Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

When my former partner disclosed to me that he had twice gone through conversion practices, first facilitated through his family in church and secondly through his work in the church, I was shocked that such practices still take place in the 21st century. The trauma he still carries around with him is immense. No number of laws can rewrite history, but we can pledge, as all the main parties did in 2019, to ensure that no one goes through the trauma that he and many others still have in the future.

In recent years, we have had two petitions debates, four debates in Parliament, four written statements and sets of Government research, consultations and briefings, but in six years, we have failed to do what other countries have done in six months, which is to produce a ban that stops people falsely claiming that they can convert people’s sexual orientation or transgender identity. That false hope—false advertising, as it were—is not innocuous, and it causes great harm, but it is not currently captured in our laws. Despite all the main parties agreeing that this is an area we must act on, the issue has been put in the “too hard” box. The Government have consulted on it and years have passed, caught in a culture war where survivors are forgotten. The Government’s Bill, with its bells and whistles, seeks perfection, but delays have allowed the practice to go unimpeded, and that is of no use to man or beast.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill forward. To pick up on that point, it is striking how long this has taken compared with other nations. The stalling coming from Government, when surely we are simply seeking to protect vulnerable people, seems a little obvious. Does he agree that any ban needs to be inclusive of all LGBT+ people?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree. Everyone in the House will know that I am not immune to getting stuck into this debate. We have had sparring partners across the Chamber on these issues, but that has led us nowhere. It has led to the delay itself and given a green light to many who think this practice might now be acceptable, rather than the abhorrence we all think it to be.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

The hon. Gentleman makes the important and strong inference that this is a commonplace occurrence. Will he give some evidence of the distribution of conversion practices, their incidence, and who is being affected? What is the true data on the matter?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I will come to exactly that in a moment, but the hon. Member makes valid points that we should address.

Some were worried when I was drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot that I would produce, as one Whip put it, a “batshit crazy” Bill. Others were worried that I would produce a Bill that would not stop this practice and would have too many loopholes. But after months of meetings, quiet conversations, going on BBC “Politics Live”, offering a meeting to anyone who wanted one and meeting colleagues across this House, all with different views, I hope that the words of the same Whip, saying “Blimey, he’s actually produced something quite sensible” will ring in the ears of everyone in this debate.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on this incredibly important Bill. A number of constituents have written passionately to me about it. According to the UK Government’s own research, 7% of LGBT people have been offered or have undergone conversion therapy. That indicates that in the last five years thousands of people have been at risk of harm. Does he agree that the scale of it must be recognised, and that it must stop?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

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

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

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

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

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

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

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

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I want to put on record that he has been absolutely brilliant in engaging with a whole range of colleagues—he is absolutely correct. I appreciate that he does not want the debate to become about the transgender issue, as he says, but the Bill states that

“‘conversion practice’ means a course of conduct or activity, the…intent of which is to change someone’s…to or from being transgender,”

so the idea of being transgender, or the definition of transgender, is very much at the centre of it. Whether the Bill accurately defines what that means is key to whether it can be effective.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is exactly why I have used words that already exist in legislation. We can have that debate on the Sentencing Act 2020 and on the Equality Act 2010—I wish you good luck in that—but rather than trying to debate things that this House has already settled, let us move forward with how we try to stop these practices.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) in her remarks about the engagement we have had, and I am sure that we will have a civil debate today. The hon. Gentleman refers to the definition of transgender identity as already existing in legislation. It does, in the Sentencing Act to which he refers, but can he give us further information on that definition? As I read it, it is simply a reference to whether transgender is an aggravating factor in a criminal offence; it does not provide the definition we need. So his Bill will entrench in law that totally undefined concept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point and will suggest an amendment that might, if he were to allow it to proceed in Committee, make him feel happy and resolve the situation.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

Surely the entire point of the Bill is what my hon. Friend is already addressing, which is that the practice is evil: it is evil against gay people, evil against lesbian people, and evil against transgender people. If it is abhorrent for everyone, it is abhorrent for everyone, so it should be tackled.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree.

