House of Commons
Prayers
09:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 0 / Noes: 64 - Question accordingly negatived.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill
Friday 1st March 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill 2023-24 View all Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 68 / Noes: 15 - The Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because fewer than 100 Members voted in the majority in support of the motion (Standing Order No. 37).
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When my former partner disclosed to me that he had twice gone through conversion practices, first facilitated through his family in church and secondly through his work in the church, I was shocked that such practices still take place in the 21st century. The trauma he still carries around with him is immense. No number of laws can rewrite history, but we can pledge, as all the main parties did in 2019, to ensure that no one goes through the trauma that he and many others still have in the future.
In recent years, we have had two petitions debates, four debates in Parliament, four written statements and sets of Government research, consultations and briefings, but in six years, we have failed to do what other countries have done in six months, which is to produce a ban that stops people falsely claiming that they can convert people’s sexual orientation or transgender identity. That false hope—false advertising, as it were—is not innocuous, and it causes great harm, but it is not currently captured in our laws. Despite all the main parties agreeing that this is an area we must act on, the issue has been put in the “too hard” box. The Government have consulted on it and years have passed, caught in a culture war where survivors are forgotten. The Government’s Bill, with its bells and whistles, seeks perfection, but delays have allowed the practice to go unimpeded, and that is of no use to man or beast.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill forward. To pick up on that point, it is striking how long this has taken compared with other nations. The stalling coming from Government, when surely we are simply seeking to protect vulnerable people, seems a little obvious. Does he agree that any ban needs to be inclusive of all LGBT+ people?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I totally agree. Everyone in the House will know that I am not immune to getting stuck into this debate. We have had sparring partners across the Chamber on these issues, but that has led us nowhere. It has led to the delay itself and given a green light to many who think this practice might now be acceptable, rather than the abhorrence we all think it to be.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The hon. Gentleman makes the important and strong inference that this is a commonplace occurrence. Will he give some evidence of the distribution of conversion practices, their incidence, and who is being affected? What is the true data on the matter?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I will come to exactly that in a moment, but the hon. Member makes valid points that we should address.
Some were worried when I was drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot that I would produce, as one Whip put it, a “batshit crazy” Bill. Others were worried that I would produce a Bill that would not stop this practice and would have too many loopholes. But after months of meetings, quiet conversations, going on BBC “Politics Live”, offering a meeting to anyone who wanted one and meeting colleagues across this House, all with different views, I hope that the words of the same Whip, saying “Blimey, he’s actually produced something quite sensible” will ring in the ears of everyone in this debate.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on this incredibly important Bill. A number of constituents have written passionately to me about it. According to the UK Government’s own research, 7% of LGBT people have been offered or have undergone conversion therapy. That indicates that in the last five years thousands of people have been at risk of harm. Does he agree that the scale of it must be recognised, and that it must stop?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I quite agree. I understand from previous conversations that the Government do not outright oppose the Bill—we will see how the Minister responds today, as that might have slightly changed. It is quite right that they do not oppose it, because they have put forward this proposal numerous times. They are reserving judgment on some of the technicalities. I have given the Government two opportunities to propose amendments in the public consultations that I have run. They proposed no amendments. In fact, the Government agreed to do pre-legislative scrutiny of their own Bill but, six months later, that has not happened.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
On 31 January 2023 I tabled an amendment to the Online Safety Bill on conversion therapy. We had the numbers, but I told the Government that if they said in a written ministerial statement and on the Floor of this House that they would commit to pre-legislative security that would be completed by October, I would not push the amendment. I did not push the amendment because that commitment was given. Does the hon. Member agree that we have been brought to this place because the Government have not delivered on their manifesto commitment, despite having made promises on the Floor of this House to Conservative Members?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I quite agree. That is why it is important that the Government support the Bill, and thrash out the details later in Committee.
When I met the Secretary of State we talked about two-track progress: get the Bill in Committee, and use it to thrash out the details and allow the Government to keep developing their own plans, informed by the Committee. I hope the Government will honour the spirit of those discussions as I have entered into this process. I hope we can have a full debate and get to a natural end. But if need be, with the permission of Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, I believe that we have the numbers to divide on a closure motion. It would be much better to air the views of the House without dividing, and allow this new collaborative tone to sort out the issue in Committee.
I remind hon. Members that Conservative Members have tabled two amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that provide less protection and, rather than the fines under my Bill, prison sentences. This is an opportunity to get consensus before further-reaching measures are pushed to a vote in this House. If this Bill is talked out today, I will support those measures.
I will spend the rest of my speech on the technical aspects of the Bill and why we have come to the judgments that we have. Much of that is outlined in my explanatory notes, which my office has drafted. I am sure that other colleagues will want to talk about the experiences of their constituents, and I am happy to take as many interventions as I can, but I will try to make some progress.
This is not a debate on the wide trans issue—that will continue outside the Bill—or the merits of affirming or exploratory healthcare. We have the Cass review, and other evidence will come forward down the line. This is a framework Bill on conversion practices. It is not the same as the Scottish proposals or proposals in other countries. It addresses the concerns raised in the House of Lords, and I thank Baroness Burt for introducing a Bill to allow those views to be expressed. I have taken them on board. I beg Members to focus on the Bill, not the adjunct. However interesting the wider debate may be, this is a debate about how we ensure that people do not have a premeditated purpose to intend to change someone’s sexual orientation and transgender identity —terms that exist in British law today.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I want to put on record that he has been absolutely brilliant in engaging with a whole range of colleagues—he is absolutely correct. I appreciate that he does not want the debate to become about the transgender issue, as he says, but the Bill states that
“‘conversion practice’ means a course of conduct or activity, the…intent of which is to change someone’s…to or from being transgender,”
so the idea of being transgender, or the definition of transgender, is very much at the centre of it. Whether the Bill accurately defines what that means is key to whether it can be effective.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
That is exactly why I have used words that already exist in legislation. We can have that debate on the Sentencing Act 2020 and on the Equality Act 2010—I wish you good luck in that—but rather than trying to debate things that this House has already settled, let us move forward with how we try to stop these practices.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) in her remarks about the engagement we have had, and I am sure that we will have a civil debate today. The hon. Gentleman refers to the definition of transgender identity as already existing in legislation. It does, in the Sentencing Act to which he refers, but can he give us further information on that definition? As I read it, it is simply a reference to whether transgender is an aggravating factor in a criminal offence; it does not provide the definition we need. So his Bill will entrench in law that totally undefined concept.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point and will suggest an amendment that might, if he were to allow it to proceed in Committee, make him feel happy and resolve the situation.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Surely the entire point of the Bill is what my hon. Friend is already addressing, which is that the practice is evil: it is evil against gay people, evil against lesbian people, and evil against transgender people. If it is abhorrent for everyone, it is abhorrent for everyone, so it should be tackled.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I totally agree.
In the process of writing the Bill, I endeavoured to meet everyone who asked. I visited people in their communities across the country and I invited people to meet in this place. I want to thank various groups, including Stonewall, the Ban Conversion Therapy campaign group, TransActual, TransLucent, and the medical profession. But I also want to thank people who have very different views from mine, who I have met and listened to: the Christian Institute, Keira Bell and her lawyers, the LGB Alliance and the Gay Men’s Network, to name a few. I have engaged with all in good faith. I have considered and, in most cases, adopted suggestions that each one of those groups has made to make the Bill better.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a very powerful point and I commend him for the amount of work he has obviously done to reassure people. I think we are all aware that at the moment the debate around transgender issues has become incendiary and difficult, and a lot of damage has been done to a lot of people. One thing I found about his Bill is that, if I am reading it correctly, it aims to be reassuring. There is no attempt to stop people discussing their sexuality, there is no attempt to stop them discussing it with people from whom they might want to take advice, and there is no attempt whatsoever to stop them trying to explore the issues on their own. It is simply protecting them from unwanted interference and traumatic attempts to change them.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
That is why the predetermined purpose is so important in the Bill. Rather than having arguments about which evidence is better, I have sought a way to find a framework that addresses the real or perceived problems of what it is claimed is happening in any direction. I think we should all agree that it is abuse and the Bill will stop it.
I understand the nervousness of some in the trans community who have been subjected to a decade of victimisation, but the Bill will protect and support them. I understand the wariness of many counsellors and psychotherapists who have been attacked in one direction or another, and who are fleeing the profession because of the lack of guidelines in this area. The Bill will help to re-set the debate with a framework that focuses on predetermined purposed. It means that if you explore or support people through a process, you will always be protected. When people insist that you must have a predetermined outcome in mind at the start of a process, you will now have the guidelines and can push back, saying, “That is not within the scope of what I can do in law.”
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. Childline has talked about how young people have contacted them feeling torn and talking about what they are going through. They need a safe, non-judgmental space. Does he agree that his Bill will do just that?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I hope it does.
Yesterday, all the major counselling, therapeutic and health organisations provisionally agreed an indicative vote to support the Bill, with no organisation voting against. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing support a ban on conversion practices.
Let us come to the evidence I have been asked for. The Government themselves did a survey in 2017, and more recently commissioned a piece of work in 2023, indicating that this is a live issue. According to the research, one in five people have been subject to someone trying to change, cure or suppress their sexual orientation or transgender identity. More than one in five people from a religious and faith background, and one in six from a non-religious background, have experienced conversion therapy.
When the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) attended one of my drop-in briefings on the Bill, he asked about the number of young people who have been affected by such practices. In a weighted YouGov survey—using its usual weighting metrics—of 2,000 people in 2023, 10% of those aged over 65 said they had undergone or been offered conversion therapy, whereas the figure was 8% for 16 to 17-year-olds, and 7% for 18 to 34-year-olds—shockingly high. It shows that this is a live issue. It is the same with the NSPCC, as we have heard: over 50 young people phoned its helpline last year, saying that they were being threatened with, or subjected to, conversion practices.
I know that some Members would prefer to bring in a ban on sexual orientation conversion practices—LGB only—and not touch on the transgender elements. There are a couple of reasons why I think that would be a foolish approach. First, the Government have themselves carried out reviews and repeatedly said that we need a trans-inclusive ban. In fact, Ministers have said that trans conversion is their main concern. They cannot say it is a huge concern that people might be converted from being transgender, and then say we do not need a ban on either-way conversion therapy.
Secondly, we must recognise that LGB and transgender are separate, but they are interlinked. People exploring their sexual orientation will sometimes come to consider their transgender status. To not include transgender would allow a loophole whereby people who wanted to force someone to be gay, but not trans, could claim that they were offering transgender therapy, rather than LGB therapy, which would make the Bill useless.
Thirdly, there is pretty well-established research on the LGB conversion therapy problem, but there is significant and growing research, from Britain and around the world, that conversion therapy is a problem for the transgender community as well. In fact, the Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), said in a letter on 7 February that she had significant evidence that children might be subjected to conversion practices for being transgender. I have not seen the evidence—I do not endorse it per se—but I have seen significant accounts from many survivors who have been forced not to be transgender. All sides are saying this is happening. The direction of conversion is irrelevant, but it is an indication that we need to take action, and my Bill does so.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the NSPCC’s report on the challenges that young people are facing about sexuality and gender identity. The findings include that 3,400 children and young people in the last year wanted to talk to counsellors about their worries about sexuality or gender identity. Some of these children described instances of emotional abuse in the family home, including constant shouting, hurtful comments and threats of violence. Some children had been threatened with, or had undergone, some form of conversion practice intended to cure their sexuality or gender identity. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in passing this Bill, we will help prevent more children from being subjected to that, and send a clear message that we will not allow people to suffer the painful abuse of so-called conversion practices?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I quite agree. This Bill stops parents sending their children to conversion practices; it does not promise to solve the world for LGBT people. I cannot promise that parents will not shout or be abusive, or that people will not say nasty things—I am afraid that is the nature of a democratic society sometimes. But what we can do is stop premeditated purposes, processes, courses of conduct and activities that aim to do something that cannot be done. That is what every other Bill in the world on this topic has done. The Bill goes in both directions. Whatever the direction of the conversion, it is abhorrent and must be stopped.
Some have said to me that the existing legislation covers violent and physical acts, and of course it does—violent, abusive and bullying coercion and harassment can be caught under current crimes—but the Government’s 2021 consultation said that new criminal law is needed to fill the gap between physical abuse and a process that causes long-term harm. The Bill therefore makes a clear statement that conversion practices should be illegal and that the most egregious cases should be prosecuted. It avoids clashing with existing laws focused on harm—doing so would result in survivors being retraumatised through lengthy court battles—and instead looks at the intent behind the actions. To get the balance right, the Bill clarifies that certain actions will not constitute an offence.
