Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the brief sight of her statement and for her apology. Let me start by setting out a principle that I believe rightly commands support across this House: we must protect people from harm. Violence, abuse and coercion are wrong—unequivocally so—and they are also already illegal under our current framework. The offences and the powers exist, and many of the examples the Minister used are already, rightly, illegal.

This is a challenging area, so we must be careful that bad laws do not get on to the statute book. The duty before us is to consider whether any new legislation is necessary, proportionate and workable. There is a fundamental question about the current evidence base underpinning this proposal, so in any change, the Government must demonstrate why existing criminal law is insufficient and how a new offence would materially improve outcomes. If a non-abusive conversion practice is not a crime, why would we write it into a new law? Is the Minister reassured that a mother helping their child with their feelings when growing up is not accidentally being criminalised? What are we doing when it comes to invasion of young lives and how we support children and parents through any childhood issues?

We must be honest about the risk of unintended consequences for families and parents. It is right to highlight the real concern that broadly drafted provisions, particularly in relation to gender identity, could have a chilling effect on those acting in good faith and stop our young people having the time and space to find out who they are and are comfortable being. Parents, teachers, clinicians and therapists must be able to support, guide and, where appropriate, challenge. That is not harm; that is safeguarding.

Gender-related distress is complex and requires careful, sensitive and roundly exploratory engagement. If this Bill has the effect—intended or not—of creating an affirmation-only culture, we risk failing the very young people we are trying to protect. We have already seen the catastrophic impact where professionals have felt unable to raise legitimate concerns, most notably on the grooming gang scandal, and we must never sacrifice safeguarding for ideology.

Let me turn to questions for the Minister—these are real ones; as the Minister laid out, this is difficult. Will she confirm that the pre-legislative scrutiny will be by a Joint Committee of both Houses? Given the legal, ethical and societal complexity of this issue, will the Government ensure that vital scrutiny is broad and rigorous? Will the Government undertake their own full public consultation, in addition to any evidence-gathering process carried out by the scrutiny committee? This issue affects families, clinicians, faith groups and individuals across the country, and their voices must be heard directly.

Can the Government guarantee that exploratory therapy will be explicitly protected in the Bill, alongside appropriate support for those who detransition? Cases such as that of Keira Bell have highlighted the importance of ensuring that individuals can reflect on and, where necessary, reassess any earlier decisions. Professionals must not be deterred from providing that support. Will the Minister explain how the Bill will recognise the principle of informed consent for adults engaging in exploratory therapy in relation to gender distress? Consenting adults must remain free to discuss, question and explore their experiences without fear of criminal sanction.

How will the proposed legislation interact with existing safeguarding guidance, particularly in schools, children’s homes and social services? Those working on the front line in safeguarding need clarity, not confusion, and must be able to act in the best interests of the child without fear that fulfilling their duties could expose them to legal risk. We currently have a lack of clarity in that area regarding consent in the new puberty blockers trial, so this area is already unclear. Puberty blockers are in reality a form of conversion therapy. How will they be separated from this process?

Will the Minister point out any abusive conversion practices that she has directly identified that are not already criminal offences, and spell out directly the current problem she is seeking to fix? Will she clarify and be specific about the current legal gap, and say what she sees as the true gaps in the law and what is currently legal? Can she guarantee that a young person who is simply same-sex attracted will not be encouraged to go down a pathway that will actively lead them away from their sexuality and being the gay person they are, as they need to be helped to be happy and comfortable with that?

Those questions go to the heart of the Bill. We have seen well-meaning legislation such as hate crime offences have a chilling effect on free speech. Conservative Members believe in pragmatic evidence-based policymaking and in strong safeguards. In conclusion, we firmly stand against abuse and coercion. We must ensure that this Labour Government are seeking to prevent harm, and that they do not create any new harm.

[Olivia Bailey]

I understand that the shadow Minister did not have my statement in enough time, but I am disappointed with the way that her comments have massively broadened and misrepresented the scope of the draft Bill. I would encourage people to look at the detail of the draft Bill, and the very specific thresholds that we have established, because it is beholden on us all to ensure that this conversation is based on real facts. I am also disappointed that the Conservative party, to which I gave credit for its commitment to equalities issues in the past, has found itself in the position of having promised for years that it supports a ban on conversion practices, but now sounds as though it does not. That is a grave shame.

The hon. Member asked some good questions, which I will attempt to answer. She asked whether such practices are already illegal, and my answer to that is no. There are two reasons for that. First, gaps in existing law mean that we cannot prosecute offences properly. With domestic abuse legislation, for example, or coercive control, the legislation is designed for someone who has a relationship with an intimate partner, and it would not capture an offence committed by someone they did not know. There are many such examples where there are gaps in the law. Secondly, it is important that we have a definition of conversion practice in law. As with other offences such as upskirting or non-fatal strangulation, a definition is important to help victims understand what has happened to them and be able to come forward, and for prosecutors to build a case. I am confident that there is a need to legislate in this area.

The hon. Lady asks about the evidence base for the use of conversion practices. I have just come from an event this morning, and a report published by Galop—I have it here today. It contains hundreds of case studies of people it has spoken to on its helplines over the past few years, and of the appalling abuse that is happening right now in this country. The examples I used in my statement were from those case studies—people being threatened with rape and assault; people being beaten because of their identity in an attempt to change them. The evidence is clearly there, and I say to the hon. Lady that one case of abuse is too many.

I also say categorically to the hon. Lady that the cases she mentioned steered widely clear of the remit of the draft Bill. For example, the case of a mother helping a child is categorically not captured under the draft Bill. The case of an exploratory therapist helping somebody to understand their identity, and taking time in asking supportive questions, is categorically not included in the Bill. A healthcare exemption is included in the Bill to ensure that we do not have a chilling effect on healthcare professionals providing this vital service to young people, and indeed any person—[Interruption.] They are legitimate questions, and I am answering them today.

The hon. Lady asked me about the pre-legislative scrutiny process, which will be a Joint Committee of both Houses. I look forward to it—I genuinely want to have cross-party and good conversations about the draft Bill, and I hope that Conservative Members engage with that process in good spirits, just as I intend to engage with it. She asked about the principle of informed consent. We are talking about a criminal threshold for an abusive practice that is in line with other forms of criminal abuse, for example domestic abuse. I do not think someone can consent to abuse. That is a fundamental principle, and it is right that it moves forward in the legislation.

The hon. Lady asked other questions about how, when the Bill becomes law, it will interact with other safeguarding requirements or guidance in schools. Those are all important questions, and we will, of course, address them in detail as the Bill moves towards the statute book. I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement, but I remind her that she says she stands against abuse, so I urge her and her party to think again. This Bill fills a gap in the law to stop the most abhorrent and pernicious abuse faced by LGBT people in our country, and I urge her to change her mind.