In the process of writing the Bill, I endeavoured to meet everyone who asked. I visited people in their communities across the country and I invited people to meet in this place. I want to thank various groups, including Stonewall, the Ban Conversion Therapy campaign group, TransActual, TransLucent, and the medical profession. But I also want to thank people who have very different views from mine, who I have met and listened to: the Christian Institute, Keira Bell and her lawyers, the LGB Alliance and the Gay Men’s Network, to name a few. I have engaged with all in good faith. I have considered and, in most cases, adopted suggestions that each one of those groups has made to make the Bill better.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a very powerful point and I commend him for the amount of work he has obviously done to reassure people. I think we are all aware that at the moment the debate around transgender issues has become incendiary and difficult, and a lot of damage has been done to a lot of people. One thing I found about his Bill is that, if I am reading it correctly, it aims to be reassuring. There is no attempt to stop people discussing their sexuality, there is no attempt to stop them discussing it with people from whom they might want to take advice, and there is no attempt whatsoever to stop them trying to explore the issues on their own. It is simply protecting them from unwanted interference and traumatic attempts to change them.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is why the predetermined purpose is so important in the Bill. Rather than having arguments about which evidence is better, I have sought a way to find a framework that addresses the real or perceived problems of what it is claimed is happening in any direction. I think we should all agree that it is abuse and the Bill will stop it.

I understand the nervousness of some in the trans community who have been subjected to a decade of victimisation, but the Bill will protect and support them. I understand the wariness of many counsellors and psychotherapists who have been attacked in one direction or another, and who are fleeing the profession because of the lack of guidelines in this area. The Bill will help to re-set the debate with a framework that focuses on predetermined purposed. It means that if you explore or support people through a process, you will always be protected. When people insist that you must have a predetermined outcome in mind at the start of a process, you will now have the guidelines and can push back, saying, “That is not within the scope of what I can do in law.”

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. Childline has talked about how young people have contacted them feeling torn and talking about what they are going through. They need a safe, non-judgmental space. Does he agree that his Bill will do just that?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I hope it does.

Yesterday, all the major counselling, therapeutic and health organisations provisionally agreed an indicative vote to support the Bill, with no organisation voting against. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing support a ban on conversion practices.

Let us come to the evidence I have been asked for. The Government themselves did a survey in 2017, and more recently commissioned a piece of work in 2023, indicating that this is a live issue. According to the research, one in five people have been subject to someone trying to change, cure or suppress their sexual orientation or transgender identity. More than one in five people from a religious and faith background, and one in six from a non-religious background, have experienced conversion therapy.

When the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) attended one of my drop-in briefings on the Bill, he asked about the number of young people who have been affected by such practices. In a weighted YouGov survey—using its usual weighting metrics—of 2,000 people in 2023, 10% of those aged over 65 said they had undergone or been offered conversion therapy, whereas the figure was 8% for 16 to 17-year-olds, and 7% for 18 to 34-year-olds—shockingly high. It shows that this is a live issue. It is the same with the NSPCC, as we have heard: over 50 young people phoned its helpline last year, saying that they were being threatened with, or subjected to, conversion practices.

I know that some Members would prefer to bring in a ban on sexual orientation conversion practices—LGB only—and not touch on the transgender elements. There are a couple of reasons why I think that would be a foolish approach. First, the Government have themselves carried out reviews and repeatedly said that we need a trans-inclusive ban. In fact, Ministers have said that trans conversion is their main concern. They cannot say it is a huge concern that people might be converted from being transgender, and then say we do not need a ban on either-way conversion therapy.

Secondly, we must recognise that LGB and transgender are separate, but they are interlinked. People exploring their sexual orientation will sometimes come to consider their transgender status. To not include transgender would allow a loophole whereby people who wanted to force someone to be gay, but not trans, could claim that they were offering transgender therapy, rather than LGB therapy, which would make the Bill useless.

Thirdly, there is pretty well-established research on the LGB conversion therapy problem, but there is significant and growing research, from Britain and around the world, that conversion therapy is a problem for the transgender community as well. In fact, the Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), said in a letter on 7 February that she had significant evidence that children might be subjected to conversion practices for being transgender. I have not seen the evidence—I do not endorse it per se—but I have seen significant accounts from many survivors who have been forced not to be transgender. All sides are saying this is happening. The direction of conversion is irrelevant, but it is an indication that we need to take action, and my Bill does so.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the NSPCC’s report on the challenges that young people are facing about sexuality and gender identity. The findings include that 3,400 children and young people in the last year wanted to talk to counsellors about their worries about sexuality or gender identity. Some of these children described instances of emotional abuse in the family home, including constant shouting, hurtful comments and threats of violence. Some children had been threatened with, or had undergone, some form of conversion practice intended to cure their sexuality or gender identity. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in passing this Bill, we will help prevent more children from being subjected to that, and send a clear message that we will not allow people to suffer the painful abuse of so-called conversion practices?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I quite agree. This Bill stops parents sending their children to conversion practices; it does not promise to solve the world for LGBT people. I cannot promise that parents will not shout or be abusive, or that people will not say nasty things—I am afraid that is the nature of a democratic society sometimes. But what we can do is stop premeditated purposes, processes, courses of conduct and activities that aim to do something that cannot be done. That is what every other Bill in the world on this topic has done. The Bill goes in both directions. Whatever the direction of the conversion, it is abhorrent and must be stopped.

