Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

As the House is aware, the Government have provided their full support for the Bill throughout its passage. We believe that fundamentally everyone should be able to thrive in the workplace, without fear of harassment or violence, and the Bill helps to ensure that. The Government remain committed to this important piece of legislation and we hope it will continue to garner the strong cross-party support we have seen in its previous stages.

However, as with every new piece of legislation put before the House, we must be alive to any potential unintended consequences of changes in the law and seek to address those, where possible. There are concerns that the extension of protections against workplace harassment set out in the Bill, while entirely necessary, could inadvertently worsen the chilling effect on free speech in the workplace.

At present, under the Equality Act 2010, employers can already be considered vicariously liable for the harassment of an employee in the course of their employment, unless the employer can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from happening. Clause 1 of the Bill extends employer liability to also cover acts of harassment committed by third parties, such as customers or clients, if the employer fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent that harassment.

In 2018, the employment tribunal case of Sule v. Shoosmiths found the employer liable for harassment, following an incident when two employees were overheard within earshot of another colleague. There are concerns that such cases may cause some employers to feel under a duty to end or modify such conversations, in order to prove that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

Consequently, as a result of the Bill, it was feared that employers may take unreasonable or drastic measures to avoid liability for harassment of their staff, particularly by third parties, to the extent that they will feel obliged to shut down conversations conducted in their workplaces. That could include pubs seeking to prevent certain topics of discussion on their premises or universities cancelling or not inviting speakers to speak on matters that are considered controversial.

Therefore, the Government have tabled an amendment to the Bill to clarify to employers what is expected of them under the Bill, and the wider Equality Act 2010. We want the legislation to be clear, but while employers will be expected to take action against workplace harassment, those actions should fall short of prohibiting the conversation of others, subject to certain limitations that I will set out shortly.

The amendment is designed specifically to signal to employers and employment tribunals that in certain harassment cases, where the conduct concerns conversations where the claimant was not a participant, employers will not be expected to prevent the expression of opinion in order to avoid liability. Examples of cases where the claimant is not a participant could include overheard conversations or speeches not made directly to the claimant.

In those cases, an employment tribunal will not treat an employer as having failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent workplace harassment simply because they did not seek to prevent the expression of the opinion that formed part of the harassment claim. In other words, the amendment sets a ceiling on what can be considered reasonable steps for an employer. It does not seek to define what reasonable steps employers should take, but carves out one particular step that they are not expected to take.

The amendment will apply to cases of employee-on-employee harassment and cases of third-party harassment, with changes being made to both section 109(4) and section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 through amendments 3 and 4. Amendments 1 and 2 are simply consequential on amendments 3 and 4. However, a number of conditions all need to be met in order to trigger the amendment. Members can see those set out clearly in a list in proposed new subsections (1C) and (4A) in amendments 3 and 4 respectively. I hope Members will have the document to hand, as I will address each of the conditions in turn.

First, the amendments will apply only where the harassment is related to a protected characteristic and has taken place in the course of the claimant’s employment. That means it will not apply to cases of sexual harassment or less favourable treatment because one has either submitted or failed to submit to sexual harassment, or harassment related to sex or gender reassignment, as described in section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. Secondly, as I have set out above, the harassment must involve a conversation in which the claimant is not a participant or a speech that is not specifically aimed at them. Thirdly, the conversation or speech must contain the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter. That would exclude, for example, opinions on individual employees. Fourthly, the opinion expressed must not be indecent or grossly offensive.

Finally, the harassment must not be intentional. Under the Act, harassment is defined as unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile environment or violating a person’s dignity. The amendment will capture only cases where the harassment was not found to be intentional, as per the definition in section 26(1) of the 2010 Act. These limitations are intended to ensure that employers are not discouraged from taking steps to prevent extreme conduct, such as racial slurs or rape jokes, under the amendment. The Government are clear that such behaviour is not acceptable. The amendment is about protecting legitimate and appropriate workplace discussions, not targeted and grossly offensive remarks, or any form of sexual harassment. I should also be clear that the amendment will not affect the new duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, as introduced in clause 2 of this Bill, which remains a key tenet of the Bill, as originally drafted.

To conclude, let me reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill and its important provisions. The employer duty and third-party harassment protections introduced by clauses 1 and 2 deliver against two Government commitments made in our national strategy for tackling violence against women and girls. They have widespread public and stakeholder support, and will ultimately improve working culture across this country. Amendment 1 does not detract from that. It provides what we believe is a necessary clarification of the expectations that this Bill and the wider Equality Act place on employers in relation to workplace harassment. We hope it will assist employers and employment tribunals in the accurate implementation of the new legislation and, in doing so, safeguard our vital right to free speech. The Government greatly welcomes the fact that the Bill’s sponsor, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), has signed her name in support of the amendment. We hope that other Members will agree with our making this change and see the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

This Bill cannot be allowed to fall. It will make a huge difference to the lives of many people in the workplace and will help to provide a cultural shift in attitudes towards appropriate behaviours at work. The Government’s amendment will not impinge on the protections from sexual harassment in the Bill, which will be so important to many women across the country—although of course sexual harassment is not faced only by women. I have also been assured that the amendment should not stop employers prohibiting targeted, indecent or grossly offensive conversations in the workplace, meaning employees will still be protected from third-party workplace harassment.

After taking advice from the Fawcett Society and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I have concluded that I should get behind the Government’s amendments, because the overall aims of the Bill are so important and it is important that it is put into statute. As a Liberal, of course I do not want important political conversation to be shut down in the workplace; people should be free to express an opinion. However, we should be careful to ensure that expressing an opinion does not become a defence for harassment.

I was slightly disappointed that the Government tabled their amendments after Committee had concluded. That led to an enormous rush, and it was quite difficult to consult with everybody, but as I said, I have been assured and have concluded that it is the right way to progress with the Bill, and I support the amendment.

I urge the Government to listen to the concerns of the EHRC, which argues that the amendments could be more targeted and limited, and the National Alliance of Women’s Organisations, which worries that the amendments risk diluting these changes, which seek to make workplaces safer, fairer and more respectful not just for women but for everybody. I hope the Government will commit to ensuring the Bill’s smooth passage into law, working with all stakeholders who have voiced their concerns.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill and the amendments that the Government have tabled, with the support of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I recognise that, despite the Equality Act, we have a significant problem in our culture and our society: too many people are the victim of unacceptable and outrageous harassment, intimidation and abuse in their workplace, particularly sexual harassment. I recognise the powerful points that the hon. Member for Bath made. The problem arises largely because this harassment frequently goes unreported because it is ignored by employers.

We have a significant problem in the culture, so the question arises, what can the law do about it? I want to speak in support of the amendments that the Government have tabled but also raise some concerns about the drift in legislation that we have embarked on. I very much recognise the responsibility that employers have to set the atmosphere and to create the culture.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me put this absurd suggestion to the Minister: what if the crowd at a football match were to chant or to shout, “You’re blind,” at the ref, and a partially sighted steward, hot-dog seller or some other employee of the stadium were to hear that? Surely they would be entitled to at least make a claim under this Act. If not, I would be grateful for that confirmation. I very much applaud and recognise the amendment that has been introduced, and I wish to finish by confirming my support. There is a whole list of criteria that is now required for the Act to be enforceable. I am not totally clear about that, but I think I heard the Minister list all the criteria.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Perhaps I could advise the hon. Gentleman that the EHRC will give guidance to employers to help them get through these issues. We are waiting for the guidance, which will be published shortly. I advise him to look at that guidance.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank the hon. Member for that advice. I will look forward to that guidance, as I have great faith in that commission under its present chair to make sensible guidance.