Miriam Cates
The hon. Gentleman is talking about abusive practices and practices that cause harm. Of course, we all condemn anything that is abusive and, as he says, the vast majority of those acts are already covered by law, but the Bill does not actually mention abuse, or indeed harm. There is not a threshold of harm beyond which a practice, which could be a speech-based activity, is unlawful. For example, a detransitioner—he mentioned Keira Bell—trying to persuade an individual not to go ahead with surgery or hormone treatment that would have a permanent impact could be caught by the Bill, yet many of us would not say that is harmful or abusive; in fact, it is the opposite. Would that person not be caught by the Bill?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I do not believe that the Bill would catch people who express personal reservations about certain processes; it would catch people who have prepared programmes and activities, not ad hoc activities. I will come on to that safeguard in a moment. That is exactly why we need to get the words and safeguards right, and why we need to do so in a Bill Committee. We must not reject the Bill, because the hon. Lady might find that we go out of the frying pan into the fire.
The Bill allows Ministers in Northern Ireland and Scotland to enact it within their jurisdictions, but only with the consent of their respective national legislators. It creates offences in relation to people being sent abroad, and it uses existing language for the law to provide fines to be issued. My aim is not to lock people up but to stop this practice.
The key to the Bill is contained in the definition of “conversion practice”, which must be
“a course of conduct or activity”.
A course of conduct in English law is something that happens more than once, and an activity is not ad hoc but a planned intervention. That does not include one-off, impromptu actions; there must be a predetermined purpose. That is a higher threshold than just immediate intent. The predetermined outcome must have been indicated before the course of conduct or activity started, not during it. That provision protects people having thoughtful conversations, who could of course question people via that process.
The Bill says:
“to change someone’s sexual orientation or to change a person to or from being transgender”
includes
“to suppress a sexual orientation or transgender identity”.
I know some have been nervous about that wording, but I must be clear that suppression must be at the level of negating the identity or orientation. That means that the very being of their orientation must be changed in some way. Many gay people never have sex. Many transgender people do not wear gendered clothes. Those actions do not constitute suppression; they do not negate the orientation or identity in full or in part. It cannot be claimed that this wording is therefore an overreach.
The Bill would use only pre-existing terms from other laws to describe “sexual orientation”, “transgender” and “transgender identity”. I have received an interesting representation in the past few days that we should use the term “being transgender”, rather than the interchangeable terms “transgender” and “transgender identity”, with “transgender” being more clearly defined in the law we have at the moment. If that is better wording, it is the sort of thing I would willingly accept in Committee, after we have had the discussion. That is a real reason for us to get into Committee and work out those details. Sexual orientation is, of course, defined in the Equality Act 2010 in terms of a person having sexual feelings towards
“(a) persons of the same sex,
(b) persons of the opposite sex, or
(c) persons of either sex.”
That definition is used in section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020, where “transgender” is defined in subsection (6)(e) as follows:
“references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment”.
The term “transgender” is also used in subsection 1(e), which states:
“hostility related to transgender identity”.
Members might not like these terms and they might not think they should be in law already, but they are. It therefore seems strange that we then get caught up in a debate on things that this House has already decided upon.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has not yet referred to clause 7. I would be most interested to know whether he is going to explain how this review would operate. It applies in different places, with different terms, and it proposes amendments. At the moment, it looks completely unworkable and will put people in a position where they could be criminalised, guilty of an offence, but at the end of the day the amendments could be then made—what on earth do the courts make of all that?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I will come on to every clause as we go through this, so the hon. Gentleman does not have to worry about that.
This is a contentious area, and we have heard in the debates in the other place about how people are genuinely and understandably worried, so I have sought clarifications on several areas. I believe that the balances are correct, but I of course acknowledge that there is a lot of fear in this area and that sometimes, no matter what reassurance one can give in law, people remain fearful until they realise that the practice actually protects. I hope that Members will look at the wording and application of these clarifications carefully, as they cover all the examples that I have been sent. I still have not found one that is not clear in this Bill.
On the expression of religious belief, I might not like the fact that a priest or another religious figure can stand up on their religious day and say there should not be LGBT people or that they should convert. In my view, that is not a pleasant thing to say, but it is also not conversion practice. We have ensured that as long as it is not targeted to a specific individual and as a course of conduct—a repeated activity towards an individual—it will never be an offence. As Lord Herbert said in the other place:
“We should never legislate lightly in the religious sphere, but Parliament has done so before to prevent harm.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2024; Vol. 835, c. 1896.]
We should do so again. This clause allows full compliance with human rights law and does not restrict the general expression of religious belief.
On freedom of expression, we have a similar clause: the expression of acceptance or disapproval may be distasteful to an individual, but it is not conversion practice. Even repeated expressions to an individual, unless they form part of a predetermined purpose that is planned as a course of conduct, are not captured in this Bill.
We have heard from practitioners who worry that they are currently working in the “wild west”, particularly in respect of counselling and therapy. There are few guidelines about how they can conduct their practice in this area and people on all sides shout at them, saying that one thing or another is conversion therapy. This Bill will, for the first time, give health practitioners the protection they need. Health practitioners are regulated or overseen by the Professional Standards Authority, which is following their professional judgments. The PSA was established by Parliament and regulates the statutory regulators and the non-statutory registers. There are 12 non-statutory accredited registers for counsellors or psychotherapists in the PSA, with the two largest being those of the UK Council for Psychotherapy and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, but the list includes smaller specialist organisations such as the Association of Christians in Counselling and Linked Professions or the UK Association for Humanistic Psychology Practitioners. Health practitioners are free to choose the relevant body to join. Each accredited register is entitled to develop its own approach to sexual orientation and transgender identity. There is already a diversity of views within those bodies, but none has objected to the Bill going to Committee.
Miriam Cates
The hon. Member is certainly trying very hard to provide a carve-out—an exception—to allow health practitioners to explore professionally with their clients their sexual and transgender identities. However, the carve-out means that the health practitioner must comply with regulatory and professional standards. Is he aware that most of the bodies he lists, and that are listed in the Bill, including the NHS, have signed up to a memorandum of understanding that basically insists that therapists pursue a gender-affirmatory approach? A therapist that did not pursue a gender-affirmatory approach and deliberately set out to help somebody not, as he terms it, become transgender would be in contravention of clause 1(2)(c) and therefore caught under the Bill.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Member says exactly the right word: “most”, but not all. Therapists who take a different approach will join a different organisation and get the same protection, because they will be following that organisation’s regulatory approach. In fact, the UK Council for Psychotherapy recently released a statement saying that exploratory therapy is an acceptable form of practice within the requirement of not having a “predetermined purpose”. The Bill does not support or prevent different forms of care, such as gender affirming or exploratory care. That is for the regulatory bodies to determine. What the Bill does is stop a “predetermined purpose” of offering change.
Some people have asked me to remove the “pre-determined” requirement for the health sector. They claim that it is circular and already the basis of the Bill, and that we do not need it. But without it, the chilling effect that many health practitioners feel in this area—hence they are leaving it—would continue. The Bill will allow practitioners to explore all forms of care, while having a framework to respond to someone who says, “You must say that I am this at the end of my therapy.” Practitioners can now say, “I cannot do that under law. I have to explore. I have to work with you and support you.” That is what therapists should do, that is what they want to do, but at the moment, that is what they are struggling to do.
This is a developing field and we need a framework that allows new evidence to be heard. Some have claimed that we should wait for the Cass report or that we should rule out some sorts of care. That would be dangerous. The Cass report will not be the end of the discussion of children and transgender. One sort of care might be useful for one group of people but not for another. It is up to the regulated bodies to produce guidelines. Such evidence should be treated by them, not deliberated here in the House.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The hon. Member is giving a powerful speech. On the Cass review, does he want to highlight the fact that Dr Hilary Cass has said that absolutely nothing in her work should stop a conversion practices Bill going through this place?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Exactly. I very much welcome that statement. In fact, the Bill produces a framework that Dr Cass’s review can inform as things change and move forward.
People who are not health practitioners but assist a person undergoing a regulated course of treatment, such as a receptionists or drivers, are protected under the Bill. If someone is questioning, exploring or developing coping skills—a role often taken by teachers or youth workers, which is my previous profession—they will receive clarity on the range of support they can offer.
One of the most controversial areas in the Government’s Bill was how it dealt with parents. It is my view that parents have a darn hard life already raising their children and we should not create new burdens for them. The Bill says that if someone is exercising parental responsibility and considers the welfare of their child as paramount, nothing they do will be an offence under the Bill. We refer to the Children Act 1989 and use the language in well-established bodies of law. We should not be messing with how children are treated in this way.
Danny Kruger
I appreciate how much the hon. Gentleman is giving way; it allows us to have a proper debate. I recognise how he is trying to protect parents. The definition he just read out states that as long as the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, they are not guilty of conversion practices. Nevertheless, can he not see that if the police or a prosecutor were to determine that the conversations that the parent was having in essence amounted to conversion practice in the form of trying to change their child’s gender identity or sexuality, it would be very possible to suggest that they are not acting in the best interests of the child and therefore to accuse them of conversion practices? I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to do the right thing here and that he has no intention of intervening in family life. Nevertheless, the law that he is proposing would very easily lead to exactly the prosecutions that he is trying to avoid.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Gentleman is right that the wording does not give parents a blank cheque for abuse, because the law already does not allow that. The law already sets the bar for courts’ determination on the welfare of a child. The courts already have a system to determine if there is a dispute between parents. The courts, or local authorities, already have a requirement to intervene where there is serious risk to a child. That is why I have used that body of law. Again, I do not think that it is our place to meddle with that body of well-established practice law. If he feels that there are words that would make that clearer, that is a case for sending the Bill to Committee and tabling amendments, and I will genuinely ensure that they get a hearing.
Alicia Kearns
The Bill reflects the limits in existing statute about where parents’ behaviour can go from supporting their child, through challenging conversations, to abuse. I am slightly concerned that there is a risk that some who oppose the Bill are suggesting that, if a parent’s challenging of their child’s LGBT inherent nature—who they are—becomes abuse, that is somehow acceptable: that being LGBT is a perversion and therefore that someone can be abusive to their child if they are LGBT, something they have not chosen but is inherent to who they are. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I quite agree. I have spoken to lots of people who have undergone conversion practices, often pushed by their parents. Almost none of them has said to me that they want their parents prosecuted; almost all have said that they want the practice to stop. That is the difference. That is what the Bill will do.
I acknowledge that there are many areas in which we may need clarity when the Bill is in operation. The Bill would require the Secretary of State to produce full guidance, and it would require devolved bodies to do so if the Bill is applied in their areas. While there is no ability to change the core offence in the Bill, clarificatory amendments are allowed under the affirmative procedure, which requires a vote in both Houses. It can never look back, but it can change things going forward when it needs to. The Bill would create an offence of sending someone abroad, using the same framework as that for female genital mutilation, an established piece of law that is already on the statute book.
Other Bills have tried to lock people up for these practices. To me, that seems totally foolish. Broadly, I do not believe in sending people to prison if we can find other ways to stop the practice. Therefore, I propose a fine not exceeding level 5 for conviction of an either-way offence in the magistrates court or the Crown Court, depending on the defendant or the prosecutor. Some ask: “Why not a civil fine rather than a criminal fine?” It is quite simple. The balance of probabilities is the test in civil law, and beyond reasonable doubt the test in criminal law. Do people want a lower threshold or a higher threshold? I have chosen the higher threshold to ensure that we get only the egregious cases.
We have seen the scandal of the Post Office, and many people have expressed a fear of activist groups on either side—using money from America or big donors—bringing private prosecutions and creating a chilling effect. At the suggestion of the Gay Men’s Network, but supported by all the people I have spoken to, I have prevented that from happening by allowing prosecutions only with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the Bill is enacted by the Scottish Government, those protections already exist in Scotland.
Finally, on penalties, we have sought to ensure that those with responsibility as charity trustees who are convicted under the Bill will be debarred from holding office. Being a trustee is a position of trust, and these practices often happen in those settings. The Charity Commission could, on application, remove that debarring if it wished to do so.
On the review clause, which the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned, almost everyone I spoke to was clear that the Bill is a start, but that they want to go further—some in one direction, by giving the Bill greater scope, and others in the direction of greater clarification. I have deliberately written the Bill to be narrow in scope. It will not have the ability to overreach. Many people feel that it will not capture all practices, but I understand that we must start somewhere and then move forward. That is why I included in the Bill, using wording from the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011—a process that we have already used—a four-year review clause, requiring the Secretary of State to set up a committee that has a majority of Members of this House but also other experts, to recommend amendments to the Bill. Of course, that committee would not be binding on this House; we would still have a vote.
Having met with numerous people, I believe I have created a balanced and fair Bill. Is it perfect? No. Is it a good start to the process? Yes. Should we take it to Committee and continue our work? Yes. For too long, this place has found reasons to take no action; we have allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The Bill should go to Committee, and I promise to appoint a diverse range of voices to that Committee. We should continue the dialogue and find practical solutions via amendments and tweaks, but not the grandstanding that we have had up to this point, of which I am as guilty as anyone. We should go to Committee and suggest amendments and greater clarifications.
