Pride Month

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Angela Eagle

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

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

There is an issue about how that money is financed: about the relationship between financing dark money and extreme right-wing propaganda and possibly the use of Scottish limited partnerships. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is time the Government got a grip on that?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Speaking personally, and not as someone on the Treasury Bench—I have no idea what their view would be—I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Scottish limited partnerships are an obvious loophole that needs to be closed much sooner rather than later, and he is correct to point it out.

After all this, it is not a coincidence that the American Civil Liberties Union has revealed that by April this year—not the end of this year, but April—417 anti-LGBT+ Bills had been introduced in state legislatures across the United States, and 283 were education-related Bills. There are increasing numbers of so-called “don’t say gay” Bills that, section 28-like, seek to ban discussion of trans issues in schools. Some “force outings” by mandating that parents should always be informed of any pronoun change at school, or any discussion about it, because they somehow perpetrate the narrative that schools are secretly teaching children to be trans and not to tell their parents. Others ban drag performances; still others ban the pride flag being flown from any public building, and threaten to prosecute parents who allow their children to change pronouns and live in the gender that they wish to live in. Even if that is parental choice, they seek to legislate to go into people’s homes and stop that happening. These are not nice, benign Bills; they are increasingly extreme. Almost all those proposals—not quite all of them—are now being suggested in the UK, with the current exception of the ban on drag, although there have been some far-right demonstrations against “drag story time” events in Britain.

We need to say from this Chamber that the way forward is empathy, not division; it is understanding different and diverse people, and what they need to thrive in society. It is about understanding, not fear, and respect for the right of everyone to live with dignity in an inclusive and diverse society. Pride is about that.

Financial Services and Markets Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Angela Eagle

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Could the Minister spend a bit of time explaining what “materially similar” means?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I asked the Minister earlier about Northern Ireland, and SNP and Labour Members would be interested to hear what he means by “proportionality” when it comes to services, EU-derived legislation and what differences there will be between the UK and Northern Ireland. He never mentions Northern Ireland—he keeps talking about the United Kingdom.

Financial Services and Markets Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Angela Eagle

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I do not want to be the fly in the ointment, but I would like some assurances from the Minister about the FMI sandboxes. The Clifford Chance briefing notes that

“the FSMA Bill permits HM Treasury to allow broad participation in FMI sandboxes which in practice could include FMI providers, and participants in these systems as well as, conceivably, unregulated service providers such as technology companies and any other person that HM Treasury specifies.”

I am looking for an assurance from the Minister and his civil service team on the notion of unregulated service providers having access to the FMI sandbox. It seems that the EU pilot regime is far more limited in its multilateral trading facilities and securities settlement systems, and that it makes no mention of recognised investment exchanges or any other persons. It is not, therefore, making itself a hostage to fortune with its pilot system. Could the Minister and his team provide reassurance on the broad scope of innovation that they seem to be going for?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I find myself rising to try to elaborate on the important points that have been made. I do not think that anyone would argue against the need to think very carefully about how to pilot—or sandbox, to use the jargon—the very rapid development and potential of what is happening. It is also important in the context of financial market infrastructure.

Certain infrastructures in our financial system are really old. One need only consider how long it took to get the bank clearing process vaguely up to date to understand the importance of modernising infrastructures. I do not think that anyone would object to an attempt to come up with a structure that tests activities, which is what these clauses do.

The Minister, however, has not provided any detail on issues such as risk mitigation; whether parallel sandboxes involving similar infrastructures will be developed, almost in competition with each other; whether this will happen in just one area; or how the powers will be used to test whether potential infrastructures might be worth using. Could he add a little more colour to how he sees those things happening? How big will the sandboxes be? How long will they be allowed to continue? The Minister is grinning because this is the kind of detail that an enabling Bill does not contain, but it might be quite important.

Testing regimes in other areas are sometimes very limited. I would be worried if we had an unlimited testing system running for a long period, allowing unregulated organisations in, perhaps running in parallel with each other. If that is what the Minister is suggesting, I would be worried. If he is suggesting something much more minor and limited, to see whether the technology works and whether people can interact with it to redesign the way in which websites work, I would be less worried.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady has allowed me to intervene. The technology is not new, and that is what concerns me in relation to a lot of the debate on the Bill. There is nothing new under the sun about a lot of the technology, which underpins sandboxes, cryptocurrency and so on, that we are talking about. It just seems that a lot of the terminology takes over the substance of the issue that we are discussing.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

That is true. Blockchain has certainly been around for quite a while. Its use has implications for transparency and for the levels of employment that there might be in the old, more bureaucratic banks.

What would be the use of artificial intelligence in trying to decide how automated these things could become? Would there be worries about over-automation? How would that be looked at in terms of regulation? How open are we going to be about the way in which AI is applied and how it might evolve in ways that might embed discrimination such that we get a system where certain people may be discriminated against and excluded? There are a range of issues that need to be tested in these kinds of environments. It is hard to do that under a negative resolution procedure. I take the Minister’s point, however, about affirmative resolutions. If one of these things worked during the trial period, was issued and became permanent, it is important, as the Minister has said, that any changes are subject to affirmative regulation.

There are a whole load of black boxes in the Bill that we might need to debate further. Could the Minister give us more colour on whether there will be parallel sandboxes, on transparency on what will be used and how it will be compiled, and on how large the sandboxes will be in terms of money on the exchanges or turnover, or however he wants to put it. Then we could consider whether risk is being mitigated and how we can develop a system using trundling and analogue legislation, if I may put it that way, in an environment where innovation is digital and rapid.

I understand what the Minister is trying to do, but this Parliament must still be aware that we need to be on top of the detail of this Bill, rather than just passing shells of enabling legislation that do not give us enough of a handle on what is intended.