Transgender Conversion Therapy

Debate between John Nicolson and Kirsten Oswald

Monday 13th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for the way he introduced today’s debate. The way he pinned down the specifics of what we are meant to be discussing was really helpful. I also thank the 145,000-plus people who signed the petition, including all those from East Renfrewshire who signed and the many who have been in touch to let me know of their deep concern at the gap in the Government’s proposals. I also thank the many organisations that have kindly been in touch with briefings on this issue.

I think the tone of today’s debate has been interesting. I always wonder what these debates will actually be like. I have to say, it has been really interesting to hear the groundswell of feeling from MPs across this Chamber saying that we are not okay with the gap and we think that conversion therapy should be banned in all circumstances. That is really important, because we need to be clear that nobody’s identity should be up for debate. Nobody’s identity should be a political football; nobody’s rights should be diminished or compromised. It is always important that we bear these things in mind when we consider the language we use in this discussion, because what we say here has a significant impact on those outside the Chamber.

So what are we talking about here? Conversion practices—I take the point that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) made about the use of the word “therapy”; I think that is right, and I believe the Scottish Parliament uses the term “conversion practices”—are practices or conducts that are targeted at an individual with the intention of changing or supressing that person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) described very vividly the terrible reality of what that can mean. The UK Government themselves have stated:

“There is no justification for these coercive and abhorrent practices”.

That being the case, I wonder why we are here, particularly when, again, the UK Government’s own research found that trans people are twice as likely to be subjected to or offered conversion practices as non-trans lesbian, gay or bi people.

I think it was the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) who outlined the fact that banning conversion practices does not criminalise outcome-neutral explorative conversations or therapy. It is only practices that have a targeted focus on directing someone towards a more “acceptable”—as the convertor would have it—outcome that would be criminalised. That is because the bottom line here, which we need to be clear about, is that conversion practices are abusive and deeply harmful, for which there is no excuse, and nobody should be left at risk of these practices.

How did we get to this point? We had a commitment from the UK Government that they would ban conversion therapy, but in April they performed a series of quite extraordinary U-turns. First, they said that they planned to drop the ban on conversion therapy. Then, predictably and correctly, they U-turned on that after a significant outcry, including from a number of Members on the Conservative Benches. However, that U-turn was only partial. I find it inexplicable that we would suggest that it is okay to ban conversion therapy yet somehow miss out this very vulnerable group.

I thought that the speeches today by the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) were particularly important in that regard, and we need to remember that a significant number of voices are having nothing to do with the UK Government’s position, because it is completely unjustifiable. Indeed, this is a disgraceful way for the UK Government to conduct themselves, with no thought, as far as I can see, for the people directly affected. That is really disappointing, because of the damage it will cause to people’s lives.

It has been reported that the UK Government think that this is the correct course of action because there could be unintended consequences. We really need to be clear here—I think that there will be very predictable consequences if this gap remains, and the consequences will be that people’s lives will continue to be harmed and people will continue to be put into the most difficult situations, which will cause their lives to be significantly damaged.

[John Nicolson]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the consequences is the fact that the international conference Safe To Be Me, which the UK Government trumpeted so keenly, has been cancelled? I know that she and I are both deeply concerned about the UK’s reputation, and this cancellation highlights just how far the UK has slipped on this issue, such that people no longer want to come to our shores.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. If we look at the UK’s standing, in terms of the league table of places with a positive environment for people to be safe in their identity as members of the LGBT community, we see that it is slipping, and slipping fast.

Members have made points today that we should reflect upon. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington talked about the fact that the UK Government’s own survey pointed out the harms that are being caused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has just done. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West said that there is ample evidence of the harms that are caused to trans people by conversion therapy. The hon. Member for Darlington basically pointed out—I am paraphrasing here— that it is simply not okay to treat trans people as if they are ill and need to be cured.

However, it is not just we here today who are saying these things. We have heard that Mind, Relate, the Association of Christian Counsellors, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and many other organisations have also spoken out. The British Medical Association has spoken out, and it does not mince its words. It says of conversion therapy:

“It must be banned in its entirety.”

The BMA says that it is extremely concerned that the ban on conversion therapy has not been extended to transgender and non-binary people. It points to the UK Government’s own analysis of the impacts on the mental health of trans people, who, it notes, are

“already most vulnerable to being subjected to so-called conversion therapy, with one in seven trans people reporting that they had been offered or had ‘conversion therapy’”.

It is not just the BMA saying this kind of thing. The Royal College of Nursing’s annual congress voted overwhelmingly to support a total ban on conversion therapy; the British Psychological Society has made its views clear, too; and the Church of Scotland passed a motion at its general assembly calling for a ban on conversion therapy. I have increasingly heard from constituents with a strong religious faith who are also deeply concerned about the potential harm caused by not implementing a full ban.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said that he “hummed and hawed” when considering whether to speak in this debate. I have to say that I am very glad that he did. I already knew that he is a thoughtful and compassionate man, but he demonstrated that again today in what I thought was a very important contribution. That is because there is a groundswell among those with a strong religious faith. We have heard about the large numbers of religious leaders who have spoken out on this subject already. There is no justification for a gap in the ban, and religion is not a justification either.

