International Men’s Day

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Men’s Day.

It is an honour to lead this year’s debate on International Men’s Day. I hope that this year’s speech gets as much publicity as last year’s did. Last year’s speech led to much controversy, but I believe the message got over that boys need role models, and positive role models at that. I asked to hold the debate again because I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on issues affecting men and boys, and as such International Men’s Day, which we mark on Saturday, is an important date in the diary. It is a time to highlight many issues that men and boys face, and to celebrate many of the wonderful charities out there that are doing such wonderful work—Andy’s Man Club, Men’s Sheds, Lads Need Dads and the Men and Boys Coalition, to name just a few.

I also want to speak about these issues because I want to help society as a whole. I am a father of both a boy and a girl—well, now young adults—and I want both to do equally well. However, the reason I joined the APPG on issues affecting men and boys is that I see too many issues, at a constituency and national level, that have a negative impact on men and boys, with no concerted action to tackle them. Of course, those issues have a negative impact on women and girls too, whether it be a brother’s suicide, a partner dying from prostate cancer, a son who is failing at school, or violence that a man commits against a woman, sometimes in the most horrific ways. Men and women all share lives and society together. My reasoning is therefore this: if we help half the population to become better equipped at handling life and more comfortable being themselves, we in turn help the other half of the population. It is a win-win. With the help of debates such as this, and in my role as chair of the APPG, I hope to do just that.

Much of the work that our APPG has done recently has been on the issue of men’s suicide. It is tragic that 13 men each day see this as the only solution to the problems they face. Our evidence sessions discovered that, although getting men to talk and open up is an amazing thing to do for them and helps so much, it is not enough. There are often underlying causes, and if those are discussed but not properly dealt with, men still often see suicide as a genuine way out, regardless of therapy.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for holding this important debate. My brother sadly took his life recently, so I would like to give a big shout-out to all the community initiatives and charities that support men, particularly the Amlwch Men’s Shed and the Amlwch walking football team, who do so much to support men’s mental health and wellbeing right across Anglesey.

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am ever so sorry to hear that news. I am hoping that, through debates like this, we can reduce that number to zero.

The issues that can cause this include chronic health issues, such as a bad back that stops a man working, money worries through not earning enough or poor financial management, or a sudden bereavement of someone close to them. One of the main issues I have seen in my constituency is the consequences arising from the breakdown of marriages and relationships. Each of those has its own reasons why it can often appear more difficult for men to deal with.

Take the bad back. Like whiplash claims and now mental health issues, men suffering with chronic pain can often be accused of “trying it on”. Paid days off work and no obvious visible signs of injury often lead to the opinion that a man must be swinging the lead. I am sure that some have tried it on over the years, but that is what is so dangerous—the fraudsters. They make it so much worse for the genuine cases. Years of chronic pain with no one believing you is no fun. “The man of the house” is a saying that, unfortunately, does not help, when a man is not able to fulfil the role that he believes he should and that, far too often, society believes he should too.

We have two paths: a path of help from someone who listens and then helps, or another path of health problems, depression, anxiety, addiction and loneliness, and some will think about suicide. Talking is good, but practical support is needed too.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware of the TikTok video in which a woman asks, “What do you do as a man when you have a problem?” and then a collection of men say, “Nothing. No one cares. I have no one to speak to.” Is that not the biggest problem when it comes to men’s mental health—when they talk about it, they feel there is no one there to support them, and they feel forgotten about and ignored? That is the key to getting a policy in place to support men and their mental health.

[Nick Fletcher]

I could not agree more. This is why Andy’s Man Club, Men’s Sheds and organisations like that are helping enormously with this issue. The growth of Andy’s Man Club over the past year has been phenomenal, so the need is there. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.

It is the same for a man who has lost his job and feels he has no other job to go to; again, he feels he has no worth and no value. The more he feels like that, the less he values himself, and the less chance he has of getting a job or climbing the ladder to get a better job. He wants to be the breadwinner—another unhelpful word—and wants to have the best for his family; he does not want to say no to his kids. It ends up with an eviction notice, car finance too much, electric metre cutting out, or sometimes with someone in his ear telling him that he is a failed man. Again, we have two paths: a path of help from someone who listens and then helps, or another path of health problems, depression, anxiety, addiction and loneliness, and some will think of suicide. Talking is good, but practical support is needed too.

Marriage breakdown is always a bad time for both individuals. It has a real impact, but even more so when children are involved. When I spoke to a local divorce lawyer, he said that the best outcome that a man can expect from a divorce is 50% of the assets and to see his kids every other weekend. That can lead to other significant problems.

The man should rightly pay his dues, and should want to—he needs to provide for his kids—but he has to have somewhere to live too. He can end up in a situation where he is in a lonely bedsit with noisy neighbours, the heating off and an empty fridge; where there are continual breaches of child arrangements orders with no consequences except more ignored solicitor’s letters and legal fees; where there is parental alienation, because their children’s heads have been needlessly turned against them by the other parent; and where the weekend with the kids gets postponed for no good reason and the kids are not keen on seeing their dad because the bedsit is cold and he never has any money, so the next weekend is missed too, which means that a solicitor’s letter must be sent, only to be ignored—more money spent on legal fees that he does not and should not have to pay.