For the sake of clarity, is it the case that the list of criteria—the eligibility for the law to be triggered—are individual criteria, so that if any of these criteria are not met, then the law does not apply? Or is it that every single one of them must be met for an employer to be exempt from the operations of the Act? I fear that if they are all required to be met, that is a very high bar for employers to get over, and I would rather it was just any of them being met.

I end by expressing my concern about how, increasingly, the spirit of our law is simply declaratory. We decide that something is bad in our society and we pass a law saying that it is bad and that it should not happen, and we expect that to work. What we need to consider in drafting and passing legislation is the actual effect of the law on the people who will be responsible for enforcing it, given the culture and the effect of the culture on the law. The law is a teacher, and we must be aware of the attitudes, the spirits, the fears and the politics, including the increasingly transgressive politics, of people with power our country’s public life and about how they will use the laws that we are passing. In future times, what will be done with laws such as this? I would be grateful to the Minister if she could reassure me on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

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

The Bill has a simple aim: to create respectful workplaces free from harassment where employees feel valued and supported. Today, we can move a step closer to that by creating an employer’s responsibility to clamp down on harassment. I start by thanking the Fawcett Society and the Government Equalities Office officials who have supported me throughout the Bill’s progression. My thanks go also to the Women and Equalities Committee, whose 2018 report into workplace harassment set the wheels in motion for the Bill. There has been vital cross-party support to ensure this important legislation progresses. I hope that spirit of consensus continues today. It will send a clear signal from us here in Parliament that workplace harassment must end.

The Bill focuses on strengthening protections against workplace sexual harassment and introduces protections against more general harassment by third party actors. Workplace sexual harassment is widespread and under-reported. It continues to be a stain on our society. Half of all British women and a fifth of men have been sexually harassed at work or place of study. A TUC survey suggested 79% of women did not report their experience of sexual harassment. Too many people suffer in silence partly because they feel unable to report it. Reporting can have severe career and reputational implications. Employers must shoulder some responsibility for that. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that in nearly half of cases where employees made a report, the employer did nothing, minimised the incident, or placed the responsibility on the employee to avoid the harasser.

The impact of harassment in the workplace has devastating consequences on health, morale, and, last but not least, performance. Current harassment laws mean employers often adopt individualised responses to institutional problems. This allows employers to minimise harassment, causing confusion around appropriate responses. For things to improve, we must shift the focus from redress to prevention. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found in 2018 that a minority of employers had effective processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment. Employers should have a moral and legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment from happening. The Bill will force them to act.

Clause 2 will impose a new duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from experiencing workplace sexual harassment. It will not require employers to do anything substantially more than what they already should be doing to avoid legal liability for harassment carried out by their employees. However, if employers have failed to take those actions, they could face further enforcement action through an uplift to the total compensation awarded at an employment tribunal, or through the EHRC’s strategic enforcement. That should encourage employers to improve their workplace practices and culture to discourage sexual harassment.

The new duty will operate through dual enforcement. First, the EHRC may take enforcement action for a breach or suspected breach of the duty under its strategic enforcement policy. That would mean employees would be able to inform the EHRC of any concerns without necessarily having to take forward legal action against their employers themselves. Secondly, the employer’s duty will be enforceable by the employment tribunal in individual cases. Where the employment tribunal has found in favour of an individual claim of sexual harassment and has ordered compensation to be paid, the tribunal will examine whether and to what extent the duty has been breached. Where a breach of the duty is found, tribunal judges will have the power to order an uplift of up to 25% of the compensation.

The Bill will also introduce explicit protections against third-party harassment in the workplace—this is where the amendments are most relevant. Clause 1 would make employers liable for the harassment of their staff by third parties such as customers and clients, where they have failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such harassment. These protections will apply to all acts of third-party harassment in the workplace, not just sexual harassment. Once again, there will be a system of dual enforcement.

A claim of third-party harassment could be brought after a single incident of harassment. That replaces the previous three strikes formulation, whereby employers needed to know of two previous incidents of third-party harassment before they could be considered liable. However, liability can arise only if an employer has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. The Government Equalities Office will support the EHRC in creating a statutory code of practice on sexual harassment and harassment in the workplace, to support employers to implement the changes that will come into force 12 months after Royal Assent.

There is plenty of opportunity for employers to make themselves well informed of the changes and ensure that they can implement them. There will be a consultation as well. There is plenty of time to further consider people’s concerns on all sides. I encourage all Members to make themselves very knowledgeable about the changes and the guidance that will be provided shortly.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. It is important that we trust the organisation that will design the regulations. Does that not mean, if we are essentially outsourcing the definitions that will be implemented under this law, that a future regime at the Equality and Human Rights Commission may come up with different guidance that will be much stricter than what we are passing today?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Perhaps we should trust ourselves a little more. This Bill is not about heavy penalties on people but about creating workplaces where everybody feels valued. I am sure that everybody across this House will support that. That is the aim of the Bill, not to create huge penalties for employers now.

We all need to acknowledge where harassment takes place. As we heard from the Minister, we all need sometimes to recognise that someone’s banter is another person’s harassment. To create and develop sensitivity to how people feel about things, and to have conversations in the workplace where we can be open to talk about these things, will lead to the workplace that I would like to see in future. I have some confidence that in the end, we will all be supportive of that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns will be addressed; he will see the guidance that is being created and that it is about all reasonable steps being taken. It is, in many ways, about common sense—what is a reasonable step and what is an unreasonable step. I am sure that we can all move forward together.

There is plenty of time to look at the code of practice. I encourage everyone to make themselves knowledgeable. It will be based on the technical guidance that the Equality and Human Rights Commission published 2020, and will be introduced as the new legislation comes into force. The EHRC will have a duty to consult on the code of practice in advance. In the meantime, the Government’s Equalities Office has produced guidance, which they will publish in due course.

The Government tabled amendment 3 to clause 1, which means that, where harassment relates to a protected characteristic, employers will not be expected to prevent the expression of an opinion to avoid liability, where certain conditions are met. The conditions are where the harassment involves a conversation in which the claimant is not a participant, or a speech that is not aimed specifically at them; where the conversation or speech contains the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter; where the opinion expressed is not indecent or grossly offensive; and where the harassment is not intentional. The amendment will not apply in cases of sexual harassment.

Workplace harassment should be seen as an epidemic, and it is time that we treat it in that way. During flu season, employers do not wait for employees to get sick: they proactively invest in and implement evidence-based prevention measures to keep workplaces healthy and productive. This Bill encourages the same focus on prevention to tackle harassment. I therefore call on the House to support my Bill, which will enshrine in law historic measures to protect employees against workplace harassment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for introducing this important Bill. She rightly says the levels of harassment in our workplace today are a stain on society and unacceptable in these times. I first want to make it absolutely clear that this Bill is very important and desperately needed, as I know Members across the House agree.

As I set out on Second Reading, about half of all women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace according to the TUC, and according to the Government Equalities Office around 80% of women who have faced harassment do not go on to report it. This harassment harms not only their prospects, progression and confidence in the workplace, but their mental and physical health. It is, frankly, an experience nobody should ever have to face. That is why the Labour party supported the Bill on Second Reading and supported it without amendment in Committee, to get it on to the statute book as soon as possible.

