Draft Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2024

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 General Committees

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

I rise to support, as everyone has, the increase in the cap. I believe that the Government need to do more to support our post office network, particularly in communities that are harder to reach, be they rural communities or poorer communities, which of course rely on their post offices.

We have seen the destruction of the banking network, and the post office network has picked up the pieces. It would be interesting to know what the Minister is doing to pursue banks for the additional costs that the Post Office has had to pick up. The reality is that every single post office—not just the banking hubs, which there is an arrangement for banks to contribute to—now effectively operates as a bank. People go in to pay in or take out cash, pay in cheques and so on, but apart from the meagre amount that can be charged for each transaction, there is not a huge contribution to this subsidy from the banks. I believe it is time for the Minister to go to all our public banks and ask them what they are contributing to this subsidy, whether it is £750 million or we can leverage more. That is what the best of public-private partnerships is about: the state putting in money and leveraging money from the private sector when it expects us to pick up the pieces. I think we could be doing a lot more on that.

I am also deeply worried that when post offices shut but there are other people willing to come forward to run them, there can often be barriers in the way. Very often, the post office will not be eligible for subsidy any more. The subsidy will be reallocated to another service—an outreach service, for example. Ovingdean village post office in my constituency was in that situation. It shut and a new buyer came along and wanted to reopen it, but they were ineligible for further subsidies because the subsidy line on that post office had ended and been rediverted to other post offices. That has left the village with no post office at all. That is an example of where the subsidy could be better spent; we should ensure that it is not just a one-way track where post offices get subsidy or do not.

I would also be interested in the Minister’s comments on the direction in which he sees the £50 million subsidy going—clearly, it needs to increase—and how is it allocated. I believe that everyone should be able to access a post office within a 10-minute walk or drive, depending on whether the setting is urban or rural, at least once a week—there are mobile post offices. What conditions does the Minister look at when subsidy is allocated? Does he look at the journey to the nearest post office? Does he look at the number of people using the post office? In a number of towns in my area, all the branch post offices have shut and there is only one post office left, often in WH Smith, and the queue runs out the door and around the corner. People have to wait hours —well, perhaps “hours” is an exaggeration, but it is not unheard of for people to have to wait 45 minutes in a queue during peak times to get the parcel service that they need, particularly at Christmas time. Where is the subsidy being spent to relieve that congestion? We used to have Crown post office services, but Crown post offices have been completely abolished in most of those areas.

Hon. Members have spoken extremely well about how we ensure that the costs of Horizon are paid partly by Fujitsu, but the Minister said that some compensation schemes are covered by the uplift, although others are not. Will he give us more detail about that, and explain why any are being covered? Should we not have a direct line from the Treasury to such schemes because, as he said, we have seen the biggest miscarriage of justice, and we need to ensure that the schemes do not eat away at the subsidies that should be paying for our Post Office, rather than our having a separate Treasury-funded scheme through which we go after the culprits. Recent responses from some managers and Fujitsu people show that we need to go after them individually and corporately.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank Members for their important contributions, all of which I shall cover, if I think I can.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asked how the money is being allocated. As I said, this is a cautionary raising of the cap, rather than money specifically going out today. She also asked how the 2025 funding package is being spent. There is the £50 million annual subsidy for uncommercial parts of the network and £190 million to meet the costs of participating in the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and delivering redress to postmasters. Some £103 million helps the development of a replacement for the Horizon IT system, but she might be reassured to hear that there are zero pounds for bonuses.

On our engagement with the Post Office, I meet monthly with the chief exec and other members of the board. I met today with the National Federation of SubPostmasters in one of its meetings to constructively challenge the Post Office management, which I attend on a monthly basis. I also meet the board itself—I did so recently—including the non-executive postmasters on it. I meet postmaster victims, as I did today. I was delighted to host Lee Castleton and others in Parliament today, where they met the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It is important that those meetings are held, such as the one I did last week at Fenny Compton for a BBC programme.

The engagement is about not only righting the wrongs of the past, but the future. The post office network has a bright future, with revenue opportunities that are very much around access to cash and how the banking framework can bring more revenue into post offices. It is crucial not only to increase revenue, but to reduce costs at the centre. It is important that the Post Office itself reduces central costs so that more of the money that flows into the organisation as a whole goes to the postmasters themselves to create more profitable businesses.

The shadow Minister referred to governance. We decided to part company with Henry Staunton and the Secretary of State was absolutely right to do what she did. We hope to see improved governance with a new chair, whom we hope to appoint shortly.

We have been clear, certainly for the past 14 or 15 months in which I have been in this post, that Fujitsu has not only a moral responsibility—it accepts that, as it said before the Select Committee—to own up to how it contributed to what happened, but a financial responsibility. It will contribute significantly to the compensation bill, and we have already had conversations about when that will happen. The right approach is for the inquiry to hear all the evidence, after which we can decide how blame is apportioned and who is culpable.

The inquiry’s evidence sessions are due to be concluded by the end of this year, with the report published early next year. By that point, we will know the full extent of the compensation bill, and that is the right time for final conversations with Fujitsu about how much it should contribute. I appreciate the cross-party support for those conversations. We will have ample opportunities in debates such as this, as well as those on the Floor of the House as we debate the convictions legislation, to press the case publicly with Fujitsu that we expect a significant contribution to be made. I thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for her support and kind words.

The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon, talked about the reduction in services at post offices. He was right: there is no doubt that there has been a significant reduction in the amount of money generated at the post office level compared with 10 or 15 years ago. Letter volumes are a part of that, as are Government services, driving licences and passports, but what has happened is largely due to consumer behaviour, not our interventions. We do not think it is right for us to dictate to our citizens how they should access Government services.

I am sure the hon. Member for Gordon and other members of the Committee do not go to a post office when they renew their passport or driving licence; they probably renew online. It is far more convenient for people to do that, so we should not dictate to our citizens how they access vital public services. It is very important, of course, that we find other sources of revenue for the Post Office, which I will talk about again in a second.

The hon. Member asked whether the cap would impede delivery if there was a flood of new applications for redress. No, absolutely not. This is just one of the mechanisms by which we deliver compensation. The other mechanisms are through the Horizon convictions redress scheme, which is separate, and the GLO scheme. We do not feel that the cap, as a separate means of delivering compensation, will in any way prevent the right money going to the right people.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for her engagement on the matters important to her. She is right to point out that the subsidy for the uncommercial parts of the network is £50 million. We are trying to make sure that the uncommercial parts become more commercial, to deliver more services—particularly around parcels. The Post Office is moving to parcel hubs. I think 8,000 post offices up and down the country offer their customers at least three different options for sending parcels—Royal Mail, Evri or DPD —and that number is increasing. A range of different parcel carriers can provide services, and those are all revenue opportunities for post offices.

Banking is a lucrative source of revenue for the Post Office and is getting more lucrative. As my right hon. Friend said, bank closures have saved banks around £2.5 billion a year, and that number is increasing, so it is only right that a significant proportion of that saving should go into the Post Office network and improve remuneration through the banking framework. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said that the banks should be more generous in their negotiations with the Post Office. Those conversations are progressing reasonably well, but we are keen to make sure there is a better deal for the Post Office and that significant amounts of revenue flow into post offices through that source.

Additionally, Government legislation on access to cash means that banks are forced to leave behind in the communities they abandon banking facilities that include post offices and banking hubs. There will be between 500 and 1,000 banking hubs rolled out over the next few years. There are 40 already, but another 60-odd are in the pipeline, so there will be significant numbers of banking hubs around the country, which represent opportunities for postmasters, who tend to get the first bite of the cherry to operate those hubs.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The banking hubs are particularly good where banks are leaving, but communities already bereft of their bank have not had the opportunity for the post office to come in, so there is still work to be done. Does the Minister agree?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, I do. There can be timing differences, and we urge the banks to put those facilities in place before they leave those communities. Banks are separate commercial entities, and we have legislated to say that they must provide services such as access to cash in those communities. We have made those steps, and they are resulting in significant numbers of banking hubs being rolled out across the country, which are opportunities for our communities and our postmasters.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned the Kelsale outreach branch, which we have met about. We are keen to support her campaign to ensure those communities are still well served. She is right to point out that there should be transparency around where that money goes. A £50 million annual subsidy is going into the Post Office every year, some of which, potentially, will be provided through the raising of this cap. It is also about the Horizon IT inquiry and redress, and the IT system. The key message we have for Post Office Ltd is that it should be reducing costs at the centre to ensure that more of that subsidy, and more of the income resulting from the services provided by post offices, is going to the postmasters to make those post offices more financially viable, so that we see fewer closures.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown asked about what criteria we apply when talking about which post offices to put where. There are clear criteria. There are around 11,700 post offices across the country, and 99% of the population should be within three miles of a post office. The hon. Member mentioned a 10-minute drive; three miles in 10 minutes is probably on the same page, depending on where we are talking about—sometimes in north Yorkshire it takes longer than that. Those access criteria were set in 2007-08, during a previous Administration.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown wants to increase the subsidy. I hear what he says, but I do not know where he is going to find the money—perhaps he could talk to the shadow Chancellor about that. As far as the Government are concerned, we are providing a significant amount of money to the Post Office to ensure that it is sustainable. However, we want it to be independently viable, and that is about driving revenue while reducing costs at the centre. That is our clear strategy. The hon. Member also asked whether all the money for all the schemes is coming through the raising of the cap. No, it is not. There are other schemes and methods of getting money into payments of redress: the GLO scheme and the Horizon convictions redress schemes.