Pride Month

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It has been a thoughtful, emotional and wide-ranging debate. The Minister’s opening speech highlighted her joy at being at the Dispatch Box. Her story reminded us that so much has been delivered by people like her, who we all know locally and nationally, who continue to do so much. She spoke about hope and unity over division and hate.

I am always so proud to share the Opposition Dispatch Box with my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). He spoke about how we balance trans people’s rights and women’s rights, and how we talk about dignity, respect, compassion and love. He speaks from such personal experience, I am so proud to share this debate with him and I am sorry he cannot be here for the closing of it.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) spoke powerfully about how Pride is a place. It was a beautiful speech, and I thank him for sharing it.

Pride should be an opportunity not only to celebrate LBGT people across our society but to recognise those who have lived with discrimination throughout history and to reflect honestly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry did when he talked about his younger life. We have done that today when addressing the disparities that remain. We continue to renew our commitment to ensuring that Britain maintains its long and proud tradition of liberty and tolerance, and that we are truly one of the best places in the world to live as a LGBT person. We all want and need it to stay that way.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you are particularly excited to be at Romsey’s own mini-Pride, the One Romsey festival, next weekend, which is now celebrating its second year—it is maybe a chance for you not to wear black.

The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), was powerful in her position and her thoughts, as always. She mentioned that equalities debates always take place on a Thursday. I love being here on a Thursday— I would be here every day of the week if they let me—but I agree that it is challenging for some of our colleagues to join us. I agreed with her statement that it is not one or the other in terms of rights—I have never thought that.

It was important that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke about the time people need to experiment with who they are and who they want to be. I wanted to be Madonna, Kim Wilde and Debbie Harry when growing up. Guess what, I still want to be—you can tell from the black eyeliner. The hon. Lady’s speech was a reminder that we all go through stages, and that we need to give young people the space to learn. I really appreciated her speaking up in that way.

My party, and society more broadly, has gone through a profound shift in attitudes in recent decades. I will point out a few examples of that shift, and the pride that we have in our party: the election of Ruth Davidson—with apologies to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North—who was the first openly gay leader of a mainstream political party and brought so much to politics in Scotland; Justine Greening, the first openly lesbian Cabinet member; and the ennoblement of my friend, Debbie Stedman-Scott, an outstanding public servant and colleague.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

The hon. Member rightly says that much progress has been made towards equality across the LGBT family, and that many lesbians are now standing and being prominent voices in the political sphere. However, lesbian voices are so often under-represented in politics. We face distinct challenges in political representation, and in ensuring our particular social and economic experiences are reflected in policy. Will the hon. Member join me in my call to encourage more lesbians—and more people from across the LGBT+ community—to stand for elections at whatever level of local or national Government they choose?

[Mims Davies]

I am going to make the exact point that the hon. Lady raises in my later remarks, so I wholeheartedly agree with her. My colleagues have succeeded on merit, but, to the hon. Lady’s point, they were asked to step forward, be part of things and stand. They did not rely on their identity; it was talent, dedication and leadership. That is in everybody, however we identify.

As has been said many times in this debate, who someone loves should not affect their success. There should be no barrier to someone’s success and ambition, and who someone loves should not be the measure of what their ambition or success can be. Pride is there for everyone to be represented equally and for us not to be divided. Safe, fair and equal is true equality for all of us.

I am concerned that in some quarters, as has been raised today, Pride is not being used to unite; instead, it is being used to inflame tensions. It is important that we recognise that. Let us be honest: we saw this, in a way, with Monday’s statement, when we heard speaker after speaker saying that the EHRC code of practice is exclusionary and anti-trans. We have heard some of that today. I fundamentally do not believe that, although I acknowledge that some people have said that today and that they do believe it. That is, of course, the reality of this place. I reiterate that I believe that that characterisation is not correct. The Equality Act remains clear in its protections, including those related to gender reassignment. The code reinforces rather than diminishes those protections. It is important, as I think we all agree, that the code works and that it does not diminish wide-ranging, hard-fought rights. Of course, it reflects on other areas, such as age and disability.

It is striking that in the debate earlier this week we did not roundly acknowledge the importance of lesbianism, which the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has just referred to, and the fact that the code needs to work for same-sex groups, particularly lesbian organisations. I have spoken about this before. These groups have often found themselves at the sharp end of an increasingly fraught debate about the relationship between biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. There have been credible reports of lesbian groups being deplatformed, pressured or silenced simply for asserting their same-sex attraction. That is the reality for some women. The fact that in 2024—just a couple of years ago—a representative of the LGB Alliance was required to offer a legal definition of the term “lesbian” in court is still, frankly, extraordinary.

The situation reflects a wider confusion that risks eroding hard-won protections. We should be wary— I think we have all said that in the Chamber this afternoon—of repeating past mistakes of marginalising and dismissing same-sex attraction in particular. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, lesbian women played a vital role during the AIDS crisis in supporting gay men during some of the most difficult chapters of our history. That solidarity should never be forgotten, and neither should it be replaced with division.

I know that some Members in the House are supporting the measures in early-day motion 240. I believe they are doing so because they have not necessarily fully appreciated the implications for women’s rights, particularly for lesbians who rely on the clarity of law to maintain their safe single-sex spaces. I welcome the thoughtful speech made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), in which he covered his views and approach to that. I think that does accord. It is clear from what has been discussed around the code of practice that it is vital that healthcare for all matters. That is absolutely something we need to look at.

On flags, I personally think we need less tribalism and more grown-up and pragmatic conversations. We can and must protect women’s rights, respect trans rights and find workable solutions. I do not think we should be arguing about flags. We can stand up for people, communities and, crucially, harmony. The Conservatives do that through the LGBT+ Conservatives. I am going to invite the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) out on the best night ever—once again, a Conservative willing to let him come out on the best night ever.

The Conservative party roundly believes that everyone should be treated equally before the law, regardless of their race, sex or sexual orientation.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Lady just said that we should not be arguing about flags, and I totally agree with her. In my view, it should be up to councils and community groups to decide the version of the pride flag that they choose to fly, whether it be the traditional pride flag or the progress pride flag. I do not think that that is arguing about flags; it is giving people choice. Is the hon. Lady comfortable with the Leader of the Opposition ordering Conservatives up and down the country not to support the flying of the progress pride flag, and does she not think that taking away that choice is, in fact, creating the argument?

[Mims Davies]

I am wearing my Conservative pride badge, so I am quite happy to wear a flag, as are many in our party. As I say, the Conservative party roundly believes in treating everyone equally before the law, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation.

The original rainbow flag is a widely recognised symbol. I am wearing it today to show respect and support for gay people. My personal view is that the traditional rainbow flag already rightly brings us together and has a sense of unity. Its purpose should be to bring us together, not to divide us. The progress pride flag, by contrast, can be seen by some as a symbol of identity politics, somewhat atomising society into different and divisive identities. Therefore, I am comfortable with our position in not being behind it in the way that the hon. Member described, but I fully respect his opinion, and I fully respect that other people feel differently.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mims Davies]

No, I will conclude.