To frustrate this Bill today when we have pledged for so many years to pass this legislation would be an indictment of this place. To frustrate this Bill today would be to break the pledges of the last five Prime Ministers, and the promises made at the last election and before that. Most importantly, to frustrate this Bill today would be to let down the survivors and future victims, and it is to them that I give the very last word. In the last year—not in the last decade, but in the last 12 months—Childline has had over 50 testimonies from young people. I will read one, from a girl aged 18:
“When I was younger, I told my parents I thought I was bi and they sent me to a counsellor who tried to convince me I was straight, and that my desire to be ‘different’ was purely for attention. Even though that was years ago, the effects of the counselling are still ongoing. It’s left me with a lot of guilt and confusion around who I am and how I’m supposed to act around other people.”
This Bill would stop that. It is for those people that we must act today. This is our first chance to do so; let us not let them down.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I am often asked why I fight for a ban on conversion therapy. People say, “Surely there must be some personal connection. Surely you must have some personal history,” but I do not. In fact, there is no one in my family who is LGBT; we may be the only family in the UK without someone who is LGBT. The reason I do it is because fundamentally, as a Conservative, I have a duty to defend individual freedoms. I believe that the state should stay out of people’s lives, but it should protect the most vulnerable—defend those who others seek to harm, and recognise that the first and foremost duty of any Government is to protect their people.
This is not some woke frontier for politicians to weaponise for clickbait, and I am shamed by the debate that is increasingly taking place on conversion therapy. I remember the first debate I secured in this place on conversion therapy. It was moderate; we sat and debated the intricacies of legislation that was not yet there. Unfortunately, that has changed.
People in positions of trust are abusing those who they tell they are sinful, broken and need correcting, which causes lifelong hate. There are survivors in this place—in Parliament. The reason I fight so hard is that so many LGBT colleagues do not feel that they can come here and be labelled as fighting for themselves. They should be free to do that, but sometimes they cannot, and—do you know what?—allyship matters. We have a duty in this place to not impose our own personal views on things, but recognise that our rights—potentially to religious freedoms—can be protected while we also protect those who live a life different from ours.
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Lady has made a really important point about LGB people coming to this place and feeling safe to argue their position on this important matter. I have experienced the most horrendous bullying in this place because I take a contrary view, or a more guarded view, than some in the LGB community. In fact, people in the LGB community are often referred to as “bigots”, “transphobes” and other slurs just because we have concerns about legislation such as this and want to make sure that young LGB people are protected —and trans people. Does the hon. Lady agree that that rule must apply to all sides of any debate, not just to the side that she favours?
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, but there was one letter missing in his LGB: the letter T. We do not divide the LGBT community in this place. Members can say that they have concerns about what we are doing, but by removing the T, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that transgender people do not exist. He is suggesting that they are less than other LGB people, and I will not stand for that, because it was trans people who stood with gay people at Stonewall; it was trans people who fought alongside them for LGB rights. I will happily discuss the intricacies of legislation with the hon. Gentleman, but when he chooses to eradicate, that is wrong.
Alicia Kearns
No, I will not give way on this point, because I will not hear more erasure of a transgender community. We can discuss the intricacies, but that I will not stand for.
I am not going to go into the arguments about the Bill, because the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) did an exceptional. job. He went out and met every single person, organisation and lobby group and listened to all their views, even if he disagreed with them—and that includes the LGB Alliance, who have also removed the T—and I have supported him. He has done a phenomenal job.
The hon. Gentleman has set out what the Bill does. It protects religious leaders, who can still guide their flocks. Health practitioners can still support and challenge people, and parents are protected. That is why all major faith groups back the Bill, why the royal colleges back it, and why exploratory therapy is protected. This is a compromise Bill, and I say to Members who wish to oppose it, “Search within yourself, because you have a duty to protect children and a duty to allow professionals to do their job, and you need to recognise that some people’s objections are not to the nuances in the Bill.” The only people who fear a ban on conversion therapy are quacks and charlatans who profit from bigotry and misery. Conversion therapy causes lifelong harm. This is a moderate Bill and a compromise Bill, and it does not go as far as the Government’s proposals. [Interruption.] The hon. Member may chunter and laugh, but I am appalled—[Interruption.] I will happily give way to him if he asks, rather than chuntering.
Danny Kruger
I apologise for chuntering. I was simply amused by the suggestion that this is a moderate Bill. This is not a moderate speech that the hon. Lady is making. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) made a very good speech, recognising that there are legitimate views on the other side of the debate. The hon. Lady talks about erasure, but she dismissed the comments of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), suggesting that his view was completely invalid. I respect her arguments and her wish to pursue this Bill, or this kind of legislation, but can we please have a debate with more civility?
Alicia Kearns
I would suggest that the ultimate failure of civility is to erase a member of the LGBT community —to erase an entire group. I am happy to discuss the nuanced points, but I will not do so if Members want to suggest that transgender people do not exist, or that we do not really have a definition in law of what transgender people are. They exist in law and they exist in this place, and they exist in the hon. Member’s constituency as well.
The Government should back this compromise Bill, because love is not a pathology, and transgender people are not a pathology: they do not need treatment. I say, very simply, to those people, “You are seen in this place and you are heard in this place, and very many of us back you and will protect you.”
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for the way in which he introduced the Bill. He is not known on the Opposition Benches as the most moderate of characters, but what he set out today was a moderate Bill—a Bill that seeks to find a consensus and a compromise between those campaigning for full-fat equality and those with gender-critical views. He has done so with a focus on not taking one side of the debate or the other, but putting the victims of this abhorrent and cruel practice first. That is what each of us, on all sides, should be thinking about when considering the Bill. What happens to those people, out of sight and often out of mind, who are preyed on by others who seek to attack them for who they love and who they are?
Conversion therapy is not always in the spotlight. It is not someone being beaten up in the street. It is not someone having paint flung at them. It is not someone being kicked out of their family home for who they are. It is a practice that is established and accepted in, frequently, professional forums, and in places we go to where we open ourselves up and where we seek the support of institutions and professionals. That is why the Bill matters. It seeks to expose those places where this abhorrent, cruel, 21st-century torture is perpetrated on LGBT people.
I am proud to be Plymouth’s first out MP, which I think gives me a special responsibility to be vocal about the effect of legislation, and of the lack of legislation, on communities and people like me. If we in this House do not have an eye on that effect, we turn a blind eye and legitimise the torture and abuse that happens to people. We must not do that.
I was pleased when the Government said in their last manifesto that they will ban conversion therapy, and I was pleased that my party and every main party did so, because it sought to create a consensus that hate and torture are not welcome in the UK regardless of our politics. I am proud to be a Labour MP, and I am proud to be part of a campaigning party and a party of equality, but I want every party in this House to be a party of equality when it comes to rooting out abuse, which is what this Bill offers.
We have just heard the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) make a proud Conservative case for stamping out something, and I am proud to make a Labour case for stamping out hate and inequality. I am proud to say that our duty to society means that we must consider the most vulnerable, because that does not attack all of us but lifts people to a level where everyone is protected. That matters and, if a Conservative case can sit happily alongside a Labour case, we should pass a consensus Bill.
The LGBT community has been waiting too long for this legislation, which has been promised too many times, but let us be clear about what would happen if the Bill were not passed today. We are possibly only weeks away from a general election in which we know there could be more division than we have seen in a long time. It worries me deeply that we have allowed attacks on trans people to be a legitimate part of how we win votes. It is never acceptable to attack a minority, and it is never acceptable to seek to win votes on the back of the most vulnerable, persecuted and attacked minority.
With this Bill, both sides of the House have an opportunity to turn our back on that and to say that equality matters from any political perspective, because people matter. My word, people come in all different shapes and sizes, which is a good thing. It is in celebrating our diversity that we gain strength, not by pretending that everyone is the same. That would be a dull, horrible future. It would be a version of Britain that erases people, that erases the bit that makes this country great—that we can all be different, that we can all be proud and, importantly, that we should all be protected under law.
It is important that the Bill is drawn as broadly as possible, covering all aspects of the LGBT+ community. I spoke in a previous Westminster Hall debate on this subject, as did a number of Members present, and I described how removing the T, so that the Bill protects only LGB people, is a trap door. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, if we allow that trap door, people who enjoy protection from torture because they are lesbian, gay or bisexual will simply be told that they are trans, and that loophole will be used to attack people whether or not they have a transgender identity. It is a trap door, which is why the Bill must be as broad as possible.
I have spoken to equality activists and members of the LGBT community in Plymouth about the Bill, and they have asked me to pose two questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. First, does the Bill include asexual people and, secondly, does it include non-binary people? These are fair questions, and they are important because, if we are considering the full extent of the LGBT+ community, we must consider those people who might not necessarily describe themselves as transgender, and might not especially describe themselves as LGB in some way. Some clarity in the explanatory notes, or on the face of the Bill, would be useful to affirm to those communities that they are captured by the measures. I understand from what my hon. Friend has said that they will be, but I would be grateful if he mentioned that when he winds up.
This House needs to consider how we come together, rather than how we divide. I support my hon. Friend’s plea for the Bill to go to Committee, where those who have a legitimate challenge—from their point of view—can table amendments. What I would like to hear in the debate is this: in which clause is there a problem? In which clauses might alternative wording address that problem?
Over the past few months, I have seen my crazy, ridiculous hon. Friend, who normally runs headlong into walls to knock them down, take his time to be balanced, calm and considerate. I do not know whether it is a temporary affliction or part of a new chapter in his behaviour, but I have seen him make every effort to speak to people he agrees with and disagrees with, to take on board their views. Not only is that something that we should, for all our sakes, encourage in his behaviour, but it makes the Bill better, because it makes it supportive.
The gravity of this issue cannot be overstated. Recent polling by LGBT anti-abuse charity Galop found that one in five LGBT people and more than a third of trans people in the UK have been subject to attempted conversion. Another charity, Mind, which focuses on mental health issues, found that those who have undergone such practices are twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts and 75 times more likely to plan to attempt suicide. There are real-world consequences. That has led Mind and 20 other mental health charities, NHS bodies and professional counselling and psychotherapy organisations to define conversion practice as “unethical and harmful” and to call for them to be banned. I agree with them and with the Bill.
However, there will be people watching the debate who have perhaps not searched out the text of the Bill. They will be looking at the tone of the debate to see whether this House reflects their views and, for the LGBT+ community, whether it reflects their right to exist. That matters. The words we choose matter. To those LGBT people who are watching this, I echo the words of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton: they are seen, they are welcome and they are loved. I want everyone to be authentically true to who they are. There should be no impediments in law, no loopholes or trapdoors, that allow someone who is true to who they are, authentically themselves, to be subject to abuse or torture in the way that, as we have established on a cross-party basis, happens in relation to conversion therapy.
Miriam Cates
I completely agree with the hon. Member about the tone of this important debate, but, as I am sure he is aware, abuse and torture are absolutely illegal in this country, and we all support that. There are multiple pieces of legislation that deal with abuse, torture and harmful practices, and nobody in this place would reject that. The problem for those of us who question the Bill is that it contains no threshold for torture, abuse or even harm, so it will capture practices that are not harmful and for which we should not be legislating.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Given the risk of running into the same wall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown ran into, I will portray moderation on my side. I think that that is precisely why she should give the Bill a Second Reading and table any amendments, as she sees fit, to define the matter of concern and make her case in Committee. I believe that there are currently loopholes in the law that allow that abhorrent abuse to go on.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
A number of practices are illegal in this country, such as forced marriage, which is something that the LGBTQ community experience, including those who may also go through conversion therapy. That is wrong. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time to tackle that is now? The LGBTQ community have been waiting at least five years since the Government first promised to ban that awful practice.
Luke Pollard
I agree with my hon. Friend. People have been waiting too long; let us ensure they do not wait any longer. Let us also send a message to Members of all parties, until the general election concludes, that attacking trans people and LGBT people because of who they are is unacceptable. That should be called out on a cross-party basis. It has no part in our politics.
Legitimate debate about improving this Bill should define us at our very best. The debate so far has been a good one, because it has allowed people to voice their different views, and we should continue that in Committee, allowing people to table amendments where required to improve the Bill and ensure it does exactly what it says on the tin and stops these abhorrent, cruel practices from ever happening again.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The obligation in this debate is to set out the current threats that are not already covered by existing legislation or that we would want to legislate against. The Bill also needs to do so in a clear, precise way that is straightforward to interpret and enforce, without causing great uncertainty and triggering a chilling effect on free speech and healthy family life.
Over many years, the issue of sex and identity has developed and evolved substantially. When I was younger, I never saw these topics on the news. It was rare and unusual for them ever to appear. In terms of being aware of lesbians and gays and the challenges they face in life, for any Member of Parliament—for any decent person—there is huge concern and sympathy for those people. There was a debate among that community about bisexuals joining it. That was not a straightforward process. There was a debate and a dispute over that.
One thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) touched upon was acceptance of other people and inclusiveness, and not imposing upon people. That was one key feature, I thought, in the debate about conversion practices. Many people, for example represented by the LGB Alliance, are concerned that they feel imposed upon. Society is adapting and learning to understand and appreciate the challenges that changes in society bring.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) highlighted a point about LGB and LGBT identity. The hon. Gentleman then added the plus symbol, the A and the I. That highlights the complexity of the issue and the clarity needed when some groups are being included and others excluded. The language is diverse, depending on who we are speaking to and when we are speaking. A few years ago, this conversation would have been different from how it is now.
We have to reflect on the number of genders that are commonly used or reasonably frequently used, and this is by no means an exhaustive list: bi-gendered, cross-dresser, drag king, drag queen, femme queen, female-to-male or FTM, gender bender, genderqueer, male-to-female or MTF, non-op, hijra, pangender, transsexual, trans person, woman, man, butch, two-spirit, trans, agender, third sex, gender fluid, non-binary transgender, androgyne, gender gifted, gender blender, femme, person of transgender experience and androgynous. If people go on Wikipedia, there will see far, far more. I have missed out huge numbers, but it serves the purpose of highlighting the complexity and involvement of the issue. When we are discussing this topic, it should be respectful, but also we should try to keep society with us.
Kate Osborne
The hon. Gentleman talks about being respectful. Does he not believe that people should be able to identify in whatever way they choose?
Chris Green
I do agree with people identifying in any way they choose, but society is still getting to grips with this issue. One concern is not just individuals being able to make choices about their identity for themselves, but how other people relate to them. That is a huge concern in relation to changing the law and imposing upon society a set of views, when those views and values are evolving over time.
I will highlight one aspect. As things change, that is reflected in society, for example in architecture. Parents came to my surgery to raise concerns about mixed-sex facilities at a local swimming pool. They raised those concerns because they were interested in protecting their daughters. Regardless of whether the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and other colleagues agree or disagree about the issue, it is a fact that parents are coming to me to say that they are concerned about the architecture of the new health centre in Horwich. That architecture cements in place a particular form of behaviour—everyone together rather than male and female changing rooms—and that lends itself to a lot of misunderstanding, concern and fear in society. That was expressed to me by mothers of daughters and I, as a Member of Parliament, ought to be respectful and concerned about what my constituents are raising with me.
On transition, as I pointed out before, societal understanding has been gradual. Such topics were very rarely in the news and now they frequently are. Most days on the “Today” programme we hear about sex and identity. As it is on our media so much, we have to reflect on legislation and application, but it is only relatively recently, in 2005, that the transgender or transsexual side of the issue came into the mainstream and the forefront of people’s understanding. I bought at the time the album “I am a Bird Now” by Antony and the Johnsons, and it was an interesting listen; it is good music with interesting and challenging lyrics. It highlights some of the challenges that people go through, and which many people in society would not know about. Many people would not know about the transition process and how challenging it is. Before the debate developed in the way it has, most people when hearing about trans people would try to be understanding, supportive and sympathetic and would want to encourage those people on the path they had chosen to go down, but that is not universal; many people are hostile and toxic about that. But 2005 was, at least for me, the transition point when trans identity became far more public an issue.
We have to understand how difficult it is for society to adjust, especially given certain aspects of trans; for example, significant surgery is done to people as part of that process, and quite significant pharmaceuticals are used in the process. These are not easy things to adjust to for mums, dads, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, the wider family and the wider community, such as, perhaps, churches, mosques or other organisations, when seeing and hearing that someone is concerned and thinking about transitioning. How protected are those people from the threats of conversion practices or illegalisation of what they would consider a normal if challenging conversation? If someone wants to go down a route involving significant surgery and life-changing drugs, that might be irreversible, especially for a child reaching puberty; drugs that stop the process of puberty can have substantial impacts and there should be some understanding of the lifelong impacts of taking those drugs, especially if someone wants to detransition. It is very challenging for those people to make that decision in the first place. It is challenging for their families watching them try to understand the issues, which are far better understood these days than they were previously, to say, “Is that the right choice? Is that the route you want to go down?” We have to be 100% certain that normal family conversations will not be taken through the courts.
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech that makes clear how nuanced the debate is and how complicated an area it is in which to legislate. Does he share my concern that the Bill could criminalise somebody who perhaps is not a parent, but maybe an older friend and mentor to a young person, who deliberately sets out to try to dissuade them over a period of time from going down a transition route, taking cross-sex hormones and pursuing surgery? Does he share my concern that that person could be caught under the Bill in a practice that perhaps he and I would think is not abusive at all, but seeks to rescue that child from permanent harm?
Chris Green
I agree. The jeopardy for that individual is substantial. That issue has not been covered, and they are not protected under the legislation as it stands. There is a significant aspect to this matter about free will and decision making. If a young person is looking to go down a certain route—again, the transformation to someone’s life if they transition is profound and, in many ways, irreversible—perhaps the individual wants to be certain that the young person is making the right decision. How can someone be certain they are making the right decision? One way is by asking the young person challenging questions, such as, “Are you doing the right thing for the right reason? Can you live with the consequences of it? Have you really though it through?” I thought this Chamber represented that idea of debate and challenge, and of questioning, “Are you really intent on doing this? Do you really want to go down this track? Before you take any drugs, go to a clinic to get that support or have any surgery, have you actively considered all the issues and implications of what you are doing?”
Elliot Colburn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to give space for that free discussion. Current NHS data suggests that people referred to gender identity clinics will take about 10 years to be seen. Is 10 years enough time for someone to be sure they have made the right decision?
Chris Green
One concern is the requirement almost for affirmation. In the context of the structures in society and the expectations on people if the legislation passes, and the framing in which parents, families and others are allowed to discuss the matter with their own children, the route that people go down starts a long time before they get to the stage that my hon. Friend mentions. We need to understand this and have an open discussion right at the beginning, rather than years down the line.
Danny Kruger
My hon. Friend raised the good point about the explosion in demand for support in this area over recent years, which is overwhelming the services available through the NHS. That itself should cause us great concern about what is going on in our society. There is a long waiting list for publicly available help but not for private support, so am I not right that somebody could seek private therapy quickly?
Chris Green
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Just because the state services are often slower than private services, we should not be satisfied that the 10-year delay is sufficient time for people to reconsider.
There is a question of equality on this matter and, again, we have to understand society as it has changed. A key thing in society, which was certainly not a concern when I was growing up, is the internet, emails and social media. Social media is powerful, and children and young people spend a great deal of time on social media. In other debates in this Chamber, people would be raising concerns about bulimia, suicide and other things that children are influenced by on social media. Those are the challenging issues raised on social media. Parents have to understand that the influences on their children can often be supportive and encouraging, but not all the influences on social media are. The Bill almost introduces an inequality: certain people can encourage and support children, young adults and others to go down a certain track, whether they meet in person or online, but the people with whom they have personal contact and will spend the rest of their lives—the family unit, their friends and the wider community—almost have their ability to communicate with their loved one curtailed.
Sir William Cash
Does my hon. Friend also accept that it would be impossible for a criminal trial determining whether an offence has been committed to go through all these variations to work out the nature of the evidence that should be received? It is incredibly invasive; it is based on privacy and people being able to talk to others in a mentoring context or a manner that would enable the person to understand better what is going on. For a trial to determine whether an offence had been committed would be mind-bogglingly difficult and very invasive—in practice, it would be impossible.
Chris Green
I agree. If the courts, prosecutors and others can go into the family home to find evidence for a successful prosecution, that would cause substantial disruption to family life. Remember that this has to be a successful prosecution for something that is not covered by existing legislation. There are already a huge number of protections in law for people right across society. As I said, this Bill ought to be able to point out compellingly and clearly areas of life that we want to be protected but are not already covered by existing legislation.
The punishment allowed under the Bill is a level 5 fine. I am not terribly familiar with the fine categories, but the House of Commons Library has provided a bit of information. It is an unlimited fine, which would be a huge cost to anyone suffering it. It is important that families are aware of the category they have been put into. Level 5 crimes include harassment, stalking, imprisonment, controlling or coercive behaviour, and exposure—commonly known as flashing. This Bill seeks to put families who believe they are having a normal conversation about their children growing up and exploring ideas about themselves and their identity, if they are not clear about what their identity is, into that category. Families having what they consider to be a normal, reasonable and balanced conversation with their children are being put in the same category as flashers. That is what the level 5 fine does, and that places a serious burden on families.
I want to reflect on the fact that Justin Webb fell foul of current legislation for remarks that came out earlier today, or perhaps yesterday, so it would be challenging for a family member, a friend, a religious leader or anyone else in wider society. If someone who deals with these issues day in, day out, as a presenter on one of the most prestigious news programmes—BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme—can fall foul of current legislation, we should think about what we are doing when we seek to tighten up legislation. I appreciate the arguments that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown made—he gave a powerful, dignified speech—but if Justin Webb can fall foul of the current legislation, how vulnerable will parents and others be who do not follow the nuances and details of these issues day in, day out? There will be a lot of concern. It will be damaging in many ways for families to feel that they will be scrutinised, under the microscope and vulnerable when doing what they can to care for their children. On that note, I oppose the Bill, but I look forward to the rest of this positive debate.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Undoubtedly, this Bill is being presented with many good intentions, by a Member who feels passionately about the rights of LGBT people, and all people, to live as they choose in peace and without fear or prejudice. The vast majority of Members of this House and the other place share those aims and intentions. Most will have attended Pride and taken part in LGBT History Month events and debates. Most see the equalities legislation passed here, such as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, as a positive step towards a more equal and inclusive society.
The idea of anyone who is gay or bisexual, of any age, and who is growing into who they are and questioning their sexuality, being coerced into thinking that they need to change is deeply disturbing and sinister. But that is already against the law. It is also, thankfully, incredibly rare, to the point of being all but wiped out. It is certainly completely socially unacceptable. I believe that this proposed legislation is not necessary to fix a problem; rather, it creates several serious new ones. Anyone who followed the recent debates in the other place will have heard strong evidence from peers across the Benches that the Bill is a solution in search of a problem.
First, in order to legislate we would need clear legal definitions of terms that are contentious and vague. For example, how does one define the concept of converting someone to change their “true identity”? A qualified therapist exploring a client’s feelings of gender dysphoria will cause them to question those feelings in order to understand them—that is therapy. In everyday conversations among friends or families, who steps in, and at what point, to decide that those conversations amount to attempted conversion?
Feminist groups, Labour Women’s Declaration, the Gay Men’s Network and the LGB Alliance are fearful that legislation like this is dangerous, and it sends the message to those who need to confide in professionals or even those closest to them that it is not safe to do so, and that they will be forced to be gay when they might want just to be gender questioning, or vice versa. The message is that the situation is so bad that we need a new criminal law to deal with it. Serious legislators should never create flawed and unnecessary legislation merely to send a message; that is law created by social media, rather than laws that we expect of a Government —or a Government in waiting—to be upheld by our courts. This Bill is unprosecutable and, without evidence of need, it brings criminal law into an area that simply needs to be regulated by policies and guidance.
The other aspect, as I mentioned earlier, is the problem that, currently, nothing can be properly described. Given broadcasters are labelling brutal men who murder as women, and are reprimanded if they correctly name a person by their biological sex, who is appointed the arbiter of what constitutes conversion? Feminists believe that lesbians should be free to date only women, as they choose. However, in today’s toxic climate, they are pressurised into dating so-called lesbians with a penis— in other words, men. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) described his Bill as stopping people from being at risk of losing their identity. However well-intentioned and worthy that goal might be, how is that to be defined and by who? Laws that cannot provide clear definitions are just useless pieces of paper.
Attempting to convert or coerce anyone away from being who they choose to be, or to make them straight if they are gay, is cruel and, thankfully, against the law. This Bill does nothing to change that. It merely suggests that anyone trying to stop their daughter cutting off her healthy breasts as a teenager—before long-term, serious thought and a careful pause—is breaking the law. The Bill prevents a parent from suggesting that their 15-year-old son should start on a course of puberty blockers, which will render him infertile, as an adult instead, when he will be entirely without doubt and less confused.
Chris Green
What understanding is there at the moment about the reversibility of the drugs that are sometimes given to children, which could be life-changing?
Rosie Duffield
As I understand it—not being a medical expert—we do not know yet, because those drugs have not been in full use for long.
Are all the Members supporting this Bill really willing to decide what constitutes conversion therapy and what they deem to be acceptable talking support? Are they doing so because they believe this is serious legislation, or is this politics for social media likes? In saying that, I know well what awaits me on social media.