Some have said to me that the existing legislation covers violent and physical acts, and of course it does—violent, abusive and bullying coercion and harassment can be caught under current crimes—but the Government’s 2021 consultation said that new criminal law is needed to fill the gap between physical abuse and a process that causes long-term harm. The Bill therefore makes a clear statement that conversion practices should be illegal and that the most egregious cases should be prosecuted. It avoids clashing with existing laws focused on harm—doing so would result in survivors being retraumatised through lengthy court battles—and instead looks at the intent behind the actions. To get the balance right, the Bill clarifies that certain actions will not constitute an offence.

[Miriam Cates]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about abusive practices and practices that cause harm. Of course, we all condemn anything that is abusive and, as he says, the vast majority of those acts are already covered by law, but the Bill does not actually mention abuse, or indeed harm. There is not a threshold of harm beyond which a practice, which could be a speech-based activity, is unlawful. For example, a detransitioner—he mentioned Keira Bell—trying to persuade an individual not to go ahead with surgery or hormone treatment that would have a permanent impact could be caught by the Bill, yet many of us would not say that is harmful or abusive; in fact, it is the opposite. Would that person not be caught by the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I do not believe that the Bill would catch people who express personal reservations about certain processes; it would catch people who have prepared programmes and activities, not ad hoc activities. I will come on to that safeguard in a moment. That is exactly why we need to get the words and safeguards right, and why we need to do so in a Bill Committee. We must not reject the Bill, because the hon. Lady might find that we go out of the frying pan into the fire.

The Bill allows Ministers in Northern Ireland and Scotland to enact it within their jurisdictions, but only with the consent of their respective national legislators. It creates offences in relation to people being sent abroad, and it uses existing language for the law to provide fines to be issued. My aim is not to lock people up but to stop this practice.

The key to the Bill is contained in the definition of “conversion practice”, which must be

“a course of conduct or activity”.

A course of conduct in English law is something that happens more than once, and an activity is not ad hoc but a planned intervention. That does not include one-off, impromptu actions; there must be a predetermined purpose. That is a higher threshold than just immediate intent. The predetermined outcome must have been indicated before the course of conduct or activity started, not during it. That provision protects people having thoughtful conversations, who could of course question people via that process.

The Bill says:

“to change someone’s sexual orientation or to change a person to or from being transgender”

includes

“to suppress a sexual orientation or transgender identity”.

I know some have been nervous about that wording, but I must be clear that suppression must be at the level of negating the identity or orientation. That means that the very being of their orientation must be changed in some way. Many gay people never have sex. Many transgender people do not wear gendered clothes. Those actions do not constitute suppression; they do not negate the orientation or identity in full or in part. It cannot be claimed that this wording is therefore an overreach.

The Bill would use only pre-existing terms from other laws to describe “sexual orientation”, “transgender” and “transgender identity”. I have received an interesting representation in the past few days that we should use the term “being transgender”, rather than the interchangeable terms “transgender” and “transgender identity”, with “transgender” being more clearly defined in the law we have at the moment. If that is better wording, it is the sort of thing I would willingly accept in Committee, after we have had the discussion. That is a real reason for us to get into Committee and work out those details. Sexual orientation is, of course, defined in the Equality Act 2010 in terms of a person having sexual feelings towards

“(a) persons of the same sex,

(b) persons of the opposite sex, or

(c) persons of either sex.”

That definition is used in section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020, where “transgender” is defined in subsection (6)(e) as follows:

“references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment”.

The term “transgender” is also used in subsection 1(e), which states:

“hostility related to transgender identity”.

Members might not like these terms and they might not think they should be in law already, but they are. It therefore seems strange that we then get caught up in a debate on things that this House has already decided upon.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has not yet referred to clause 7. I would be most interested to know whether he is going to explain how this review would operate. It applies in different places, with different terms, and it proposes amendments. At the moment, it looks completely unworkable and will put people in a position where they could be criminalised, guilty of an offence, but at the end of the day the amendments could be then made—what on earth do the courts make of all that?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I will come on to every clause as we go through this, so the hon. Gentleman does not have to worry about that.

This is a contentious area, and we have heard in the debates in the other place about how people are genuinely and understandably worried, so I have sought clarifications on several areas. I believe that the balances are correct, but I of course acknowledge that there is a lot of fear in this area and that sometimes, no matter what reassurance one can give in law, people remain fearful until they realise that the practice actually protects. I hope that Members will look at the wording and application of these clarifications carefully, as they cover all the examples that I have been sent. I still have not found one that is not clear in this Bill.