However, we are frustrated and deeply disappointed by the amendment the Government have tabled at the last minute. It was laid without any prior consultation with any group from the women and equalities sector, without any mention during the Bill’s previous stages, and with just a week’s notice before today’s debate. We believe it significantly waters down protections against harassment in the workplace, absolving employers of liability and letting perpetrators off the hook in certain circumstances. It is also particularly disappointing given that since 2021 the Government have given the impression to women and equalities organisations that they have changed their minds on the scrapping of employer liability for third parties in 2013. That is an important point. While the legislation as proposed is a lot stronger, the protection on third-party liability in the workplace did exist in the Equality Act 2010 before it was repealed in 2013 by the coalition Government.

The Government had given the impression to women and equalities organisations that they had changed their mind on scrapping employer liability and had listened to the Women and Equalities Committee 2018 inquiry, and their response to the consultation findings seemed to make it clear that Ministers were committed to introducing the measures set out in this Bill, so what has changed and why did they not make their position on this matter clear on Second Reading? Why did they not consult on it with third sector organisations including the Fawcett Society, the EHRC and the TUC, who have been blindsided by this amendment?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but after consulting with the EHRC and the Fawcett Society I have come to the conclusion that the overall aim of the Bill will not be compromised by the amendment. I am supporting the amendment, therefore, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I hope he will clarify that he supports the Bill overall.

[Imran Hussain]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady will know that, of course, our position is to support the Bill, because weaker legislation is better than none at all, but she will understand that at the heart of our point is the message that we send by watering down the Bill. Although, as hon. Members have argued, the amendment itself would not facilitate harassment, it would send a message and could create a culture. That could lead down a slippery slope towards harassment. On that basis, we are absolutely clear that the amendment is a watering down of the measures. I understand the hon. Lady’s predicament, which she has set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

With the leave of the House, I thank everybody here today for their support. This is a debating Chamber, and it is important that views and concerns can be expressed. I hear both sides, and I hear the concerns that this measure will stifle people just expressing an opinion. As I said, I am a liberal; I think it is important that people can express their opinions. The main thing is that we are creating respectful workplaces.

In response to the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), I understand the frustration about diluting the spirit of the Bill, but the sexual harassment provisions in the Bill are not being diluted; the amendments relate to other forms of harassment. I hope that by having these debates across the House we can ultimately come to a consensus on the right thing to do, because our workplaces will be better if we create ones that are free of harassment, where people are much more productive. I am sure that employers will get behind the spirit of the Bill.

It has been encouraging to see the widespread support for the Bill. I would like to thank again the Government Equalities Office, the Women and Equalities Committee, the TUC, the Fawcett Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the wider alliance of organisations that have campaigned and worked towards change for a long time to make this Bill a reality.

We have turned a blind eye to workplace harassment for too long. This Bill will help to prevent harassment, protect victims and change the culture around victim blaming. Obviously, the Bill is not enough on its own to tackle workplace harassment, and I reiterate that the Government need to consider the concerns of the “This Is Not Working” alliance and the EHRC. However, it is an important step in the right direction, and I hope it will continue to get the support it deserves; our workplaces will be better for it. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 2 to 6 stand part.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Paisley. Before I go through the details of the Bill, I thank the Minister and Committee members for joining me to examine the Bill. I also thank the Government’s Equalities Office and the Fawcett Society for their excellent work and support over recent months. It is wonderful to see such cross-party co-operation to ensure that this important legislation makes progress.

Workplace sexual harassment is a blight on our society. It remains widespread and vastly under-reported. Half of British women and a fifth of men have been sexually harassed at work or a place of study. Too many people have been left to suffer for too long. The question of whether employers have taken adequate steps to prevent sexual harassment arises only as a defence if an incident of sexual harassment has already occurred. Employers are therefore not required to take actions to prevent sexual harassment. That leaves individuals with the burden of challenging it.

The Bill, which passed its Second Reading last month, introduces two new measures to strengthen protections for employees against harassment. The first is the introduction of explicit protections for employees from workplace harassment by third parties, such as customers and clients. The second is the introduction of a duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from experiencing sexual harassment.

I now turn to the Bill’s substance, covering each of the six clauses. Clause 1 creates employers’ liability for harassment of their employees by third parties. In particular, the clause amends section 40 of the Equality Act 2010, which already makes it unlawful for an employer to harass their employees or their job applicants, by inserting proposed new subsections 1A and 1B.

Proposed new subsection 1A will make an employer liable if they fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment of their staff from third parties in the course of their employment. That includes all types of harassment under the Equality Act, including racial harassment and harassment in relation to sexual orientation, as well as sexual harassment. Proposed new subsection 1B defines a third party as someone other than the employer or a fellow employee. That would include customers or clients. In practice, therefore, employers will now be legally required to consider the harassment risks that third parties may pose in their workplaces, and to take steps to protect their staff.

No other conditions are attached to the third-party protection, and an employee will be able to bring a claim for third-party harassment after a single incident of harassment. The Bill therefore does not replicate the repealed “three strikes” formulation in the pre-2013 version of section 40 of the Equality Act, under which employers needed to know of two previous incidents of third-party harassment before they could be considered liable. The rationale is that there should be no distinction between being harassed by a colleague or a client when it comes to the legal liability of employers and to employees seeking recourse. The measure will also provide better clarity for both employers and employees, and avoid the unnecessary complexity arising from the “three strikes” formulation. The third-party harassment protection will be enforceable in two ways: first, by individuals bringing claims to the employment tribunal; and secondly, by the Equality and Human Rights Commission using its existing powers.

In cases where individuals are willing and able to bring claims to the employment tribunal, claims of third-party harassment will be considered in the usual way for work-related Equality Act claims. Compensation in such cases will be decided by the employment tribunal in the same way as existing Equality Act claims, which involve considering a number of factors, including financial loss and “injury to feelings”.

Clause 2 inserts new section 40A into the Equality Act to create a new duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. The phrase “all reasonable steps” is well understood as it is a statutory defence in section 109 of the Equality Act. Employers currently can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment or discrimination of their employees when defending such claims and will therefore be familiar with the concept. The provision is to make sure that employers will quickly get behind this legislation.

The Bill will not define “all reasonable steps” because what could be considered reasonable will vary between employers, taking into account factors such as their size, sector and specific circumstances. Tribunals are adept at applying the concept, which ensures that employers can take a proportionate approach appropriate for their circumstances. All that is to ensure that everyone—employees and employers—can get behind this legislation because it is about a culture change in our society.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on getting her Bill to this stage.

On the point about culture change, I should say that a few weeks ago a 16-year-old in my constituency came to see me about negative behaviour from boys and men, including rape jokes that the adults around her and her friends just dismissed as “boys will be boys”. That is the sort of thing that happens in the workplace, too. Does the hon. Lady agree that the earlier we educate boys about how to treat girls, the less likely they are to become men who mistreat women in the workplace?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Absolutely—this legislation should be a step in the right direction towards culture change. That cannot start too early; obviously, by the time someone is in the workplace they might already have started to take the wrong attitudes. Whenever we talk about sexual harassment, we always mention the importance of education and of starting early and understanding relationships and consents. That is the most important thing. We do not want legislation that creates a lot of criminals and offenders; it should encourage people to do the right thing and to have the right behaviour in all places in society, including the workplace.