There has been a lot of agreement in the Chamber, but let’s be real: it is not going to be universal—that is the reality of politics and life today. Let me reiterate the phrase “safe, fair and equal”—there should be equality under the law regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation. That is my view.

It would be remiss of me not to give an update from the Dispatch Box about Jed and Elliot’s wedding— I know that you were waiting for the next instalment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Next month on the Isle of Wight, we will finally see the wedding. It is one of the most exciting things to be happening, and I am delighted to be part of that celebration, as are so many. I am also delighted to be reading at the wedding.

I am very proud of the Conservatives’ successes. We have heard from others about same-sex marriage, the Turing law pardons, the apology to LGBT veterans, progress on HIV testing and PrEP, fair blood donation rules and the real practical progress that we have made to change lives.

We all welcome Pride Month as a time to celebrate the contributions of the LGBT people that we know and love both locally and in our national life, and we want more of them in our national life. We honour the progress made and commit ourselves to work for a future always grounded in fairness, respect and genuine equality for all under the law.

Minister for Men and Boys

Mims Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate.

I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues. It is a huge pleasure to work with the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys in that role, advancing the wellbeing, safety and happiness of men and boys across the country. The fact that I have the opportunity to work with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) makes it even more thrilling. It is wonderful to work cross-party on something that matters in all our communities, which has been highlighted this afternoon.

It is only when all of us—men and boys, women and girls—are happy, leading by example, and creating a fair, safe and equal society where everybody has the opportunity to prosper, that some of the deep, ingrained issues in our constituencies and daily lives will be fixed. It was a pleasure to hear some of the speeches and comments from Members on both sides of the House, who have passionately and rightly spoken up about the great work in their constituencies and their experiences. It has been a really insightful conversation this afternoon.

It is a sad fact that, as we have heard today, 14 men die by suicide every day—more than 5,000 a year in England and Wales. Families and loved ones are affected, and those men are deeply cared about. The fact that suicide continues to be the largest killer of men under 50 in the UK is a huge cause for concern. The first men’s health strategy for England is extremely welcome, and I will say more on that shortly. The initiatives on the stigma surrounding mental health, particularly for men, are vital, but I was pleased to see support for emergency service workers in the policing reform White Paper, which is welcomed by Samaritans. That is a key step forward, and it will partly help with the issue.

In my constituency role and shadow ministerial roles, I have met some amazing organisations that do so much for men and boys. The charitable area is often the first point of contact for men and boys. Women often have moments, friendships and other things in their lives where there is a natural conversation point. For men, it is very often a health issue that they reach out about—if they do at all—so it is vital that we fund and support those areas. There are organisations such as Movember, MAN v FAT—I will say more on that shortly—the wonderful Men’s Sheds, which I and many of us have in our constituencies, and there is the work of Samaritans. Where there are suicide hotspots and other issues in Sussex, that work really matters. I was delighted, like many of us, to win a Movember award for being a men’s health champion, which now sits proudly in my office. I am delighted to see so many other people winning those.

Hon. Members have rightly spoken about talking of masculinity in a positive way. Positive role models are important, but I wonder why we need an adjective around masculinity. I thank everybody who has taken on points about culture this afternoon.

I said I would return to the men’s health strategy, tackling HIV, prostate cancer and health equality. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth opened the debate fantastically well; I am proud to call him a friend. His work on this really matters. It is now standard that we have an International Men’s Day debate and fringe events at our party conferences. Those have been as well attended as the Conservative women’s organisation events I am involved in. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, as I am sure we all do, that it should never be a choice of either/or. It was important that he opened the debate by spelling out why that matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) talked about the key, which is outcomes. Co-ordinated action is a key message from today’s debate. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) expressed strong views and values, many of them sounding very Conservative. I am not sure she would be delighted to hear that. The point about family courts and family breakdown is important, as well as being there for kids and being challenging. Men often want to be there for family, but the process holds them back. It is difficult for men to put their heads above the parapet. Many men want and need to be involved in their children’s lives. The hon. Lady was right to spell that out, having heard from her constituents.

I said I would talk about MAN v FAT. I enjoyed meeting Richard Crick, its director, some time ago. That is an amazing, inclusive programme, which coaches and supports men in their health. He and I, like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and many others, are Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys champions. I have never felt so championing—it is amazing. I am delighted to be mentioned in the same breath as Gareth Southgate and Lawrence Dallaglio. Gareth Southgate’s LinkedIn posts are amazing, offering the best time on social media. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth thought I was interested in this just because of his work with David Gandy, but I promise I am interested in the whole gamut. That shows the breadth and importance of role models across all sections of society.

I know the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) feels this strongly. Perhaps this Parliament is doing the wrong thing; how about it always trying to do the right thing? In this area, working with role models and more widely, there is an opportunity for all of us. The hon. Member is right that there is a blame game. Where are the role models? Let us have a look at that.

Single men on apps, how does that work? We know of incel culture and the challenges around those who are lost and lonely. We know that loneliness can tip into mental health conditions, so it is right to look at social media. The leader of my party is talking about the under-16 challenge. It is right that we properly address the issue of white working-class boys. Too many young people are being left disillusioned and left behind. That is a fact; let us get on with doing something about it, for example, dealing with online safety and the harms around young children. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland rightly talked about pornography.

We have heard today about men as victims of domestic violence from the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I do not believe in using the words domestic abuse and I do not like the term domestic violence. I call it criminality in the home. It does not matter who instigates it; we should deal with it. If it were on the front lawn or down the street, we would deal with it, no matter who is the perpetrator. We need to continue in that vein with that cross-party approach.

My question to the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in her place, is: what is the Government’s position on the culture of men and boys? We have heard about the thought-provoking approach of Gareth Southgate and others. Do the Government believe that masculinity needs an adjective? Mothers of young boys, and indeed this mother of young girls, want all our young people to be supported. Crucially, whether they be feminine or masculine, they need to be happy, particularly our young boys in their masculinity.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, my co-chair in the all-party parliamentary group, mentioned the boy problem. He spoke about excellent role models. One we work with is the amazing Mark Brooks OBE, who is the director of the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys. The hon. Member rightly talked about partnership and fatherhood, and made some typically thoughtful comments.

[Jim Shannon]

Everybody has referred to role models. Young boys look towards a man for a better role model, but we should recognise that a mother can also be a role model in the way she shapes us. When I was a wee boy, I was privileged to have a number of ladies from Ballywalter to guide me. Sometimes the ladies in the house—the mothers, the aunties, the friends—can very much be a role model as well.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and that is why I take such an interest in this area.

The feeling of hopelessness and anger is being exploited, which creates myriad challenges that make the most vulnerable even more vulnerable. We must step up on education, employment, health and aspiration. All of that is impacting hope. Some people in particular sectors, such as farming, are more isolated. It is not okay that our men are not thriving. Hope and confidence need to be in every community. This is truly a cross-party issue.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind her to leave a minute or two at the end for Dr Evans to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

I absolutely do, and I thank the hon. Member for that important intervention.