On the expression of religious belief, I might not like the fact that a priest or another religious figure can stand up on their religious day and say there should not be LGBT people or that they should convert. In my view, that is not a pleasant thing to say, but it is also not conversion practice. We have ensured that as long as it is not targeted to a specific individual and as a course of conduct—a repeated activity towards an individual—it will never be an offence. As Lord Herbert said in the other place:

“We should never legislate lightly in the religious sphere, but Parliament has done so before to prevent harm.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2024; Vol. 835, c. 1896.]

We should do so again. This clause allows full compliance with human rights law and does not restrict the general expression of religious belief.

On freedom of expression, we have a similar clause: the expression of acceptance or disapproval may be distasteful to an individual, but it is not conversion practice. Even repeated expressions to an individual, unless they form part of a predetermined purpose that is planned as a course of conduct, are not captured in this Bill.

We have heard from practitioners who worry that they are currently working in the “wild west”, particularly in respect of counselling and therapy. There are few guidelines about how they can conduct their practice in this area and people on all sides shout at them, saying that one thing or another is conversion therapy. This Bill will, for the first time, give health practitioners the protection they need. Health practitioners are regulated or overseen by the Professional Standards Authority, which is following their professional judgments. The PSA was established by Parliament and regulates the statutory regulators and the non-statutory registers. There are 12 non-statutory accredited registers for counsellors or psychotherapists in the PSA, with the two largest being those of the UK Council for Psychotherapy and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, but the list includes smaller specialist organisations such as the Association of Christians in Counselling and Linked Professions or the UK Association for Humanistic Psychology Practitioners. Health practitioners are free to choose the relevant body to join. Each accredited register is entitled to develop its own approach to sexual orientation and transgender identity. There is already a diversity of views within those bodies, but none has objected to the Bill going to Committee.

[Miriam Cates]

The hon. Member is certainly trying very hard to provide a carve-out—an exception—to allow health practitioners to explore professionally with their clients their sexual and transgender identities. However, the carve-out means that the health practitioner must comply with regulatory and professional standards. Is he aware that most of the bodies he lists, and that are listed in the Bill, including the NHS, have signed up to a memorandum of understanding that basically insists that therapists pursue a gender-affirmatory approach? A therapist that did not pursue a gender-affirmatory approach and deliberately set out to help somebody not, as he terms it, become transgender would be in contravention of clause 1(2)(c) and therefore caught under the Bill.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Member says exactly the right word: “most”, but not all. Therapists who take a different approach will join a different organisation and get the same protection, because they will be following that organisation’s regulatory approach. In fact, the UK Council for Psychotherapy recently released a statement saying that exploratory therapy is an acceptable form of practice within the requirement of not having a “predetermined purpose”. The Bill does not support or prevent different forms of care, such as gender affirming or exploratory care. That is for the regulatory bodies to determine. What the Bill does is stop a “predetermined purpose” of offering change.

Some people have asked me to remove the “pre-determined” requirement for the health sector. They claim that it is circular and already the basis of the Bill, and that we do not need it. But without it, the chilling effect that many health practitioners feel in this area—hence they are leaving it—would continue. The Bill will allow practitioners to explore all forms of care, while having a framework to respond to someone who says, “You must say that I am this at the end of my therapy.” Practitioners can now say, “I cannot do that under law. I have to explore. I have to work with you and support you.” That is what therapists should do, that is what they want to do, but at the moment, that is what they are struggling to do.

This is a developing field and we need a framework that allows new evidence to be heard. Some have claimed that we should wait for the Cass report or that we should rule out some sorts of care. That would be dangerous. The Cass report will not be the end of the discussion of children and transgender. One sort of care might be useful for one group of people but not for another. It is up to the regulated bodies to produce guidelines. Such evidence should be treated by them, not deliberated here in the House.

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

The hon. Member is giving a powerful speech. On the Cass review, does he want to highlight the fact that Dr Hilary Cass has said that absolutely nothing in her work should stop a conversion practices Bill going through this place?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Exactly. I very much welcome that statement. In fact, the Bill produces a framework that Dr Cass’s review can inform as things change and move forward.

People who are not health practitioners but assist a person undergoing a regulated course of treatment, such as a receptionists or drivers, are protected under the Bill. If someone is questioning, exploring or developing coping skills—a role often taken by teachers or youth workers, which is my previous profession—they will receive clarity on the range of support they can offer.

One of the most controversial areas in the Government’s Bill was how it dealt with parents. It is my view that parents have a darn hard life already raising their children and we should not create new burdens for them. The Bill says that if someone is exercising parental responsibility and considers the welfare of their child as paramount, nothing they do will be an offence under the Bill. We refer to the Children Act 1989 and use the language in well-established bodies of law. We should not be messing with how children are treated in this way.