In conclusion, the Government are committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Post Office, and are working closely with it to ensure that the company receives the funding it needs. The Post Office needs to continue righting the wrongs of the past from the Horizon scandal, to go on providing essential services across the UK, and to invest in the future through programmes such as the replacement for the Horizon IT system.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2024.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is always kind to be referred to in another country, which leads me to wonder whether I should stand there. [Interruption.] I need no encouragement from those on the Opposition Benches, thank you very much. My hon. Friend is quite right; Lithuania is a tiny country, but rather bravely it has recognised Taiwan and it has come under the cosh from China as a result. I thank him for that intervention.

As I said, this is not a pipe dream. China applied to join the CPTPP on 16 September 2021, and is next in line. It is widely reported that Beijing is already lobbying hard for membership, and that countries previously opposed have softened their line. Australia has done so because it has had trade problems, as we know. All that is required for Chinese accession is for other members to permit it. The current labour regulations would seem to preclude China’s accession, but the risk is there and we should not take it.

An actor-agnostic approach—linking to the integrated review rather than naming any specific actor—would also enable the Government to create a threshold that is reflexive to developments rather than static. That would means that a report, debate and vote would be required only where the integrated review had designated specific economies as threats or systematic challenges. The language in the review is weak in its own right, but none the less it is there.

I want to deal with the CRaG process quickly. The new clause is in line with the Government policy, but exposes a loophole in the CRaG process. There is currently no provision for a debate and non-binding vote on future accession to plurilateral trade agreements. The process would not require the Government to produce an impact report on China’s accession to the CPTPP, nor would it provide for a parliamentary debate or vote. Given the long-term significance to the UK of being in a plurilateral trade agreement where the biggest partner is China, it is appropriate for Parliament to be furnished with an up-to-date, accurate report, and to have the opportunity to consider the matter—after all, there is no other reason why we are here if not to discuss such important matters.

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

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about some of the weaknesses of CRaG and the need to strengthen it, particularly when there are accessions or other material changes to a treaty to which we are a member. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I sit on, has published a report that outlines some of the changes to the way that the Government operate under CRaG. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to change it so that significant changes to treaties and accessions should always automatically be subject to a report and potential vote in this House? Otherwise, we will sign ourselves up to things without knowing what will happen further along the line.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree. I was not so certain about this, so I looked at what Lord Lisvane, the one-time chief Clerk in the House, said about it. He produced a note on it, which I quote:

“The issue, as I recall, was whether a Motion to approve the PRC’s accession could be amended. Commons S.O. No 24B says that when a Motion in neutral terms (in the judgement of the Chair) is tabled, no amendments to it may be tabled. I think this would probably rule out seeking to amend a simple ‘take note’ or ‘has considered’ Motion.”

I want to emphasise that it is not true that a motion to take note can be amended—that was used in the other place as a defence. The CRaG process does not provide for a vote; it does not even guarantee a debate. That is why the new clause is needed.

Under UK trade policy, it is not unusual for bilateral trade agreements to be subject to parliamentary approval—free trade agreements are routinely subject to it. In response to criticism of the CRaG process in 2021, the Grimstone rule was established, whereby the Government agreed in principle to allow time to debate prospective FTAs where the International Agreements Committee has published a report. I happen to believe that there are Ministers who are keen and happy to have debates—I mention no names, but that is the case. However, I know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office absolutely opposes them, because it hates to have any serious debates about its prerogative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I commend his contribution both to the Committee and to the report that we published on the CPTPP earlier this year.

There are a number of important new clauses and amendments not only about the future expansion plans of the CPTPP and what our policy on those might look like, but also, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, about investor-state dispute settlement. This is important because in all the fanfare, arguments and passionate bits of literature and speeches offered by the Government about the virtues of the treaty, it was always positioned as a gateway to the fastest-growing economy on Earth that will represent a significant fraction of economic growth in the future. Of course, what was often missing from those eloquent descriptions was a recognition that the countries in the CPTPP represent only about a fifth, at best, of the Indo-Pacific region.

We are surely right to worry that there could well be a Government drive to expand the orbit of the treaty to a much wider group of nations. If the Government really want to take aim at the biggest economies on Earth, they may well encourage China to join. However, when I asked the Secretary of State whether it was her policy to agree to or block China’s accession, she said that that was not something we could discuss on the Floor of the House or in the Select Committee. That is why safeguards are needed. We might even be so bold as to merely ask for a little bit of clarity on the Government’s future strategy. That is why the amendments on the future pathway of the treaty are so important and why I hope we will have a vote on some aspect of that today, even if it is not on the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.

I will talk briefly about new clause 3, which relates to ISDS. It is important, because His Majesty’s Government have agreed side letters with a number of countries to take us out of the ISDS process. That is not an exemption or safeguard that we saw when it came to agreeing to the treaty, yet the treaty includes countries such as Canada—I think we are just about on fraternal terms with Canada at the moment; we may have failed to agree an FTA with it, but quite why is a matter of some dispute between the Canadian Government and the Secretary of State. Canada is home to some of the biggest pension fund investors on the planet and we know that those funds are especially litigious. Although the Minister was right, when he answered these questions in earlier conversations, to say we have never lost an ISDS case, the reality is that many fear there will be a chilling effect on the regulations we bring forward because of a fear of the peril of ISDS procedures.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My right hon. Friend is speaking very well on some of the new clauses I have tabled on ISDS. It is of course true that getting the side letters for all member states was good enough for New Zealand, so it was protected more—not fully protected, I grant him. If it was good enough for New Zealand, it should have been good enough for us. Is it not a sign that Ministers have lacked ambition, or is it a sign of complacency?

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps it is because we did not want to overly annoy the Canadians, but the truth is that the talks with the Canadians have broken down—at a cost, by the way, to the UK automotive industry. In fact, UK cars will be hit on average by a £3,000 tariff in about a month or two, because of the breakdown of those talks. It is important for us to have a vote on why we do not have those procedures, why we do not have those safeguards and why we do not have those side letters.

Finally, I want to underline the point made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. As a House, we must become far more skilled, far more ready and far more adroit at debating the kinds of treaties we will be asked to sign. Once upon a time, when the Berlin wall came down, we promised ourselves that we could look forward to a new world of free trade, and we hoped that that free trade could bring political progress and a democratic process—Wandel durch Handel, as the Germans liked to say.

However, that reality is now smashed; that era ended with the second invasion of Ukraine. We are now in new times, when we have to debate not just military security but economic security, and economic security questions are always freighted with dilemmas. We are a small nation and our adversaries are big, so we must always act with our allies, but not all our allies are good, and many of our friends would prefer not to pick a side. Our adversaries plan for self-sufficiency, but we cannot. We prefer open, free trade, but global supply chains are risky. We like markets to decide, but security always requires state action. We know that we need to work proactively to shape the long term, but democracies frequently entail a short-term change of Government, and too often our politics is reactive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall]

I understand that, but I feel that punching through on this occasion would be the wrong approach. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Foreign Office’s appetite for us debating these issues in this place should not matter one jot, because it is our right as parliamentarians to discuss free trade agreements and whether they work. Respectfully, I say that the mechanism for ensuring that we get better trade agreements, and can be reassured about their economic value and benefits to the British people and our national security, has to be achieved by upgrading the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) made an excellent point when he referred to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report’s recommendation on enshrining a methodology to ensure that CRaG operates within 21 sitting days, and that a meaningful vote is held at the end of that period. If that were ever to take place, it would be meaningful, because it would delay the signing of any free trade agreement by 21 days.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the need to change CRaG; we mentioned that need in our report. Our report made it clear that a lot of changes do not necessarily need legislation, but they do need a change of approach from the Government. There should be a clear commitment made at the Dispatch Box that debates will always be called when there is significant interest in a subject, and particularly when there are commitments around new accession. If the Government made those commitments, it would be enough, but they are still not forthcoming. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box today and give those commitments, so that we can move forward with some certainty?