The question of whether an action is reasonable is also familiar in domestic civil law: more specifically, in the Equality Act—for example, the duty on employers and service providers to make “reasonable adjustments” for disabled people. To help employers understand what is expected of them, the Government will be supporting the Equality and Human Rights Commission to develop a statutory code of practice on workplace harassment. A breach of the new duty will be enforceable in two ways. First, it will constitute an unlawful act under the Equality Act 2006, and therefore be enforceable by the Equality and Human Rights Commission under its existing powers. There are already good and reasonable laws in place, but sometimes people may not know that they exist. Employees in particular may not know that they have recourse to them. This legislation also reinforces our campaign to make sure that everyone knows their rights.

The EHRC may undertake strategic litigation, investigation and enforcement activity for any suspected breach of the new employer duty, regardless of whether an individual has submitted a legal claim to the employment tribunal. That is an important change, because previously that was not possible. The EHRC can act on its own behalf. That enforcement route removes the onus from the individual, who may not wish to bring legal action against their employer, and enables an employer’s systemic non-compliance with the duty to be addressed by other means. Again, that is about empowering our workforce to understand their rights and to ensure that the onus is not always on the individual. Secondly, the duty is enforceable by individuals bringing claims to an employment tribunal in certain circumstances. Clauses 3 and 4 set out the details of the duty’s enforcement.

Clause 3 amends section 120 of the Equality Act, which sets out areas where employment tribunals have jurisdiction to determine when a complaint is made. The clause provides that a claim for a breach of the duty cannot be brought as a stand-alone claim to an employment tribunal. That means that tribunals cannot consider individual claims for a breach of the employer duty, other than in cases where a sexual harassment claim has been upheld. The rationale is that to allow otherwise would risk broadening and complicating the duty’s scope beyond the intentions of the policy. For example, it might enable someone to bring a claim that simply challenges a company’s perceived inadequate policy or training. This risks creating uncertainties for employers and undermining the policy aims.

Clause 4 concerns the compensation awarded by an employment tribunal for a breach of the new employer duty. It inserts new section 124A into the Equality Act. It provides a new remedy for breaches of the employer duty in cases where the tribunal has upheld a claim involving sexual harassment and ordered compensation to be paid. The new section provides that the employment tribunal must consider whether and to what extent an employer has also breached the new duty created by clause 2. As a result, the duty will be considered automatically by an employment tribunal following any successful sexual harassment claim where compensation was awarded.

In practice, that means that in each sexual harassment case brought to the employment tribunal where the tribunal has found in favour of the victim and awarded compensation, it must then consider whether there has also been a breach of the employer duty—whether the employer failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from occurring. That would also include cases of third-party sexual harassment.

If the tribunal finds that a breach of duty has occurred, the employment tribunal judge may order an uplift of up to 25% of the compensation awarded. The exact amount of the compensation uplift is at the tribunal’s discretion, but it must reflect the gravity of the breach. This means that the tribunal’s decision will consider the specific circumstances of each workplace and avoid overall disproportionate awards.

Clause 5 relates to the enforcement of the new employer duty by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It makes some consequential amendments to ensure that the Equality Act 2006 works properly with the new duty.

Clause 6 provides that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland. It does not extend to Northern Ireland, where employment law and equal opportunities are devolved. It also sets out that the Bill will come into force one year from the day it is passed, which will ensure that employers have sufficient time to understand the new legislation and take any appropriate action to comply with the new measures before they are enforced.

Employers will be supported in this transition through the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s new statutory code of practice on workplace harassment, which will improve employers’ ability to engage with their existing duties and help them to understand whether they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. The Government also plan to publish their own advice for employers in due course.

We have turned a blind eye to workplace sexual harassment for far too long. This Bill will help to prevent harassment, protect victims and change the culture around victim blaming. Obviously, the Bill is not enough on its own to tackle workplace sexual harassment. However, it is a step in the right direction in protecting employees from harassment at work. I hope it will continue to get the support it deserves. I thank all members of the Committee, the Government Equalities Office and the Government for supporting the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

If the woman involved is a woman of colour, gay, disabled, or a migrant—she may be all four—she is likely to feel an even heavier weight on her shoulders due to the intersectional nature of sexual harassment. Among some of those worst affected by sexual harassment are ethnic minority LGBTQ+ women, over half of whom have reported unwanted touching.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Member for her powerful speech. Does she agree that the new provision in the Bill that individuals do not need to go through an employment tribunal procedure and can have recourse to the law in other ways is an important step forward?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Absolutely. I think it will go some way to addressing some of the issues I have outlined about women not wanting to go through the very difficult process of proving what has happened, and they will be treated more fairly. That is the justification for the Bill, so I absolutely agree.

I know quite a lot about this topic, but when I was researching the Bill the scale of sexual harassment experienced by sections of the workforce really shocked me as I read the statistics. Half of women and seven out of 10 LGBTQ+ workers have experienced some form of sexual harassment at work. That affects workers across industries, including retail, the NHS and financial firms—and right here in Parliament, as we know. We cannot pretend for any longer that sexual harassment is an individual concern that can be responded to ad hoc. As the statistics tell us, we face an institutional problem that requires an institutional response.

For years now, we have been encouraging victims of assault to speak up. That was the very crux of the #MeToo movement. We need to continue this work so that everyone feels able to report harassment, and we should not wait for people to become victims and perpetrators before we act. The reality is that the most powerful weapon we have against sexual harassment is prevention. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for setting out in the Bill the duty of care that the employers have to their employees. I am grateful that she is proposing an entrenched enforcement of this duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wantage made an observation about how rape jokes were just treated as part of the culture and a bit of banter. For someone who has a young daughter, it really does fill me with dread to think that rape jokes have become part of culture. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth is right to say that the victim looks like a person who cannot enjoy a joke or be light-hearted about it, but it is not light-hearted for people who have experienced something like that or know people who have and know the reality on the ground. There needs to be culture change.

I am grateful that this Committee is not all women, because I do not think it is just the responsibility of women to make advances on legislation like this. I am glad there are men in the room, and I am glad they are being supportive.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not true that men can often feel quite uncomfortable but also feel like they have to be in it together? Does she agree that the Bill will strengthen men in their attitudes towards women?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The truth is that this is about culture change—and legislative change. I am grateful for the Bill because it empowers employers to take their duty of care to their employees seriously. Employees will respond by returning increased profits, productivity and motivation, so it will help the workforce economically as well—for anyone who doubts the importance of such measures.

The Bill on its own will of course not achieve the transformation that all workers need. This is not a silver bullet—I am sure the hon. Member for Bath agrees—because much more remains to be done. The Labour party is committed to creating safe, equal and fair workplaces where everyone succeeds, regardless of their gender or background. Among other things, the Labour party has been working on its new deal for working people. In that policy, we hope to tackle workplace discrimination and inequalities as a priority.

The Bill sponsored by the hon. Lady is the chance to make some progress right now. We owe that to victims of sexual harassment. Over the years, many of us have said, “Me too!” When the movement emerged, I was so shocked, because nearly every friend I spoke to and every family member turned around to say to me, “Me too!” I wondered whether I had met even one person who had not had that experience. That is a shocking statistic, which I hope we can change as we move forward.

The Bill is what we owe to our workers, present and future, and to our children. It heartens me to see so much cross-party support. Once again, I applaud the hon. Member for Bath for using the opportunity; she could have chosen any topic under the sun, but she chose this topic. I applaud her for championing it.

