Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my unpaid interests declared in the register as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on LGBT rights and chair of the Global Equality Caucus.

To try to change, cure or suppress someone’s innate sexual orientation is harmful and cruel. While in a medical setting conversion therapies are now declared unethical, they continue in the private sphere. If they reach the current legal threshold of physical or sexual violence, they may already be criminal, but some systematic attempts to convert gay people fall below that threshold, so damaging practices cannot be prevented. We know this through survey evidence as well as the powerful personal testimonies of victims.

The Government themselves have said that there are gaps in the law and have promised to close them. In doing so, a new law needs to set the bar in the right place. The mere expression of disapproval, the exploration of someone’s identity or genuine help for people with no predetermined outcome in mind should not be criminalised, and nor should private prayer. We should never legislate lightly in the religious sphere, but Parliament has done so before in order to prevent harm. For example, we do not allow any faith group a licence to promote hate.

A growing number of countries around the world have passed various forms of prohibition on conversion therapy, usually without the opposition we have seen here. The vast majority of bans explicitly allow for conversations, medical procedures and therapies that aim to explore or affirm a person’s identity, including those in Belgium, Canada, France and Germany. Canada’s Conservatives did not blink at passing a ban. Many other countries are in the process of legislating or are considering legislating.

Yet here we are paralysed by the conflation of the need to protect vulnerable people who are being exploited by coercive and abusive practices with a separate debate about medical provision for young people with gender dysphoria. I agree that we need to ensure that children are protected. It should be perfectly possible to write in safeguards ensuring that family conversations and neutral professional interventions are not outlawed. Legislation in New Zealand, for instance, clarifies that questioning someone’s gender identity does not fall under a ban.

We should not allow, and there is no need to allow, people on either side to use legislation as a vehicle to promote their particular views on gender. I hold no brief for gender ideology. I am no fan of the language police and their ever more absurd acronyms. I have argued that to dismiss out of hand the genuine concerns of women about fairness in sport or safe spaces, or of parents about the welfare of their children, is ill-advised and wrong. However, it is equally wrong to vilify transgender people or to use language that denigrates them. We need a compassionate, respectful and moderate debate about the real issues that arise through a potential conflict of rights. I have called for a royal commission to investigate these issues calmly and dispassionately, to get to the facts and to make recommendations for any changes in law or practice that are needed. I am not referring to today’s debate, but the more that I hear of the wider discourse, and the more that I see crude culture wars carelessly fought, the more sure I am that such an inquiry is needed.

If noble Lords had met, as I have, people who were subjected to conversion therapy and who still bear the mental scars of what, frankly, amounted to a form of torture, I do not think they would be so dismissive of the need for greater legal protections. If they find it impossible to put themselves in the shoes of a young man who is struggling with his sexuality being told that his feelings are wrong and being beaten down, I ask them to engage in this thought experiment: imagine a different world in which homosexuality was the norm. I appreciate that for most of my noble friends this would be a definition of hell, but imagine that parallel universe nevertheless. Imagine yourself growing up with strong heterosexual feelings but being told that they were profoundly wrong. Imagine what it would do to you to try to suppress or deny those feelings. Imagine if those around you were determined to change you, to make you gay, and could bully you with impunity with that objective. How do noble Lords think they would feel?

In his autobiographical novel, Boy Erased, which was made into a moving film, Garrard Conley, who was subjected to distressing conversion therapy in a Christian institution in the US, writes that

“even if I no longer believe in Hell, I will continue to struggle with the fear of it”.

We should not stand by and allow these harmful practices to continue. Yes, we must frame the law carefully, but the time to outlaw this abuse is long overdue.

Government: Leadership Training

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton on securing this timely debate. We have heard many interesting speeches.

The challenges that face any Government are clear; any Government would have faced rapidly rising demand and a second digital revolution. But, of course, those challenges have been exacerbated by Covid, which has now produced an overhanging deficit. This Government already had a very bold levelling-up agenda before Covid arrived. As noble Lords have said, Covid revealed weaknesses in our system of government—particularly failures of preparation, delivery and execution—but it also revealed potential strengths and solutions. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, just referred to, the Vaccine Taskforce is one very good example of that, and of fusion government: the bringing together of talent from inside and outside government, real leadership being shown, real expertise deployed and, crucially, individuals being empowered with specific tasks and budgets and being held to account—and yet that appointment was very strongly attacked before it was revealed to have been so successful. I think we should reflect on that.

My own qualifications for speaking in this debate may be said to be limited, having been a Minister for a short period only. But I actually have a long-standing interest in government reform as the co-founder of the Reform think tank, of which our new Foreign Secretary is an alumna, and as the chair of the Commission for Smart Government—which the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Bilimoria, referred to—set up last year to look at how we could deliver more effective government.