[Anthony Mangnall]

The hon. Gentleman and I served for a long time on the International Trade Committee, as it was previously known, and I should start my response to him by paying enormous credit to the Secretary of State, who came in front of the Committee a number of times, and who wrote to the Leader of the House to ask for time to debate CPTTP within the CRaG period. I am afraid that my ire and irritation at our not having secured that time must now be focused on the Leader of the House, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say there are simple steps that we can take to make sure that this House is properly briefed on these issues. One of them—I absolutely declare my interest—would be to give Privy Counsellor status to members of the Business and Trade Committee. I do not think anyone would disagree with that suggestion. It would certainly be a very popular move, and when it has been mentioned in the Committee, it has been welcomed with open arms. I am glad that it has the approval of the House. But, in all seriousness, there has to be a set process and the CRaG mechanism allows us that opportunity if done properly. It is there and it must be reformed, regardless of who is in government. It is in the interests of the entire House to amend and implement CRaG.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I welcome almost everything that the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—is saying, he and I having worked together a lot on this issue, but the reality is that other countries in the CPTPP have arrangements that allow their Parliaments to have deliberations on significant treaty changes and on the incoming of new members. We are talking not about the CPTPP arrangements but about our arrangements for authorising our Government to go ahead and agree. Surely he must agree that it would not undermine the CPTPP if we were to make our own arrangements on how we were to instruct our Government.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Forgive me if it sounds trite to say that I worry about mission creep, but if we did that on this, might we not also do it for the World Health Organisation, or for any other body that might be under suspicion of having some adverse state actor involved in it? I worry about how we go about this. I worry about Parliament always trying to have a say and slowing the process of how our trade agreements are signed and ratified. We need to be efficient and quick in the way we do it, but we must also ensure that we have the opportunity for debate, as we have today in this debate on the merits of the three chapters in the Bill.

I want to end with a parting shot. As has been mentioned by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), we were told that we would have the opportunity to debate the full 30 chapters of the CPTPP within CRaG, and it is disappointing that we do not have that. The Government—the Secretary of State and the Minister—have done an amazing job in engaging with the Committee, but this is a serious disappointment. It lessens the progress that has been made to date on signing new trade agreements and ensuring that this place has a say on our future.

--- Later in debate ---

The ineffectual nature of the labour rights chapter is demonstrated by the fact that, since the agreement’s conclusion in 2018, no Government have challenged another for abusing labour rights. It is not working. So again, if the Government are not going to accept this new clause, I just hope a future Government will consider the issue and that we will then be able to raise it with the CPTPP partner countries through the formal review process, so that labour protections can eventually be significantly strengthened. That may well come under a new Government after the election, but I can reassure the whole House that a number of us will not drop this issue. It will come back time. We will raise the importance of getting proper democratic scrutiny and, on issues such as labour rights, of ensuring that we protect both our own economy and workers themselves from the exploitation that has been evidenced so succinctly in various debates in this House.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). What a great way of upstaging his sister a week after her wedding—after a by-election is forced, he goes on to win it. But I suspect that it was a happy moment for all the family, and it is a delight to have him here.

I have tabled two new clauses. I have sat on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and, in its previous iteration, the International Trade Committee, when we scrutinised the Bill almost, I felt, to death. The problem with scrutiny without any teeth is that words produced in Parliament all the time are lost in the ether. The reality is that, unless there is debate in the main Chamber, there is not the right body of weight behind those words and those concerns.

It is clear to me that we need to change constitutional make-up of how we do trade deals. I support everything that PACAC has said, of course, but personally I would go further. I think we do need legislative changes to CRaG, despite the fact that we could make some changes through trust—that would be a good start. The reality is that, since we left the European Union—I know we are not meant to go on about that—this House has had less scrutiny over trade deals than we did before. It used to be that consent was required, which would go via the European Scrutiny Committee. That consent was required to be sent to the European Union before a trade deal could be signed off.

We know that in other places around Europe, legislators did hold back inappropriate trade deals. The EU-Canada free trade deal, for example, was held back by the Wallonian Parliament because it failed to address things such as workers’ rights, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned. The deal was renegotiated and the Europeans got a better deal. We could have done that at any step of the way when we were in Europe, but now we are out of the EU, we are less able to do so and less able to hold our negotiating person to account. Our negotiating person at that point was the European Commission. Our negotiating people now are our Ministers and civil servants, but we are less able to hold them to account. We cannot set their negotiating mandate or stop a trade deal, as we were able to do before. Yes, we can delay it, and yes, this Minister is fantastic in coming to be held to account through questioning, but the hard stop that means that people listen to you rather than just having a nice debating club with you has now been lost. We need to reflect that changing world.

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He and I have discussed this at great length in two Committees that we have both sat on. I am hugely sympathetic to every point that he is making, but there is one counter-argument that has not yet been put forward. The position of our negotiators in striking these deals in the first place could be slightly weakened by the fact that they would then have to check back with the legislature on whether or not it will ratify. Were we to take the final decision away from our negotiators, they would not be able to negotiate such a strong deal. I put that forward not necessarily as a definitive answer, but as a counter-argument.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Some people claim that that would happen, but others claim that it would strengthen our position. When the EU says, “This is our backstop,” we know that it is not bluffing because the backstop has been set by the EU Parliament. Now, negotiators can say, “Well, we know that that is not really the backstop, because you can go away and cajole your Back Benchers to vote this through anyway,” whereas in other systems, they can say, “I’m sorry, but the Senate will not approve this because the committee is holding my feet to the fire.”

However, there are other ways of doing it. As other Members have mentioned, we could allow the matter to have Privy Council status and meet in camera, to allow involvement in negotiations. In multilateral processes, other Governments embed parliamentarians in their negotiating teams. The Norwegians, for example, embed parliamentarians in their WTO negotiating teams in the day-to-day back and forth. Of course, in Norway, the WTO is dealt with by a different department from bilateral treaties, so there is a slightly different way of negotiating different kinds of deals. We can determine what kind of deal it is from the level of negotiation and whether Parliament is involved. If Norway were dealing with the CPTPP, parliamentarians would be embedded in that process, but if it were dealing with the Japan deal, they would not.

There are granularities of parliamentary overview and scrutiny, but almost all systems have developed them over the past 50 years as trade deals have basically become international lawmaking processes rather than dealing just with trade—they deal with all aspects of our life. However, we effectively paused our processes when we joined the European Union, and we have now reverted to where we were before joining. Although I accept that our process are now in the CRaG law, they have not evolved properly.

Let me address my new clause 2. Around 90% of the world’s oil palm trees are grown in just a few islands in Malaysia and Indonesia. Currently, less than 20% of that palm oil has received certification for sustainable palm oil forestry. The CPTPP will remove tariffs from palm oil. Of course, the aim of removing tariffs is to increase trade, so it seems implausible to say that we do not think it will increase the amount of palm oil in the UK that comes from unsustainable forests. The same could be true of tropical woods. Two of the 11 forests that supply our tropical woods and are identified as in danger are in the CPTPP region, but they have no additional protection.

[Anthony Mangnall]

First, Indonesia is not part of CPTPP. It is also important to note that the Malaysians have introduced a certification and standard for more sustainable palm oil plantation. I am not saying that that is perfection—it certainly is not, there is a lot further to go—but it is a good example of how, by forming a trade agreement through CPTPP, we can raise standards, not lower them.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sound point. That is why my amendment does not say that we should not join the CPTPP, or that we should disallow it for those purposes. It would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a monitoring report on the level of unsustainable palm oil and forest products that are entering this country before we join the CPTPP, and to report regularly on those imports. If and when this House, or Ministers themselves, believe that action is needed, the data will be there to prove it. If we do not collect that data, we will not know, and we will be blind to the problem.

The same is true of our obligations on climate change and biodiversity. Personally, I would prefer a stronger environmental section in the Bill, but it is what it is. However, it should be noted that 119 pesticides that are permitted in CPTPP countries are not permitted in this country, 56 of which are considered to be highly harmful to human beings. Yes, we have standards for food, but there are no production standards, and there are no standards for pesticides that are not food-based. The problems with some of those pesticides—the killing of bees and other wildlife—are not just about human consumption: sometimes, those pesticides are banned not because they harm human beings, but because they harm the fauna and flora around us. When we import goods that contain them, they can enter the food chain; even worse, they can enter the animal food chain, which is not regulated by the same food standards and therefore causes huge problems. We need Government oversight of those points to ensure that we do not end up damaging some of our crops through pesticides that we ourselves have banned.

Turning to new clause 3, I am particularly concerned about ISDS. At long last, the Government have agreed that we should withdraw from the energy charter treaty, primarily because in a changing world, we need to make changes to our energy policy to make it more green. Our continual inclusion in the energy charter treaty would bind us to ISDS agreements, which we have seen targeted at a number of European states that have made moves to increase their environmentally friendly sources of energy. That is now a danger to us: even though we have not lost an ISDS case, it is a danger to our future and to policymaking. If we have made that case for energy, I think the same case could be made for almost all our arrangements.

It is useful to note that our agreements with Australia, New Zealand and Japan—all of which are part of the CPTPP—did not include ISDS. In fact, the agreement with Japan included a clause to say that we would not enact ISDS unless we signed or entered into another agreement that includes it, so the very fact that this agreement includes ISDS triggers a number of ISDS courts in other agreements that we have signed, which I think is risky and dangerous. We need a report on the risks that ISDS poses to the UK, because we could have rogue investors who end up taking us to court even if it is against the national interest of the two respective states. Of course, citizens cannot access ISDS—it is not a global court where citizens who have been harmed can seek redress from a Government. Only corporations that have invested in a particular country can do so.