My mailbox is regularly filled with letters from fathers—and some mothers, to be fair—complaining about the injustice of it all. They are heartbreaking to read and I am sure that other hon. Members receive the same. Again, we have two paths: one of help from someone who listens and then helps, and another of health problems, depression, anxiety, addiction, loneliness and, for some, thoughts of suicide. Talking is good, but practical support is needed too.

The APPG heard that some men believe that suicide is a practical solution to a problem—can we believe that? They cannot see their way through. They cannot cope. They feel that nobody will miss them and they have no value. They think that they got themselves there and that that is not what a man should be like. They have tried to get help, but either no one can help, no one cares, or no one will listen, so that path led nowhere. They think, “This is it. This is my path. Goodbye.” No, that cannot be right. We must stop that. We really need a Minister for men who can co-ordinate action and champion issues affecting men and boys, whether that is lower exam results than girls, men sleeping rough, or understanding why 80,000 men are in our prisons. We also need a men’s health strategy to help to deliver firm action and break down many of the health barriers that men face.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I was a GP before I came into the House, so I saw the way in which men present differently from women, and the different ways in which people choose to interact. They are gross generalisations, but in medicine, a generalisation is a useful way to understand patterns, and pattern recognition is important. It is about understanding that the status that a man brings, and the need for status, is important. It is also about vulnerability and building up trust to allow them to speak about the issues that may come in. Equally, men can be transactional. We need a men’s health strategy to understand those differences and to balance against the women’s health strategy. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the right time for that?

[Nick Fletcher]

My hon. Friend is helping enormously with the debate. I have spoken to him before about a men’s health strategy and yes, now is the time. There is an old phrase that says, “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is now.” That is exactly where we are with the men’s health strategy, and a Minister for men.

We need someone to be accountable across Government, which also means putting pressure and targets on health bodies and the education system. Ensuring that the Government Equalities Office gives equal reference to men as a group that it supports would be a welcome start. Equality means equal and fair treatment. When members of the public, including in so-called red wall seats such as mine, are asked whether it is fair and equal to have a Minister for Women and not a Minister for men, of course they say no. They believe, as I do, that we should have both. Why would anyone who truly believes in equality think differently? Let us stop talking and start doing.

Why do many men get through life and many do not? Is it luck of the draw or is it a solid family upbringing? I do not believe in luck, but I do believe in family and I do believe in good role models—good dads, good mums and good role models—such as the dads and men who put their kids first, not the ones who just say it; those who put their kids before themselves every time; those who help with homework before the football; those who put school shoes and a full fridge before a big TV; those who tuck them into bed, not those going down the pub; those who show them how to treat women properly and how to love their mum; the dads that are good role models, and the mums and wives who let their partner be that good role model, too. That is not luck, just good role models who show boys how to become men, how to cope and how to deal with life’s knocks.

We know families do break up, and we know it can be just as much the man’s fault as the woman’s, but we must remember that, whatever caused the break-up, the kids must come first. Why? Because they need a male role model just as much as a good mum. Equally, however, dads need their kids. They need that value in their life and that part of their life where they are genuinely worth something—not just money or material things, but just the value of being a dad—and when I talk about good dads, I mean good step-dads, too.

By letting this happen, we let the child become a good man, and one who does all the things we want good men to do. So if we see a man struggling in his life, we need to talk to him, find out what has gone wrong and what the real problem is. We need to find out what the solution is, write a plan with him, put our arms around his shoulders and help put the value back in him. He might not have had a good role model himself. He might not know what he is doing wrong and he might not know how to put it right. However, if we help him, we can give him another path, and maybe—just maybe—he will turn into a great role model himself.

I am not sure this speech will get as much publicity as the earlier one today, but I hope it does. I hope that we can all help a man in our life, who in turn will treat the women in our lives well, and show the next generation what a good life can look like and what a good man can look like. Some men do wrong, some men struggle and, sadly, some men take their own life. We should rehabilitate the ones who do wrong, help the ones who struggle, listen and practically support the ones who are desperate, and celebrate the majority of men who are good. Let it not be a competition between men and women; let it be a family and a population working together for good.

I ask, at the end of my speech, that we put in place a Minister for men; someone who can champion their cause, take an overarching look at Government policy and be made accountable for reducing the many sad statistics that will no doubt be repeated throughout this debate. We need a Minister to champion the places where men talk, but also look at the solutions that can and should be put in place to practically help men and boys with their issues. As we said in our latest report, there is no point in listening if no one is acting or doing. We need a Minister who can make sure that boys have the male role models they need away from home so that they grow up to be good men. We need to have local government and community groups in place for those men who have missed out on a good man in their life so far. It is often said that prevention is better than cure, and I applaud that sentiment, but some men have already been let down, so we need both—role models for our boys and help for our men. Let us celebrate International Men’s Day 2022 with a Minister for men.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher]

I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for letting us hold this debate in the Chamber today; it is really appreciated. I would also like to thank all Members who have stayed on a Thursday afternoon to speak in the debate. It is a hugely important debate, and their support in this place and outside it is really appreciated; I want them all to take that home with them. I would also like to thank Mike Bell and Mark Brooks from the APPG on issues affecting men and boys. They do all the work, and I take a little bit of the glory—that is just the way it works—but I thank them for that. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me wrap up the debate.