[The Chair]

Before I put the final question to report the Bill to the House, I offer the sponsor of the Bill the opportunity to say a few thank yous.

[Wera Hobhouse]

My first thank you is to you, Mr Paisley, as Chair of the Committee. I again thank all members of the Committee, the Minister, the Government Equalities Office and everyone who has campaigned to ensure that this important change in the law goes forward. I look forward to further co-operation and further steps in the right direction to ensure that harassment of all sorts—as the Minister pointed out—is ultimately a thing of the past. We have a long way to go, but today is a good day and in the right direction.

[The Chair]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on sponsoring the Bill and getting it to this stage.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Abuse and Deaths in Secure Mental Health Units

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive question about the issues we face. He is absolutely right to say that systemic failings were identified, and as I have said, at this stage I have not said no to a public inquiry. We need urgently to address these issues, and ensure that, nationally, the same failings are not happening across the board. My concern about a public inquiry is the time that such inquiries take, and whether a rapid review would be more appropriate. I will make that decision in the coming days once advice has been taken. Nationally, some work is being done. For example, the Care Quality Commission is introducing a new approach into how it undertakes inspections. As with maternity services, one concern I have is that the CQC can do an inspection and rate a service as good, yet soon afterwards incidents are happening. I want to be satisfied that the CQC inspection process and the new approach it is taking will address issues and flag them as quickly as possible.

The National Mental Health Director wrote to every mental health and learning disability trust on 30 September, to ask them urgently to review their services in light of the findings we are seeing. The Secretary of State and I will meet her soon to follow up on that. NHS England is also reviewing everyone with a learning disability or autistic people in long-term segregation mental health in-patient units, because they are extremely vulnerable patients who may not have the ability to speak out when there are problems. I also want to look at whistleblowing, and support staff who want to flag problems but may not feel confident in doing so. We need to look at range of areas, but I very much take my hon. Friend’s points and I will look into the petition urgently today.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Mental health services are overstretched not only in hospitals but in those services that provide support before patients become so ill that they need to go into hospital. What are the Government doing to support the very overstretched early intervention services?

[Maria Caulfield]

As I highlighted to the Father of the House, we are increasing the mental health workforce dramatically, with 27,000 extra mental health workers in the system. We have already increased those numbers this year, compared with last year. We are also providing self-referral mechanisms for patients. For psychological and talking therapies patients can now refer themselves without having to go and see a GP, and more than 1 million patients have taken up that offer. I fully agree with the hon. Lady that early intervention is a key factor, and we are supporting early intervention services so that patients can access them more easily and we have the staff to make that happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend for promoting the great opportunities for British food and drink. The Royal Welsh show is a great institution and I am sure that everyone on the Government side of the House thanks Steve Hughson for his endeavours.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

11. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support small and medium-sized enterprises trading with the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Andrew Griffith)]

Small and medium-sized businesses make up a huge part of Britain’s economy, accounting for over 60% of employment and more than half of all turnover from the UK private sector. The Department for International Trade is doing all it can to help businesses overcome the barriers that the protectionist bloc of the European Union now imposes when consumers seek to buy goods from elsewhere in the world.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The only thing that Brexit has brought for many small businesses in Bath is increased costs, paperwork and border delays, as has been confirmed by the Public Accounts Committee—more barriers, not less. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. Will the Government please reintroduce the SME Brexit support fund, with a simplified application process and a significantly expanded remit?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am proud of the endeavours of my colleagues and those in local enterprise partnerships up and down the UK in disbursing the £38 million internationalisation fund to support businesses as we go through some of the changes that result from leaving the European Union and seek opportunities elsewhere in the world. I will of course undertake to look at any way we can make it simpler for small businesses, in particular, to engage with the Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T3. Only one in 10 British firms trades overseas, and exports are falling. Many of my Bath businesses have suffered significantly as a result. What steps is the Department taking to increase exports with the EU, our closest neighbour and, in the past, our biggest trading partner?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am sorry to hear that the exports of the hon. Lady’s local businesses are falling. That is not the general experience in the UK; the value of exports was up 9% in the 12 months to the end of March. If she would like, I will write to her with the comprehensive set of measures that I hope she and other hon. Members will take the summer months to promote to small businesses in their constituencies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend raises this issue because, of course, our trade and partnership agreement was originally signed as one of the first continuity agreements back in 2019, but the Prime Minister announced last year that we would begin talks with Israel on an enhanced and improved UK-Israel free trade agreement. We have had a consultation, and I look forward to taking that work forward to boost our trade and investment relationship and to make sure the further ambitions of both nations are secured.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T7. Since Brexit, many UK companies have stopped exporting to the EU altogether, whatever the Minister is trying to sell us. The situation has become even worse for many of my small businesses in Bath since the closure of the SME Brexit support fund. Will the Government consider introducing a new version of that fund?

[Mike Freer]

I would direct the hon. Lady’s businesses to contact the export support service, which provides practical assistance in overcoming particular issues. On top of that, we also have the internationalisation fund, the shared prosperity fund and the trade access programme. Picking on one pot that is no longer available misses the point. A whole range of financial support pots are available to businesses. If she would like directions to those pots, I am more than happy to write to her.

Transgender Conversion Therapy

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Puberty blockers are not irreversible—the hon. Member is right. The fact of blocking puberty may mean that the individual does not subsequently go through it, but she is right in the sense that puberty blockers were invented for a different purpose than the treatment of gender dysphoria. They absolutely should be dispensed where appropriate, but they should not be used as a way of treating gender dysphoria without someone’s having gone through the therapeutic care pathway.

The real issue here is the provision of hormone treatment, which is now routinely dispensed to people from the age of 16. Again, the impacts of those things are irreversible. We see a generation of trans men who have desisted and will now have a loss of sexual function, permanent facial hair and male pattern baldness. A more sophisticated way of allowing them to explore their gender would mean that they do not go through such things.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is the hon. Member not making a mistake by confusing what we are here to discuss banning? We are here to discuss banning pseudo-practices. We are not aiming to ban NHS therapies and practices that are conducted by professional medical experts; we are looking at banning conversion therapy, which is pseudo-scientific, often takes place in private settings and is not controlled.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I think the hon. Member is actually agreeing with my general thesis, which is that we should not use the term “therapy” in the Bill. Legitimate care pathways are exactly the things we should be ensuring that people can access, so that they get the right decision for them. As we know, if people cannot access those pathways through the national health service, there is a wild west out there on the internet, and people will start getting very harmful interventions that are not properly supervised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

At last the Government have proposed, and will bring forward, a conversion therapy Bill. I welcome that—it is progress. After all, I tabled a private Member’s Bill to ban conversion therapy in the last Parliament. However, the detail of the Government’s proposal is more than disappointing. The ban will protect people from therapies aimed at changing their sexual orientation, but therapies aimed at changing people’s gender identity will not be banned. If the Government recognise the harm that these cruel and medieval practices cause one group of people, why do they exclude the group that is the most harmed?

Trans people are twice as likely as the rest of the LGBT+ community to be subjected to conversion practices. A recent survey found that gender conversion practices, far from working, create lifelong, deeply traumatic consequences for survivors. Nearly half of respondents said that every aspect of their life, from their mental health to peer and family relationships, had considerably worsened. We all know that, all too often, the catastrophic mental ill health that is suffered leads to loss of life.