ISDS actually means that corporations that invest into Britain from outside have higher protections than a British corporation that invests in plants here. I think it is totally wrong that a British corporation is more vulnerable to changing policy than a foreign one. It should be a level playing field, but at the moment, a British corporation that has invested here has no recourse to ISDS if policy changes in Britain, but corporations from outside do—the Minister is frowning a bit, so I was just trying to explain the difference. There is also a well recorded chilling effect from ISDS that we must be particularly aware of.

Fundamentally—again, I go back to the thing that we are not meant to mention—under the European Union, at least there were open courts to which we appointed judges. ISDS means secret tribunals that do not always have British judges, so there is a problem there. If we are meant to be taking back control, surely we should be taking power away from secret courts and allowing sunlight to be the justice that we seek.

Apart from the matters covered by the two new clauses I have tabled, I think this treaty is a step in the right direction. We should support it, but I wish the Government had negotiated as well as New Zealand and other countries that sought and won protections that, I am afraid, our Ministers failed to even bother seeking.

--- Later in debate ---

Because of those concerns, Ministers were forced to bring forward a consultation on the changes. The consultation will not finish until after the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses. In the worst-case scenario estimated by the Intellectual Property Office, the changes could cost over £100 million. It is likely that Royal Assent will have been granted before we know the outcome of the consultation process. Ministers were forced to bring this issue forward, which I have to say is just the latest example of, at best, a half-hearted approach to the scrutiny of trade issues by those on the Treasury Bench.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent, excellent speech. [Interruption.] Well, he knows it anyway, but there is nothing wrong with praising. Is it not also a sign of how the Government, time and again, let down our creative industries? If it were steel or farming, Conservative Members would be in the ear of Ministers through their trade partnership committees, but creative industries are locked out of many of them and ignored. That is why Labour has put forward a plan to put creative industries at the heart of our economic development.

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is generous in his description of my speech—I am grateful to him—and absolutely right about the importance of Labour’s plan for the creative sector.

Reform of the UK’s copyright framework should not be taken lightly, and it should only follow proper and well-considered consultation. Otherwise, we risk endangering our gold standard of protection for our vital creative sector. I gently suggest to the House that the reforms allowed for under clause 5 should not have been shoehorned into this Bill, and certainly not without a thorough consultation having taken place first. In that regard we are sympathetic to the merits of new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. We will continue to scrutinise developments in this area, and we hope that Ministers will reach a final decision, after the consultation, that will not have the adverse impact that is feared by some outside the House.

As I have said, I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown in new clauses 2 and 3, and I therefore hope he will join us with enthusiasm in the Lobby later today. Similarly, I share the desire of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for much greater adherence to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation. We raised this issue in Committee, and as I said earlier, I share his frustration—and that of other Members—that Ministers have not allowed the House a substantive debate under the CRaG process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

The Government’s position is unchanged. It is always the desire of the Government, as expressed by the Secretary of State in writing to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman as Chair of the Select Committee, to urge and to ask for there to be a debate, but that will always be subject to the availability of parliamentary time. In a little bit, I will discuss the opportunities that there have been to scrutinise the CPTPP, which have been manifold in recent years.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I will give way a little later.

The Act makes no distinction between bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral treaties. In addition to Parliament being able to make its views clear through the CRaG process, let me remind the House that, as a dualist state, any legislation necessary to implement the treaty—such as alterations to tariffs legislation, to take a hypothetical example—would need to be fully scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual way. It is the long-standing policy of His Majesty’s Government not to ratify international agreements before all relevant domestic legislation is in place. Were Parliament to refuse to pass any necessary implementing legislation, ratification of an agreement would be delayed.

I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) for their opening speeches. Both are strong supporters of the UK joining the CPTPP. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, who is the former Secretary of State, initiated these talks back in 2017 with me at his side, and successive Secretaries of State have given maximum priority to doing so. I am now in my fourth stint in this role, and it is fantastic to see his and my vision in 2017 now nearing fruition and being very close to UK ratification.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and I know that Parliament is perfectly capable of expressing a view on an international agreement and whether a country might join it, and the Government of the day would be very likely to take notice. In debates in this House over some years now, he has made clear his views on trade with China, has gained support and attention, and been effective in doing so. Indeed, he has helped to achieve changes in policy in relation to supply chains in Xinjiang, and I agree with his support for Taiwan —a full member of the World Trade Organisation—as an important trade partner for the UK. We are positive about this kind of debate in the House.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Select Committee, mentioned the scrutiny that there has been in this House for the CPTPP agreement, and he doubted whether there had been four debates. I had a slightly nagging feeling that I may actually remember each of the four debates, so I went back and checked the four debates, which started with the very first one that I responded to in April 2021. There have been four debates in this House and in the other House on the CPTPP. There have also been two oral ministerial statements and 16 written ministerial statements, and five separate Select Committees have taken evidence from Ministers and senior officials on the matter. There has been a Trade and Agriculture Commission report and a section 42 report. This is not an under-scrutinised trade agreement—rather the opposite. As has always been clear, we want the CPTPP to expand to fast-growing Asia-Pacific economies. I also agree with the Auckland principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Labour Government, and he will remember that there are the vagaries of time available. Making an application to say that we would like there to be a debate is not the same as those who run the parliamentary timetable agreeing to there being one.

Let me move on to the new hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan), who made a very accomplished and well delivered maiden speech. He spoke fondly of predecessors whom I know and like, such as Roger Berry and Rob Hayward. He won a keenly contested by-election—I have been to a few by-elections in recent years, and I was grateful to be given a bit of time off and to not go to Kingswood. None the less, I have great admiration for those who win by-elections. I have seen at close hand that they are a different kind of contest.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of his support for free trade and for rewarding hard work, and expressed sympathy for the Government, who have faced the challenges of covid and Ukraine. I agree with him on all of those issues, and the Government do too. I look forward to his continuing the tradition of an independent-minded Member for Kingswood—but please do not tell the Labour Whips Office.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) spoke passionately about trade and CPTPP. He is always probing on those issues.

Various amendments and new clauses that have been tabled ask for additional impact assessments. Before addressing some of those amendments directly, I would like to reassure the House that the Government will publish a biennial monitoring report and a comprehensive evaluation report of the agreement within five years of our accession.

Amendment 1 and new clause 12 would introduce commitments to publish impact assessments on the performers’ rights provisions in this Bill, and I will set out why we consider them to be unnecessary. The impacts of the rules depend in large part on how they are applied in particular cases through secondary legislation made under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That secondary legislation may restrict or extend particular rights to particular countries. Wherever the Government intend to make significant changes to the secondary legislation, we will engage with affected industries and carry out an impact assessment. The Intellectual Property Office has done that recently with its consultation and its assessment of the impact of potential secondary legislation on the broadcasting and public playing of recorded music. A commitment to assess the impacts of the measures in this Bill is therefore unnecessary, and risks overlooking the effects of the secondary legislation.

I will now turn to new clauses 2 and 6, which broadly focus on environmental and other standards. I can provide assurance that the UK will continue to uphold our high environmental standards in respect of all our trade agreements, including CPTPP. As I have previously mentioned, the Government intend to publish a comprehensive ex post evaluation of the agreement within five years of the UK’s accession, and I can confirm that this evaluation will include an assessment of the environmental impacts of our accession. In addition, the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission was asked to scrutinise the UK’s accession protocol and produce a report. The TAC concluded in its advice, published on 7 December 2023, that

“CPTPP does not require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection”

in relation to the aforementioned areas.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It is very welcome that there will be a five-year report. Will it include numbers on unsustainable palm oil and rainforest wood to ensure that we are not exploiting more than we are at the moment?

[Greg Hands]

That is exactly the sort of thing that I would expect the report to do. I must say that I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Government’s record when it comes to palm oil, because 86% of UK imports of palm oil were certified as sustainable in 2022—up from 16% under the last Labour Government in 2010, when we took office. Deforestation related to palm oil in Malaysia has fallen by 60% since 2012, according to the latest available figures, and we will keep working with countries such as Malaysia to build on that work.

As soon as parliamentary time allows, the Government will be tabling their forest risk commodities legislation under the Environment Act 2021, which will make it illegal for larger businesses operating in the UK to use key forest risk commodities produced on land illegally occupied or used. The Government have confirmed that palm oil products would be included under the regulated commodities. Additionally, I once again refer to the report of the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission, which concluded that

“it is unlikely that CPTPP will lead to an increase in palm oil being grown on deforested land”.

Moving on to new clauses 3 and 5, relating to ISDS, the UK’s accession to CPTPP will benefit UK investors. I do not think the Opposition understand how business works. We support British businesses operating overseas. They create jobs in this country—jobs that the Labour party does not seem to like.