We have heard lots of different reasons why we still need a Minister for Men, and I am pleased that the Minister is going to meet me to discuss all the issues. As we have heard, there is lots of help out there. As MPs, it is our job to signpost people to the places where there is help. I ask everybody on International Men’s Day, which is Saturday: if you know somebody who is struggling, send them that text or that email, and point them in the right direction for help. Do not underestimate the power of your voice—just as a person, never mind as an MP. People really do need our help, and men especially.

We have to get the number of men committing suicide down. That is a huge issue; 13 men a day is absolutely terrible. I will be coming back next year and looking at those figures, and I will be holding Government to account. I thank the Government for what they are doing, and I thank everybody for attending today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered International Men’s Day.

Transgender Conversion Therapy

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the fact that we do need to have respectful debates on both sides of the argument.

It might help, for the purposes of today’s debate, to narrow down exactly what the petition asks for and what this debate is all about. To be crystal clear, it is not about reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, nor is it about access to single-sex spaces, trans women in sport, trans women in prisons, or any of the other issues that have caused such a stir in this place, in the media, in academia, and beyond. This debate and this petition are specifically about the harmful practices of so-called conversion therapy and whether we, as a House and as a country, think it is acceptable for anyone, regardless of who they are, to be subjected to such things with no recourse to justice. I will argue that nobody should be denied access to justice if they are being subjected to the abhorrent practices encapsulated by so-called conversion therapy.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are enough laws already in place to cover the abhorrent practices that he talks about? We will be creating a problem with freedom of speech and people being able to talk to their children about the way they feel about themselves.

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I am afraid I do not agree. There is nothing in the proposals and the consultation that the Government set out to suggest that there would be an impact on freedom of speech. Although a lot of the practices—a point that I was going to come on to in a minute—are already outlawed, there are many forms of conversion practices that are not, which is why a ban is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham; thank you for calling me so early. I commend the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on an excellent speech. I also warmly commend the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on a passionate and genuine speech, and I am very pleased to follow her.

I was struck by the fact that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington had to start by defining what this debate is not about. That is probably testament to just how poor the wider general discussion has become. This is not about infringing on anybody else’s rights. It is not about infringing on the rights of women in general, or their right to safe spaces; it is not infringing on the right to free speech; and, crucially, it is not about limiting the right to seek advice and help, or the right to have an honest conversation. It is about conversion therapy and the harm that it does, about the need for action against it, and about the need, from my perspective and my party’s perspective, to include trans people within that protection.

The hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) says that existing laws already cover this. No, they do not. That is why we are here, and why the petition exists—because of the harm being done right now to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens—the most vulnerable people in society, who need action and our support. If the existing legislative framework covered this, we would not need to be here.

There is huge consensus on the need for action. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has said:

“It is well documented that the injury caused by practices of ‘conversion therapy’ are grounded on the premise that LGBT+ people are sick, diseased, and abnormal and must therefore be treated.4Some practices can potentially amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards specific LGBT+ people, while the very existence of ‘conversion therapy’ practices in our society promotes a culture in which LGBT+ people are seen as needing to be fixed, thereby undermining the dignity of all LGBT+ people.”

There is also consensus among religious organisations that the matter needs to be tackled. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, is in favour of a ban, along with the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Church of England, the Methodists, the Quakers, the Hindu Council UK and many others. Any reputable psychotherapy organisation is in favour of a ban, because they know what the harm perpetrated by these quacks—I was struck by the mention of witchcraft by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price)—does to their own reputation.

According to the UK Government’s own figures, the scale of the problem is considerable. The UK Government’s 2018 survey of 108,000 LGBT+ people showed that 2% have undergone therapy and 5% have been offered it. For the trans community, the figures are even higher: 9% of trans men have been offered this therapy, which is odious. The question for us legislators surely boils down to: where do we draw the line? How do we draw up legislation? In Scotland, we are doing that. In Scotland, this is a devolved competence, and the Scottish Government are committed to bringing forward a trans inclusionary ban. I trust MSPs to draw the line in the right place, in a way that looks after everybody’s rights, because these rights are not mutually exclusive.

I make a plea to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish parliamentarians present to work with us. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom on this subject. We should listen to people’s experiences and to what they say about the harm done, which is very real and genuine. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens right now are suffering as a result of this practice, and many hundreds of thousands more are living with the consequences of having undergone it. There is a clear need for legislation on it.

[Nick Fletcher]

It is great to hear such a good debate on this issue. Many people have written to me saying that if a young person who thinks they are trans came to them, they would be scared of saying, “Well, why don’t you just watch and wait? Let’s give it six months,” or “Let’s see how you feel in a year, or two years.” People will be scared to say that, because they do not want to be called transphobic, or to be prosecuted under legislation that may come later. That is where I am coming from—from the point of view of parents, teachers, men of the cloth and others who want to be able to say, “Just watch and wait,” or to ask why.