Gender conversion therapy is purposefully harmful and repressive. It targets already vulnerable people, and does so overwhelmingly at a very young age. Three quarters of those who have undergone conversion therapy were under the age of 24. Some began as early as the age of 12. These so-called therapies or practices include verbal abuse, isolation, physical abuse and, perhaps most disturbingly, “corrective” rape. For the exclusion of any doubt, we are not talking about professional medical treatment and therapy.

[Hywel Williams]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that therapeutic and counselling interventions in these situations have to be non-directive, and that that per se excludes anything that has a predetermined purpose, as we are discussing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I totally agree. What is damaging about all these practices is that they have an outcome before they even start. That is why they are so damaging.

[Layla Moran]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if we end up not banning all forms of conversion therapy, all it will do is encourage families to go further underground to seek practices, particularly through their churches? I know of a family whose church reached out to them. They were then referred to a quack in America who performed abhorrent practices on a young teenager who immediately said to their parents, “This is making me feel like who I am is less than I am.” Is my hon. Friend concerned that if the Government do not act, parents will not know where to turn?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I totally agree. We have to say this again and again: this is not about professional medical treatment and therapy. The conversion therapies that need to be banned are pseudoscientific practices, often conducted in private settings and, most crucially, they do not have an open outcome, but are aimed at changing what a person is.

Legal advice recently published by the Good Law Project makes it clear that the Government risk getting embroiled in legal challenges by breaching article 14 of the European convention on human rights. The advice states that

“the difference in treatment between sexual orientation and gender identity would need to be justified and proportionate.”

So far, the only justification that the Government have provided is to say that the issue is complex.

Why are we even having this debate? Opposition to a trans-inclusive ban is entirely built on stoking fear and division, based on deliberate misinformation. By the Government’s own admission, NHS gender identity services will not stop people having exploratory conversations with their doctors. Legal services will not be affected by a ban. There is no evidence of any negative impact in the countries that have already introduced a ban. Let us be clear: we are talking about preventing the abuse of LGBT+ and gender non-conforming people—our fellow human beings. We need to prevent abuse.

Furthermore, neither would religious freedom be affected by a change in the law. Religious freedom is the freedom to worship without discrimination. As a Christian, I have the right to practise my religion without discrimination. I do not have the right to cause harm. The Church of England has acknowledged that, stating that conversion practices have

“no place in the modern world”.

Nearly all countries that have banned gay conversion therapy have also banned gender conversion therapy. Canada, France and New Zealand, to name a few, have yet to encounter problems with freedom of speech or religious belief. It is baffling—I disagree that it is about getting votes—that the Conservative Government are not committed to banning trans-inclusive conversion therapy, even though their own voters are largely in favour of such a ban. Northern Ireland has moved a motion to ban conversion therapy in all forms. Scotland hopes to ban it by the end of 2023. The Government must follow suit.

The Equalities Minister called this country a global leader on LGBT rights, but it seems the Government have forgotten what the letter T stands for. How can we possibly call ourselves global leaders if we knowingly and purposefully fail to protect trans people from abhorrent practices? I plead with the Government to listen to what is overwhelmingly a consensus in this room—and outside—and make sure we ban conversion therapy in all its forms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know he spends a lot of time on this issue, and we are probably of a similar mindset about where we want to get to.

I am straying into parliamentary draftsmanship, but I think it is possible to draft a Bill that ensures that attempts to reopen the Equality Act 2010 or the Gender Recognition Act would be out of scope. That is one of the dangers: if we write a Bill that is open to being repeatedly amended, there is a risk of the debate widening beyond conversion therapy, which is why I am trying to ensure that the Bill is narrow. However, the way I see it—I cannot give that cast-iron guarantee, because I am not the parliamentary draftsperson—is that a Bill about conversion practices would be amendable. Of course, that is a debate for another time, but our purpose is that the Bill remains narrow, so that it is limited to conversion practices and does not get hijacked and caught up in debates about other issues. I hope that we can keep it very, very narrow.

The extra work of scoping out, which I hope will be done at pace, is about ensuring that legitimate clinicians and therapists are protected in being able to explore all the reasons why somebody might be suffering from gender distress. It is also to make it abundantly clear that parents can have robust conversations with their children. There is nothing wrong with a parent disagreeing with their child’s trans status or sexual orientation—that is not a conversion practice.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We are having a good debate, but can the Minister confirm that conversion practices are those that are aimed at a certain outcome? What he is describing—an open conversation to explore a person’s gender identity—is of course not something that a ban should include, but all practices with a closed outcome should be banned, and that ban should include trans people.

[Mike Freer]

A conversion practice is clearly defined as where a person has the predetermined objective of taking someone away from being trans and pushing them towards not being trans. Being straight and being gay would be symmetrical. Key to the additional work that I am seeking to get undertaken at pace is the clarity that we need to ensure that clinicians, parents and teachers are protected, to ensure that the chilling effects, which some clinicians and therapists have expressed concern about, are equally mitigated.

The Cass report mentions how affirmative therapy could be abused. We will always find a rogue practitioner with any practice, but it is legitimate to consider how affirmative therapy should be performed. Again, it is about achieving clarity so that people are not caught and made to feel that they have practised conversion therapy by simply being a good therapist or clinician. That is why the work that we have scoped and done at pace will, I hope, allow us to achieve a consensus and put to bed many of the fears and concerns that people have legitimately expressed. Although I am clearly disappointed that we are having this debate again and that we are where we are, I feel that it is not unreasonable to take some extra time to try to build a consensus, so that when a Bill comes forward, we can make it as inclusive as possible. I cannot guarantee that we will get there, but that is my aim and objective, and I do not think it is wrong to spend some extra time trying to ensure that we can build as much consensus as possible.

Let me turn to a couple of points that have been raised. We have talked about trans healthcare. I have spoken to Dr Cass a couple of times, and she has clearly put a lot of thought into how we need to reform the healthcare system for trans people—not just for under-18s, but in general. The idea that people wake up on a Monday, decide that they want to change their gender, and have been banged through surgery by Friday is clearly nonsense. Anybody who has spent any time looking at the whole trans journey knows that it is cumbersome, it is not patient-centred, and it does not work. It forces too many people to opt out and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said, to buy things on the internet—the wild west—where we do not know what they are doing and what they are being exposed to. That is an important piece of work, alongside the work we are doing on conversion practices.

I want to reiterate that the call for the ban on conversion practices to wait until Dr Cass has reported in full, and the Government have responded, is missing the point. Dr Cass has said that our work is complementary—we are not sequential—and that her work is not a reason not to bring forward the legislation. She has made that abundantly clear. In fact, she has gone as far as publishing a Q&A on her website, which clearly says:

“The Cass Review was commissioned as an independent review of NHS gender identity services for children and young people. Its terms of reference do not include consideration of the proposed legislation to ban conversion therapy.

No LGBTQ+ group should be subjected to conversion therapy. However, through its work with clinical professionals, the Review recognises that the drafting of any legislation will be of paramount importance in building the confidence of clinicians working in this area.”

That is what Dr Cass said, and she is absolutely spot-on.

I want to put a couple of other things on the record. Hon. Members raised the victim support service, which is already operating and is run by Galop. The service is fully inclusive and available to anybody who believes they have been subject to conversion practices or believes they have been at risk of those practices, regardless of their sexuality, gender or non-binary identity. Galop is the leading LGBT+ anti-violence charity and has significant expertise in that area of work.