We have a clear divide in the Chamber today, between the beneficiaries of Stonewall badges and donations, and the groups of so-called gender critical feminists that I represent. But tribes on social media are not legislators. We are writing laws here, and getting it right is essential and serious. The dumbing down of such important debates for likes is not only vacuous but sets a dangerous precedent, and we need to be better than this when making the laws of this country.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I gently suggest to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) that if she genuinely thinks that those on her side of the debate are the only ones who get abuse on social media, she should look at the treatment of LGBT+ politicians in this country when we dare to speak out about these issues. She is certainly not alone. I do not agree for one minute that the abuse that she or anyone who holds her views gets is acceptable. I have often spoken in this place about the toxicity surrounding these discussions and debates, which I believe has only grown with the rise of social media. I absolutely agree with her on that point, but we have a duty not to feed into the toxicity. We are not supporting the Bill because we think that this is a social media contest—we know full well that we would not win—but the evidence is clear.
I want to pick up on the point, made in the previous speech, that there is no evidence that conversion therapy is happening, because we have ample evidence from the Government-commissioned data that it is happening. In 2018, 108,000 people responded to a survey, and 7% of them had undergone or been offered conversion therapy. Some 13% of trans respondents had undergone or been offered conversion therapy. Fifty-one per cent said that it was conducted by faith groups, and 19% said that it was carried out by healthcare or medical professionals.
Miriam Cates
In the survey to which my hon. Friend refers, what definition of “conversion therapy” was put to respondents?
Elliot Colburn
As my hon. Friend well knows, there was no definition offered at the time, but that is exactly what this Bill attempts to do: to bring forward a definition.
I want to pick up on a point that has been made a number of times. A number of colleagues have suggested that there is an epidemic of people being forced to be gay or being forced to be trans. This is a two-way Bill —it does it in both directions.
Neale Hanvey
Does the data that the hon. Gentleman refers to come from the self-referral survey administered at Pride marches? That is not really research but a survey. Does he think that a survey conducted in that way is sufficient to inform legislation?
Elliot Colburn
The survey was only the start. It has been backed up by research commissioned by the Government two years ago. It has also been backed up by a number of independent organisations, including the NSPCC, Mind and Galop, which have had calls about it. We have the data to show it is happening. The idea that people would phone a support service such as the NSPCC and pretend that they are being offered conversion therapy is, I am afraid, for the birds.
I agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) about how we are perceived in this place. I thought back to when this House debated same-sex marriage in 2012. I listened to the debate, obviously not as a Member of Parliament, and I remember how powerless I felt then as a young gay man having my future and my rights discussed by a group of people. I had nothing to do but sit and watch and listen to some awful things. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said, that is necessary in a free and democratic society. The Bill does not seek to curtail free expression via legitimate conversations, but we have evidence that harm is being done to people and we do not have the laws in place to prevent it.
Miriam Cates
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in taking another intervention. He talked about evidence and referred to the survey, which he admitted contained no definition of conversion therapy. We have heard how many different definitions of conversion therapy there could be, and how many different definitions we all hold, from the most extreme, awful abuse, which is already illegal, to talking therapies and persuasion. Does the definition of conversion therapy not matter intensely to that survey? How can it be evidence if there was no definition?
Elliot Colburn
We have to get the Bill to Committee so that we can thrash that out. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but that is the point of passing legislation: we make definitions and we make laws. The whole point of giving the Bill its Second Reading today is to create a definition and pass it into law.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; I hope he agrees that this is a very helpful conversation. We have been debating this issue for years, as everybody keeps saying. The reason there is no definition is because it is impossible to arrive at one. The Scottish Parliament cannot arrive at one and we have failed to do so. It is not possible to find a definition that is between what is illegal already and what we all think should not be illegal. It does not exist. The idea that the Bill should go to Committee for us to continue this conversation is absurd. It cannot be done.
Elliot Colburn
I am sorry, but my hon. Friend seems to have forgotten the point: this is the first time we are debating a Bill. We have failed because we have taken five years to arrive at a position where we can actually debate legislation. That is the failure. We passed Brexit faster than we have discussed this!
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. The fundamental problem is that we have not been able to define the problem. There is anecdotal data from a survey that suggests that some people have reported that they have been subjected to what they define as conversion therapy, but we do not know what it is. It is not defined. What exactly are we legislating about?
I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman another question. I listened very carefully to his view on other people talking about his sexuality. Does he think it is acceptable for a gay man to be told across this Chamber what he should do, how he should define himself and who he should associate himself with? Does he feel that that is homophobic?
Elliot Colburn
I do not think anybody should be told what they should do. That is the entire reason I am backing the Bill. I totally accept that there will be people who will never, ever believe that LGBT+ identities are real or valid. I do not agree with that, and I and other people can find that hurtful, but that is what we have to accept in a free and democratic society.
I have been part of these conversations now for many years and I have seen the incredible work that has gone in to work across the divide to try to bring people together. I saw myself, when I sat on the Women and Equalities Committee and we conducted an inquiry into this issue, how much agreement there was between different sides about what needs to be done, especially on improving the provision of healthcare and mental healthcare. They might have different ideas on outcomes. For example, some people might think we need to improve healthcare for younger people so they do not go down a route of being trans, while other people might think we need to do that because waiting lists are too long and we want to get people on a course of treatment faster.
Both those views are, of course, absolutely valid. As parliamentarians and as individuals, we have to accept views that we do not agree with. I totally accept, as I have said, that there will be people who never think that my right to exist as a gay man is valid or that trans identities are valid. That might be upsetting and difficult for people to accept, but that is what happens in a free and democratic society, and the Bill does not encroach on that.
I want to come back to the legal test of “predetermined outcome”, as that is where we must focus. That legal test provides the safeguards necessary to address both those sets of concerns, so that we can get to a place where if someone embarks on a course of action that has a predetermined outcome to change someone’s identity, we have a legal mechanism to deal with that, but we also provide the freedoms for people to express views, to engage in legitimate conversation and, yes, to say things that other people might find distasteful and hurtful. We just have to accept that that is the case, but this is what good law is all about.
I hope that colleagues allow the Bill through to Committee. There have been many discussions of what constitutes conversion therapy and how we define these concepts. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown was right to use existing legal concepts, but we must be allowed to get the Bill through to Committee so that we can have this discussion in greater detail, because so far all we have heard is anecdote; we have had debates, but we have never had discussion on an actual legislative proposal. That is the opportunity we have today and it would not be right to let the Bill fall at this hurdle. We need to get it through to Committee so that we can thrash this matter out in more detail.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for the extent of his engagement with those with varying perspectives on the Bill. We have crossed swords on occasion, but it is important that the conversation and debate in this Chamber is led with the honesty and integrity that it deserves.
No one wants to see pressure or coercion used on people, whether they be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or heterosexual—I know that all Members of this House can agree on that. Working on the law as we do, however, we also know that best intentions alone are not sufficient to avoid unintended consequences, which can arise from any piece of legislation—we always see that in this place. Whatever the issue at hand, we have a responsibility here; as elected Members of Parliament, it is our job—it is precisely why we were voted into this place—to interrogate proposals, scrutinise legislation and ask the difficult questions, the “what ifs”, to ensure that any legislation that passes works in practice for the benefit of the people in this country, rather than against them.
Before I became an MP, I worked in education for 20 years, as a teacher. The majority of my friends are still in teaching and they have many concerns; they feel at first hand the chilling effect on them of the debate we are having in this House, as well as of what has happened in Scotland and what is happening in Wales. That is why I feel a great and deep responsibility to stand up here today, to have this debate and to raise the issues that I have with the Bill as it stands. However, I thank my hon. Friend for opening the conversation, because engaging is the way forward.
Young people and children are at the heart of everything I do, and I base my approach to this discussion on wellbeing and safeguarding. The matter of therapy and treatment for children and young people experiencing gender distress is a highly complex area, which is undergoing a review in the UK. Far from referring to sexual preferences or a way of life, gender reassignment concerns serious, potentially life-altering medical and surgical interventions that are often irreversible. In recent years, there has been a concerning increase in the number of children, particularly girls, becoming convinced that they were born into the wrong body. As someone who was a tomboy as a young girl, I know that, had I had some of these conversations, or had these social media influences on me, this would be something that I might have wished for.
Dr Hilary Cass’s interim report exposed the extent of the failings of the gender identity development service at the Tavistock clinic, criticising the “predominantly… affirmative, non-exploratory approach” and highlighting a disturbing lack of support for young people with gender dysphoria. The report, and the subsequent decision to close the GIDS at the Tavistock clinic, is evidence that treatment should be provided as part of holistic mental health provision. Accompanied by the consequent NHS interim service specification, it recommends a “watchful waiting” approach, advising that clinicians remain open to question and explore a gender-distressed child’s feelings and the range of available treatment options that may best address a patient’s needs before affirming their self-diagnosis. That is to ensure that if a young person does pursue medical transition, they do so with informed consent and a realistic understanding of likely outcomes.
If it follows the evidence, the future direction of treatment for children experiencing gender dysphoria should be psychotherapeutic and exploratory, but I have concerns that the Bill as drafted risks further impacting standards of care by threatening medical professionals and clinicians who use an exploratory approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown has made efforts to reflect those concerns in the Bill, yet despite the exception in clause 1(2)(c) for health practitioners, its focus on “predetermined purpose and intent” still risks criminalising health professionals who engage in exploratory conversations with their patients. Legitimate clinical practice will sometimes have a predetermined outcome where a confident and clear diagnosis is made. Should a clinician have published research indicating a preference for psychotherapeutic approaches that could alleviate a child’s distressed alienation from their body so that they come to accept themselves as enough as they are, such research could be cited as evidence of predetermined intent of an outcome. The clinician would then be at risk of prosecution if he or she did anything other than affirm a child’s diagnosis.
What is more, the Bill does not require proof that any harm was intended or caused by the clinician’s conduct. It is highly irregular to criminalise motivations alone in the absence of demonstrably harmful behaviour. Professionals must be able to question and explore a gender-distressed child’s self-diagnosis without fear of prosecution, or even accusations of such behaviour. In recent years, countless clinicians have spoken of the flight of professionals working with young people experiencing gender incongruence. The interim Cass report highlighted that professionals already feel under pressure to take an unquestioning affirmative approach that is diametrically opposed to standard practice in all other clinical encounters. Fear of prosecution would exert further pressure on professionals working in an already sensitive and culturally fraught area, and would risk accelerating their departure from the field. My concern is that the Bill could leave unquestioning affirmative treatment as the only option.
Miriam Cates
The hon. Lady is giving a superb speech. I completely agree that clinicians are already under pressure to use an affirmative approach. Is one of the problems not that many of the professional bodies, including the NHS, have signed up to that approach, and therefore, even with the safeguards provided in the Bill, those therapists would be committing an offence if they took a predetermined course—let us say, to prevent a patient from going down a transgender route?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for her question. That is what we need to be able to discuss and look at in further detail, and to thrash out in Committee. We need to ensure that clinicians, particularly those in the NHS—we need them to stay in their field—do not face a chilling effect. The risk of that chilling effect should not be understated: it could make the holistic therapy that is recognised as critical by the Cass review harder to access. Our priority absolutely has to be the legitimate and workable protection of the provision of good, evidenced care for children and young people.
I believe that the Bill should go to Committee. We need sunlight on it to make sure that, if it passes, it has been subjected to detailed consideration of its wording and an understanding of what those words mean for people on the ground, working in our NHS, teaching the children in our schools and working in safeguarding, and for parents, who are a priority.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). Reflecting on her words and in particular how she summed up her point, our Parliament, our democracy, our way of making law, works best when friends disagree well. Moving the Bill into Committee is absolutely the right thing to do. It is a step in the right direction in what is acknowledged right across the House as a complicated issue. I believe that we are doing it some justice today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on promoting this much needed Bill. Members throughout the House appreciate all the work that he has put in. This issue is very complicated. He has gone to great lengths to build as many bridges as possible and to get the ball rolling on this serious matter.
The Bill sets out a clear objective: to tackle and prohibit practices that seek to change someone’s sexual orientation or their gender identity. Taking this step will go a long way towards protecting trans people and indeed LGBT people. From correspondence I have received and through the surgeries I have had with members of the trans and LGBT community, I know just how important and impactful the issue is for my constituents. Throughout my time as an MP, I have been consistent in my opposition towards all forms of conversion practices and in my support for a trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy, so I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill.
To be clear, I welcome the work and the progress that this Conservative Government have made in advancing the rights of the LGBT community. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) is not in her place, but she clearly made the Conservative case for protecting the individual, for championing people’s individuality. That is why I speak today as well. Ensuring that those in the LGBT community are able to live freely and happily is something to which I know even my ministerial colleagues are utterly committed.
On some specifics, I welcome the Bill’s clear framework in defining what conversion practices are and the nature of the new offences. I accept there is more to do, but a framework is where we start. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is right to focus on the highly organised, planned activities and operations where a huge amount of harm takes place. By having that type of focus, I think we can better measure the success of the measures in the Bill, should it become law.