Role models begin in schools, which is why it is important that we address the under-representation of men across the education workforce. Although this is broadly in line with international trends, we want to see more male teachers in our classrooms and in other education settings. To attract more men into teaching and address barriers, we ensure that men are featured regularly in the teacher recruitment marketing campaign “Every Lesson Shapes a Life”, with men in the focal role in its last two TV campaigns. The campaign to promote early years careers has also produced new adverts specifically to target men.

Outside of education, too many young men today are struggling with loneliness, and we know the devastating consequences that that can have for both their mental health and our communities. Our plans for improving social connection and reducing loneliness are embedded across Government policy, including through the national youth strategy and the men’s health strategy. The Government are also investing more than £300,000 to help Rugby League Cares give boys and young men a renewed sense of community, purpose and belonging.

A number of other comments were made in the debate. I am conscious of time, but the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire talked about homelessness and the criminal justice system. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich talked about the role of family hubs, and today I was in a fantastic family hub in Camden, where staff talked to me about the work they are doing with fathers, which is really exciting and a key part of our work moving forward.

The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills asked for an update on the parental leave review. The review will run for approximately 18 months, but I will be happy to follow up in writing if she would like further details.

[Mims Davies]

The Minister has rightly outlined strategies and different strands across Government. Could she set out whether there those strategies are driving at any particular outcomes, including around young offenders and other areas, so that we can track whether they are having the desired outcomes in our constituencies?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention. I point back to the work the Deputy Prime Minister is doing, as well as to the summit the Prime Minister will be doing later this year.

In conclusion, I thank again all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s important debate. Whether as role models, allies or mentors, men can inspire and encourage us all. As we celebrate the wonderful contributions that men and boys make to their families, schools, communities and workplaces, we must work together to help them tackle the challenges they face in life. It is clear that Members across the House share our goal of making sure that men and boys are given the support they need.

LGBT+ History Month

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. With it being LGBT History Month, I particularly welcome this debate on this year’s important theme of science and innovation, which was highlighted by many Members this afternoon. Those sectors are absolutely vital to our economy and to the wellbeing of us all, from technology to business, our environment and—crucially—our healthcare. Today, we celebrate all LGBT people, past and present, who contribute so much. I too am a proud ally and friend, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), of course. [Interruption.] Well, he cannot sit in the Chamber all afternoon and not get a mention.

In that spirit, I welcome the positivity with which the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) opened the debate. She highlighted the international situation, which it has been crucial to raise this afternoon. The hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) talked about being an out and queer woman; it was lovely to hear her words once again. Funnily enough, just to let Members know, I saw Uncle Frank—the former East Grinstead mayor and long-serving Conservative councillor—last night.

Today’s debate has focused on science and innovation, so it is absolutely right that Alan Turing has been mentioned. He was a man who diligently served his country and who used his great mind to crack the Enigma code, along with many others, helping us to win the war. People say that his work and that of others in Bletchley shortened the second world war by years, saving many lives. He was a true war hero, and what was his reward? He was prosecuted simply for being gay, and very sadly went on to take his own life. His death shames our country’s history. Today, he is rightly celebrated on our £50 note—if anyone has seen one of those recently. In 2017, under the Conservatives, the Alan Turing law was passed, which pardoned men who were cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts. I am very proud that it was the Conservatives who acted and delivered that important change. Other highlights have also been raised this afternoon.

The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), rightly celebrated queer icons. She also made some comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst); I am keen, as is he, to put on the record that when he was in this Chamber, he realised that his diary needed him to be in Westminster Hall—that was his frustration. Compassion is not confined to any one party, nor should it be.

The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) talked about a full, happy and dignified life for all, which is exactly what we are celebrating this afternoon. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) rightly spoke about equality being an ongoing battle; she spoke powerfully, particularly about servicepeople, veterans and our armed forces community. We all have constituents who this matters particularly greatly to—those who have served and given so much. The work of Fighting With Pride is to be welcomed, as is that of the Royal British Legion.

Football has been mentioned today. I am sure that many of us will have been utterly shocked and disgusted to see that the German referee Pascal Kaiser was assaulted in his own home just a week after his public proposal to his boyfriend. The day before he was attacked, he received threats and his address was leaked. We have talked about the international situation; that attack is a terrible reminder of the threats, intimidation and acts of violence that people face, in sport and across society, for being who they are and celebrating who they love. That proposal was a joyous celebration—an act of love and real commitment—but it was shortly followed by homophobia and hatred from others. I am sure that everyone in the House would want to send our regards to Pascal Kaiser and his fiancé. Our thoughts are with them, and we wish them well for the future, with happiness in their marriage and their life together.

I am proud that it was the Conservative Government who brought in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. There is nothing more Conservative than bringing together families and people to make a solemn promise of love and commitment to each other. We want everyone to be true to themselves—to love who they love without the state getting in the way—and we made a significant positive impact on the rights and lives of gay men, lesbian women and bisexual people, so that they can make a public commitment in front of their friends and family, showing their love and commitment to each other. That is something that we on the Conservative Benches should be very proud of—indeed, it is something that we should all be very proud of.

It would be remiss of me to be at the Dispatch Box and not talk about Jed and Elliot’s marriage. It is 4 July this year—it is definitely happening.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

We’re going.

[Mims Davies]

We’re all going, aren’t we?

One of the best things to happen to me over Christmas was to be at the celebration of Brad and Tom’s wedding.

[Tom Hayes]

The shadow Minister is talking about the introduction of same-sex marriage, and I want to emphasise that that was a moment of cross-party history. The Liberal Democrat Baroness Featherstone worked as part of the coalition Government with the Conservatives to introduce that legislation, which was carried overwhelmingly by Labour MPs. Does the shadow Minister recognise that as an example of cross-party consensus behind LGBT rights, which we should celebrate?

[Mims Davies]

I am delighted that it was the Conservative Prime Minister who I came into the House under who drove that legislation through. It truly was cross-party— I very much agree. Today is not about one-upmanship; it is about celebrating our party, our place and all the work we do where we can.

I had the joy of headlining and co-DJing the LGBT Conservatives’ closing party at party conference in 2025. It was the 50-year celebration. People described it as a cross between DJing and a Peloton class. The Terrence Higgins Trust reception is another staple of our party conference calendar. We hear at those events from members of our party—I am sure this has happened across many parties—who had to meet in secret. Those are now some of our most popular events at conference, and that shows deep pride in the change that we have all seen.

The first HIV testing was funded under a Conservative Government, and I am pleased to say that I got tested—as, I am sure, did many others—here in Parliament this week. It was quick and easy, and it was important to remind people that they can show their status, and get treatment and peace of mind for themselves and their loved ones. It rightly tackles the stigma that remains; the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) mentioned “the gay plague” and the previous stigma.