[Alyn Smith]

I will take the intervention at face value as a genuine expression of concern. This is not an easy subject—I would be the first to acknowledge that—but that is why we need to make sure that the legislation is right. That is why we need to ensure that the line is drawn at the right place. I said in my opening remarks—I have them here—that this is not about infringing the right of anyone to seek advice and have an honest conversation, but there is a world of difference between that and the quackery and harm perpetrated by people who set themselves up in business doing this stuff.

Legal Recognition of Non-binary Gender Identities

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 580220, relating to legal recognition of non-binary gender identities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank Ezio, who started the petition; we have met and had a good conversation on the subject. The petition has gained more than 140,000 signatures, so this topic is on the minds of many.

Many of the people I have spoken to have said that they supported the petition because they feel that, at present, they do not exist. I want the community of people who feel that they are non-binary to know that, of course, I accept that they exist. I see them; I hear them; I feel for them; and I want to help them. I say to them, “We are a tolerant nation and we accept you as you are.” It does not follow, however, that the law should be changed to reflect the way that certain individuals feel. No matter where anyone sits on this subject, their opinion should be respected.

I have not taken part in any social media discourse on this subject, because I believe that it often becomes completely negative. I have met some people who suffer with gender dysphoria, and I do not think that such discourse helps them in any way whatsoever. We must always remember that we are talking about human lives—about people with whom we share society. I have spoken with many people about this subject, and I thank them all for their contributions.

The petition asks to

“Have non binary be included as an option under the GRP (Gender Recognition Panel)/ GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate), in order to allow those identifying as non binary to be legally seen as their true gender identity. As well as having ‘Non-binary’ be seen as a valid transgender identity… By recognising Non-binary as a valid gender identity, it would aid in the protection of Non-binary individuals against transphobic hate crimes, and would ease Gender Dysphoria experienced by Non-binary people.”

That may seem straightforward. It would be just an extra column on a birth certificate or a gender-recognition certificate and part of the forms that we complete daily, and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is already in place, so why not? Whether or not our starting position is to agree with the idea, we need to look at the impact on and implications for wider society.

Let me walk hon. Members through my reservations. First, I do not believe that the inclusion of non-binary would necessarily help with gender dysphoria. If people feel that they can exist only by putting an X in a box, we as a society need to convince them differently. Prior to the debate, I spoke with many people in the non-binary community, and they certainly spoke well. I do not think any of them need a mark in a box in order to exist.

Secondly, I do not think the change would reduce any so-called hate crimes. People who carry out such offences have no place in a free society, and we already have criminal laws in place to deal with such appalling behaviour. There are also practical issues relating to the non-binary and trans questions: protecting our kids from making life-changing decisions before they are adults and old enough to make such decisions; single-sex spaces; and, of course, sport.

I will start with children. In certain areas of the country, clusters of schoolchildren are saying that they are non-binary or trans. Where has that come from? Why is it more prevalent in some areas than in others? Who or what is putting that idea in young minds? Who is telling them, “You can be the opposite of what you are”?

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his comments about a respectful tone, with which I am sure we all agree. What I do not agree with, however, is the notion that someone has put into people’s minds an idea about their own identities. Will he maybe reflect on that as he goes forward?

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments. I will reflect on that later as I go through my speech. But such cases are growing exponentially at the moment, and I am deeply concerned about it.

I do not want to get too technical on this, but there are certain times in our life when certain areas develop. The first two years are crucial, with the development of the front part of our brain. The same can be said about the nerve endings in our eyes: if those do not join properly by the time we are four or five, they never will. Puberty is also a time of development, and many young people are now questioning their gender at that crucial time. If we stop that developmental process in its tracks, before puberty, the results can be life changing. I believe that making non-binary a legal identity, and having an acceptance that that is an easy path to take, will have hugely detrimental effects on many young people, when I know as a certain fact that they are not old enough or mature enough to make that decision and understand the long-term and life-changing consequences. They are children; they are not adults. Therefore, any such decisions for children below the age of 18 must be avoided.

I am also unsure who is to decide that a child is not a boy or a girl, and when. The child cannot decide when it is born, so who decides? Doctors have always decided the biological sex, and there are rules in place for that. What about a 10-year-old? Can a child decide at that age, or is it still a parental choice? All the time, one of the few consistencies that a person can have in this mixed-up world is taken away. Is society really to say that he or she cannot decide whether they are a boy or a girl, or feel they are, before they have gone through puberty?

The interim Cass report said that we are letting our young people down by not having enough centres for kids who believe that they are suffering from gender dysphoria, but there are those who disagree. I have heard from a senior mental health specialist that the lack of appointments is actually saving us from a tsunami. That specialist is not alone in that view, so perhaps clinics are not the answer; perhaps they are. Perhaps education is. Perhaps there could be a standard curriculum—a single piece on what this looks like practically. It would be just basics: “This is what a life can look like and how it can never be changed once medication starts.”