I want to emphasise that this independent commission was cross-party and non-party. It consisted of former politicians, former Permanent Secretaries, senior advisers, very senior businesspeople and a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who is of course a former Permanent Secretary, the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish of Little Venice, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who is the current government lead non-executive director, the previous government lead non-executive director, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston. Our commission concluded that, regrettably, our system of government is no longer world-class and we should be honest that in many respects it does very good things and in other respects it fails to deliver; that without transformative change, no Government will meet their policy goals; and that an understanding of that is absolutely crucial.

I want to put on record my strong view that we should not allow any sensible, objective and calm critique of our system of government to translate into an attack on the Civil Service. I am proud to be the Prime Minister’s special envoy on LGBT rights. As such, at the moment I am working with simply brilliant civil servants in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and in the Government Equalities Office; I see their commitment and passion, how hard they work and their abilities. It is not a criticism to say that we need to ensure that we have a system that is resolutely focused on better performance and on the capabilities of civil servants.

No other organisation would look at itself and consider how much more training it needs to give, the quality of that training, the quality of its people, whether it has the right people and whether they have the right skills and somehow make that an attack on itself or see it as an attack on its own people. Of course it is not. It is about instilling a high-performance culture in the organisation and ensuring that any organisation is equipped to meet today’s challenges. There is so much evidence that we are not. We must move on, and I believe we have moved on, from the idea that this is about Whitehall wars—an attack by politicians on civil servants. We must do so for two reasons. First, because that attack is not merited, and, secondly, because, frankly, politicians are part of the problem. It is our system of government which is not working properly and which we have to sort out. That is why the Declaration on Government Reform is so welcome.

Our report made a number of important recommendations in relation to civil servants, including setting up a

“world-leading MBA-style executive training programme … and … A rigorous test of knowledge and experience of technology”—

which all senior officials should have to undertake— and an

“in-house Crown headhunter to help bring in high calibre people from outside government”,

because we have seen that that can be so effective.

But crucially our report also focused on Ministers. We noted that, as has been said, Ministers begin their roles unprepared, suffer from a lack of clear directional mandate, feel that they do not have enough support, and feel that they can be held accountable for mistakes which others have made and which they are powerless to address. We therefore said that ministerial training should be a crucial new focus, and that Ministers and civil servants together should be trained in the new Queen Elizabeth II school of public service, which should be set up specifically for this task. We said that Ministers should be able to appoint outside advisers but that they should be held properly to account. We said that the commission letters that new Ministers will now be receiving, setting out their new role, should be made public, so that Ministers can be held properly to account.

In conclusion, we also said that the red box should be scrapped. If there is one obvious metaphor—one obvious exemplar of a system that is, frankly, completely antiquated—it is that papers are printed off, Ministers read them and then they are carried around in vehicles in wooden boxes. It is an absurdity and an anachronism, and it points to the fact that our system is simply not up to date. Let us introduce modern workforce management methods, proper training and proper accountability, and better performance will follow.

Standards in Public Life Report

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, that is a recommendation from the interim report. The question of graduated sanctions obviously reflects the position of successive Governments, to some degree. That was set out in the recent letter from the Prime Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Evans. I will not follow an ad hominem attack on the current Prime Minister. I believe we should recognise collectively in this country that standards in public life are very high. We should maintain and always examine how we can improve transparency and performance.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, when considering the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report, will my noble friend take care to ensure that there are not unintended consequences from the report’s recommendations that public appointments should be subjected to further regulation? After all, the significance of Dame Kate Bingham’s appointment to chair the Vaccine Taskforce was not just that it was clearly a triumph and transformed our country’s ability to fight the virus but that it was comprehensively attacked before it was clear that it was in fact a very good appointment. Was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster not right in saying in his speech on Tuesday that we should not allow incidents to allow “a Berlin Wall” to be

“rebuilt between the permanent Civil Service and others who can help us to enhance the performance of government”?

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend gives good and wise advice to the House. Again, I am not going to comment on individual cases, particularly where there is challenge to an appointment, though I think we would all agree that the public service of the person mentioned has been exemplary. We should be cautious and we need to look carefully at recommendations, but we should be careful not to lose some degree of flexibility, with appropriate examination, transparency and accountability. Indeed, successive Governments have used common-law powers to directly appoint individuals in advisory capacities.

