who wanted to destroy the reality of lesbian and gay lives; they wanted to erase us from contemporary life. That failed, and I really hope that any attempt to do so in contemporary times will fail.

As I have a bit more time than I thought I would, I want to add a few points, picking up on what other people have said. The first is about the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Equality and Human Rights Commission was reaccredited for five years by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions last October. The only reason why Stonewall and others have tried to get this special investigation into the EHRC is that it wrote to the Government asking them to look at the question of protecting the rights of women and of the same-sex attracted. Stonewall is referring the EHRC to the UN because the EHRC will not accept gender identity theory as the defining belief of our times. The EHRC is there to protect the rights of everyone—the rights of all beliefs and none—not just those who believe in gender identity theory. I think it is a real shame that Stonewall’s antagonism towards the EHRC has not been resolved by democratic debate and discussion here, rather than by referring it to the United Nations. I will be astonished if the EHRC loses its A categorisation as a national human rights institution simply for sticking up for the rights of all, rather than for the rights of just one group and for one group’s way of identifying rights.

On the issue of conversion therapy, of course all of us oppose the idea that anyone should be forcibly made to reconsider either their gender identity or their same-sex attraction, but the conversion therapy that worries me most is the one which I have already described: that of young girls who are attracted to other young women or young girls who are uncomfortable with their bodies and uncomfortable with puberty, and who are being told, rather than being lesbians or young women who are just uncomfortable with puberty, that they must be boys trapped in girls’ bodies. That is the conversion therapy that I am really worried about.

On veterans, I was in the House when the apology was made. One of my ex-girlfriends was thrown out of the Royal Military Police—after very distinguished service—for being a lesbian. An apology is one thing, but what the Government really need to do is give these people compensation. Not only did being thrown out cause people terrible distress, but it undermined their employability, and they lost their pensions. I really appeal to the Government to look at the recommendations of the independent review and to start giving compensation to people such as my friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Sharma, for coming to our rescue and saving our debate this afternoon—we very much appreciate that.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate marking the 20 years since 18 November 2003, when the repeal of section 28 came into effect. It is very fitting indeed that he should lead the debate: as many Members here will know, and as he referenced in his speech, he was brave enough to stand as an openly gay parliamentary candidate in 1997 and endured a vicious and abusive campaign.

I pay huge tribute to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), Lord Cashman and others who did so much to pioneer gay rights—leading the way, speaking out when it was much more difficult to do so, taking risks and campaigning ceaselessly to create a society in which no one is disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Of course, they are still campaigning.

My right hon. Friend described in detail the build-up of negative views and attacks on gay people in the lead-up to the introduction of section 28. He set out clearly that we are, worryingly, hearing echoes of the section 28 times from the present Conservative Government, leading to fear and prejudice, particularly against trans people. He detailed clearly the tirade of attacks that make things ever more difficult for young trans people.

The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) described the change we have seen in society, but noted that further action is needed and spoke of the challenges across the globe. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) described her campaigning against section 28 and reminded us of the toll that the HIV/AIDS epidemic took on the gay community. She also reminded us that the Labour Government in Scotland repealed the Scottish equivalent of section 28 three years before the UK Government did.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) mentioned the dangers of toxic speech and its effect on people, including himself, as well as the importance of role models. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), speaking from the Scottish National party Front Bench, mentioned how easy it would be to allow backsliding and how our job is to speak up and not allow hateful attitudes to take hold. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is a good friend, reminded us of the common-sense approach of the Welsh Government, who insist that all children should have fully inclusive LGBT education because that is the society we live in.

On a personal note, celebrating the repeal of section 28 brings back some awkward memories of 30 years ago for me. At the time, I was teaching in a large comprehensive school and in a relationship with another female teacher. Same-sex relationships were little acknowledged, and we knew very few other same-sex couples, so we were already quite isolated. Then, in 1988, the Thatcher Government introduced the homophobic law, section 28, which stipulated that local authorities must not “promote homosexuality” or

“promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”

That language was hateful, threatening and intimidating, and I was conscious that the force of the law could be used against me. Back in 1988, there were no anti-discrimination laws that covered a person’s sexual orientation, meaning that they could be fired just for being gay. All of that made it difficult for gay teachers to be open about their sexuality, thus taking away valuable opportunities to provide positive role models for young people. It undoubtedly delayed my own coming out, and I just got into the habit of never mentioning anything at all about my personal life to anyone at work. In fact, it was not until 1995 that I came out to my friends and family, and I was very conscious that, standing for town council in a multi-member ward, I would be putting my fellow Labour candidates in a position of having to defend me. But they were great about it.