Let us also educate parents not just to say yes in order to keep the peace, but to be strong and get kids on the right path. Let us give teachers the ability to say no to this issue at school; they want to. They want to teach kids and watch them shine, not fall apart. And please let us stop with this blurring of lines and bending to every whim that a lobby group asks for. Let us ask ourselves why a lobby group wants to work in this space. Why does it want to put kids even as young as 10 on to puberty blockers, especially when it knows that most who do take puberty blockers end up on further drugs—leading to infertility, and facial hair for girls—and in a place where no one else is.

It has been said that people are taking their own lives because they are so confused prior to treatment. But these struggling individuals are taking their own lives after treatment, too, so that really is no answer. We have to protect our children while they are children.

The next problem is what happens in single-sex spaces. This is deeply concerning. If we were to work around it to make it work safely for women, which I believe would be imperative, the necessary changes to our buildings would cost billions of pounds. Why should a female prisoner have to share a prison with a man who identifies as non-binary or a trans person? Why should a lady have to share a changing room with a man? Why should a woman have to follow a pre-op trans woman into a toilet cubicle? Why should a girl at school have to get changed in front of a boy? Why should a girl have to share a dormitory with a boy? Whether the girls think that that is okay or not, I am sure that their mums and dads do not. I do not believe it is safe; I do not believe it is decent; and I do not believe it is right. Women are not only entitled to safe single-sex spaces; those spaces are also absolutely necessary. Society has been this way for centuries. It works, and it should not be casually put aside.

Sport is another issue. I am not the greatest sportsperson who has ever lived; I never have been, but I do understand competition, the feeling of winning, and wanting to strive to be the best. I speak in schools whenever I get the chance, and I encourage all children to aim high in life and not be frightened of competition. Am I to tell the girls in a school, “Don’t bother competing, because you’ll never stand on the podium at the highest level. The best you can hope for is second when you compete against a trans woman. Everyone will know you have won, but I’m afraid that gold medal is forever out of your reach”? That is wrong. Biology matters and biological sex is real. Men and women are built differently from birth, and remain different throughout their lives. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. To make non-binary a legal entity reaches beyond what many people can think of. That is why I cannot support the petition.

Am I being unfair? I do not think so. I am being, I hope, realistic. The vast majority of people in my constituency know that men and women exist and that they are different—they are male and female. There may be people who feel that their gender is non-binary, but they are all biological men and women. What is my response to the genuine concerns behind the petition? My first ask is: leave our kids alone. Kids have enough to cope with as it is. Let them decide when they are old enough and mature enough to make those decisions. I hear so much about complex families and complex lives, so let us not make them any more complex. That would be unwise.

While I am here, I want to speak to parents. If their child comes home with those concerns, they should talk to them but be strong. They should not ever give in to them or to peer pressure from other adults. Their child was born either a boy or a girl; they should be proud of who their child is and tell them to be proud too. Wherever their interests lie, parents should hope and encourage them. They should be part of their life and talk to them—talk to them all the time. However, parents should push back on this. Sometimes parents have to be cruel to be kid—children will thank their parents for that in the long run. I have one further thought on that. If children say that they are unhappy, think for a second about how unhappy they will be when their best friend is having a child and they cannot; when their best friends are dressing up beautifully and they are having to shave. What makes you sure that they will be happy then?

Single-sex spaces are exactly that, and they should stay that way. When an individual enters one of those spaces, their sex is what should matter, not their assumed gender or how they feel that given day. To endanger women, or even to make them feel uncomfortable, is not fair. Some surveys reportedly show that people are okay with that, but who has been asked and where were they asked? What were the questions and how were they phrased? Have they knocked on the doors in my constituency? I know the people there, and I know that they agree with me.

Turning to sport, again, it is just not right. Certain sports, such as rugby, may carry out risk assessments that exonerate them from joining this argument, but please shout up. Sport is sport, and if it is not fair, then it ain’t right. I ask the biggest voices in the arena—the sportsmen and women at the top of their game and the pundits, who have all earned their money from the public and say that they want to give back—not to blow in the wind but to use their position to speak out on this subject. That would truly be giving back, by giving every child a chance to have a great childhood and to dream big, as they did. They should speak as one voice and push back.

I have read many books on this subject of late, and spent much time trying to see a different side to this, but ruining young lives, making women feel unsafe and taking away the sporting ambitions of half the population just is not right.

I have one final argument. I have heard that this is what other countries have done, and therefore so should we. I do not represent another country; I represent this one, which I believe is by far the best. Do not tell me that England is a bad place; it is not. It has its issues, as all other countries do, but I truly believe that it is absolutely wonderful. We should never do something because another country has done it; we should do something because it is right.

I am afraid that I cannot back a movement that may rob a child of their life. I could never back a community who wanted to put a biological male in a female changing room. I will never back anyone who wants to put a biological male in a female sports event, be that at Wimbledon or on a school field. In all fairness, I do not think any of us should back that.

I may have come across quite strong. I feel that I have to. I started by saying that I want the community who feel non-binary to know that I of course accept that they exist—I see them, I hear them, I feel for them and I want to help them. I say to them, “We are a tolerant nation and we accept you as you are. At 18 we should be able to give you a person to talk to—someone who can help.” That we must do. Anyone who abuses that community needs taking to task. If an offence is committed, they should be prosecuted. However, I am afraid that the course of life, that a small minority wish to embrace, comes with far-reaching implications for the rest of society. As such, I am afraid that I cannot support the petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, which is an important one. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening it and for reflecting that people have told him that they feel they do not exist. That is a sentiment that we should reflect on as we go through the debate.