Ministerial Code

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I am not sure who the “he” is in that question. If the “he” is me: I have always sought to adhere to the Ministerial Code. If the “he” is the Prime Minister: I have said I believe the Prime Minister conducts himself in accordance with all the principles of public life.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, we need proper rules, transparency and accountability, but does my noble friend agree that when the Civil Service faces such significant capability gaps—as we have seen, for instance, in the difficulties experienced by successive Governments in delivering major projects —we also need good people to be able to come into government and help? We must not make that excessively hard. After all, if that had not been the case for the vaccine rollout and delivery, we might not have procured those vaccines in the first place.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly agree that we need a measure of objectivity on this, echoing the words of the right reverend Prelate. It is important that any malpractice should be dealt with. Transparency is important. As the noble Baroness asked, any reportable benefits will be recorded in the list of ministerial interests on the advice of the independent advisers. So far as broader Civil Service arrangements are concerned, my noble friend will know that Mr Boardman is looking into the matters in relation to Greensill. It is better to await the outcome of that inquiry. But, of course, I take note of what my noble friend said.

G7 Summit

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have slightly moved away from the rather positive and optimistic approach of this discussion so far. The G7 will embrace the presence of the EU, as always, and of major democracies in the European Union.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has set a priority for the G7 to develop manufacturing capacity for treatments and vaccines to prevent future pandemics, and that is very welcome. However, there is an existing pandemic other than Covid—tuberculosis—which still kills 1.5 million people a year and for which there is no effective adult vaccine. That is why research and development investment to develop new tools is so important. Will my noble friend commit to protecting that investment, particularly that made by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, despite the regrettable cut in the ODA budget?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, having not ventured to offer an agenda to President Biden, I am certainly not going to offer one to the Chancellor. As with the answer on malaria earlier, obviously, fighting a key disease is a vital common international task. The United Kingdom has been one of the biggest donors to the World Health Organization and one of the biggest supporters of vaccine development.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I will support the deal tonight, as I did before. I welcome the further agreement that was struck in Strasbourg in relation to the backstop. We now have far greater legal certainty about our ability to exit it.

The focus of this debate, and of most of the debate in the past 24 hours and previously, has been the legalities of the backstop and of our exiting it. Ultimately, we should care about the real-world risk of being trapped in the backstop, but that has been discussed very little. What are the actual chances that we will be trapped in the backstop, not from a legal point of view but from a political point of view? Is it likely that we will find ourselves in that position? I think it is perfectly possible to argue that it is highly unlikely.

First, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) that our being in the backstop would not benefit the EU at all. The EU would not want us to remain in the backstop because, for instance, while we were in it, we would have many of the benefits of the single market without paying into the EU. The idea that the EU wishes to trap us in the backstop is simply a wrong analysis.

Secondly, we would have several hurdles to jump before we ever got into the backstop. We would only start to consider it as a possibility if a trade deal were not ready. We now have further legal certainty about the efforts to ensure that the trade deal will be ready. It would only start to become a possibility if the implementation period were not extended. That is an alternative. It would only start to become a possibility if alternative arrangements were not completed. Again, we now have more certainty about the preparations for those alternative arrangements. We should stop talking about the backstop as though we are certain to get into it and certain to be trapped.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making such a powerful case. Is this not about degrees of risk? We should weigh the minuscule risk, as I see it, of being trapped in the backstop against the far greater risk of not agreeing this deal, which would throw into jeopardy all the good things it should bring this country.

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend quite brilliantly anticipates my very next sentence. Ultimately, we have a political judgment to make, not a legal judgment. Is the theoretical, highly unlikely possibility that we will be trapped in the backstop really enough to risk Brexit altogether?

Let me say first of all that anyone who is clinging to the hope that no deal could still happen, and is intending to vote against this deal to achieve it—it appeared to me that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was thinking of doing that—should forget it, because it is clear that the House will not allow no deal. Whether one supports that move or not, it is about to be taken off the table as an option. We therefore face the clear and present danger that, if this deal does not go through, Brexit will be diluted, seriously delayed, or ditched altogether. That may be what Labour Members want—there is a whole cadre of them who want a second referendum, and others who want to cause difficulty for the Government—but one thing is clear: on these Benches, you cannot talk about gaining control and taking back control, only immediately to cede control to the House of Commons and lose any further control we have to shape the kind of Brexit that we would like. If Conservative Members do not like the deal as it is currently constituted, let them spend the next few months discussing, and then voting on, and then being outvoted on, whether they want a Norway arrangement in which we would become a rule taker, or whether they want a permanent customs union rather than the temporary one for which the backstop provides. That is what Labour Members want, and that is what the House of Commons will give us, whether my hon. Friends like it or not. That is the downside. That is the risk that they are now running: Brexit diluted, seriously delayed, or ditched altogether.