To conclude, I remain wholly committed to delivering our commitment to ban conversion practices and to protect victims and survivors. I know many colleagues in this Chamber, from across the House, are equally committed to realising that goal. We have to work together to ensure that the legislation is right and that we are seen to be supportive of people’s right to be who they are. It is not our job to interfere in how people see themselves; it is a matter of autonomy and dignity. I thank all colleagues for their contributions and I look forward to working together to make the Bill a success.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

6. What support her Department is providing to SMEs that trade with the EU.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

16. What support her Department is providing to SMEs that trade with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

Actually, no, I cannot tell the hon. Lady, because I am the Minister for exports, not the Minister for imports. What I can do is ensure that the relevant Minister comes back to the hon. Lady with a substantive answer if she wishes to write to me with the details.

[Wera Hobhouse]

In my constituency, businesses keep contacting me to share details of the detrimental effects that Brexit has had on their business, such as countless zero-sales days, which they had not experienced before. I am not making that up. Will the Government listen to small businesses, stop their Brexit ideological blind spot about this and, for example, reopen the SME Brexit support fund, with a simplified application process and an expanded remit?

[Mike Freer]

I am not sure I am the one with the Brexit blind spot, but I have to say that the Government are working very hard with our trade industry groups and our representative bodies. I frequently meet those groups, ranging from the Federation of Small Businesses all the way up to the CBI. Officials, both here in London and in post, will work with specific Governments to eradicate any issues inter-country, where there is perhaps an overzealous interpretation of the rules. More deep-seated problems will be dealt with on a Government-to-Government level. If the hon. Lady has details of specific businesses and specific issues that she would care to share, I would be more than happy to ensure that the Export Support Service gets back to her or to her constituents who wish to export.

Gender Recognition Act

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

I agree with the hon. and learned Lady on the point of guidance, and I will come on that point next. It is the failure of successive Governments since 2004 and 2010 to produce any guidance about the relationship between the GRA, the Equality Act and the exemptions provided for that has led to a disjointed application of those exemptions in much of public life. There are those who use it to exclude everyone, those who use it to exclude no one and a large majority in the middle who simply do not know what to do, because there is no guidance from the centre as to what best practice looks like.

I therefore urge the Government to look again at the recommendation of the Women and Equalities Committee to produce that guidance and to convene an advisory panel of those on both sides of the debate to look at what that guidance could look like and to bring that guidance before the House so that we can debate and discuss it.

I want to focus specifically on the application process for a gender recognition certificate, as catered for within the petition. In the Select Committee inquiry, we received evidence from those in favour of further reform and those who were against it, but what struck me was how much agreement there was between the two sides on the application process. Indeed, the three big asks for reform of the GRC application process were more or less welcomed universally. I strongly hope that the Government will have a chance to look at those in a bit more detail.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member that we need to have a civilised discussion about this issue, but given the difficulties and given that it is clear that the Act as it stands creates huge problems for transgender people, does he agree that we need reform of the Act?

[Elliot Colburn]

Absolutely. There is a strong case, simply if we look at the statistics around GRCs, to show that the process does not work. The fact that only 1% to 3% of trans people go through the process of obtaining a GRC demonstrates to me that the process is too bureaucratic, too expensive for many and simply not fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, Sir George, to serve under your chairpersonship. I will only make a brief contribution, because I have expressed my views on this issue many times in this place, although I do not think we have had enough debates on issues around the real lived experiences of trans and non-binary people. I think we ought to have more debates on those issues, and conduct them in the civilised and courteous way suggested by the petition’s promoter, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn).

I will start—helpfully, I hope—by giving some context. I am glad that our party is committed to ensuring that trans and non-binary people can live their lives with equality, dignity and respect, and I am proud of my own Government—the Welsh Government—for the unequivocal support they have given for trans and non-binary rights and for reform of the GRA, and for consideration of the very matters that are under consideration in this debate today. Obviously, the Welsh Government do not have some of those powers; they have expressed their concerns about the failure to bring forward the reforms that were promised in the past by the UK Government. I hope that we will see those reforms come to fruition, because they are what trans and non-binary people, and their allies, are requesting, and I believe they are what is needed to ensure that trans and non-binary people can live their lives with freedom, dignity and respect.

Of course, such reforms sit within a huge range of issues that affect the lives of trans and non-binary people, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out at the start of the debate. I am sorry that in the debate on these issues over the last couple of years in particular, their actual lives and lived experiences have been used by some as a wedge issue and by some as a form of ridicule, or simply reduced to academic or philosophical debate—or worse, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, to a couple of words on Twitter. These people are real people; they are not represented in this part of the room today. Their voices are not going to be heard, although I am sure that many people here will speak up for them. I will start by sharing a couple of reflections based on my conversations with people in the trans and non-binary community.

One concern is that there has been a very unfortunate and at times vicious debate, while the actual needs of trans and non-binary people—physical health, mental health, access to public services and access to legal equality—have not been considered. There are so many issues, including the experience of hate crime, which has significantly increased, as indeed it has against all protected characteristics, and against all women and young people; we have seen horrific incidents. The crimes against trans people have increased significantly over the past five years, and that is not just down to increased willingness to report. It is a fact. I have had trans constituents come to me to tell me about horrific experiences that they have had, alongside many other people who are experiencing such things in their daily lives. As I said, the actual issues and challenges that people face in their lives are being put to one side.

I held an event in Parliament a couple of years ago—in fact, I was very nervous to hold it, because some of the things that happen whenever someone speaks out—with the trans and non-binary community, but for me it was one of the most powerful events in this area because it was with young trans and non-binary people, and their parents. A number of Members who were present at that event are here today. The most crucial thing that we did was to listen to people’s actual experiences—to the candour and frankness that parents expressed about some of the challenges they had been through, and to some of the challenges that the young people had been through. We just listened to what they had to say; we did not judge.

The overwhelming feeling in that room was a sense of love, care and support. There will be others who are much better placed to make the technical and legal arguments and distinctions than I can, but if we put those principles at the heart of this debate, remembering that we are talking about people’s real lives and existence—people who have suffered and suffer incredibly every day and every week—we could help to make this place and this country a better place for all trans and non-binary people.

[Wera Hobhouse]

In many ways the hon. Gentleman has already answered my question. Nearly 100 hate crimes against transgender people were recorded by Avon and Somerset police, and the number in London is probably threefold, but we do not even know what the actual numbers are. Given the enormous discrimination that transgender people face, does he agree that at least making the recognition process easier would be a good step forward?

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree.

I will end on this reflection—no doubt, I will receive criticism and abuse online as a result. I have spoken out in this place about the conduct of a number of newspapers and others reporting the stories. I had the displeasure a few years ago of visiting the Bishopsgate Institute’s archive of LGBT+ material, which is a fantastic resource, much of which will hopefully end up in the new Queer Britain museum; I was looking back at some of the headlines and stories from the past, and the discrimination and hatred that was directed against other members of the LGBT+ community. We see that reflected again today in similar headlines, myths and mistakes. One of the biggest problems is that there is not a courteous and respectful debate about the technical and legal issues, but rather one driven to ridicule, hurt or actively undermine the position of people who exist, are living their lives, and simply want to get on with their lives with dignity and respect.

I urge all those with strong views on this issue to think about the impact, because I do not want to have, as I have had, constituents who are trans and non-binary people ringing me up in tears about the latest headline that they have seen in the newspaper, or the latest abusive row on Twitter or social media. We should just let people be who they want to be, respect that, give them dignity and show the love, compassion and respect that all human beings deserve, whatever their gender identity or sexuality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate so clearly.