The petition has 189 signatures from East Renfrewshire. I am grateful to those people for signing it, and to those who took the time to speak to me and share their views. I am also grateful to a number of organisations that have provided briefing materials for the debate.

I think we need to get to the crux of the debate: what are we talking about, and why does it matter? I suspect that the hon. Member for Don Valley and I—I am sure that he will take this in the positive spirit that it is intended—do not have a lot in common in our outlook and views.

[Nick Fletcher]

indicated dissent.

[Kirsten Oswald]

He is shaking his head, so he agrees with me. However, I support what he said about the importance of tone in the discussion. I am not sure that anyone concerned about this at a personal level will have been particularly comfortable hearing the debate, but I absolutely support the hon. Member’s calls for a proper tone to be adopted. He also spoke about listening being important—we have to not only listen, but take in what we are being told.

It is welcome that we are having the debate. These kinds of conversations are well overdue. In my view, we should be on a journey to a situation in which it is an absolutely normal and unremarkable thing to accept people for who they are. We should not have to hear othering comments and we should not hear portrayals of non-binary people as a threat—that is not fair, helpful or accurate. I am uncomfortable with the notion expressed by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) that this is something we should consider in the context of its being a medical complaint or a concern that is related to people who are neurodiverse, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald]

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—I beg his pardon. I am glad he corrected me—I cannot read my own writing—but I did not agree with his assertion that there is some kind of issue with something like “non-binary” appearing on a drop-down menu. That should not be an issue for any of us. That costs us absolutely nothing, and it makes people feel more comfortable.

[Nick Fletcher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Kirsten Oswald]

If I could make some progress first, I will be delighted to let the hon. Member intervene.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said himself that words matter and that we need to set a good example in this place. He said that no MPs or peers were non-binary. I do not know that that is necessarily true, but if there were MPs or peers who identified as non-binary, I wonder how they would feel in this Chamber today. How comfortable would they be with the statements that their peers had made? I just put that back to those who have contributed, because I suspect that those people might feel quite uncomfortable.

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Member for letting me intervene. It is the implications that concern me. Most of my speech was built around the fact that if we give people this as a way forward, what will follow from it will change society as a whole. It may just be a drop-down menu to her, but to me it could change the way that young people grow up and the way that women identify themselves; basically, as we have said, we will erase women. It would also have a huge effect on the sports scene. It may just be a drop-down menu to her, but it is certainly not that to me.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I have to say to him that I am a woman and I am not going to be erased, and other people having the opportunity to have their identity respected is absolutely no threat to me or to my identity.

I wondered whether it was worth going back to consider the principles. Who are we talking about? Who are non-binary people? The hon. Gentleman has used the word “they” a few times. He may have a very clear picture of who he is referring to, but people who are listening or watching may not, so I think it is useful to explain that the term “non-binary people” reflects an incredibly diverse group of people—people who are undergoing various forms of social and medical transitions or none at all—and that not all of those whose views, lives or concerns are reflected here today would use the term “non-binary” to describe themselves. We are talking about a broad range of people.

The one thing that we can be sure of is that this is a group of people who are not currently recognised in the UK, and that presents them with challenges. The lack of legal recognition results in barriers. If they have a piece of identity documentation, as we all do, it may present differently from the way in which they present in their day-to-day lives. I think that all of us can understand that that might present a challenge. When we join a new workplace we have to present an identity document, and it must be a matter of concern for anyone whose identity document does not reflect their daily life. We do not need to agree with everything that has been said today to accept that that is a challenge and that perhaps we can find a better way.

I think that society in general is moving on this issue. We have heard a lot about young people. The young people I speak to have a much broader and open perspective on such issues than was the case many decades ago, when I was at school. At that time, LGBT people faced a difficult climate. My school was very large and it was thought that nobody there was gay—of course, that is complete nonsense, as I now know, because lots of people are gay. There was nothing wrong with the school, but the social climate was not accepting, so the situation was not okay for them.

That shows how we have moved on, and I think we are moving on further. Business and civic society are more open to the fact that we need to accommodate the needs of non-binary people, whether that is in employment, service provision or whatever. The fact that we cannot have this type of conversation about the barriers—never mind legal recognition—is a challenge.

Seventy-eight per cent of non-binary people have told TransActual that they do not have identification documents. That is a real challenge for them. How on earth do people go about their lives without having identification documents that align with their lived experience? How will that affect people socially, never mind things such as employment?

Other countries have moved further forward. The hon. Member for Don Valley reflected that in what he said. I think he said that England is the best country and that he supports the way things are done there. That is absolutely his perspective, but I think it is sensible for us to recognise that other countries around the world have a different perspective. Perhaps we should examine why that is the case and consider whether it has caused difficulties. It does not appear to be challenging in countries such as India, Nepal, New Zealand, Iceland and Taiwan—I could go on—for there to be a different and more open way of recording.