I encourage people to sign up to get a test online and have it delivered to their door, whether they are in my constituency, in Sussex or in the rest of the United Kingdom. Being rural or far away from a sexual health clinic should not hold people back from getting tested and staying safe. I welcome the updated HIV strategy, which builds on previous heavy lifting by the Conservatives. In 2014, we legalised self-testing kits for HIV, and they were rolled out in 2015. We then had the PrEP trial in 2017. This gives me the opportunity to point out that women, older people and ethnic minorities are all more likely to get diagnosed late, so they should look after themselves by taking the test.

I thank all the charities and campaigning groups, because we all want to say the same thing: love who you love and make sure that you take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. It is key that we get more ambitious with PrEP usage in order to get to the goal to which we are all committed: ending new HIV cases.

Finally—I have said this previously, especially to my constituents, but it is especially true as we head towards Valentine’s day—we all need to be clear that no matter what political party people support, where they live or who they love, they should never feel unsafe or worried about who they are. We will always work together to strive for dignity, inclusion and compassion.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank the shadow Minister for talking passionately about the things that her party helped to introduce. Will her party support moves to make sure that hate crime against all LGBT people is treated as an aggravated offence when that measure comes forward in the other place?

[Mims Davies]

My understanding is that people are already charged and hate crime should be acted on, no matter who it happens to. I do not think we should see it in any other way. That brings me to my final comments, which I hope the hon. Lady will find helpful: this is no time to step back when it comes to supporting equality and it is no time for division.

Gender Self-identification

Mims Davies Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I am grateful for the many thoughtful contributions from Members today. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee; I recognise the important reflection of trans voices that she brought to the Chamber. It was compassionate and absolutely right to recognise strong feelings and concerns on all sides. Friends, constituents and colleagues are affected by today’s debate. Dignity, understanding and respect are crucial. I am always mindful that we are talking about people in this debate or any debate, and listening to people, parents and communities is crucial.

Last month’s Supreme Court ruling importantly clarified the law as per the Equality Act. As we have heard today, many real practicalities still need to be agreed and implemented. Many constituents, including several of mine, have been in touch with their MPs to ask what the judgment means for them. The judgment rightly calls for the rights of trans and non-binary people to be upheld as per the Equality Act. It is no surprise that this wider uncertainty has resulted in this petition. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss where the Opposition sit on this matter and where the Government must simply do more in light of the concerns.

I agree that it is important to lead the discussions in the right tone, and that is always my approach. As the shadow Minister for Women, I believe that we must ensure that we work for a future in which women do not have to fight for their rights every time, and nobody has to keep fighting for all their rights every time. That reflects the comments of the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), which summed up this afternoon’s tone and approach.

Let me affirm on behalf of my party that we strongly believe that every individual should live a life of dignity, be free to live their lives and be safe—safety has been very much raised today. They should be supported in that. We are an inclusive party that is focused on equality. We will always stand up for the rights of women and girls, too.

[Vikki Slade]

How can the hon. Member square new clause 21 to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which would expose trans people in everything that they do, with her commitment to the safety of trans people? That does not seem to fit together.

[Mims Davies]

I think that it is a matter of fact that biological sex is crucial when it comes to correct service delivery and approach. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but when it comes to the understanding of treatment, it is important for there to be a distinction. But I understand the point.

Consider single-sex spaces such as refuges and NHS provision—screening programmes, for example: the protection and privacy of people, including women and girls, is paramount. However, as the hon. Lady just said, that must be balanced by the needs of others, so third spaces and understanding are also important. As I have already said, practicality is important. As many Members have said, this is not a zero-sum game for anybody, whether that is women and girls, and their safe spaces. As we have also heard, there must be suitable spaces for disabled people. This issue is about rounded equality for all. I truly believe that is vital.

We know that the Labour Government have not always necessarily agreed with the judgment in the recent case. Of course, Scottish Labour backed the SNP’s self-ID plans in Holyrood. Those were challenged in the Supreme Court and shown to be incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.

As we have heard again today, some people still have strong views about self-ID, which I recognise. However, for those concerned about the gender recognition certificate process, I highlight that that had already been reformed following feedback, which was rightly listened to. The then Government agreed with the GRC process, because it was hoped that it would create a balance between significant checks and balances within the system. But as we have heard today, different people take different stances.

In light of the ongoing debate and the Supreme Court judgment, it is now for this Government to find a way to clarify how they intend to implement their manifesto commitment to modernise and simplify the GRC process without compromising the rights of women and girls. Those buzzwords signify an intent to change, but what people living this right now want to know is the detail. Hopefully, the Minister will today start to clarify matters or begin to set a timetable for proposals to be scrutinised by the House, the public and all the different voices in this debate. That is crucial, because there is public concern that the Government may be introducing self-ID by the back door—not deliberately, but perhaps through processes that some may see as careless and others may see as suitable.

I address a specific point. It is a concern that Government Ministers have admitted that the Passport Office does not accurately record sex. A passport is one of the most recognised and commonly used Government issued IDs with a sex marker. Can the Minister say why the Government have not sought to remedy the situation? It clearly leaves a potential route for self-ID, creating uncertainty for service providers trying to comply with the law under the Equality Act. Today, we are talking about clarity; all concerned need clarity.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The shadow Minister is making the case that biological sex is incredibly important for things such as medical procedures—absolutely. However, I am not sure how she thinks that the marker on someone’s passport has any relationship with that. If, as has been argued, biological sex is immutable and cannot be changed, surely it does not matter what someone’s passport, driving licence or even birth certificate says? There is, apparently, some magical way of ascertaining people’s biological sex that nobody has yet told me about, unless it is a DNA test. Why does biological sex matter on a passport if, as a number of people have said, it is immutable and cannot be changed anyway?

[Mims Davies]

The previous Government commissioned Professor Alice Sullivan to ensure that the collection of data on sex and gender was consistent across Government. As I was saying, it would be good to know whether the Government will set out a timeline for implementing fully the recommendations from the Sullivan review. I understand the point made by the hon. Lady and other Members, but it is important for people to understand data collection.

[Christine Jardine]

I find this confusing and incomprehensible. Why do the Government need that data? Is there not also a danger that it will get into the hands of the wrong people and there will be a breach of privacy? I just do not understand why we need it. Medical records need it, yes, but do the Government?

[Mims Davies]

Perhaps the hon. Lady can ask the Minister about the Sullivan review and we will get some clarity on that.

Additionally, the Government should be issuing schools guidelines at pace to seek consistency, as we have just been talking about, and understanding across the education landscape. Teachers and headteachers need to have confidence that they will not be open to challenge, that self-ID will not operate in the school system, and that parents are involved at every stage of their youngster’s education.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on the matters raised not just by me, but by Members across the Chamber and in the petition. It is important to ensure that women and girls have a safe and fair experience in life, that there is equality for all, and that we get the practical understanding that trans people need urgently, as the petitioner and many Members have raised. As we have heard today, this should not be a zero-sum game. There should be no failings in duties and people should be able to deliver on the judgment, but ultimately there should be a reassurance that all will be able to thrive in life respectfully and positively, with good guidance and support.