That recognition, from all angles, of the immense harm, is borne out by the people who are directly affected. Their voices are perhaps a bit missing today, but they are who we should be listening to. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) speak, because I thought she pointed that out very well. The experience of trans people who have already been harmed by conversion therapy is what we must consider when we think of the fact that that is somehow being left out of the proposed provisions.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), I am very glad that the SNP Government in Scotland are clear about their commitment to ensure that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is safe from conversion practices. It is notable that they have taken steps to include in their process voices of people who are directly affected. They have an expert advisory group on ending conversion practice, which will look at support for victims and survivors—something that we must not let slip as we move forward because, while I and many others in this room are pushing for a ban on conversion therapy that includes trans people, there are many people whose lives have already been irreparably damaged.

Scotland is only one of a number of countries taking that approach; we have heard about Northern Ireland, and I understand that Wales is looking at this too. In the last year, Canada, New Zealand and France have all gone down this road, and nothing terrible has happened—of course it wouldn’t. However, the way that the UK Government are approaching this issue is making life particularly difficult for trans people; this conversation in itself is making life harder for people who are already vulnerable.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Debate between John Nicolson and Kirsten Oswald

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson]

The hon. Gentleman remembers well. We did indeed sit together in television studios, because we journalists called in experts to ask them for their evidence. It was relatively easy, even as a journalist, to pick apart many of the absurd claims.

Of course, some journalists were screaming for war. The Sun ran the absurd headline “Brits 45mins from doom” about a supposed threat to troops in Cyprus. The Star wrote “Mad Saddam ready to attack: 45 minutes from a chemical war”. It was all nonsense. The journalists who wrote it knew that, but it was terrifying for some Members.

In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication whatever that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active programme of chemical weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency at the time found

“no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.”

The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission said at the time that it

“did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction”.

However, US Vice-President Dick Cheney retorted that he believed that Saddam Hussein

“has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei”—

the director general of the IAEA at the time—

“frankly is wrong.”

Who were parliamentarians to believe—the chemical weapons experts, the missiles experts, the IAEA, or Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the neo-cons? The House had to make up its mind.

In the run up to the Iraq war, I was working as a journalist, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Among other things, I was presenting a three-hour daily radio news programme. We had access to experts, as any news journalists do. We called them in and asked them to outline their evidence. Now, I am not a pacifist. I supported NATO action in Bosnia and Kosovo due to the imminent threat to life and the need to save civilians; in fact, I was on the flight back from Iraq—mentioned earlier—with the returning hostages who had fled from Saddam Hussein. However, during interviews with experts and academics in the run-up to the House’s vote, I saw clearly that the case for war was built on exaggeration and deceit. It was blindingly obvious.

Tony Blair frequently told this House and the British people that he was working towards disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. He repeatedly told the House that his aim was not regime change. The House could have been under no illusion about what it was being asked to vote on. Mr Blair said that Saddam was a “very brutal and repressive” leader but that the aim was

“disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change.”

Regime change was not the basis for war. The challenge for the House on the day of the debate was clear. Mr Blair was asking Members to vote on one basis and one basis alone: the imminent danger posed by Saddam’s weaponry.

What if all the experts talking in public were wrong? Was there an elevated group of experts—an inner core with extraordinary knowledge that was unavailable to the ordinary expert? As Members will recall, Tony Blair often said, “If only you could see what crosses my desk, you’d never doubt the danger that we are in and the pressing case for immediate action.”

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about recent mission creep and the use of intelligence-led drone strikes that are notified to the House only after the event? What does that mean for lessons learned and transparency?

[John Nicolson]

Many Members keep saying that we have learned the lessons of war, but I am not convinced, and neither was I when we had the debate on Syria. Tony Blair made a direct appeal that he had seen privileged information that no one else had seen, and he asked the House to trust him. Many Members have said that that appeal for trust was what swayed them.

There was a direct appeal for Members to ignore the available scientific evidence, but there was one embarrassing hurdle in the way: Robin Cook. I had an extensive interview with Robin Cook after his resignation from the Labour Front Bench on 17 March 2003, and I asked him whether he saw the same briefings as the Prime Minister on Iraq. He said, “Yes, I do.” I asked him what it was that had crossed Mr Blair’s desk that he could not tell us about but that contradicted all the expert evidence. Robin Cook told me that there was nothing—nothing had crossed the Prime Minister’s desk that had not crossed his as Foreign Secretary and nothing had crossed his desk or that of the Prime Minister to suggest an imminent threat from chemical weapons. Robin Cook told me that, on that basis, the war could therefore not be justified. Every MP who listened to that interview, who met Robin Cook in the House or who took on board the opinion of experts at the time would have known that the case presented to this House was flimsy to the point of absurdity.

I am, of course, aware of the pressure that MPs were under. Setting aside their promotion prospects in the Government, tabloid newspapers had launched a vicious campaign against opponents of the war. The Sun published a traitors dartboard—I note that it has since deleted that from its website in the aftermath of the Chilcot report. It ran a front-page showing a picture of a snake and Charles Kennedy with the headline, “Spot the difference. One is a spineless reptile that spits venom...the other’s a poisonous snake.” MPs were frightened that they would be targeted as cowards and peaceniks.

As we survey the carnage of Iraq, with countless civilian lives lost, soldiers’ lives lost and family lives destroyed, it is easy to look for a single scapegoat. Although I share the disdain widely felt for Tony Blair, there is something gutless about attributing all blame for the votes of individual MPs to him and him alone. The truth is that expert information was freely available to any Member who chose to take it.