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.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I reassure him that repetition is no barrier to contribution in this place, as he will recognise. I also thank him for his work on the Select Committee, which is hugely important. We heard the words “You’re the only one” time and again in those dramatisations. It was horrific. It was a blatant lie, and somebody must have known that it was a blatant lie. Those lies led to some people going to jail and others suffering other forms of financial detriment, and detriment to their health and that of their families. Should prosecutions flow from that wherever possible? I would say yes.

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

I share the thoughts of almost everyone—there has been almost cross-party unanimity on this issue—but I am still worried about the ongoing treatment of sub-postmasters and their liability. In 2018, my local post office was subject to an armed robbery. Those who ran the post office were hauled up to the regional office, where they were interrogated. They felt like criminals. They were not allowed to bring their reps from the Communication Workers Union; they were told they could bring reps only from the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which they had no trust in. In the end, although of course they were found not to have given over the money willingly, they left and handed over the post office to someone else. There is a problem with the liability of sub-postmasters, and particularly the fact that the Post Office has closed Crown post offices, which would not have such liability. Will the Minister look again at how liability works for sub-postmasters?

I echo the calls that we should look again at private prosecutions. The CCRC said in its 2020 report that the private prosecutions process is haphazard and the fact that the Government do not even know what private prosecutions are going on, because there is no central register, is detrimental to the very reforms they might need to make. Will the Minister at least look at having a central register of private prosecutions, and a regulatory overview, possibly of the Crown Prosecution Service? It was created for the very purpose of separating prosecutions from the police, and we now need to do that for other public services as well.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that troubling case, which I am happy to look into on his behalf, if he would like. I think he said that case was in 2018, since when I feel there has been a change in relationship between the Post Office and the network—I am not saying that it is universally good or universally supported by the network, but there has been some improvement—including the recruitment of 100 regional managers, so there is more of a relationship-based approach between the network and Post Office Ltd.

On private prosecutions, as I said earlier, we should look at that in the context of this particular scandal as well as the wider connotations of private prosecutions. The Justice Secretary has committed to do that, and I am sure that he will report to the House in due course and take on board the Justice Committee’s important recommendations on this matter.

Pride Month

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I agree, and I certainly hope that Pride in Anglesey is as enjoyable as Pride in London, and also as enjoyable as Pride in Liverpool, which this year will be hosting Ukraine Pride too. It will not be quite as glitzy as the recent party we had for Eurovision, but it will in its own way be just as glamorous.

I was talking about legal bans, and the situation in some other countries where people have not made the same progress as we have been fortunate enough to deliver in this country. Pride is about supporting their battles for human rights and dignity, and the all-party parliamentary group, which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I are honoured to chair, does its best to bring those issues to the attention of the House and of Government agencies.

We use Pride Month to assess how we must plan to protect and advance the equal rights that we have fought for, and we march and we protest, but we do also party, as I think has perhaps been mentioned before—it seems to be a theme. We party, and we parade and march, because visibility is a part of the celebration that Pride represents. It is about our own pride in our authentic existence, because being out in the open is so much better than being afraid and in the shadows. We must bear that in mind as the debates that problematise particular parts of our community continue to rage around us.

Why do we do this? We do it because we have a collective memory of what it was like before we fought for change, and we do not want to go back to those dark days of prejudice, bigotry and oppression. What is the point of us carrying on doing it now that, apparently, we are accepted? It is because a diverse society is a stronger society. Everyone thrives better in an accepting society in which the norm is dignity and respect, rather than division and prejudice. I have a feeling that we are about to have to fight that battle all over again between those two visions of what a society should be like.

We want a society in which people are not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and we can celebrate remarkable progress at home and abroad in the battle for liberation for LGBT+ people. This year is the 20th anniversary of the repeal of section 28 in our country. It is also the 19th anniversary of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which first gave legal recognition and protection to same-sex relationships, and 10 years since the equal marriage Act—the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013—which opened up that happy prospect to same-sex couples.

There has also been very welcome progress globally for LGBT+ people. Just in the last year, same-sex activity has been decriminalised in five more countries—Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Singapore, Barbados and the Cook Islands. However, as I said earlier, that still leaves 66 countries where it is illegal to be gay. Half of them are in the Commonwealth, where homophobic laws that were often imported during the colonial era still hold sway. We in the all-party group on global LGBT+ rights can celebrate some progress, but we know that the battles are far from over.

We also know that there has been bad news this year, as well as progress, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned in his opening speech. The odious anti-homosexuality law just enacted in Uganda and signed into being by President Museveni is especially extreme in mandating life imprisonment for homosexual conduct, and the death penalty in some instances. It outlaws any “promotion of homosexuality”, which is a familiar phrase to some of us who lived through the 1980s, including advocating for LGBT rights. People can now be jailed if they advocate for human rights in Uganda. There is also a 20-year jail sentence for providing financial support to LGBT+ people, which includes giving them somewhere to live.

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

My hon. Friend is raising the very concerning situation in Uganda, a country I have visited many times. A number of embassies in Uganda offer space for the LGBT community to meet and organise for safety purposes because of the awful backlash. We should celebrate that, and continue to push for the British embassy to do likewise, as other European embassies have done, so that we protect our friends and colleagues who are fighting the good fight for human rights there.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Well, certainly, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I met the International Development Minister just yesterday to talk about this very thing. We also talked about what other response there might be to what is happening in Uganda, particularly in trying to protect LGBT activists there, but also to make it certain that there is no impunity for those advocating these kinds of laws. We raised the prospect of visa bans, travel bans and other ways of making our displeasure known, and we wait to hear what the Government will say about that. This is the most extreme law that has been passed on to a statute book, but similar statutes are now appearing in other African states. Notably in Ghana, but in other African states as well, there are big pushes to enact similar laws.

Progressive momentum has also stalled in our own country. The UK Government cannot seem to decide whether they are going to maintain their acceptance of the gains made by LGBT people, or tee up an even more vicious culture war against trans people ahead of the next general election. Almost five years since the Government first announced their intention to ban conversion practices, there is still no sign of the oft-promised draft legislation that would achieve that very laudable aim, which would have widespread support across this House. We are still waiting to see that, yet every day of delay from this Government puts more vulnerable, usually young, people at risk from this highly damaging form of psychological abuse. As I think I said last year, I hope that the Minister might be able to confirm today that the Bill will be published soon. We were hoping it would be a Bill last year, and now we are told it is a draft Bill, but we have still not had sight or sound of it. I am sure that behind the scenes he is absolutely on the right side of these arguments, and I do not want to embarrass him in public, but I suspect there may be others who are not. I wish him well with any battles that he is having, and I hope that the Bill will be published before the summer recess, so that we can check that it is trans-inclusive and that it is effective because it does not contain a gigantic “consent” loophole.

As the general election gets closer, the Prime Minister has decided to go along with an attempt to set up a response to what he referred to in his failed leadership bid last summer as the threat to “our women” from trans people. Daily screaming headlines in Tory-supporting tabloids have followed disgustingly, painting all trans women as potentially violent, predatory, and a threat to women and girls. That has created a climate of fear and hostility to all trans people, and seen levels of hate crimes against all LGBT+ people, and especially trans people, soar in the last year. There is a reason why Pride in London has decided to march in solidarity with trans people this year, and I hope that many of those who wish to see our society support everyone positively will join us on the Pride march on 1 July.

With this targeting, we must remember that there are only small numbers of trans people in this country. If we read the headlines, one would think that everything that goes wrong, and all violence against women, was somehow perpetrated by trans women. It is out of all proportion and doing enormous damage, and I wish it would stop. I wish the Government would take a stand against it, instead of standing back, letting it happen, and calculating whether there is any political gain for them in allowing it to go on.

I recognise a politically induced moral panic when I see one. I also recognise a discredited Government who are unleashing a culture war for their own political ends. All power to the elbows of those in the Conservative party who are trying to get this stopped: Labour is with you and we hope you will be successful. This kind of activity happened before in the 1980s, when the same tactics and tropes were used to demonise gay men. That led to section 28, which unleashed untold misery for a generation of LGBT+ young people, and for those who were perceived as “different”, whether they were gay or not. We cannot and must not let history repeat itself.

I am a feminist, I am a lesbian, and I am a trans ally. I do not believe that allowing trans men and women to live with dignity and respect threatens my rights or my wellbeing in the slightest. We all advance together, or not at all. Even at this late stage, the Government could do the decent thing and abandon their divisive tactics. Instead of endless prevarication, they could publish sensible and inclusive relationships and sex education guidance, which our schools have been waiting for since 2019. They could stop playing dangerous and divisive games with trans people by trying to set their rights against women’s rights.