Careers Guidance in Schools

Mims Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury]

I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. Resources will have to follow statutory guidance. The pandemic has had a significant impact on schools’ ability to deliver careers advice. According to recent research by the Sutton Trust, 75% of teachers in state schools said it had a negative impact, far more than the proportion of similar results returned from private schools.

There is an increasing concern that we have arrived out of the pandemic to a different world, one that students are not being prepared for. With the jobs market evolving faster than ever, Teach First has found that nearly 80% of teachers believe their students to be less ready for the world of work than in previous years. Again, more disadvantaged students will be disproportionately impacted by that, with more than half of teachers saying that they feel the pandemic has impacted disadvantaged students’ perceptions of their potential careers.

Well informed and realistic careers decisions cannot be made if careers provision is socially patterned, as evidenced by the Social Market Foundation. Essentially, pupils from schools in affluent areas opt for university while those in less affluent areas take vocational options. That needs levelling up.

The Baker clause strengthened the legislative framework, stating that schools must allow colleges and training providers access to help pupils make informed choices. If careers provision is resourced to the tune of £2 per student—less than a cup of coffee—quality will be found wanting, as argued by Careers England. Ensuring that schools, teachers and employers feel supported to meet the needs of students will be vital for improving the quality of guidance given. With only 17% of year 13 telling the Sutton Trust that they have learned about careers opportunities in their local area, there is considerably more to do to connect businesses and schools.

Although the Careers and Enterprise Company has done some excellent work connecting schools and businesses in some areas, including schools in my own, only half of heads report that their schools are part of the CEC careers hub. That clearly needs to be scaled up. Since the abolition of Connexions in 2011, 2 million children and young people have not had access to independent careers professionals.

I would argue that we need massively to improve access to work experience, with only a third of pupils having completed work experience by the age of 18. A statutory duty, with resources to support a two-week placement, should be put in place. Where possible, we need to ensure that the work experience that a young person undertakes is relevant to their future ambitions. Beyond giving the important experience of the work environment, work experience should help those students better frame their future ambitions and make informed careers decisions.

That was brought home to me recently by a year 10 work experience student called Kevin, who chose to work in my constituency office because he felt it would be more interesting than the other opportunities on offer, but it was pretty clear that he wanted to be a firefighter. I have now put him in touch with our local fire service, and he used his experience to do a bit of research in my office when he was on placement there.

It is essential that any new Government strategy on careers advice focuses on work experience and ensures connections between schools, local authorities and local businesses. That will mean that pupils get more opportunities for their two-week work experience, which will help them make informed decisions. It will also help us, as legislators and politicians, to ensure we have a growing economy.

A new strategy must also deliver on one of the areas that we most need to change when it comes to careers guidance, which is apprenticeships. Although most students feel that they get plenty of guidance about university courses, only 10% feel the same way about apprenticeships. Too often, support for students considering apprenticeships or vocational education is much weaker than for those considering academic education. In some schools, every student creates a UCAS account by default, cementing the idea that higher education is the default option. We need to ensure that within careers advice apprenticeships and further education are put on the same footing as university education. We cannot continue with the disparity in information, advice and therefore access that we see all too often.

[Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an opportunity to link local economies, the labour market and businesses with apprenticeships if schools can organise that before people leave education? No one should be heading out of education not into the labour market, higher education or a traineeship. Does he see an opportunity to enact that via schools?

[Mike Amesbury]

I agree. In my constituency, Tata Chemicals Europe offers some brilliant apprenticeships, and at times it has really struggled to achieve the connection between the local school community and the apprenticeships on offer. I totally agree with that very good point.

As I have said previously, I was the first person in my family to go to university. I do not want a system that disadvantages students from working-class backgrounds and excludes higher education as a pathway if it is right for them. We must absolutely ensure that they are given the information and support they need to go to university and aspire to be the best they can be, but we should also ensure that people from all backgrounds make informed choices about the other brilliant opportunities on offer, such as apprenticeships, including those at levels 4 and 5, and those with a mixture of university and in-work training.

Students recognise that the situation with apprenticeships prevents them from properly considering them as an option. Some 31% think that having better information would have encouraged them, their friends and their classmates to choose an apprenticeship. It was also found that a number of people, including parents, reinforce the stigma associated with apprenticeships. We need to challenge parents and carers on that.

More funding and training for teachers is absolutely key if we are to reach parity of esteem between university and apprenticeship options. We must remove the idea that apprenticeships are not as valuable and almost second rate. To do that, we need a practical system to promote them. Having a central UCAS system means that universities can do active outreach around it. Teachers and other support staff, and generations of parents and carers, are also familiar with it. Students seeking apprenticeships deserve a system that is just as clear and effective and that is funded and supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Thank you, Ms Rees, for calling me to speak in this really interesting debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for approaching it in exactly the right way.

My earlier intervention, about tracking where our young people go next after leaving school, still stands, and it is a point that I am pleased to be able to expand on. We know when people are not going to achieve their desired outcomes or pass their exams: when they go AWOL and fall off the radar. I know from my previous role as employment Minister that the next time we pick them up, in a jobcentre and on to the next stage in their careers, is quite often after they have had a stay at the Ministry of Justice, or developed health conditions, addictions or other challenges that need to be unpicked. I strongly believe that, with the right interventions in the mid-teenage years, we can ensure that everybody can go into a fulfilling career. If exams and university are not the route, that really matters—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), that applies to 60% of our young people.

I would like us to talk, in schools and more broadly, about the reality of a life of jobs. Unless people are very lucky, they do not go into a career or get a job for life—career-wise, we all live in insecure times in this place. We need to speak about jobs, roles and sectors, and about things changing, to inspire and enable our kids to take the opportunity of education into the world of work and not feel that education and learning happens only in schools, colleges or universities, or that it always has a label, like T-levels or indeed A-levels. Rather, it is absolutely part of working life. Some of us might have been in a very different job five years ago, and we might not even know about the job that we could have in five years’ time.

We need to empower our young people not to think that studying happens purely at school, college or university, but to understand that it is never over and that what they get from a good education—learning and having the confidence to take on new skills and abilities—is what they need to take them into a long-term career. We need to build an agile mindset into our young people. We need to help people to be ready to join the labour market at any age or any stage.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench—it is good to see her there. With my former employment Minister hat on, let me say that we should also absolutely tackle job snobbery. There is no such thing as good or bad work. We have all done jobs that we did not generally enjoy quite so much—they are less lucrative and “valuable” in people’s minds. But let us be honest that during the pandemic we started to understand who and what really meant everything to our lives. Many of those people were performing roles that, coming into the pandemic, we simply did not understand or fully appreciate. The mantra should be ABC—any job, better job, career—because guess what: people are never more attractive than when they are in a job. That is wrong, but it is a fact, because those soft skills and that confidence—I wish I had a penny for every time I heard the word “confidence” when it comes to changing or transitioning roles because of the pandemic—are absolutely key.