Having combed through the Bill, it is clear that great care has gone into making sure that a range of groups, including different faiths, have been properly heard. That is vital in considering the complexity surrounding the issue and the need to make the new offences completely watertight. Members will know how incredibly difficult it is to strike the right balance on an issue such as this, and to maintain religious freedom while cracking down on harmful conversion practices. I believe that the Bill successfully treads that path.
By taking a tough stance on the very worst conversion practices, we can help to ensure that LGBT people are able to live their lives free from the suppression of their gender and sexual orientation. No one in this country should be subject to the erosion and undue manipulation of their own identity. I hope that Members in all parts of this House support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, and that we do not delay any further in getting it through to the next stages for further deliberation on the finer details.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Let me begin by telling a little story that may surprise some Members who have made assumptions and judgments about my position on policies of this type.
When my party leader, Alex Salmond, introduced equal marriage to Scotland, it was done in a collaborative and supportive way, involving proper engagement with all members of the community. All the Churches were involved, through an assembly process. It was a smooth and positive campaign that delivered real, meaningful change. I have not availed myself of it, because I am happy to stick with the old-style civil partnership—my partner and I are very comfortable with that—but for those who want a marriage ceremony, it is brilliant.
After the introduction of equal marriage at the beginning of 2015, the Equality Network, which had led the campaign for it, organised a consultation on what the priority should be for equalities campaigning in Scotland. So I trundled off to Edinburgh on a cold dark March evening to sit in a room with a large group of people—transexual people, transgender people and gay people. I was the only politician who had turned up on that cold evening, and I was full-throated in my support for advancing disability and inclusion rights and the rights of transgender people. What I had never signed up for, however, was the insinuation of queer theory into the rights movement and the equality movement, and the pernicious effect that it would have. I had not realised how dangerous and disruptive that movement was until I spoke up, very politely, and said a simple thing: “Women are not being listened to in the trans debate.”
The response that stemmed from that simple statement of absolute fact has been horrific. People describe me as gender critical, but I am not transphobic—absolutely not. I have led my local Pride march for two years, I have introduced safe spaces for trans people, and I have relationships and friendships with people who are transgender and transexual. However, when I look at a policy through the lens of someone who has been involved in safeguarding and child protection throughout his professional life and I see a risk in that policy, it is my duty to point that out to legislators and to say, “This is dangerous.”
The reason I have brought that up and the reason it is relevant to the debate—I am coming to that; I can see that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) is getting anxious—is that this policy does not sit in isolation from queer theory. It is part of the queer theory movement, and despite all the reassurances and despite the hon. Gentleman’s best efforts—and I believe that his speech and his engagement have been entirely sincere—he cannot divorce what he is attempting to do with this legislation from the activists who will have a very different reading of the words that he has spoken today, and the reassurances that he has given us. That is my great fear and concern.
I have risen to oppose the Bill not despite but because of the fact that I am a gay male who can see the dangers that it presents to gender non-conforming young people. I came out in the 1980s, when being gay was not fashionable and people could still be sacked for it, with no recourse or redress in employment law. In those days, my greatest allies were women: Women in the Workplace, the feminists who volunteered alongside me at Scottish AIDS Monitor, the women who worked alongside me in schools delivering drug and sexual health education to young people in response to the particular AIDS problem that we had in Edinburgh, and the women who walked alongside me on Pride marches. I remember that, and I value it.
It is so sad that the cause of improving the lives of transgender and transsexual people in the UK has been blighted by a campaign that can be described as, at best, divisive and aggressive. My family and I have been subjected to the full force of that campaign, which is the problem with this Bill. I believe the intentions of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown are genuine, but it is against a backdrop of queer theory activists and heterosexual people telling me how I should define myself and what I should accept as a gay man. That is unacceptable. It is homophobia, and I do not care what anyone says.
Balancing rights and protections requires the consideration of every affected community, and every affected category within each community. Despite what is often said, neither queer theory nor gender ideology is about inclusion or diversity. It is an anarchic, authoritarian movement, the purpose of which is to disrupt and silence. Speaking up has not been easy, and the impact on my family has been enormous.
As a voter, I want to vote for a politician who I believe is telling me the truth. I do not want to vote for a politician who lies to me, who says that black is white or that Y is X. That will never be acceptable, which is why I feel a responsibility to live up to that standard. I have made this point before, but conversion therapy bans are part of a slate of policies which, in my view, are intended to insinuate queer theory into every facet of our culture and to control and limit freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The clearest example is that I am somehow not same-sex attracted but same-gender attracted, and that I should therefore accept trans-identifying females as an acceptable partner. Thankfully, that is never going to happen because my partner and I have been together for 30 years and there is no way that will change—I do not have the energy to think about it.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I try to listen carefully to these debates, and each time I learn much that is new. The hon. Gentleman brings a perspective to this debate that is completely outside my own experience, for which I thank him. He makes an important point about inclusivity, and I want to understand the implications. Is he saying that this Bill is effectively promoting an exclusivity, and that it is not inclusive? By describing the slate of queer theory policy, is he saying that this Bill would be unintentionally harmful well beyond its actual scope?
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will address some of those complex issues.
If we look at the Bill through a utilitarian lens, there is a desire to protect the few, which is a laudable and noble aim, but it would limit the freedoms of so many and would potentially inflict serious criminal harm upon them because of a lack of foresight of the consequences of some of the proposals.
As a counterpoint, and this speaks to events that have happened today, can Members imagine a circumstance in which it would be remotely acceptable for me to lecture my partner about how he should feel when somebody expresses a racist view towards him, how he should manage it and how he should respond to it? I would never presume to do that as that is absolutely not my place. By the same token, it is not anyone’s place to lecture women or LGB people, or force-team them with others and say, “You must campaign with them. You must accept their demands.” That is what queer theory is doing to our society
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is making a really important speech. Is it not extraordinary how that demand that was made of him, and that is made all the time, is done under the guise of freedom? It is said that it is an assertion of liberty, and a protection of individual rights and free speech. Is it not a bizarre inversion of truth when those sorts of arguments are made?
Neale Hanvey
That is a really important point. That campaign is supposed to be about equality and inclusivity, but one of its main activities is to find people to exclude, dox, deplatform, cast aside and force out of their jobs. How is that inclusion? How does that win anyone over to the noble aim of preventing harm? Harm can be prevented through legislation that is already in place, whether that is the Equality Act 2010 or statutes that deal with torture and abuse. The legislation is already there, so what exactly are we trying to fix? I cannot understand what that is. There is a shiny Bill here that says that conversion therapy is bad—of course it is bad; nobody disagrees with that. The Bill will not solve that. In fact, it will probably make it a whole lot worse.
Miriam Cates
The hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant speech and laying out not just what the Bill could do, but the background and culture against which we are speaking. He is right that the Bill would interfere with people’s freedom and freedom of expression. Does he also agree that it would interfere with fundamental human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights? The Bill, even with the suggested amendments, would interfere with some of the basic rights to freedom of speech, religion and conscience?
Neale Hanvey
I will come to that specific point and I will challenge the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown about some of his assurances that the Bill is compatible with human rights legislation because I have taken the view of a couple of King’s counsel, one of whom is a double KC, who disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment.
My experience is imbued with the naked bullying and harassment that I experienced in my political group in this place. That was not because I was transphobic or anything like that—that is a ridiculous accusation—but because I will not submit to queer theory. I will not submit to gender ideology or to anyone telling me that I am same-gender attracted because that is a nonsense. That is not the truth. It is not hyperbole to say that this type of legislation is the thin end of the wedge and it has the potential to be the most dangerous, regressive, illiberal and authoritarian policy proposal that I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. [Interruption.] If the shadow Minister, hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), wants to make an intervention, I am happy for her do so, but if she wants to mutter under her breath that is entirely up to her, but it is not a particularly great look.
This legislation is not about fixing a problem. It has the potential to actively and seriously visit harm on those it purports to protect. If it were genuine in its aims to protect LGB and T people, then we would be debating the policy proposal put forward by Sex Matters for legislation to ban modern conversion therapy, where queer theory adherents use affirmation as a vehicle for the medical and surgical conversion of many gender non-conforming young people and other vulnerable young people, wrecking their futures.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I do not believe and I have not seen evidence that modern conversion therapy is a widespread practice. However, the hon. Member must recognise that the Bill does not say that one thing is banned for the other; it says that both, if they are happening, are abhorrent and should stop. Surely he should support the Bill so that it can go to Committee and provide the safeguards he wants, because it will ban the thing that he says is an abhorrent practice?
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Gentleman made that point to me some days ago in the media, and I agree with him. I said, “I believe that you are earnestly trying to fix the problem and you are trying to reach across both sides”— I genuinely do believe that. But you cannot divorce yourself from the backdrop of queer theory activists who are causing mayhem, and will interpret, despite your reassurances and clarifications—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not address another Member directly. Please do so through the Chair.
Neale Hanvey
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The reassurances given to the Chamber will not be carried forward with activists—we know that that is not the behaviour of activists—so there is a real concern around the backdrop to the legislation. We have heard a little about a survey as evidence to support the legislation. That was a self-administered survey, so nobody could really verify the data, and anyone could have entered those figures. The definition of the reported practices is absolutely spurious—nobody knows what it means. It could be a bit of a giggle, let us be honest; people could fill the form in for any reason.
What little evidence there is of those practices has been described in a qualitative literature review conducted by Coventry University and submitted to the UK Government. It has been criticised by important rights organisations Sex Matters and the Gay Men’s Network for its narrow historical scope and its lack of relevance to the constituent countries of the UK, given that 85% of the data reviewed in that study relate to practices outwith the UK. Furthermore, it is understood in academia that a qualitative literature review is of limited use; all it really does is inform the backdrop to a piece of primary research. It is not generalisable or transferable to general populations; its purpose is to analyse a situation and come up with an idea for research. That evidence is insufficient to qualify for legislative decision making. Coupled with the survey, that data is not particularly reliable; it ignores the very real conversion therapy of queer theory affirmation. I do not think that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is seeking to mislead anyone, but I must point out the backdrop of queer theory in this context.
When it comes to fundamental freedoms and the impingement of this legislation on human rights in the United Kingdom, it is not just me and other hon. Members who have concerns, as I said earlier. Jason Coppell KC said in his written opinion for the Christian Institute:
“I consider that the Bill…if passed, would constitute a serious intrusion into the legitimate activities and practices of Christian churches and religious communities, which would be contrary to their rights protected by the ECHR, and so to the Human Rights Act 1998. They would also interfere with the legitimate expression of gender critical views, again in a manner which would be likely to breach ECHR rights.”
The Bill is “broad in scope.” It
“would apply both to practices which seek to ‘change’ sexual orientation or transgender identity and practices which seek to ‘suppress’ sexual orientation or transgender identity i.e., to change conduct.”
It
“would apply to acts which cause no injury or distress; and, indeed, to acts to which the person in question consents.”
It
“would apply across a wide range of settings, including social and religious settings (although, the Bill…would exempt at least some conduct of parents vis-à-vis their children). Whilst some attempt has been made to craft exemptions or exceptions so as to ensure that the practice of religion is not prohibited, the central prohibition in the Bill…remains a wide one, applying to churches and other religious organisations, and to those expressing certain views, including gender critical views, outside those settings.
The Bill…would, if enacted, interfere with a number of rights protected by the ECHR.”
It
“would (by way of example) restrict the ability of religious organisations to express their beliefs (both within their own communities and to the wider world) and the ability of gender-critical persons to express their beliefs to persons who profess a gender identity which is inconsistent with those beliefs. Such restrictions are likely to interfere with (at least) the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR); the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…the right to freedom of expression…and the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 ECHR)… It is very difficult to see how the wide-ranging interference with fundamental rights contemplated by the Bill…could be justified. Put shortly, the Bill…would criminalise expressions of personal conviction even if they are made without expressions of hatred or intolerance, or improper purpose or coercion, or abuse of power. Restrictions of that nature run contrary to the consistent case law of the European Court of Human Rights”.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Member is making such a long speech that we might as well have a bit of a dialogue about some of these things. Such bans have been introduced with similar assurances and clarifications in other European countries that are under the convention. Why is it that that legislation has not ended up in the European courts, but he thinks that this Bill, which is even more cautious, suddenly will? It does not make sense to me.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he needs to field that question to the King’s counsel. That is not a question I can respond to on his behalf.
Neale Hanvey
Well, that is a matter of fact. If Members want to engage with the KC, please go right ahead.
Sir William Cash
Vicariously, this is about criminal law, not matters relating to the European Union’s general administrative arrangements.
Neale Hanvey
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the opinion of the King’s counsel is that enacting the legislation would have the effect of infringing those European convention on human rights freedoms that we all have every right to expect within extant legislation.