The choice is clear. We can have damaging uncertainty as a result of further delay, anger in the country that we have not implemented the decision that the country took, and the risk—of which my hon. Friends should be perfectly well aware—that the impasse will lead to a general election. Conversely, there is a huge upside to getting this deal through. We avert the risk of no deal, although I think that that is about to be averted altogether. We leave, as promised, on 29 March or shortly after. Business confidence and investment return—and we know that businesses are sitting on cash at present—because we have an implementation period and certainty for those businesses. Resources are released for public services. If the deal does not go through tonight, the Chancellor will have to make it clear tomorrow that he must hold on to cash in the event of uncertainty and of no deal becoming a possibility. If the deal goes through, that cash could be released for public services, which every Member in the House would like to happen.

There are Members who voted to trigger article 50 and who voted for the referendum. Although they did that within the last two years, they are determined to oppose this deal because, in reality, they have reached a position in which they want to oppose or dilute Brexit.

Let me say to my hon. Friends that this not a moment to choose ideological purity above pragmatism. This is a pragmatic deal, which recognises that while 17.4 million people—the majority—did vote to leave the European Union, 16.1 million voted to remain, and we have to compromise. It will be a compromise not with the European Union, but with the country: a sensible compromise which recognises that in leaving we must carry the public with us, and carry business confidence with us.

I say to Members that they have a second chance now to support this deal, and if they really want to deliver Brexit, they should do so.

Leaving the European Union

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, we are in discussions about the legal changes. The hon. Lady says that it appears from listening to me that the issue is the backstop. Actually, this House made it clear that the issue was the backstop, because that is how this House voted on the 29 January.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

First it was a people’s vote, and now it is a confirmatory vote. Are not hon. Members using these euphemisms because, in reality, their proposal is for a second referendum and, by definition, they are dishonouring the result of the first? Will the Prime Minister accept that many of us who fought hard for remain nevertheless accepted the result that the British people had given us and wished to implement that result? We have no admiration whatsoever for hon. Members who campaigned for the referendum, who stood on a manifesto to implement the result, who supported the referendum decision in a vote, who voted to trigger article 50 less than two years ago, and who now are in plain sight reneging on those promises.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether it is called a people’s vote or a confirmatory vote, it is a second referendum. It is putting the decision back to the British people. We said that we would honour the decision, the Labour party stood on a manifesto of respecting that decision, and we should both do just that.

Leaving the EU

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is not the case. I gently remind the hon. Lady that Members of this House represent all parts of the United Kingdom. We are talking with trade unions and businesses about the impact of decisions that are being made on parts of the United Kingdom. As I indicated in my statement, I committed when I became Prime Minister to a country that works for everyone, and that is what we continue to work for.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Is there not a precedent in the EU for member states that have been unable to ratify a treaty because of a democratic decision taken in their own country to go back to the EU and secure important changes? One country did so, having failed to agree the Lisbon treaty through a referendum; it secured legally binding changes by way of a protocol, to which the EU agreed—that country was Ireland.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is right that there is precedent for a country saying that it is not able to accept the terms of a particular agreement and going back to the European Union to negotiate different terms.

Leaving the European Union

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is precisely why I believe that it is important that we have a deal that will secure the support of this House—a deal that will respect the referendum, but in a way that protects people’s jobs, gives them certainty and protects our Union.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Is it not the case that four fifths of Members voted to trigger article 50, and that in doing so, they consciously—or perhaps semi-consciously in some cases—accepted that no deal would be the default option if we did not leave with a deal? If hon. Members have now changed their mind, should they not be open about that and say that they now want a second referendum or to ditch Brexit altogether? If they do not want that, and they do want an orderly Brexit and to prevent no deal, is not the only course open to them to agree a deal?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend sets out the position with impeccable logic. It is indeed correct that four fifths of this House voted to trigger article 50—for a two-year process that ends on 29 March this year. If people want us to leave with a deal, they have to agree a deal.

European Council

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The only way to rule out no deal is to agree to a deal.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is right to seek further assurances on the backstop, which, after all, is what many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House asked her to do. Is it not the case that most hon. Members who now support a second referendum, most of whom voted to trigger article 50, are doing so working on the heroic assumption that remain is likely to win? Have they stopped for one second to consider the possibility that leave might win or, worst of all, that we would have another very narrow result that would cause uncertainty in this country in the months and years ahead?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the uncertainty that would come to this country. As I have said before, a second referendum would be divisive; it would not necessarily be decisive. However, many people who assume that it would result in a remain decision actually underestimate the character of the British people, and the view of many people would be, “We gave a very clear message; we wanted to leave; and we’ll vote in even greater numbers to do so.”