I am a trans ally. I believe strongly that trans men are men, that trans women are women and that being non-binary is valid. I am proud to be Plymouth’s first out Member of Parliament. I think that gives me not just a platform, but a responsibility to talk about LGBT rights. I am proud to be the first person to get “massive gay” in Hansard, speaking in a Westminster Hall debate, because for me it makes it authentically Luke, something I can look at and go, “Well, that is me.”

The debate needs a lot more authenticity in it, and for a lot more of the lived experience and actual reality for trans and non-binary people to be present in it. If we had that, yes, we would have more discussion of hate crimes and fear, but we would also have more laughter, more honesty, more love and compassion, and more authenticity from people who are able to be themselves. We could revel in and celebrate people being able to be themselves, free from fear—a fear of not being who they are—and from the pain that prevents them from being who they genuinely are.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but is it not also important to listen to the fear of women? I am not one who will stoke the fear of women, but is it not important to give that space to women at least to express what they fear?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for agreeing that I am a massive gay. I appreciate that. There is a place and a need to listen to groups who feel that they are not being heard in the debate, and I will come to that in one moment.

We need to look at the specifics of what we are debating today. My speech could talk about trans rights in the wider sense. I could talk about hate crime and about a whole range of things, but the petition does not talk about those things. The petition is specific; it talks about updating a broken and bureaucratic system that is not working and that is costly to the taxpayer and to the person going through that system. In that space, we should all agree that it is broken and that it should be fixed.

The agreement that we are so painfully trying to avoid is what we should pull out of the debate: the GRA should be reformed. It is a broken system. It does not deliver what we need and it incurs massive cost—not just through the pounds, shillings and pence spent by people applying to go through the GRA process and amassing the documents, but through the mental health crises that frequently follow the experience of going through that process. There is a cost in the lost opportunities, the jobs not taken and the taxes not accrued. We need to look at the lost opportunities, which is why it is so important to look at the issue.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) that self-ID is a problematical term. It is. It is difficult. It has opened up people’s ability to attach things to the debate that are not in it. If we attach more and more things to the debate, we lose sight of what we all agree on. We agree on lots in this space, and disagree on less. If we put the focus on where we disagree, rather than on where we agree, we find ways to throw stones at each other, which I do not believe to be right, and we find ways to use unhelpful language. I am not abnormal because I have a boyfriend. My trans friends are not abnormal because they are trans. We should be clear about that. It is not suitable to have the word “but” at the end when we say something; we need to recognise the innate human value in each of us along the way.

In particular, I want us to look at the process through which the GRA causes difficulty. I share the concerns expressed more eloquently than I can about the difficulty of amassing the documents, the delays, the lack of a right of appeal, the confusion, and the fear for many trans people of having a panel of people they do not know deciding on their lives. That is humiliating and dehumanising for lots of people. If we had that process to access any other public service in any other walk of life, we would all, regardless of our party, say that it was inefficient and uncaring and call for its reform. Let us focus on that part to make sure it can be there.

When I asked my trans friends in Plymouth what they wanted, they agreed that the GRA process was not working—those who have tried to participate in it are very clear on that—but what they most want us to do is to focus on getting through this debate, and then to talk about healthcare and their difficulties in accessing it. We need to be clear that just as justice delayed is justice denied, healthcare delayed is healthcare denied.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the regional inequality that sometimes comes with this. Much of the debate around trans healthcare has a metropolitan flavour to it. People tend to talk about London, Manchester or even Brighton, but not about Plymouth or the experience in the south-west. The incredibly long waiting lists are not always talked about. The waiting list at the West of England Specialist Gender Identity Clinic stands at five years and seven months. That is not a waiting list to be proud of; it is a waiting list to shame us. That is why we need to look at what it is possible to change.

We also need to look at the reason for the delay. I turn to the Minister, who I hope will be able to speed this through the Government processes. There are three questions worth looking at today. Why has there been a delay in the first place, and why has it taken the machinery of government so long to come through? It is because the delay is deliberate, not accidental. It is a deliberate space that has been created to weaponise the debate and cause division, and the consequences of that space—the increase in hate crime, abuse and assaults, and in online and in-person hate—do not bother the people who have caused it.

What is the cost of the delay? It is people’s lives, experiences and interactions. Allowing someone to change their birth certificate does not deal with the question of choosing which toilet to go to. We need to get over this. Everyone pees, and everyone should have the right to pee.

Who benefits from the delay? We can look at the cost, but what is the benefit? There is no benefit, unless the objective is to create a culture war. In the narrow debate based on the petition, and in the narrow changes on the birth certificate to afford pension rights, there is no logistical or administrative benefit to the taxpayer or the Government. We must ensure that there is no benefit politically for anyone—in my party or anyone else’s—who chooses to benefit from increased hate, assaults and abuse towards a marginalised group.

My final point is this. The struggle for equality is a long and difficult one, and we must all keep fighting for equality along the way. Some of us will use decent arguments, some of us will use lived experience and some of us will attempt to use humour, but we must keep it up. We know from the experience of equality movements to date that we do not win by bashing one protected group with the rights of another protected group. That is not how we create equality; that is how we create the opposite. I hope the Minister will speed up the process and reform the GRA so that we can get to other issues that matter to the trans community.

Gender Recognition Act Consultation

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The clinics are new. As for whether they are the pilot clinics previously announced, those in the Department of Health and Social Care are the experts on that, but they are new clinics and they will reduce the waiting list. Clearly, they will not reduce the waiting list to the extent that we need that to happen, and that is why we are working with that Department on what more can be done, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that we do not want people to have to wait for this important treatment.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

On 13 July, Baroness Barker’s office submitted a freedom of information request asking for details of who the Secretary of State met with regards to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. To date, there has been no answer. Will she now confirm whether she personally met trans-led organisations and trans people before making this important decision, which ignores the views and recommendations of a clear majority of those who responded to the consultation?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure the hon. Lady that I and the GEO have met with a wide variety of organisations. We have met 140 representative organisations, including LGBT and women’s organisations. I have also met a number of parliamentary colleagues to discuss this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in highlighting that fantastic example and congratulating all involved on its success. In order to improve gender representation in STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—industries, we are raising awareness of the opportunities that these career paths present, through the Government careers strategy.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

9. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the provision of support services for people who have experienced sexual violence.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

The Minister for victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), and the Minister for mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), meet quarterly, and in their most recent meeting they discussed mental health support for victims of serious violence and sexual assault, as part of the Government’s continued work to implement an integrated system of care for victims.

[Wera Hobhouse]

A recent public petition brought by campaigner Fern Champion on the issue of funding for rape crisis centres has attracted more than 150,000 signatures. Fern’s experience, echoed by many, is that rape crisis centres are so oversubscribed that survivors are being turned away or are told to wait for up to two years before they can receive support. Will the Minister commit to meet me—preferably before the summer recess—to discuss how we ensure that all survivors of sexual violence can access support?

[Robert Buckland]

I am happy to commit the victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), to that meeting; I am sure he will be very pleased with me. This is an important and serious issue, because rape crisis centres form an invaluable part of the service. I am glad to say that from April this year my Department has increased funding for specialised rape and sexual abuse support services by 10%—up by £8 million a year—and that, for the first time, we will have centrally funded services in all 42 police and crime commissioner areas. That is a sign of our deep commitment, but we will work further with the hon. Lady.