[Danny Kruger]

I appreciate how much the hon. Gentleman is giving way; it allows us to have a proper debate. I recognise how he is trying to protect parents. The definition he just read out states that as long as the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, they are not guilty of conversion practices. Nevertheless, can he not see that if the police or a prosecutor were to determine that the conversations that the parent was having in essence amounted to conversion practice in the form of trying to change their child’s gender identity or sexuality, it would be very possible to suggest that they are not acting in the best interests of the child and therefore to accuse them of conversion practices? I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to do the right thing here and that he has no intention of intervening in family life. Nevertheless, the law that he is proposing would very easily lead to exactly the prosecutions that he is trying to avoid.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

[Alicia Kearns]

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

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

I will come to that specific point and I will challenge the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown about some of his assurances that the Bill is compatible with human rights legislation because I have taken the view of a couple of King’s counsel, one of whom is a double KC, who disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment.

My experience is imbued with the naked bullying and harassment that I experienced in my political group in this place. That was not because I was transphobic or anything like that—that is a ridiculous accusation—but because I will not submit to queer theory. I will not submit to gender ideology or to anyone telling me that I am same-gender attracted because that is a nonsense. That is not the truth. It is not hyperbole to say that this type of legislation is the thin end of the wedge and it has the potential to be the most dangerous, regressive, illiberal and authoritarian policy proposal that I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. [Interruption.] If the shadow Minister, hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), wants to make an intervention, I am happy for her do so, but if she wants to mutter under her breath that is entirely up to her, but it is not a particularly great look.

This legislation is not about fixing a problem. It has the potential to actively and seriously visit harm on those it purports to protect. If it were genuine in its aims to protect LGB and T people, then we would be debating the policy proposal put forward by Sex Matters for legislation to ban modern conversion therapy, where queer theory adherents use affirmation as a vehicle for the medical and surgical conversion of many gender non-conforming young people and other vulnerable young people, wrecking their futures.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I do not believe and I have not seen evidence that modern conversion therapy is a widespread practice. However, the hon. Member must recognise that the Bill does not say that one thing is banned for the other; it says that both, if they are happening, are abhorrent and should stop. Surely he should support the Bill so that it can go to Committee and provide the safeguards he wants, because it will ban the thing that he says is an abhorrent practice?

[Neale Hanvey]

The hon. Gentleman made that point to me some days ago in the media, and I agree with him. I said, “I believe that you are earnestly trying to fix the problem and you are trying to reach across both sides”— I genuinely do believe that. But you cannot divorce yourself from the backdrop of queer theory activists who are causing mayhem, and will interpret, despite your reassurances and clarifications—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The reassurances given to the Chamber will not be carried forward with activists—we know that that is not the behaviour of activists—so there is a real concern around the backdrop to the legislation. We have heard a little about a survey as evidence to support the legislation. That was a self-administered survey, so nobody could really verify the data, and anyone could have entered those figures. The definition of the reported practices is absolutely spurious—nobody knows what it means. It could be a bit of a giggle, let us be honest; people could fill the form in for any reason.

What little evidence there is of those practices has been described in a qualitative literature review conducted by Coventry University and submitted to the UK Government. It has been criticised by important rights organisations Sex Matters and the Gay Men’s Network for its narrow historical scope and its lack of relevance to the constituent countries of the UK, given that 85% of the data reviewed in that study relate to practices outwith the UK. Furthermore, it is understood in academia that a qualitative literature review is of limited use; all it really does is inform the backdrop to a piece of primary research. It is not generalisable or transferable to general populations; its purpose is to analyse a situation and come up with an idea for research. That evidence is insufficient to qualify for legislative decision making. Coupled with the survey, that data is not particularly reliable; it ignores the very real conversion therapy of queer theory affirmation. I do not think that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is seeking to mislead anyone, but I must point out the backdrop of queer theory in this context.

When it comes to fundamental freedoms and the impingement of this legislation on human rights in the United Kingdom, it is not just me and other hon. Members who have concerns, as I said earlier. Jason Coppell KC said in his written opinion for the Christian Institute:

“I consider that the Bill…if passed, would constitute a serious intrusion into the legitimate activities and practices of Christian churches and religious communities, which would be contrary to their rights protected by the ECHR, and so to the Human Rights Act 1998. They would also interfere with the legitimate expression of gender critical views, again in a manner which would be likely to breach ECHR rights.”

The Bill is “broad in scope.” It

“would apply both to practices which seek to ‘change’ sexual orientation or transgender identity and practices which seek to ‘suppress’ sexual orientation or transgender identity i.e., to change conduct.”

It

“would apply to acts which cause no injury or distress; and, indeed, to acts to which the person in question consents.”