All the anti-LGBT+ and anti-trans rhetoric is not spontaneously appearing out of nowhere. It is the result of carefully planned and well-funded efforts on a global scale. OpenDemocracy reports on a 2020 investigation that found that more than 20 US fundamentalist religious groups fighting against LGBT+ rights and abortion rights had spent $54 million in Africa pursuing those agendas—an investment that, shamefully, appears to be bearing some fruit.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The situation in Uganda is very similar. Uganda was the first African country to hold the UN world AIDS conference, and there Museveni gave out condoms to every person that joined. That was 20 years ago. When I last went to Uganda with the International Development Committee and former MP Stephen Twigg, we sat in classrooms where children were told that the way to stop HIV and AIDS was to not sleep with other men and to have a good wash after themselves. That is not just dangerous on an LGBT scale but dangerous for global health. Right-wing money has transformed that country, which was progressive, into a deeply regressive country.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There is increasing evidence of that kind of global network operating in a reactionary manner. The Global Philanthropy Project reports that the anti-gender movement outspent the LGBT+ rights movement by three to one between 2013 and 2017, deploying $3.7 billion of resource, and creating an extensive network of organisations to push their divisive, pernicious agenda. Key funders were based in the USA and Europe, with Russian oligarchs playing a key role in Europe. We know that Putin talks about this a lot; we know that Orbán talks about it a lot. We know that in the Spanish election such anti-trans rhetoric is being used by the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on bringing the debate to the House. I am a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) rights along with him and the hon. Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson).

I begin by associating myself with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Wallasey about funding, which is a critical issue when we are dealing with hate targeting the LGBT community. I cannot underestimate the impact of dark money in feeding the far right wing in the United States. This House really needs to get a grip on that, especially in relation to Scottish Limited Partnerships.

The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) was elected back in 1997. Many of us watched his election, because what we saw was an openly gay man standing for this House, even with so much thrown against him. We were glad, even on the SNP Benches, that he was elected; it was a great moment for many of us.

I also want to mention someone who never got into this House, because of the profoundly disturbing campaign against him during the election campaign in Bermondsey in the ’80s: Peter Tatchell. Peter is a Marmite person for many, but the campaign led against him back then exposes that all the political parties represented here have many different aspects to their history. Even those of us in the SNP have had issues around LGBTQ rights. Every political party has its history, and not all of it is great in standing up for equality. Peter should have had the opportunity to be here. I think he is a great loss to parliamentary democracy, but he campaigns vigorously outside this House and many people, including myself, are very grateful for that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Peter has run a successful campaign to try to get an apology from the Metropolitan police and other police forces around the UK. The Metropolitan police made an apology as recently as last week, after his campaign success. Should that not lead to other police forces around the country apologising for their treatment of LGBT people historically?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman is right; yes, is the simple answer. Peter also eventually got an apology from the Ministry of Defence for serving veterans who were so badly treated because of their sexuality.

I think I am the first openly LGBTQ Member for West Dunbartonshire, but like the right hon. Member for Exeter, that was not the first time I was elected. That was 31 years ago, to the old Clydebank District Council. It is a shipyard town, a burgh town—for the avoidance of doubt for Hansard that is spelled b, u, r, g, h. Growing up in a very working-class, Irish-Catholic background, sexuality, for many reasons, was never discussed, whether LGBTQ or anything else, because we had to deal with so many other profound issues of class and how that impacted our lives through poverty.

I was honoured to be elected back in 1992, but I did not come out to many of my friends until many years later. Actually, I came out before that. What am I saying? My mind has gone very foggy in my old age. I came out to my friends Neil and Stephen when I was 19, and their first reaction was, “Alright. Okay, tell us something we didn’t know; can we go to the Radnor Park pub for a pint? Right, okay, nae bother.” They, like me, are very open individuals—Stephen especially, because of his trade union involvement. As a heterosexual man and a trade unionist, he is keenly aware now, as he was back then, about dignity and equality for all.

But I was a lucky one. There were so many in my community, not just my hometown of Clydebank, but across Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven who did not get that support and whose lives were ended through sheer ignorance and hate—and that is not just those who died because of HIV and AIDS and the traumas that we in the community went through. That is why in 2015 I was glad that my sexuality was not an issue for anybody —absolutely no one. That said, it might be now!

Why are these issues important? It is important to reflect on where some of us, of a certain age, have come from, and why we believe it is so important that so many of the people behind us—those younger folk, who are under 50-odd—require that support. That is why I am grateful for the work of organisations such as the Equality Network in Scotland, the Time for Inclusive Education—TIE—campaign, Scottish Trans and LGBT Youth Scotland. Ignorance breeds hate, and with hate comes oppression. That is why I said earlier that all the political parties represented in the House have a sometimes dark history when it comes to LGBT rights, but it is also relevant to the issue of our relationships, in this House, with other countries.

We have already heard mention of the Commonwealth. I have to be open about this: I am not a big fan, and that is not just because I am a member of the LGBT community. I keep being given the same answer—that the Commonwealth is doing a lot to promote LGBTQ issues—but I have to say that in the last 10 years it has not been doing enough to stop the dreadful ramping up of hate that we are now seeing in Uganda and many other countries. That brings me back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Wallasey about the systemic use of dark money, coming through the Russian Federation, possibly being used in the Scottish limited partnerships, going through Ukraine into the United States and then feeding into the entire continent of Africa. We have already talked about Uganda, where LGBTQ people are subject to life imprisonment or possibly the death penalty; that is an extraordinary state of affairs.

To my mind—and this is a personal issue—the Commonwealth is failing LGBTQ citizens in the majority of countries. It is an absolute disgrace, but how has it come about? Let us be clear: it is a hangover from a imperial and colonial legal system, based on white supremacy, racism and homophobia, which was imposed on many of those nations and is now being manipulated by dark money. We need to recognise that the foundations of those principles go to the heart of the reactionary right wing.

We have heard about books being banned in the United States, and possibly being burnt next. I grew up in a community that was obliterated during the second world war. For people like me, the Nazi regime is not the ghost of some distant past but something that has had a dreadful, post-traumatic effect on our entire community. We need only look at what the regime did in the lead-up to taking full power after the Weimar Republic to understand how we now see ourselves in many parts of the world, notably the United States, where school boards are banning books that refer to dignity and equality. We know where that leads.

In 1935 the Nazis revised paragraph 175 of the existing statute of the German criminal code that banned sexual relations between men. Under the new Nazi version of the statute, a wide range of intimate and sexual behaviours could be, and were, punished as crimes. As a consequence, between 5,000 and 15,000 men were imprisoned in concentration camps for being “homosexuell”. This group of prisoners were typically required to wear a pink triangle on their camp uniforms as part of the prisoner classification system. Many, but not all, of those pink-triangle prisoners identified as gay; notably, it would be gay men who were given that definition. The pink triangle called attention to this prisoner population as a distinct group. It is dreadful to think that even within the concentration camps there was a division of terror and hate, but that is the reality.

It is important for us to remind ourselves that that constant narrative of hate needs to be exposed. It needs to be taken head-on, not only by this Government but by other Governments. I am glad that the Minister for Equalities is on the Front Bench, because I know he is a keen advocate of LGBTQ issues and that, as other Members have suggested, he will speak up in Government. However, I think he needs to give some answers to questions about conversion therapy, and he needs to give answers to my Parliament in Scotland—the one that I participate in and vote for—about why it is not being allowed to proceed with its Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. That is an extraordinary position for a devolved Administration in the 21st century to find itself in, especially given Scotland’s history in relation to homosexuality.

We have come so far in Scotland. We did not decriminalise homosexuality until 1980; I think it was done in 1967 in England and Wales. That gives us some idea of the utterly dreadful situations that the LGBT community faced in Scotland. What a difference; what a change. We can look at other European nations as well. I come from a very strong Irish Catholic background, and I never thought in a month of Sundays that the Republic of Ireland would have a referendum on equal marriage. Let us get the wording right first of all: it is “equal marriage”, not “same-sex marriage”. My marriage to my husband is the same as that of anyone else in the Chamber. It is not different; it is equal. My sexuality is irrelevant. That is what the law is about when it comes to equal marriage.

Let us consider what has happened in countries such as Ireland and Malta. The fact that in Ireland, a public referendum for the entire citizenry of the Catholic nation endorsed equal marriage was extraordinary, and the subsequent election of an openly LGBT Taoiseach was the most profound change. Gender recognition in Ireland came about because of a public discourse. It was not just about politicians; it was about people’s assemblies coming together to discuss the deep issues that may supposedly divide people. The Irish people made up their minds and said, “Get on with it”, and in 2015 the Dáil—and, of course, the Oireachtas, because it went forward to the Seanad—said yes. That led to the Gender Recognition Act 2015. Where was the hoo-hah in Ireland? There was none, and since then a review has been more forthright in its support for the trans community in Ireland.

Let me end by emphasising this point to the Minister: Pride is a demonstration. It is not just about parties. Some of us are mindful of the people who did not make it this far: we are mindful of the black and Latino trans women in California who, in the 1950s, were the bedrock of LGBT rights, and other black and Latino trans women in New York— people like Marsha P. Johnson—were the bedrock of gay rights for white gay men like me. They turned up, and that is why I am here today. I am turning up in memory of them.

I hope the Minister will answer the answer the questions about conversion therapy and about why his Government think that the Government of Scotland do not have the right to a gender recognition Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

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

No Pride event has a bigger impact on a place than Brighton Pride. Our population more than doubles that weekend, with more than half a million visitors coming to Brighton, and an additional £30 million is spent in the Brighton economy on Pride weekend. It is an international festival, of course, and Kylie, Britney and Christina Aguilera have sung in recent years.