Perhaps the worst thing about section 28, and the fear that it instilled in gay teachers like me, was that it made it very difficult to challenge homophobic bullying effectively. At the time, homophobic insults in the classroom were commonplace, thus making the lives of many students a misery. If we had called out those comments as homophobia, we risked being accused of promoting homosexuality. When a pupil made a homophobic remark, I did not want it to go unchallenged, but all I could manage was something feeble, like, “Don’t you think that could be a bit hurtful to some people?”

If the classroom was hard, the staff room was even worse, especially when trying to challenge male teachers exchanging homophobic banter. Some colleagues were already quick to mock me as a lefty feminist, so could I risk the suspicion of being gay, when that could be used against me in my employment? I am ashamed to say that I did let comments go unchallenged. I could and should have spoken up, and I am immensely grateful to all those who were brave, who did speak up and who helped society to become more accepting of LGBT people.

We owe it to today’s young people and the teachers who are delivering LGBT education to give them our full backing and ensure that there is no backsliding in this important step towards creating a genuinely inclusive society. But, of course, it was not just teaching that was affected by section 28. It set back local council initiatives and fomented prejudice and hate, and who knows how much misery, how many additional suicides, how many late diagnoses of HIV and how many additional deaths it led to?

Thankfully, the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010 faced down fierce opposition and championed LGBT rights, including by repealing section 28. Not only did Labour repeal section 28, with the repeal taking effect on 18 November 2003, but we achieved an equal age of consent; ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces; ended discrimination against lesbian and gay partners for immigration purposes; created civil partnerships, allowing same-sex couples to have the same rights as married couples; gave LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children; awarded statutory rights to fertility treatment on the NHS for lesbians; banned discrimination in the workplace and vocational training; outlawed discrimination in goods and services; included homophobia in the definition of hate crime; brought in the Gender Recognition Act; and brought in the Equality Act.

By 2010, it was encouraging to see a growing acceptance of LGBT issues by the Conservative Government. We were pleased to support their legislation for same-sex marriage, although far too many Conservative Members voted against the Bill, some of whom, it must be said, have since apologised. Sadly, as Opposition Members have already said, LGBT+ people have been badly let down by the recent Conservative Government, who killed off their own LGBT action plan, disbanded their LGBT advisory panel, cancelled their international LGBT conference and have still not honoured the promise to ban the insidious practice of so-called conversion therapy. Instead of standing up for LGBT+ rights and bringing people together, the Conservatives have stoked a culture war and pitted different groups against each other.

Hate crimes against LGBT+ people have soared in the past decade. In 2022-23, almost 30,000 hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity were reported. It is not difficult to see the connection between that shocking increase in hate crime and the bandying about of LGBT-phobic remarks, particularly transphobic remarks, especially by people of influence, including, sadly, Conservative Members.

Hate crime figures are not just statistics. Behind each number is a real person who has been attacked or even killed, and many more who live in fear. Not long ago, I was speaking to a trans woman in my constituency, and this is what she said to me about the debate on the Equality Act that we had in this very room:

“As a transwoman I find the idea of this change to the equalities act terrifying. The change that has been suggested is purely out of contempt and malice.”

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

May I just finish the quote from my constituent? She went on to say:

“I have been a patient with the NHS for my gender affirming care since 2017-18. The soonest I will be offered surgery is still at least 12 months away. Despite being fully transitioned in all but 1 final surgery, this will segregate me and make me vulnerable to violence. This isn’t moving goal posts to protect cisgender women: this is just cruel.

Every time politicians open their mouths to peddle hate to stoke up a culture war, I become more afraid to open my door for fear of the people they have riled up. You do not protect anyone by taking rights away from minorities.”