In considering how we go forward, it is key that we take on board the views and lived experience of those directly affected. The Women and Equalities Committee has done that. It produced a report on transgender equality in 2016, recommending a different option for gender recording on passports, with an X. It also suggested that consideration could be given to the removal of gender information from passports and that the UK Government should move towards non-gendering official records as a general principle. In its report on the GRA last December, the Committee asked the Government to clarify which barriers prevent them from allowing non-binary people to be legally recognised. These are reasonable and valid questions. I cannot emphasise enough the need for lived experience to be at the heart of these conversations.

To conclude, people who are non-binary and have a real stake in this kind of debate have had experiences with which that nobody in this Chamber would be comfortable. They have been refused services. They have poorer mental health than the rest of the population. They feel uncomfortable sharing their identity at work. More than half the people surveyed did not think that their identity would be respected. That is why we need to do more.

I am glad that the Scottish Government recognise the need to do more. They have a strong commitment to improving non-binary equality—for example, by recognising the need to end conversion practices. That provides a real contrast to the extraordinary pantomime that the UK Government have got themselves involved in over conversion practices. It is really disappointing that trans conversion support was missing from the Queen’s Speech.

The Scottish Government are also committed to advancing equal access to healthcare for LGBTI people and will also continue to use the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association rainbow index as a benchmark for action. By contrast, in 2018 the UK Government Equalities Office published an LGBT action plan in which it said that it would issue a call for evidence on the issues faced by non-binary people. The Minister may want to correct me, but I do not think that has been published, and we need to understand why.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke about these issues in February and noted that none of the UK Government’s proposals even acknowledged the identity or existence of non-binary people, and that that has to change. She was absolutely right. The Scottish Government appreciate that more still needs to be done, even though there are positives they have put in place, such as the working group on non-binary equality, which includes a focus on the lived experiences and voices of non-binary people. That has been done for reasons of fairness, wellbeing and the good of all of us. I am keen to hear the Minister’s response to the points I have raised.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am very grateful to the petitioners and to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening the debate.

This discussion has been of acute interest and importance to people who identify as non-binary. It is also important to be sensitive to the needs of those who describe themselves as intersex or as having differences in sex development. We must consider whether they would describe themselves as male, female or non-binary, and we must understand the differences in terminology when we discuss these issues. Everyone is different, and that is why it is essential that we discuss these matters in an atmosphere of respect, care and compassion. We will find solutions only by working together.

The background has already been set out. The Conservative Government maintain that they would reform the Gender Recognition Act. However, they are only determined to reduce the fee and put the process online. We have not seen progress on, for example, removing the spousal consent provision, which we discussed in this Chamber not so long ago. The Women and Equalities Committee and many respondents to the Government’s call for evidence called for change to provision for non-binary people.

The fundamental value for Labour when examining these issues is that of respect. We recognise the abuse that many non-binary identifying people have been subjected to—something rightly referred to by the petitioners. Furthermore, we recognise that this is a particularly visceral matter for those non-binary identifying people who may also describe themselves as biologically intersex or as having differences in sex development, as I will come on to later. Again, I appreciate that these categories are not used by everyone.

Labour has been clear that we must have far stronger measures against hate crimes, to which LGBT+ people are subject, and treat them as aggravated offences. That is surely necessary, given what appears to have been a doubling in reports of such appalling behaviour over the last five years. That is an area where I depart from the comments of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Don Valley. We believe that there needs to be a change in the law to treat those offences as aggravated, and we believe the same of offences against disabled people, who are also not protected in that way.

We also need to acknowledge that, of course, as well as gender, sex continues to play an important role in different areas of policy. As I have repeatedly made clear in my role as shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, sex is not the same thing as gender and both are important in different contexts. That difference is reflected in legislation. For example, as a woman I am an adult female—that is my biological sex. There are, of course, also trans women who have made a transition in their gender, and they deserve respect and dignity also.

[Nick Fletcher]

Would the hon. Member be happy with a trans woman entering a changing room and sharing facilities with her?

[Anneliese Dodds]

That is a slightly different question from the one I was discussing. I hope the hon. Member is aware of the fact that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has recently released guidelines on those matters. I may well already have shared such a changing room; very often, women’s changing rooms will have separate cubicles, and in any case, that is how people often choose to try on clothes. If the hon. Member is interested in that matter, he could look at the EHRC’s guidelines.

In the spirit of what I have just said, Labour urges the Government to focus on the treatment of non-binary people, and to especially focus on the need for research. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) referred to the fact that the Government’s LGBT 2018 action plan committed the Conservatives to launch separate calls for evidence on the issues faced by non-binary and intersex people. The Government appear to have contracted the National Institute for Economic and Social Research to investigate that area, but no research appears to have been carried out. The EHRC has also

“recommended that further understanding was needed before any legislation was brought forward”.