Unlike many Prides that have become commercialised —we often hear that critique—our Pride is a community interest company. All the money goes into the Rainbow Fund to run our mental health support, our community activities and our community space for the year ahead. Like most Prides, Brighton Pride was established as a protest in 1972. It was a protest by the Sussex Gay Liberation Front, but it always had elements of fun.

Looking at the first programme, there was a gay dance, as they described it, the night before, with one dance for women and another for men. And there was a chill on the beach—“chill” is not the word they used—a fun time on the beach, afterwards. It was reincarnated in 1991 by Brighton Area Action against Section 28, which started the annual parade and party that we know today.

In 2023, there are more Prides than ever. They now often start not as protests but as community events promoting inclusion and celebrating diversity, but that is just as important as the protests that came before.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

New Brighton in my constituency had its first Pride last year. It does not make £30 million at the moment, but I am sure it aspires to do so.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Very good. There is competition looming for Brighton and Hove.

We now have Prides along the south coast in Seaford, Hastings, Eastbourne and Worthing, but it is a very recent development that we have seen such a huge number of public Prides. I lived in Bradford between 2005 and 2012 and, when I first arrived, our Pride events were held in basements. In fact, in 2008, we held one in a basement club with bouncers on the door to make sure we were safe.

The year after, many pioneers in Bradford—and I played only a very small role—decided that enough was enough and a public Pride would take place. The city centre square was secured and, as opposed to the protests in the 1970s and 1980s, the first public manifestation of Pride in Bradford celebrated diversity, and there was an awful lot of concern. Of course, we had had race riots only a few years before, and people were worried. Would Bradfordians really want something like this in their town square?

Well, the sun shone and the square was filled with families, friends and passers-by all joining in and wearing rainbow dresses. Drag queens mingled with people wearing football shirts because, of course, that year Bradford also got to the cup final. Everyone just got on and enjoyed the event. It seemed that Pride had not only come but had taken too long, because it was not an issue and people were enjoying themselves.

But, of course, when we talk about LGB, we cannot forget the T. Brighton has been at the forefront of acceptance and equality, and this year we are hosting our 10th Trans Pride on 14 July. It is the largest Trans Pride in Europe, and I have been a regular attender since its early years.

The trans community is under attack by fierce, hate-filled newspapers and right-wing culture warriors. For the trans community, Pride provides a sanctuary away from the hate, surrounded by fellow queers and allies, and stands as a beacon of political radicalism pushing against the political hate.

There is still a lot more to do. There are failures in the Commonwealth, and we have seen progress reversed. The asylum system lets down LGBT people too often, and it is intrusive in the answers and demonstrations that people need to show. We know that relationship and sexual health education is now under attack, only a few short years after it was introduced in our schools.

Conversion therapy has still not been banned, and I hope the Minister will give us reassurances. I am afraid the Government opened the trans Pandora’s box when they said they would review the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and then, for years, failed to bring forward concrete proposals on how it would be done. In those years, everyone’s worst fears and nightmares were put into a melting pot stirred by right-wingers who, of course, saw it as a great victory. They were able to question the very rights secured by the Act—that is the problem with opening up Acts without making positive proposals—and now we see the same happening with the Equality Act.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I am very mindful of what my hon. Friend says about the Pandora’s box that has been opened on transphobia by some of the debates in this place. I referred in my speech to the comments made by Brianna Ghey’s mother on the sickening trolling of her family on Mumsnet, Twitter and other places, with people making awful transphobic comments about her daughter. Does my hon. Friend agree it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that, in this place, we are not fanning the flames of that kind of hatred?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend is quite right. My thoughts are with Brianna’s family and friends. We came out in solidarity in Brighton, and it is terribly sad.

Unfortunately, those who welcome reviews of the Equality Act, no matter with what caveats, are fanning the flames of hate and they cannot call themselves allies to the community. We must be clear: the opening up of that Act is a retrograde step when it does not come with clear, concrete proposals that we can materially discuss and debate.

We see also the banning of puberty blockers for under 18s. Puberty blockers are deliberately designed to delay the process of puberty, not to prevent or stop it, so that those young people can be given more time to work out who they are and what they will become. The banning of puberty blockers for under-18s is a cruelty because it forces people to go through puberty when they might not and should not be ready for it. We know, because of the judgments in swimming and other sports, that if they go through puberty, they will be banned for life from certain activities, even if they change their gender. So the ban on those blockers is a particularly cruel and nasty form of discrimination that will last for those children’s lifetime. People who support that, in hand-wringing ways, saying, “Well, it is still a bit unsure” are not thinking about the wider consequences for those individuals. A puberty blocker does not stop someone changing their mind; they can revert back. A very small number of people might decide to do so. Of course we have seen huge cuts in sexual health services, which have ended up particularly targeting the LGBT community.

When I first arrived in this Parliament, only six years ago, relationships, sex and health education was normalised. It was being implemented by a Conservative Government and it seemed as though progress could only go forward. The Labour party even removed the Whip from one of its MPs and his ability to stand because he supported the anti-LGBT, RSHE protests outside schools, endangering children. The Labour party took a stand and the Conservative party was equally taking a stand. It apologised for section 28 and it felt as if we were united, all moving forward. But then the dirty money from the evangelical right in America started to flood in, often through Tufton Street, where extreme right-wing organisations are based. We have seen climate denial, the reckless economic policies from the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and the LGB Alliance—all dangerous organisations that wish to roll back the progress we have made. We now have some Tory, Labour and SNP MPs—it is across the House—spreading fear and hatred about our community, and our parties seem unable to enforce any form of discipline and dignity for our community, instead allowing that to run amok. This is not one party or another; it has infected all our parties and they seem to be totally unable to stand up to hate.

We have MPs in this Chamber who sit on conversion therapy boards and then organise petitions to try to review RSHE. They are not neutral people, but they seem to have the ear of the Prime Minister and to have the Zeitgeist behind them. How do we turn that around? How did things get turned around in those six years? How do we move forward to start bringing dignity back to all of our parties and back to this place for LGBT people? A lot of this has been cheered on by those extremist backers, the same ones who have supported the Uganda reforms and who are supporting the reforms in the USA. They are the same people who advise people such as Putin and others in Russia who are pushing back against LGBT people there. There is a golden thread and, if our parties and our Parliament cannot see that, we are in dangerous territory.

Some politicians have stood as strong allies, with President Biden a good example in the US. He is a shining example when he says to trans kids, “You are loved, you have body autonomy and I, and we, will defend your rights.” I would love to see any of our party leaders be as unequivocal as him, and be clear that trans people have our support and that we do not get drawn into this parental consent nonsense, where people say that children should be outed to their parents, or that parents should know when they are going through these difficult times. Of course I would love parents to know, but it is not appropriate for all parents and for all children. The law must be written for the worst and there are some bad parents out there. We cannot send their children to parental arms that might be those of abusers.

As I was saying, that money has infected our politics and our political discourse. Pride is a celebration of our diversity, in all different forms, but it also says that we should be treated equally. That means many LGBT people will want to live in different ways, not just the 2.4 traditional monogamous family, although I recognise that many LGBT people will want to be the 2.4 traditional monogamous family. We celebrate all those sexual diversities that were once marginalised that are based on consent between adults and we celebrate them in Pride. Pride is a moment for us to remember where we have come from and to ensure that love conquers hate. So happy Pride Month. Let our hearts win over hate and, finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the words of Kylie, “Padam, Padam.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I will have to get the line; I cannot remember the actual details. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will write to her after the debate.

Touching again on international issues, while we are able to celebrate progress here, I am conscious that it is not always the same story abroad. That is one of the reasons why I wanted to wear the armband at the football World cup. It was an opportunity to show that a lot of LGBT people from around the world did not feel they could go to that competition.

The situation in Uganda is a stark reminder of the real and awful issues that people are facing. Uganda’s anti-homosexual law is the most regressive piece of anti-LGBT legislation globally and of grave concern to us all. We are firmly opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances in every country, and in regard to the law’s death penalty clause for aggravated homosexuality, the Prime Minister has raised our concerns with the Ugandan Foreign Minister. That is why at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, £2.7 million was given by the UK to help reform outdated and discriminatory laws. I will continue to work closely with Lord Herbert, the Prime Minister’s special envoy on LGBT rights, and the FCDO to make it clear to other Governments moving in a similar direction to Uganda that it is not something we support, and I will certainly highlight the contributions made by Members in the House today to colleagues across Government.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister is making a good point about Uganda and giving strong representations from this Government. Can our embassy be given a clear direction that it would be appropriate for it to host LGBT events from some of the leading activists in Uganda in the safe confines of the embassy, as other European embassies do? Where that is not possible in Uganda, those events could be hosted in Kenya, where safe houses are being set up.