[Joanna Cherry]

I take issue with the hon. Lady on that point. I am one of the people who support amending the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex, and it is not because I have any hatred against trans people—it is because I want to ensure the rights of women to safety, dignity and privacy and the right of lesbians and gay men to freedom of association. Does the hon. Lady oppose those rights?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As the hon. and learned Member would acknowledge, there is already provision in the Equality Act for specific spaces for biological women, where that was deemed appropriate. She knows that perfectly well. Things like women’s refuges provide one of the obvious examples of a biological single-sex space—

[Joanna Cherry]

That is not the case. Many once single-sex women’s refuges now have male-bodied individuals in them. That is why some other people have set up women-only spaces. Equally, lesbians are now unable to run lesbian-only events without men insisting on being admitted. As a lesbian, does the hon. Lady not find that concerning?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

The point is that we know perfectly well that there are one or two extremely far-reaching and far-thinking women’s refuges that have a very inclusive policy, but the vast majority are very aware of the importance of that single-sex space. I think the hon. and learned Member knows that. I am sure she understands why we want to make sure that trans women feel fully included and fully accepted in our society. We can manage to find a way to do that without prejudice and hate and without whipping up hate against each other. I hope she would agree with me on that point.

[Joanna Cherry]

But it is not hate.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

Order. I think that is enough interventions, and you have already spoken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He will probably not be surprised that I share that view.

It is important that we continue to fund support services that are open to all victims of conversion practices and those at risk, regardless of their background or circumstances. Operated by Galop, the UK’s leading LGBT anti-violence charity, the confidential service combines decades of expertise with patience and empathy. It is open to anyone who is currently or was previously at risk of experiencing conversion practices, and I encourage those affected by such abhorrent practices to contact the service as soon as possible.

More widely, in recent years the Government have taken a number of actions to improve outcomes for LGBT people and to understand past wrongs. As we have already heard today, in July we saw the publication Lord Etherton’s independent review of experiences of LGBT veterans during the ban on LGBT service personnel between 1967 and 2000. The review brought to light the shocking and tragic experiences of many veterans through their personal testimony, and made clear its recommendations for rectifying past wrongs. In July, the Prime Minister made an apology to those veterans and their families, and stated his hope that

“all those affected will be able to feel part of the proud veteran community that has done so much to keep our country safe.”

Those are sentiments that I and all Members present share. Although the Government response to the review is currently being considered, I note that today LGBT service personnel serve their nation proudly in the armed forces, helping to keep us safe during troubling times, and I pay tribute to them.

[Joanna Cherry]

I made a point earlier about compensation. Yes, LGBT people do serve proudly now, but many people, such as my friend who served proudly before, and lesbians and gay men, were humiliated and thrown out of the Army, and they lost their livelihoods. Are the Government giving active consideration to the recommendation of the review that these people should receive financial compensation?

[Stuart Andrew]

Like the hon. and learned Lady, I was in the main Chamber when the Defence Secretary made his statement, which he did extremely well. Yes, all the recommendations are being actively considered, and I hope we will be able to provide an update in due course.

As World AIDS Day approaches, it is right that we consider the great strides made and the continued ambition of the Government to end new infections and improve HIV/AIDS outcomes. As the hon. and learned Lady mentioned, it is also right, as this day approaches, that we remember the lives that were so full of promise but which were cut far too short. I am pleased that the Government remain committed to ending new HIV transmissions and HIV/AIDS-related deaths in England by 2030, and our HIV action plan from 2021 sets out how we will achieve our interim ambitions by 2025. As part of that, the NHS committed £20 million to expand the opt-out of HIV testing for emergency services in areas with an extremely high prevalence of HIV, and we look forward to some further announcements, hopefully in the next couple of hours.

As we have heard today, the impact and legacy of section 28, though fading, remains, but we have moved forward in leaps and bounds as a society. Today, LGBT life is visible and celebrated, with our contributions noteworthy and valued. Our young people are provided with the opportunity to learn about who they are and how to be safe as they enter adulthood. Although the question of what to teach and when will always be debated, it is important that that is done in a respectful way and with the inclusion of all our young people foremost in our minds.

Personally, I am driven by the fact that we have come a very long way, with equal marriage, gay men being able to give blood, and IVF treatment, among other things. But I am spurred on by the fact that there is much more to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) said, our society will be much better when it is equitable, fair and prosperous. Today’s debate has shown that, when we treat each other with respect and compassion, we can build that better, fairer and more prosperous society.