It

“would apply across a wide range of settings, including social and religious settings (although, the Bill…would exempt at least some conduct of parents vis-à-vis their children). Whilst some attempt has been made to craft exemptions or exceptions so as to ensure that the practice of religion is not prohibited, the central prohibition in the Bill…remains a wide one, applying to churches and other religious organisations, and to those expressing certain views, including gender critical views, outside those settings.

The Bill…would, if enacted, interfere with a number of rights protected by the ECHR.”

It

“would (by way of example) restrict the ability of religious organisations to express their beliefs (both within their own communities and to the wider world) and the ability of gender-critical persons to express their beliefs to persons who profess a gender identity which is inconsistent with those beliefs. Such restrictions are likely to interfere with (at least) the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR); the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…the right to freedom of expression…and the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 ECHR)… It is very difficult to see how the wide-ranging interference with fundamental rights contemplated by the Bill…could be justified. Put shortly, the Bill…would criminalise expressions of personal conviction even if they are made without expressions of hatred or intolerance, or improper purpose or coercion, or abuse of power. Restrictions of that nature run contrary to the consistent case law of the European Court of Human Rights”.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Member is making such a long speech that we might as well have a bit of a dialogue about some of these things. Such bans have been introduced with similar assurances and clarifications in other European countries that are under the convention. Why is it that that legislation has not ended up in the European courts, but he thinks that this Bill, which is even more cautious, suddenly will? It does not make sense to me.

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he needs to field that question to the King’s counsel. That is not a question I can respond to on his behalf.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

As a Government we speak together, but I am just expressing my frustration on behalf of colleagues. I acknowledge that this has taken a long time, and I want to explain why. I tried to indicate earlier that we are expecting the Cass review in the coming weeks, and we aim to publish the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny very soon after that.

Let me come to the Government’s concerns about this Bill and address some of the issues raised. We have concerns about four areas: the proposed definition of conversion practices, the inclusion of the term “suppression”, the proposed parental exemption and the territorial extent of the provisions. I will take those in turn.

First, we are concerned that the definition of conversion practices in clause 1 is simply too broad. A conversion practice is outlined as a

“course of conduct or activity”.

Even with the provisos that an act must be repeated and underpinned by a predetermined outcome in order to be in scope, that remains a very broadly drawn offence that lacks legislative clarity. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has produced explicit exemptions in clause 1(2) to clarify that certain actions are out of scope, but the Government are concerned that those exemptions are insufficient and there remains a risk that some reasonable behaviour would be caught.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I do not want to delay the Minister, because we want to get on with this now. She will acknowledge that I twice presented these clauses to the Government. Twice the Government came to me and said, “We will get amendments to you within a week.” I agreed that I would accept any Government amendment. Twice the Government came back saying, “No, we don’t have any amendments yet for you because we can’t find anything that we’ve signed off.” I worry a bit about bad faith, and I hope that if we accepted the amendments that she is proposing, she would be supportive, rather than produce just another list of questions.

[Maria Caulfield]

I take on board the hon. Member’s point, but the final Bill was published only this week. I take on board his point about future amendments should the Bill get to Committee. I appreciate that he intends his Bill to be a framework into which exemptions can be built, but when creating a broad new criminal offence that could be altered in future by powers, we believe that robust protections and scrutiny must come at the beginning of the legislative process, not the end.

Secondly, the risk is further heightened by the inclusion of “suppression” within the scope of the offences under clause 1(2). For example, if a religious leader supports an individual who wants to manage their same-sex attraction in order to align with their individual religious belief, where the individual consensually seeks out religious counselling, this Bill would still criminalise that support. That is just one tiny example of what we mean.

Despite the hon. Gentleman’s best efforts to the contrary, the Bill risks creating a chilling effect on clinicians—we have heard some of those concerns today—by positioning healthcare regulation within the context of criminal law. The impact on healthcare professionals may well be the single biggest challenge within legislation in this area. That is part of the reason why we consider pre-legislative scrutiny from the breadth of medical experience available across Parliament in both Houses to be so critical. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), that concern is cited by the independent Cass review, the final report of which is expected in the next few weeks.

Our third concern is about the Bill’s attempt to exempt parental behaviour in clause 1(2). The Government are clear that parents should be able to have exploratory and even challenging conversations with their children, and it would be absolutely wrong to criminalise them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

That is the point I am making: this is a sensitive area, where there are arguments both for and against on all sides. We absolutely believe in parents’ legitimate right and freedom to bring up their children in any way they see fit, but we have to be careful about that tipping into abuse. We have seen that happen, for example with FGM.