We need to instil that confidence through good careers advice in our schools and allow them to open up and spend time with their local economies. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) about that. People could live right next to the Cadbury factory or the theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon, but have never been inside. People can feel very locked out, even in their own communities. Schools should not just be unlocking careers or education, but should be unlocking opportunity that is right on the doorstep. No one should need to move to find opportunity.

[Anna Firth]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that schools should be the ones to give this advice. I raised the issue this morning with the headmaster of Westcliff High School for Boys, which is in my patch, and he said that one size does not fit all. The funding for careers advice must go to schools, because they know their local area and the different opportunities that are available. Does my hon. Friend agree that we absolutely must put schools in charge of this funding and this advice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am conscious of the need not to overburden schools. Let us find the bridge here—the career services and the links to the local labour market. There are good ways to assist schools with this work—Jobcentre Plus, LEPs, growth funds and Mayors—but schools also have to be absolutely determined to look at careers and long-term outcomes for young people and not solely at exam results. We have to make sure that we do not judge whether a school is good based solely on exam results; it is about where young people come from and where they get to—their progression—and some people’s progression is not simply about exam results.

That leads me to the work of the kickstart programme. Despite the pandemic, we got 163,000 young people under 25, who were those most at risk of long-term unemployment, into their first jobs. How did we do that? We got the employers into the jobcentres and we put people together. We threw out CVs, because no one has experience until they have experience—of course they do not, particularly in a pandemic. That work provided life-changing opportunities for young people, but above all it stopped people asking for the finished article. Who here has gone into a role—this role, any role—as the finished article? We have to help employers to stop looking for the finished article and to think about how they were mentored when they went into that sector. We should take them back to where they were before they came into their grand or great role.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the full functional employment we have now, with many companies facing a dearth of staff—I refer to my former entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I was an employer and often struggled to find staff—will help to change employers’ attitudes, so that they work with what they have, bring people on and help to develop people’s careers in situ?

[Mims Davies]

I say to my hon. Friend that there is nothing wrong with being an employer. We need people to take those risks, opportunities and leadership roles, but they have to have the experience and the start-up to get there.

I genuinely think we are seeing a sea change with careers and employers, and that lets me explain a little more about the kickstart roles that were created. We have heard anecdotally that around seven in 10 people have stayed with their existing employer, but we also found that many other people had undiagnosed health conditions, challenges at home or other issues that meant going into the wider labour market was simply never going to happen for them, and that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

When I was at the Department for Work and Pensions, we therefore opened over 150 youth hubs. Those were locally led, and included the careers service, local authorities, jobcentres and employers. People could go into a safer, more relaxed and more comfortable space to have a one-to-one conversation along the lines of, “What can you do, and what are you interested in?” If employers can spark that interest in our young people, or in anybody at any age or any career stage, rather than talking about what people cannot do, they can take a chance on people. With near full employment—employment is at almost 80% in some parts of the country—employers are having to do that. They are throwing out the usual way of doing things and putting time and training into people, and I do not think anybody really regrets that, do they?

On universities—my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and others put this brilliantly—we really have to help those who perhaps feel that there is a stigma about not going to university. We are sending people to university who are potentially wasting their time there and who could be doing something much more productive and beneficial in the local labour market. However, that can be done only based on really strong, good reading skills and digital skills, and while many young people and many of us generally can hide behind our mobile phones and feel that we have digital skills, we simply do not.

We need to tackle the STEM challenge strongly, talking about the skills needed for different sectors and jobs and what is transferable, but we cannot do that without face-to-face support. We know that works in jobcentres and with training. Online courses do not equip people with enough to get into those sectors and areas, so they can do some of that training, but they also need practical, individual human support. It is vital that we give them that and tackle the STEM issue as a result.

In Mid Sussex, we recently had a STEM event, chaired by Phil Todd and linked to the Burgess Hill Business Park Association, where schools came to spend a wonderful day building bridges, weighing things, creating things, working on projects and working with local businesses that they simply would not have known were there. In fact, 70% of jobs in Mid Sussex are not on the high street; they are in small industrial areas, back bedrooms, villages and areas that are not seen, and they are exporting globally. People do not need to work in a big building to have big opportunities; it is important that young people see that.

On good careers advice, the main thing is to give people confidence that it is not about where they start but where they end up. I have enjoyed yoghurt making, selling kitchens, working in Little Chef and selling mobile phones and pagers—remember them? I want to return to the issue of job snobbery, because pubs, restaurants and hospitality are places that we love, and we miss them when they are not open and cannot serve us. When we go on holiday and go abroad, we see how those places are revered. People can progress quickly in that sector. So let us talk about careers as a whole. I will conclude, Ms Rees, as I am sure that time is against us.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Social Mobility Commission

Mims Davies Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

Alan Milburn has advised the Government through his commission over the past five years, and the Government have taken much of his advice on board; when he was publicising his most recent report, he made some very constructive comments. I stand by the record as outlined in the answer to the initial question from the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable): we have made considerable progress but there is much left to be done. The best way of getting families out of poverty is to ensure that they get into the workplace, and we have record levels of employment. The best way to get children the best opportunities in life is to deliver a great education, and we are delivering a better education for more children than ever before in England.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I was pleased to hear from the Minister about the home learning environment, alongside our good schools, giving true opportunity to our children. On the Government side of the House, we want our children to go as far as their talents will take them. Is this not an opportunity for a renewal?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind hon. Members again that the resignation of the board is the matter of which we are treating.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mims Davies Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

Schools receive up to £6,000 for each child as part of their funding formula, and if they need to apply for additional money, that money is forthcoming. We are keen to ensure that children with particular problems, including autism, are quickly identified and given the help they need, and the new scheme does that.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Extracurricular activities including sport ensure a well-rounded education for all our students, and this is particularly important for those with special educational needs. Can the Minister tell me what support schools can get to provide those extracurricular activities?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is absolutely true to say that all children benefit from better access to sports provision, not only physically but academically. I am pleased that we have doubled the primary sport and PE premium using money from the soft drinks levy. I am also a big fan of cadet forces, and we have used £50 million from the LIBOR fines to fund that activity. I would like to see more state schools with cadet forces.

Sexual Harassment and Violence in Schools

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on their work to secure this important debate. I also thank all members of the Women and Equalities Committee for their wide-ranging work and the cross-party spirit in which it is being undertaken. I sincerely miss being on that Committee because it brings so much good work to the House. Whenever I talk to people in my constituency about the work that really matters to me as an MP, I always say that my time on that Committee was the most positive experience.