[Stuart Andrew]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I meant to mention that point, because I thought it was an interesting one. I will happily speak to my colleagues in the Foreign Office about that because I think, from my perspective, that if we can do it, we should.

As Minister for Equalities—but also because I have felt passionate about this for most of my life—it is my privilege to build on the achievements of the past in furthering LGBT equality in the future both at home and abroad. I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing the debate. I also thank colleagues across the House for their contributions. I pledge that many of the things that are important to our community in my portfolio—such as loneliness, sport accessibility and youth policy—will, as far as I am concerned, have a heavy LGBT influence.

Finally, I thank all the groups and stakeholders I have met and continue to meet for the work they do to support the LGBT family. Do you know what? I am going to say a big thank you to my family and to my mum and dad for being there for me when I came out—they were brilliant—and I am thinking about you, Mum, because I know you are not well today. As I said at the PinkNews reception last week, and as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned as well, we should remember the words of our former colleague Jo Cox. As a community, we should make sure that we hear her words loud and clear: there is more that unites us as a community than divides us, and others may want to divide us, but we will not let them. I look forward to working with Members across the House to deliver for LGBT people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The spirit of Glenda Jackson was with us today. Rest in peace.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Pride Month.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. While we have been having this debate, my constituents and many people across Sussex and Kent have had no fresh water for three to four days. We had arranged a public meeting with South East Water, which continues to fail local residents who are having to use bottled water or have very low flows of water. However, South East Water has withdrawn from all public meetings on this matter, because it says it needs to focus its time on fixing the problem. This does not seem to be an appropriate response to families without running water on some of the hottest days of the year. Could you advise me how I can get the chief executive of South East Water to come and be held to account by my constituents and those in Wealden and Rother who have not had running water?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It does seem an incredibly unacceptable position to be put in. I hope those on the Treasury Bench have heard that and will urgently get that through to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who will engage in dialogue immediately.

Legislative Definition of Sex

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Some of those arguing that there should be no change to the Equality Act 2010 believe that trans women are women and trans men are men, and therefore that the protected characteristic of sex includes those who identify as the opposite sex. Some also feel that it is an attack on trans people to think or express disagreement with this belief.

In support of this petition, Nancy Kelley from Stonewall said that she is proud of the Equality Act 2010, that it works really well as “legal sex”, and that it works well to operate trans-inclusive or not spaces, and emphasised how inclusion should be the norm. Defining legal sex as observed at birth would see exclusion rather than inclusion.

I have also had the opportunity to talk to barrister Robin Moira White, who explained to me how this amendment was a blunt instrument; in fact, it was called a sledgehammer that was being presented as a simple solution. Robin told me that, to move forward, there was no need to change the law, but that there was a need for less toxicity and also that this amendment did not consider the anomalous position of a pregnant trans man.

I also spoke to Dr Finn Mackay, who told me about the impact that this change in the law would have on gender non-conforming people. Finn said that she would like to see more case studies from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on single-sex spaces, and she agreed with the Government position and said that the current rhetoric is dangerous. We also need to have better public amenities that work for all people, with inclusion as the default.

Both petitions received over 100,000 signatures, and we will all have constituents who are passionately engaged on either side, as well as service providers that say they badly need clarity about the law, and others who say the current situation is okay for them. It is important that we are having this debate today.

As well as supporters of both petitions, I spoke to the EHRC, whose job it is to protect everyone’s rights and to explain the Equality Act. The EHRC said that the law can be hard to implement—and don’t we know it? Its letter to the Minister for Women and Equalities states:

“A change to the Equality Act 2010 so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex could bring clarity in a number of areas but potential ambiguity in others.”

Both the Government and the Opposition welcomed the EHRC statement that the current situation merits further consideration and exploration of possible solutions. The EHRC said that

“there is a clear need to move the public debate on issues of sex and gender to a more informed and constructive basis.”

I was told—and I know—that this issue had been bubbling away for many years and was not anything new. In 2018, the Women and Equalities Committee asked the EHRC to create statutory guidance on single-sex spaces, which it published much later, in 2022. However, the guidance placed a large onus on service providers to exclude people who are legal women. It was when this escalated in 2018 that the UK Government and the Scottish Government started talking about proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which started the debate about self ID. They said that the landscape since the Equality Act had changed significantly. There are more gender identities—

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

My hon. Friend is making a good and balanced speech so far. Does she recognise that when the Equality Act was being passed, the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman at that time asked our Minister from the Labour party if it was the first step to understanding self-ID and moving towards that? That was in Hansard. This issue was thought about when the Equality Act was being created, and the affirmative response was given to that question at that time.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is always difficult to talk about these sensitive issues. By and large, apart from some exceptions, we have managed to do it in a calm manner today. I have not always been the calmest on this issue, because it is difficult when we are talking about people’s lives from all sides. Last time I spoke in this Chamber about some of these issues, people who were in the room then spread lies about me wanting to teach BDSM to children and so on. They were horrible, pernicious lies that were put on Twitter and caused a lot of hate. I think it is important to note that there has been a lot of hate and angst outside of this room directed at politicians on all sides of the debate. It is totally unhelpful. It is also probably unhelpful to say, “It’s just me, your honour”, because all of us have had really horrible times. I think it is important to start by saying that. We need to defuse that, and I will try to take the lead and do that myself.

What we have heard today is a set of cherry-picked case studies of examples and exceptions. Each one of them will have been very complex cases that need complex answers. People are not simple. People are not just binary. Biology is not as simple as that, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) will attest to.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Absolutely. There is a risk in this House of us talking about GCSE biology rather than actually biology. The aneuploidies XXX occurs in one in 1,000 women, and XXY occurs in one in 500 men. These are very common biological differences that do complicate the matter—and those are not intersex individuals, to be clear.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I appreciate that, and coming from a biologist that is important to note. People are complex. That is why flexibility in the current law is important. By defining things too much, what we suddenly do is assume that everyone lives in these easy, binary boxes. The current principle of the law, as my hon. Friends have mentioned previously, is that general and specific discrimination should not happen, but there are a number of exceptions for people with protected characteristics where discrimination can happen to provide specific spaces. We know that this can be on sex, race, disability and on gender reassignment.

However, the ability to have flexibility on one’s determination, such as in an organisation or on a specific place-by-place basis, is important. Survivors’ Network in my constituency, the predominant organisation supporting survivors of abuse, has for over 30 years decided to take a trans-inclusive approach to how it treats women’s spaces. That has been done through working out what the local need is for the service provision. The majority of providers in Britain choose to draw the line on biological sex. Both are legal. Because of the flexibility in the law, both can be determined.

What would happen if we then made a strict rule that the discrimination could only happen according to biological sex? Survivors’ Network would be barred from the flexibility that was dreadfully important in providing its inclusive service in our city. Moreover, we would have a legal provision that would prevent a trans man going to use male changing room facilities. I believe that in many respects we should try to find accommodation. A lovely new swimming pool has opened up in my constituency. It has fantastic changing facilities, with all individualised cubicles and individualised facilities. Gender is not an issue.

[Jess Phillips]

I have seen it come about that we now have non-gendered areas, and I have to say that I think there is a bit of a red herring. Lots and lots of women would still like to have a women’s changing area, but I have seen the solution to the issue being non-gendered areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Before Lloyd Russell-Moyle resumes, I should say that, because of the Divisions, the debate will now conclude by nine minutes past 8 and the wind-ups will begin no later than 7.39 pm. Could hon. Members bear that in mind?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I want the flexibility for these things to be locally determined—proportional means for legitimate ends. The current law works. Of course there will be examples that are wrong and need correcting, but that is why we need the Government to give greater guidelines. The problem is that the trans community do not have trust that those guidelines will be fair and balanced.

For me, the real issue—the injustice—is about the woman who will turn up tonight at Brighton, be told that there are no spaces in the refuge and be put into hostel accommodation with rapists down the corridor who have only just come out of prison. The real tragedy will be the young trans person tonight who cannot get access to mental health services. The real tragedy is 12 years of austerity and cuts from the Conservative Government, not some dog whistle about whether there should be clarity or not. There is. The law is clear. What we need are services.

CPTPP: Conclusion of Negotiations

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that there are significant export markets for small UK firms. Once we have signed the agreement and have all the legislation in place, he will be able to talk about the trade utilisation of the agreements that the Department for Business and Trade supports. If Members have businesses in their constituency that want to find out more, the best way to find out the specifics for their sector would be to contact their local DBT—as it is now—representative.

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

I look forward to questioning the Secretary of State on the agreement in more detail at a meeting of the International Trade Committee later this week, because detail is thin on the ground at the moment, although I am sure we will get there. She has mentioned that she cares greatly for sovereignty and the environment. In the negotiations, what concessions were asked for with regard to excluding us from the threat of the ISDS and excluding palm oil, or did our negotiators not even raise those issues?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The key point to explain is that the investment chapter in the agreement includes investor protections, and they are backed by a modern and transparent ISDS mechanism. It is not quite correct to say that there is no protection for investors; we are just doing it in a different way.