Our final concern is about the territorial extent of the Bill. Clause 5 says that it will apply to the entire United Kingdom, which poses issues because, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown knows, justice is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed, as many Members here today will be aware, the Scottish Government are currently consulting on their own legislative approach to banning conversion practices. The requirement for the Director of Public Prosecutions to approve any prosecution is at odds with the Bill’s territorial extent, which I would say wrongly covers Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Crown Prosecution Service operates in England and Wales only, because Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own criminal justice systems, which means that the requirement to have CPS approval would not apply there. A separate provision creates equivalent requirements for the Northern Ireland equivalent of the CPS, but there is no explicit provision for its Scottish counterpart. Those are the four main areas where we have issues with the Bill.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

First, the Minister has to recognise that the Bill will be brought into force in Scotland or Northern Ireland only if there is the consent of the legislators and Ministers in those two places. Secondly, the argument she has just given is legally incorrect, because in Scotland there is already a requirement for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to give authorisation for private prosecutions. That is why it is not needed in the law. I would have thought that Government lawyers had told her that in the briefing. It is disappointing that they do not seem to know the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Miriam Cates]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are a number of people left to speak on what is a very important and controversial Bill, and a number of issues have not yet been raised, so I object to the closure being moved now.

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), although I feel that I must correct her on one point. The House was not denied the opportunity to take the Bill forward. The fact is that only 68 Members supported the closure motion: that is the measure of support for it in the entire House.

There has been a fair degree of consensus on a number of issues today. Most important is the consensus that coercive practices which attempt to change by force the legitimate and legal beliefs and practices of any individual in our society have no place in the 21st century. It is worth reiterating that at the outset. It is also, in my view, not for the state to interfere in the non-harmful behaviour of any citizen—including the right to freely express one’s sexuality, which, as a doctor, I consider to be simply part of a natural spectrum of human behaviour, and it is worth making it clear that we have a consensus on that as well.

I do believe, however, that we have a duty to protect the vulnerable from undue pressure, from whatever direction and for whatever reason it may come. I strongly agree that we need to protect individuals from undue pressure to express themselves in a way that would be untrue to their natural character, which is not acceptable in a civilised society; but, in the wider debate about trans issues, we must be willing to protect young people from undue influence exerted by those who may have different motivations so that they do not make decisions that might be irreversible and which, with a different level of maturity and experience, they might choose to make differently for themselves.

A couple of contributions have been of particular value. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) talked about the risk of people being drawn inadvertently into the scope of the Bill through behaviour that they believed to be legitimate—for example, challenging young people so that they could gain the benefit of experience, in terms of what their parents might advise them to do. There is also the possibility of the medical profession being inadvertently involved if a practitioner expressed a particular view in private and was then asked to give advice. These are very complex issues.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who I think has genuinely tried to get round some pretty immoveable objects when it comes to law in this area, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) for reminding us that the debate is about people. It is not about abstract issues; it is about individuals and the impact that it has on their lives, and also how elements, at least, of the medical profession can be just as subject to the whims of fashion in politics as any of the rest of the population.

I am glad that the debate has been conducted, in general, in a thoughtful tone. It could easily have degenerated into what we might call strongly held views or inadvertent self-righteousness, but it did so at very few points. It is a debate that needs to be dealt with in a proper tone, but in the wider debate we have seen too much assertion and too little rational discussion. The best example I can think of is the treatment handed out to J. K. Rowling and her row on Twitter. Of course, our assessments of the volume of the response must take account of the fact that this is the world of the Twittersphere—or the X-sphere, as I suppose it is now—but such vicious, extremely aggressive and often threatening language really has no place in our discourse on serious issues in this country.

What struck me about that intervention was not that the writer herself was not entitled to post her views because of her background—as one critic put it, because

“her cis-identity and its majoritarian privileges are overwhelming”.

The sinister part was it was not a counter-attack or riposte to the views she had posted, but an attempt to delegitimise her and thus her intervention. Although the Bill will not go forward, I hope that across the House we can understand and agree that, wherever we come from on the political spectrum, we need to make it clear that the views of those like J. K. Rowling are just as legitimate as the views of anyone else. The aim to silence, cancel and delegitimise individual views has no part in proper democratic debate in our country.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown worked hard to try to get the Bill into a better position, and good law needs to be necessary, clear, effective and enforceable and to avoid unintended consequences. Like many in the House, I am not clear exactly what the necessity is for the Bill, because I did not hear described in any clarity the sort of offences that are not covered by legislation already and that would require yet another piece of legislation. When the Minister comes forward with the Government’s legislation, I look forward to its being clear about what exactly we intend to outlaw. We all understand the extreme elements that are the background to the debate, such as violent enforcement and so on. It disturbed me that part of the explanatory notes to the Bill, given to us by the House of Commons Library, said,

“techniques can take many forms and commonly range from pseudo-psychological treatments to spiritual counselling.”