In this House, we all understand the importance of ensuring that our schools—indeed, our educational establishments as a whole—are safe environments in which students can learn and thrive. I am still absolutely shocked when I listen to the evidence to the Select Committee of the young children who talked about the pressures and issues they live with.

I learned so much as a parent. I thought I knew so much—until I heard from those youngsters. So I thank the members of the Committee for the work they are doing. I also thank the Minister, because she is very committed to her work in this sphere, and I can think of no one better placed to start moving things forward. That is really what this debate is about.

I am so sorry about the spirit this debate finds the House in and about what has been raging around us. We absolutely need training courses; we need to learn and to work together. This morning, I sponsored the Women’s Business Council’s Four Years On reception in Parliament, which celebrated some really positive moves forward. It was really tough to espouse the good work we are doing here, given the environment we have to deal with. So we can do better in every sphere, and as we head into next year and the celebration of 100 years of women’s suffrage, we have a real opportunity to make some positive steps.

For me, this debate is the start of a very long journey, and I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of relationship, sex and online education. During my work on the Digital Economy Bill, I was absolutely staggered by the amount of pornography our youngsters are able to get hold of at the touch of a button. From nudes, to sexting, to Snapchat, I do not think most parents, or indeed school establishments, understand what is out there. Why does this matter? We need to see these things against a background where, as the Committee heard, 5,500 sexual offences were recorded in UK schools over a three-year period—data published in 2015. Given that background, we have what we have heard described today as an epidemic.

However, there is some good work. Girlguiding is doing important work to make sure our young girls understand what sexual harassment is and how to deal with it. So there is hope. Universities UK is also doing great work on helping university students to understand that these learned behaviours need to be dealt with. As part of an investigation it carried out, 68% of female students said they had been the victim of one or more type of sexual harassment on campus. These are behaviours that people are learning from school and online, and parents do not necessarily know about them or understand them. The figures are deeply concerning, and I am pleased that the Department for Education is committed to working with the Women and Equalities Committee and the Government Equalities Office, which I was with earlier.

It is so important that we build on healthy relationships and keep our kids safe in school, and the primary school issue is really important. In preparation for the debate, I spoke with leaders at one of my local senior schools, and I was pleased to hear they did not feel that sexual abuse was a real concern in their school. However, they did say that, although they have strong safeguarding procedures in place, the culture is coming into school from elsewhere. That is where parents can very much work to change behaviour and change what is acceptable, but they need to know and understand what is out there.

I welcome the Committee’s suggestions on working with Ofsted and independent schools, but social media companies and parents need to come to the table, and the Government need to get on with this. A year down the line, this epidemic is growing.

I would like to finish by once again thanking the Committee for all the work it is doing. It is providing the Minister and the Government with plenty to think about, but more importantly, plenty to act on.

Global LGBT Rights

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell).

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for securing this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee, which keeps keeping me in the Chamber on a Thursday afternoon for really important cross-party debates. I know that my right hon. Friend is working hard on LGBTI rights here at home and abroad. Parliamentarians from across the House, by coming out and, most importantly, speaking out, are leading the way. It takes courage. As a fellow human, I see and support that courage.

We in the UK, which is leading the world on LGBT rights, have been on a positive journey. We will all have friends, family members, neighbours or colleagues openly identifying themselves as belonging to the LGBT community. And this has been reflected in Government policy. We have made huge strides since 2010, particularly under David Cameron, with the introduction of marriage equality, Turing’s law and the abolition of offences that have affected so many people, and this summer when the Prime Minister announced the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I am fortunate to be working alongside a constituent, Tara, and the transgender community, which is working so hard on these issues. I welcome all the Government’s plans, and look forward to them moving forward.

As a former member of the Women and Equalities Committee, I am absolutely delighted that it is this Parliament that has carried out the first investigation into transgender rights. We were absolutely right to do that—some 650,000 people have been identified as transgender. We must tackle the issue as it affects families, mental health, our NHS and our communities. Our work in this area is world leading.

May I thank Julie and the lesbian and gay liaison team at Hampshire police for all the work that they do across our communities? We all want equality for all. It makes us safer, happier, and healthier. I also wish to thank those who work openly on this matter in the NHS, the fire service and all our communities, because by working together we become stronger, and by working with trans people in particular our communities become stronger.

It is hate crime awareness week, and we all have a huge responsibility to be temperate in our language and in our actions. Tolerance matters. Hate crime can leave an individual, a family or a community isolated from society. It highlights a broken society, and the UK is no place for hate. Tolerance and understanding make this a safer place in which to live.

I congratulate the Hampshire police and crime commissioner on his focus on joint working with the Hampshire Citizens Advice service on safe reporting spaces. I also congratulate the Isle of Wight on securing the right to host a UK Pride event in 2018, so next year will be a great occasion. I have been contacted by constituents in Eastleigh who also want to hold a Pride event. They want to see their town flying the flag. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) also say the same thing.

We are here today listening to stories about those living in fear across the world. We must remember that being who you are is not a crime, but targeting, bullying or threatening a person—wherever they live and whoever they are—is a crime. People do not have to put up with that behaviour. They should report it and ask for help. I congratulate Hampshire and Isle of Wight Youth Commission, which has carried out a project on tackling such behaviour. The behaviour is learned—perhaps from school or college—and it is unacceptable. If we can achieve all this here, we need to focus our attention abroad. We have heard about the perils of being born in Chechnya, Azerbaijan or Egypt. One’s heart sinks when one hears that, in Chechnya, an LGBTI person does not even exist.

We have also been talking about Australia, where voting is compulsory. We can see the simple question that should be posed: should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? A strong yes vote would be a huge victory for LGBTI Australians, and such a move would help their Government to send out a clear global message.

I welcome what we are doing in the UK to make the lives of people around the world better through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and through our aid budget. We must ensure that we continue to work with the UN Free and Equal campaign, which has reached an estimated 2 billion people through the use of social media, which gives us a huge ability to change attitudes.

We have made some huge strides in LGBTI rights here in the UK. We as parliamentarians do set an example in our local communities, in this Chamber and across the globe.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I will not seek her support immediately for the amendments to which I am about to refer, because they relate to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and she may want to look at them more carefully, but may I encourage her to look at amendments 287 to 290, which are supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International? They are relevant to ensuring that, as part of that process of conversion from EU law to UK law, we do preserve human rights aspects of that EU law, which often has been used in support of LGBT rights. I hope that she will at least look at them.

[Mims Davies]

To me, Brexit means Brexit. It is not about going back on equality. I feel extremely strongly about that.

I mentioned the WHO, which made such a regrettable decision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned, but I am sure that UK pressure really made a difference in reversing that decision. So, yes, the world does watch us. The Prime Minister’s speech at the PinkNews awards this month recognised that. I support the fact that she, Ministers and colleagues from across the House have the chance to support the LGBTI community. I look forward to my children—not just my children’s children—growing up in a world where sexuality and gender are no measure at all by which to judge a person.