We believe that additional research is particularly important when it comes to those people who might describes themselves as intersex, or as having differences in sex development. That refers to the relatively small number of individuals who are born with any of several variations in biological sex characteristics—for example, in chromosomes or genitals—some of whom may describe themselves as intersex and some of whom may describe themselves as non-binary. I appreciate, again, that not everybody uses those categories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the petitioner for attending the debate. I hope that they feel we have had a good debate —I definitely feel it has been good. It is the sort of debate that we need more of; it has been respectful of all people involved, and I thank everyone for that. I thank the Minister for clarifying the prisons issue—that was good to hear. I would like to be included in any letter regarding puberty blockers, to ensure that it is confirmed that they are not being given to under-18s without serious consideration. I am sure the sporting world will make its own mind up, but it desperately needs to look at the issue before too long. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and all the people I spoke to prior to the debate. I hope that it has shed some light for everyone involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 580220, relating to legal recognition of non-binary gender identities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady has clearly not been at previous Trade questions. Britain has secured agreement in principle on free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, following deals with the European economic area and Japan that will maintain Britain’s high levels of environmental protection and facilitate trade in goods and services for those farmers.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to encourage foreign investment in South Yorkshire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)]

We are dedicated to facilitating international investment into all regions of the UK, including South Yorkshire, where we work with stakeholders across the region to identify and promote opportunities with high potential, including—my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear—one in Doncaster, focused on the rail sector.

[Nick Fletcher]

I have spoken to national and international companies about investment in Doncaster, mainly at two sites: DN7 at Thorne and GatewayEast around Doncaster Sheffield airport. I even personally managed to secure a visit to Doncaster from Apple’s UK representative; it was fantastic for him to come up. What steps has the Department taken to encourage international companies to invest in Doncaster?

[Mike Freer]

We have invested heavily and are building close relationships with the Mayor and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority to support investment into the region. Details of capital investment projects such as GatewayEast will soon be added to the investment atlas that was published as part of the global investment summit.

CPTPP

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for bringing this debate.

I welcome the UK’s accession to the CPTPP as the next step in the evolution of our post-Brexit trade policy. The agreement will strengthen the bilateral trade deals we have and our negotiation with other CPTPP members. Crucially, it will allow us to expand our increased international trade without compromising on our sovereignty. It is, above all, an economic agreement. While it requires some alignment in trading standards, as all trade deals do, it does not seek to impose political alignment. There are no common laws and where disagreements between states arise, they will be resolved by an ad hoc arbitration panel rather than permanent courts. With such a wide range of countries and economies, I do not think it could be any other way. I look forward to trading more closely with partners who understand that productive trade relationships do not require uniformity.

We will continue to have full control over our laws, money and borders, while improving access for UK goods and services around the world. Rules of origin under this agreement mean that some of our most important industries will benefit. For instance, car manufacturers in the UK can use Japanese parts; as long as the final product is 70% CPTPP-origin, it will qualify for preferential tariffs when exported to Canada. Scottish whisky, too, will see tariffs significantly reduced or eliminated, going from 165% to 0% in Malaysia.

Just as importantly, these are the economies expected to grow significantly in the coming years and decades. In just three years, between 2016 and 2019, the UK’s trade with CPTPP states grew by 8% annually. Joining the CPTPP now means that our small businesses will have preferential access to these economies, and the small and medium-sized business support included in the agreement means that they will be able to take full advantage.

However, acceding to the agreement is not purely an economic choice. Among the CPTPP members are states with whom we have increasing security ties—in particular, Australia and Japan. Close economic partnerships can only help our overall relationship with strategic partners.

Finally, the Government have shown that they are open to skilled immigration from people around the world. Through the CPTPP, business people will hopefully soon benefit from a quicker, less expensive visa process. In all, the UK has a lot to gain and to offer from joining the CPTPP, and I look forward to more trade deals with a diverse range of countries in the years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

Tech firms in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the UK will benefit from the opening of markets and the minimisation of barriers to trade, which will allow them to expand internationally, not least in the Asia-Pacific region. The joint DIT and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport digital trade network, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in June, will significantly improve our support for businesses from my hon. Friend’s constituency in that fast-growing part of the world.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to encourage foreign investment in Don Valley constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)]

My Department recorded 331 foreign direct investment projects in the northern powerhouse in 2019-20, creating or safeguarding more than 11,000 jobs. DIT is dedicated to supporting international investment into the UK, and it can be argued—in fact it is quite hard to argue against—that we are the most successful major economy in the world in attracting foreign direct investment to our shores. Our dedicated staff across the north work closely with partners in Yorkshire and Humber to attract new and existing investors, match them to opportunities and maintain our position of having more foreign direct investment than any other nation in Europe.

[Nick Fletcher]

Does the Minister agree that with all the new markets his Department is opening up for the UK, the Government must do all they can to support the many young entrepreneurs of Don Valley?

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How refreshing it is to have a representative in the Don Valley who cares about business and recognises that trade needs to look at the wide scope of issues but at its heart is about the economic benefit that it brings to local people. Again and again, in session after session of these questions, the Labour party focuses on everything other than the economic benefit—the jobs and prosperity—that trade brings. That is why this Government will continue to support entrepreneurs; the Opposition come up with complex and sophisticated arguments, but again and again they oppose the very measures that will help to ensure employment and prosperity for the people of this country.