That is where I had real reservations about where we are today and where I felt it was unclear what the necessity for the legislation was.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The right hon. Gentleman says he does not understand or has not heard scenarios in the debate that would be covered by the Bill but are not covered by existing legislation. I give him the scenario of an unregulated therapist—that is, someone who is not part of any registered body, of which we have many in this country who do significant harm, and there is another debate, possibly, about registering them. That unregulated therapist can take a vulnerable person—to some extent, anyone questioning their sexuality or transgender identity is vulnerable because they are questioning—and repeatedly tell them that they cannot be that, they should be ashamed of that, and they should be disgusted about that. That does not meet a criminal threshold. It might meet a threshold many years down the line of a psychological harm that we will not know. Surely that is a clear example where this Bill, or a Bill like it, would act, but he suggests there are no examples.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Again, interventions should be short—I understand the reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

During my time as Home Secretary, we issued new guidance on non-hate crime incidents, and it supports many aspects of what we are talking about—not all, but some. We clarified the parameters for such non-hate crime incidents to protect minority groups, to protect the LGBT community, and to ensure that fairness and safety were applied by policing.

The next reason is that the scope of the Bill is incredibly wide, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said. The Bill does not require the defendant to intend any harm to be caused in order for their action to be criminal, which I find incredibly concerning. That will capture so many types of behaviour where there is an innocent or well-intentioned objective and where legitimate practices, whether in the religious, therapeutic or teaching field—or just being a regular parent—will be caught. That might be inadvertent, as we have discussed today, but some things will necessarily be caught by interpretations of some of the clauses.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I do not agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member is saying. She must recognise that we do legislate in the House for things other than harms. For example, we legislate against false advertising. We legislate in other areas to say that people cannot do certain things, even if they do not cause direct harm to individuals, because it is for the social good of the fabric of our society that those things do not happen. Is not the point to say that, when explicit harm is caused, it is criminal and Home Secretaries should have put forward guidance for it to be prosecuted, and where it is not harmful but it is dangerous for our society, we should produce a threshold for that? Is that not the point of the Bill?

[Suella Braverman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that we have victimless crimes and we have legislation that provides for those kinds of offences, but the Bill runs the risk of causing harm through bad law. I will come on to the point about the potential harm caused by the proposed legislation. As I said, I seriously and strongly challenge the evidence base that the hon. Gentleman relies on to suggest that there is a definable problem that needs to be fixed in this country.

My next point is about the potential harm caused by this well-intentioned but misguided Bill. There would be a disproportionate impact on people of faith. The language of “predetermined purpose” would disproportionately catch people of faith. Many religions—most religions, I would argue—make many claims about the truth, based on a body of teaching to which followers must adhere. In traditional religions at least, any religious advice will be predetermined by that teaching, and that will be communicated to people. A priest, an imam, a rabbi or any leader in one of the major religions who attempts to pray for a member of their congregation who has presented to them with concerns or anxiety about these issues would be caught by the Bill. There would be a real chilling effect on expression of religion and freedom of religious belief.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It is clear in the exemptions that individual prayer is not caught by the Bill, but if Members feel that that is too thinly defined, we could thrash it out in Committee. Can the right hon. and learned Member tell me any mainstream religion whose religious texts say, “You must change your sexual orientation or your transgender identity”? I am not aware of any, so I do not understand why any religion would be caught by the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the right hon. and learned Lady responds, I just want to point out that several other Members still wish to participate in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on the very thoughtful way in which he introduced the debate on his Bill.

Any medical or psychological efforts or practices that include violence or coercion to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are wrong and already illegal. My primary concern about the Bill is that it could intrude into the legitimate activities and practices of religious groups and faith leaders.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Bristow]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as I want to get a few points on the record.

Yesterday, I met local religious leaders from churches and mosques in Peterborough. Like me, they had significant concerns about the Bill and the profound impact that it would have on their ability to offer pastoral care. We spoke for an hour and had a good, constructive conversation about the effects that the Bill could have on them and their family and friends.

It is important to stress that we agree that everyone should be free to live their life, whatever their gender or sexuality, without being persecuted. This is 2024 in Great Britain: no one deserves anything less than the utmost respect and understanding, regardless of their gender or sexuality. However, it is obviously and rightly already illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality or gender, so not only is the Bill unnecessary on one level, but it could have unintended consequences. It risks silencing people for offering honest and good-natured support, often to very vulnerable people.

The Bill also does not comply with protections of the rights to freedom of speech and to religion set out in the European convention on human rights, as has already been said. That was one of the main action points of our meeting yesterday. It cannot somehow become illegal for a priest or an imam to offer advice to a member of their congregation. Obviously, that would be unthinkable.