Danny Kruger
For me, the answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is that there is something about the culture of the British courts that means they use the ECHR to pursue their particular political purposes, as we see constantly. There is something about the culture of the European courts that means they do not. We are familiar with this phenomenon whereby European countries have arrangements that do not entangle the European convention on human rights or the European Court. Here in the UK, our lawyers delight in using the European Court to pursue their politics, and that is exactly what would happen in this circumstance.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which is helpful. The point I will make next is that in Scotland there was similar legislation. In a 46-page legal opinion, Aidan O’Neill KC, who is a double silk, talked about these types of proposals, which would see faith leaders and others imprisoned for up to seven years and hit by unlimited fines if convicted of involvement in so-called conversion practices. He states:
“This is perhaps best described as ‘jellyfish legislation’. The concepts it uses are impossible to grasp; its limits are wholly undefined; it contains a sting in the tail in the form of criminal sanction of up to 7 years and unlimited fines; and thus it will have an undoubted and intended effect of dissuading persons from ever even entering the now murky waters of what may or may not constitute unlawful ‘conversion practices’.”
Some have argued that there is a nervousness among some gay Members on the Government Benches that failing to support a ban would hold some equivalence to the impact of the controversial section 28 amendment introduced by the Thatcher Government in 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools. It is well understood by those of us who lived through that and opposed the legislation that it reinforced the then ubiquitous homophobia that stifled education and support for gender non-conforming young people. Thankfully, that policy was repealed in 2003 under a Labour Government, and that is a good thing. However, this proposal would undo all the value of that repeal. The effect of this Bill is much more likely to be directly comparable to the chilling effect of section 28 than in any way enhancing its repeal.
Let us consider, for example, a young gender non-conforming person who has a positive relationship with a member of the teaching staff. In the current situation, they are free to discuss and explore their emerging sexuality, and to be challenged on some of the views they hold. That is no easy conversation even in today’s context, but given that social media is full of misinformation and enticements that there is some magical, simple fix to complex problems, these are matters that a young person could choose to explore with a trusted adult or a parent. The introduction of this legislation would make that nigh-on impossible. Teachers, youth workers, nurses, doctors, social workers, church leaders and parents would be forced to think twice or refuse to entertain such a conversation, for fear of accusation and criminal prosecution.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I applaud the hon. Gentleman for his powerful and compelling speech. Parents have come to me in tears with their young adult child who had undergone transition some years earlier and has subsequently come to regret the decision. These parents are upset and distraught, as is the young person. They are filled with regret and pain, and they ask me, as their constituency MP, what I can do to help with detransition. There is really no answer to that. How does the hon. Gentleman think that parents in that very difficult situation, with a teenager experiencing gender dysphoria or exploring their sexuality, will be able to cope under this proposed law?
Neale Hanvey
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her intervention, which raises important points. They would do so with a sword of Damocles hanging over their head. They would do so with the risk that if their child wanted to be belligerent, to challenge them and push boundaries—the normal actions of any adolescent—they would be able to use that as a weapon and say, “I’ll go to the police if you don’t give me what I want.” That is the reality. That would be one of the pernicious effects of this proposed legislation. It would have a direct impact on family life and the normal functioning of the family by undermining parents’ role in providing counsel and guidance, and in testing things out with their child. Being open and able to speak freely with their child about difficult issues at the dinner table is one of the most important roles a parent has, but this would snuff out the ability to facilitate such conversations.
The Bill would affect a broad range of people and it would leave the young person at the mercy of radicalised activists and social media influencers who operate under the pseudo-theocratic rules of a doctrine that, as I have said, is chaotic, anarchic and disruptive.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Member is making an excellent and thoughtful speech. He talked earlier about how equal marriage was passed in Scotland and how many of the faith communities were brought together with the Scottish Government at the time in order to achieve that. Does he understand it is not just Christian communities that have major concerns about the Bill? In Peterborough we have a large Muslim community who are very concerned about how their work will be impacted by the Bill, and how some of the madrassahs and schools will be impacted. Does he recognise that is a challenge as well?
Neale Hanvey
Yes, that is an important point and refers back to the points made in the previous intervention. I have a very busy constituency office and I meet church leaders and different faith groups to talk about these issues. They are relieved that they have a Member of Parliament who is prepared to stand up on their behalf and ask the difficult questions. I have parents with children who are contemplating transition or who are desisting, so I deal with that.
I also have members of staff in the local health service who are finding themselves in a very difficult situation because queer theory has insinuated itself into the culture of all our institutions. The staff have no sense of privacy or dignity, and they are concerned about the privacy and dignity of their patients. That is why it is so important to name queer theory as the backdrop against which this legislation is being proposed, and my concern is that it would be the thin end of the wedge. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said that the Bill would be reviewed in four years’ time. Yes, we can have amendments and new clauses added to the legislation, but that goes both ways. The next time it is reviewed, all caveats could be removed. The full-throated queer theory doctrine could be forced into every part of our society, which is a risk that I am not prepared to leave unchallenged.
As I said, the Bill leaves young people at the mercy of radicalised activists online, and such activity is to be tolerated. There is no amendment to the Online Safety Act 2023 to prevent access to people who encourage and entice young people to sign up to irreversible medical and surgical treatments from which they can never row back. When someone stops puberty, they cannot restart it—that is it—and all the important developmental changes that happen during puberty are gone. Transitioning is not just about affirmation; it involves coercion, persuasion and unrealistic enticements, which lead young people who are living through desperately difficult times to believe that there is a quick fix for their problem.
The ideology underpinning all this is the real threat, and makes this legislation much more illiberal and much more difficult for young gender non-conforming people than section 28 could ever have been. That is the effect of this legislation: it would block therapeutic support for gender non-conforming young people and channel them, through unquestioning affirmation, into a lifetime of medical treatment and surgical limbo. We know that gender non-conforming behaviour is being used as evidence of gender dysphoria by non-experts in the classroom and in other professions. A significant finding of the Cass review was about the culture that existed at the GIDS clinic, and I ask all Members to reflect on the words of the brave detransitioners who were discarded by the “be kind” brigade of radicalised activists when they decided to desist. Kiera said:
“I became attracted to girls, but I had never had a positive association with the term ‘lesbian’ or the idea that two girls could be in a relationship. I wondered if something was wrong with me. I was adamant that I needed to transition. It was the kind of brash assertion that’s typical of teenagers. After a series of superficial conversations with social workers, I was put on puberty blockers at age 16. A year later, I was receiving testosterone shots. When 20, I had a double mastectomy. As I matured, I recognised that gender dysphoria was a symptom of my overall misery, not its cause.”
Ritchie said:
“Homophobia was rife in the local culture, my family and school and it seemed to be the worst outcome ever to end up gay. My behaviours were policed by others for being too flamboyant or eccentric, and I struggled with fitting in with others. I latched onto the idea with an unfounded zeal, and not a single medical professional stopped me thereafter. I delayed my appointment for surgery for over two years, because I had doubts. But then they gave me an ultimatum and I knew that if was not going to go through with the surgery I would have lost my therapist. As soon as I was conscious, I knew I had made the biggest mistake of my life. My sex has been lobotomised.”
That is manifestly not informed consent. It is coercive and abusive, and it breaks all ethical principles of respect for personal autonomy. We need positive LGB and T messages, not false promises that personal struggles can be fixed by mutilating surgery and experimental drugs.
But it is not just lesbian and gay young people at risk. Sinead said:
“Transitioning evangelists on the forums tell young people like me that all will be well. After cutting my long hair short and wearing men’s clothes for a year, I was put on a 12-month waiting list for treatment at a gender clinic in Glasgow. I could not believe how easy it was. What I needed was counselling to uncover why I had come to loathe my body. Instead the professionals appeared to take what I said at face value. When I said I was in the wrong sex and wanted to be a man, they agreed and prescribed me with testosterone. No one ever told me the truth: ‘You’re not a man. It’s impossible to de-sex yourself.’”
The effects on those young people have been devastating, because they were denied the help they needed.
I pay tribute to Sex Matters and the team at LGB Alliance for their invaluable work standing up for the rights of young LGB people. I want to challenge a comment that was made earlier. Being lesbian, gay or bisexual is a sexuality. That is manifestly different from being transsexual. I am not indifferent; in fact, I feel passionate about trans people being looked after properly. But to say that, in order for my identity to matter, I have to be teamed with the trans community is completely unacceptable; it is homophobic. Those organisations that I mentioned have protected young people from a tsunami of lies. I cannot put into words how strongly I feel about this. I thank Keira Bell, Ritchie Herron, Sinead Watson and every other detrans person who has had the courage to stand up and speak out. I am absolutely humbled by the experience that they have gone through and their courage to put that into words. As Keira put it:
“it was the job of the professionals to consider all my co-morbidities, not just to affirm my naïve hope that everything could be solved with hormones and surgery.”
I acknowledge that this Bill seeks to provide access to therapy and, as we mentioned a moment ago, to address affirmation conversion practices. However, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, where are the therapists? Where will they come from? Child and adolescent mental health services are already under enormous pressure. If through threat, fear or a chilling effect the trusted adults who can engage with gender-questioning young people or those who think they might be gay will be limited in who they can interface with, who will pick that up? Those young people will be left isolated, unable to speak to anyone about their sexuality. The chilling effect that this Bill risks is enormous. Where will the therapists come from?
The reality is that young people will be redirected to the quacks on social media. They will not be able to speak to a trusted adult. That risk has to be understood. The reality is that this Bill puts those it seeks to protect in harm’s way and restricts the support that they can draw on. This is the wrong legislation for young gay, lesbian and transgender people. It attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, and fosters a new, chilling homophobic culture—just like section 28.
I agree with the proposal from Sex Matters that any legislation should meet the following four policy aims: outlaw all medical or surgical treatment of minors to modify their sexual characteristics; outlaw medical surgical treatments performed on anyone who has not had the full implications of the treatment explained to them; make it a specific offence not to provide adequate information and ensure informed consent; and make it an offence to take a child abroad to get around the prohibition of modern conversion therapy. Sex Matters helpfully suggests that the legislation could use the model that was used for legislation on female genital mutilation and virginity testing.
The not-for-profit organisation the Gay Men’s Network was established to tackle modern homophobia, and I engage with it regularly. It agrees that the Bill is the extant modern conversion therapy scandal affecting gender non-conforming young people and others struggling with normal yet distressing pubertal body dysmorphia. Furthermore, the Bill risks embedding in statute the lie that gender non-conforming behaviour is evidence that some of those young people were born in the wrong body; that the normal development of puberty, which can never be restarted or repaired, should be arrested with chemicals; and that trauma or emotional distress can be fixed with cross-sex hormones or affirming the person on to an accelerated and irreversible pathway, which amounts to a policy of transing away the gay. That is wrong, and that practice must be the urgent focus. The evidence is there; it is widespread. We know of the huge explosion of referrals into GIDS, which is closing, but the service does not provide any follow-up. For lack of a better phrase, how can it do that to someone? How can it give surgical treatment and fail to follow it up? I cannot imagine that happening in any other field of medicine. It is completely unacceptable.
The Gay Men’s Network is concerned that an affirmation-only approach could easily be inserted as an amendment or a new clause if the Bill goes to Committee. Going to Committee does not mean that the Bill will be repaired; it could get worse, and we must be mindful of that.
Robin Millar
It is very generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way a second time. I am again struck by his perspective on the process of conversion, and specifically on the length of time. He is describing a situation whereby people are on a journey, making decisions and wrestling with something existential—their identity—and I wonder whether the Bill adequately addresses that. It seems to me that it addresses a one-off moment—an incident or an action, reprehensible though it may be —but does not deal with a lifetime of wrestling with one’s sexuality or sex.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Member for that observation. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said that a young person has to wait 10 years, for example, for gender reassignment surgery, but during that time they will start on puberty blockers and other such medicines, and possibly cross-sex hormones, and the damage is done. Whether they have surgery or not is pretty academic at that stage, because irreversible treatment will have been administered.
The other point I would make in response to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) is that there was an option not to introduce this Bill and move the issue forward. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown could withdraw the Bill and we could establish a process of community engagement, through community assemblies, citizens’ assemblies or something of that nature. We could thereby have the debate we should have had five or six years ago, where everybody’s voice is valued, everybody gets to have a say, the Churches are involved right at the beginning and an accommodation is found that makes this kind of practice absolutely unacceptable—there is a clear output that this will never happen, but it does not have the strand of queer theory running all the way through it. That is the real problem.
Let me move on to the document on the Bill published recently by the Gay Men’s Network, because the hon. Gentleman addressed this in some detail and it is important to respond on some of the legal points. The GMN has among its number some legal experts, including a criminal barrister and an award-winning legal academic. It makes comments about the legislation under a few headings, the first of which is
“The wide net of criminal liability in the bill”.
The document states:
“The bill provides via clause 1, 4 and the Sentencing Act 2020 that:
a. a single act
b. the purpose and intent of which
c. is to change or suppress
d. sexual orientation or transgender identity
e. be a criminal offence if not excused by a defence in clause 1(2)
We draw attention to the terms ‘suppress’, ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘transgender identity’.
‘Suppress’ in comparative Scottish proposed legislation is defined widely, it includes, for example, a concerned parent forbidding an autistic daughter from wearing a breast binder because regulation of clothing is specifically cited as an act of suppression.
This bill proposes that the terms ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘transgender identity’ mean the same as in the Sentencing Act…this is problematic because that act defined neither term. It is important to note that the meaning of ‘sex’ (and therefore sexual orientation) is not settled in law and a Supreme Court Case on the subject is pending.”
Luke Pollard
I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, but I am curious because the Bill he is referring to is not the Bill we are considering. Where is “suppress” in the Bill that we are considering? It would help me to follow his thoughts if he could help us with that.
Neale Hanvey
I have stated where it says “suppress” and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown mentioned “suppress” in his contribution.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should carry on.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman referring to clause 4 and line 10 on page 3 of the Bill, where there a specific reference:
“to suppress a sexual orientation”?
Neale Hanvey
Yes. As I was saying, the document points out that the use of the Sentencing Acts definitions is “problematic” because the definition of
“‘sex’…is not settled in law and a Supreme Court Case on the subject is pending. ‘Transgender Identity’ is similarly problematic because the concept of ‘identity’ is wider than the equivalent protected characteristic”
in the Equality Act.
The document moves on to the ineffectiveness of statutory defences, saying:
“While Clause 1(2) of the bill makes serious efforts to deal with concerns around prosecutions each defence raises serious issues in the following terms:
a. The religion defence is not a statutory defence at all because it cannot apply where a conversion practice has taken place. This means it is not an excusatory defence in criminal law.
b. The ‘approval/disapproval’ defence is vague and ‘disapproval’ is not defined
c. The ‘health practitioner’ defence is a complex three-part defence which places the ‘reverse burden’ on a Defendant. The definition of a ‘health practitioner’ at Clause 4 covers most but not all clinical roles, (unregulated therapists, counsellor, helpline operators or online forum moderators would not qualify). To rely on this defence, a health practitioner must also prove to the civil standard (i) they were complying with regulations (this term is not defined) (ii) that the action they took was reasonable and (iii) that there was no ‘predetermined outcome’. Placing reverse burdens on Defendants (particularly clinicians or similar) is generally considered to be undesirable because Defendants are not expected to prove their innocence. Legitimate clinical practice will sometimes have a predetermined outcome where a confident and clear diagnosis is made.”
I can think of examples where that would apply in clinical practice.
The document continues:
“d. The ‘assisting’ defence is unclear and undefined.
e. The ‘exploring or questioning’ defence suffers from the same flaw as the religion defence, it applies only where a conversion practice is not proved and so is not a statutory defence at all.
f. The ‘parental responsibility’ defence applies only where a person having parental responsibility (i) is exercising it and (ii) where they prove on reverse burden that the welfare of the child was their paramount consideration. As children get older parental responsibility in law is ‘exercised’ less and less. Requiring a parent to prove that welfare was not simply a consideration, but a ‘paramount’ consideration is onerous and likely impossible for a Defendant parent to prove.”
The Gay Men’s Network also addresses the human rights issues we heard about from the two KCs earlier:
“We take the view that the bill as drafted is not compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and would likely be declared incompatible with the convention for the following reasons:
Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6)
A prosecution alleging a parent supressed an identity by regulating clothing would require a parent to accept that such an identity exist. That is contrary to Article 6 which requires criminal tribunals be independent. It would also compel belief in the criminal sphere in such a concept while disbelief in such a concept is a protected characteristic in the civil sphere. That would create a serious inconsistency in law.”
That is very clear. The document continues:
“The bill leaves key terms undefined which is contrary to the Article 6 right that a Defendant understand the case against them in ordinary and clear language. The reverse burdens in clause 1(2) impose significant and onerous burdens on Defendants and in some cases do not amount to statutory defences at all.
Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8)
The bill makes significant incursions into family life by potentially criminalising parental guidance or regulation that touches on sexual orientation or ‘transgender identity’. Difficult conversations that parents have”—
as we spoke about some time ago—
“as a matter of course would potentially be criminalised. Further, a parent can only rely on the relevant defence as outlined above. This is highly likely to be viewed as significant state overreach by domestic and supra national courts.
Right to freedom of conscience (Article 9) and expression (Article 10)
This bill would significantly curtail both religious and political expression. A similar bill passed in Victoria, Australia, led to the domestic human rights body regulating public prayer. The fact that criminal liability can trigger from a single incident and the wide meaning of the term “supress” casts the net of criminal liability so widely the offence is likely to be declared incompatible with the convention.”
The document concludes:
“While the member for Brighton Kemptown has made significant efforts to deal with such concerns our position is that a bill based on the self-reported phenomenon of ‘identity’ and the wide term ‘supress’ might, despite best efforts, perversely fuel the very problem that it intends to solve.”
As I mentioned earlier, like section 28, the Bill would likely prevent a young person from securing an explorative conversation with even the most supportive and receptive trusted adult, due to its chilling effect. I have also raised the question of who would then provide the approved therapy.
Moving on to therapists, in a recent paper, educational psychologists Dr Claire McGuiggan, Dr Peter D’Lima and Lucy Robertson highlight the assumption that psychologists will be the ones who will guide the response and who have the skills to do so, but observe that psychologists are divided on this issue, too. They note the following:
“In response to the interim findings of the Cass review…the Association of Clinical Psychologists-United Kingdom…published a statement demanding a radical shift in the support for young people with gender concerns. They called for more comprehensive multi-disciplinary assessments and increased consideration of sociocultural factors, such as homophobia. The ACP-UK also strongly conveyed the uncertainty about how best to intervene related to the dearth of robust and high-quality data on the safety and effectiveness of medical transition, and the inability of clinicians to ascertain clearly who will persist or desist in their gender dysphoria…The ACP-UK statement was met with a rebuttal from a group of clinical psychologists in an open letter to the ACP-UK…They disassociated themselves from the ACP-UK response…Within educational psychology professions, however, only two educational psychologists have publicly referenced the concerns reflected in the Cass review.”
Apart from those two voices, the psychologists claim that there is silence, avoidance and suppression.
Silence: there is no response from the Association of Educational Psychologists or the Division of Educational and Child Psychology, and no guidance or caution, despite it being reported that educational psychologists are expertly placed to support trans-identified young people. Avoidance within the profession: it almost appears as if the Cass review did not happen at all, and that there is clear consensus on how best to support trans-identified youth. Their approach is affirmation, and that is the problem. Alongside that, there is suppression. That is being enacted on social media, where clear messages have been put out that if anyone asks a difficult questions, they are to be shut down and reported to the regulator and will face disciplinary action. That is the culture at the back of all of these pieces of legislation. That is the risk: professionals cannot become activists. That is happening in education and in educational psychology.
The paper led the authors to raise the fundamental position—I absolutely agree with it, and it applies to so many disciplines—that surely a healthy profession, a profession which prides itself on child-centred, evidence-based reflective practice, cannot continue to avoid, ignore or suppress the issue any longer. It must openly, explicitly and deeply engage with it. Disagreement must be tolerated and explored. The alternative is avoidance of the issue to protect educational psychologists from discomfort at the expense of the needs of children.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. I live by this quote of Thomas Sowell:
“There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young.”
It has stuck with me ever since I read it. The House needs to remember that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we can only affirm a child’s choice, to believe that they are in the wrong body, we are in a desperate situation and would be in a place where we were misleading the young? That would be absolutely tragic for every child, every parent, every teacher, every member of the clergy and every practitioner, not just in this country, but across the world.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. This is a question that every single Member of the House needs to bear in mind: what will they do in five or 10 years’ time, when a sea of people who were affirmed and rapidly put on to a pathway of irreversible treatment, come to the politicians and say, “You did this to me. You said this was okay. You made this policy. You stopped me from accessing therapy. I needed therapy”?
We have had the warning signs from Keira and others. We know that that is a real risk and we know that detransitioning is under-reported. A lot of people are out there, suffering in silence. They are not being listened to. No services are reaching out to them. They may feel completely lost and at sea. We have to think very carefully about facilitating that and putting a new tranche of young people on to that irreversible pathway.
The EPs made a really important point, and I will take up another point from the intervention of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). My professional background is in working with young people in cancer care. I worked with older paediatric patients from the ages of 11 upwards and sometimes into young adulthood. It is quite amazing how young people can accommodate some of the most difficult information. They can face challenges that would humble most of us and make well-informed decisions, but the reality is they have no choice in that situation, because they have cancer, and nobody can make that go away. I know that young people can make courageous decisions, but there is a fundamental difference between helping and guiding a young person through those types of choices and affirming a young person on an irreversible pathway of medical surgical intervention that is completely unnecessary. I cannot for the life of me understand how any professional can say, “I did a good job today because I have allowed this young person to go down this irreversible pathway,” knowing full well the later effects of those types of treatments.
All that is important, because comprehending one’s adult self as a child is different from dealing with difficult questions that cannot be avoided. While children have aspirations and ideas about who they want to be when they grow up, based on their experiences and observations, their understanding is limited by their cognitive, emotional and physical development. Proponents of queer theory often claim that Gillick competence allows all children to consent to any treatment or process, but that is a complete misunderstanding of what Gillick competence is. It is a name conferred to a legal principle established in the UK with Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority, which states that minors under the age of 16 can consent to medical treatment without parental consent if they demonstrate sufficient understanding and intelligence to comprehend the nature and implications of the treatment.
I refer back to the comments I just made: that is simply not possible, because that is not something a young person can do. Children cannot grasp the full complexities of adulthood in the way that adults can, and they do not have the ability to project themselves into their as yet unformed future adult self. However, children can still develop a sense of their future selves, which may evolve and change as they mature. The best way to deal with that is to build a relationship with them, talk about how they feel about things and themselves and have that dialogue. This legislation limits that, and that is important parenting.
Piaget’s theory of cognitive development highlights how children’s understanding of themselves and the world evolves as they mature, and other researchers have also looked into childhood development. We know the science behind all this, and the Bill gets in the way of allowing children to actualise and become their authentic selves by limiting their exploration of these important and defining facets of who they ultimately will become.
All the above leads me to my final argument: the inversion of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle. Articulated in his work “On Liberty”, it asserts that the only justification for society or the state to interfere with an individual’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. According to Mill, individuals should have the utmost freedom to act as they please, as long as their actions do not harm others. That principle rests on the idea of individual autonomy and the importance of personal liberty in a free society, and it has profound implications for the role of Government and the limits of state power. It advocates for minimal interference in the private lives of individuals, allowing them to pursue their own interests and lifestyles without undue constraint, as long as they do not infringe on the rights and wellbeing of others. The Bill unquestionably interferes with the freedoms, rights and wellbeing of everyone, including those whom it claims to protect.
Mill’s harm principle remains a cornerstone of liberal thought, emphasising the importance of individual freedom while acknowledging the need for societal constraints when harm is involved. This Bill ushers in a wholesale redefinition of the harm principle whereby it will be illegal to say the “wrong thing” even if it inflicts no perceivable harm, while simultaneously inflicting a totalitarian queer theory world view on everyone else. That is my fundamental concern about the Bill. I think it important that we address the issue, but now is the wrong time, this is the wrong Bill, and queer theory is absolutely the wrong backdrop. If we really want to protect gender non-conforming and other vulnerable young people, we should recognise that they deserve a robust defence of free speech as a basic right, essential for the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth.
Despite the sincere attempts of the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown to carve out exemptions, we simply cannot ignore the fact that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge of the introduction of queer theory doctrine into UK law, and the survival of those exemptions is contingent on their not being amended or nullified by the insertion of new clauses and amendments. This is not a ban on conversion practices; it provides the ammunition of criminal accusations for radicalised gender activists, many of whom are vociferously homophobic. Any legislation that facilitates a process to “trans away the gay” is deeply sinister and dangerous.
As I said at the outset, legislation is supposed to fix a problem, not create a new one. This proposal does real and foreseeable harm, and it should be rejected by every Member of the House and every LGB and T person who truly values the equality and the fundamental human rights of everyone. This legislation must ultimately be defeated, or we will risk depriving a generation of young LGB and T people from becoming the fabulous, vibrant and unique gender non-conforming people they have every right to be.
I will end where I began my contribution to the recent Westminster Hall debate, by quoting Kierkegaard, who said:
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to speak in the debate. Along with many other Members, I have been seeking to secure the protections that the Bill affords for quite some time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on his success in the ballot, and on choosing to present such an important Bill. As the back page shows, it is supported by nine other Members, all of them Conservative. The hon. Member is not normally known for his calm and measured manner, but I have to say that in his work on the Bill he has operated with good grace, and I commend him for his patience and his efforts.
It is a matter of regret that despite numerous promises of legislation from the Government for some years, it has fallen to a private Member’s Bill to introduce it. Nevertheless, we are at long last having a debate on the Floor of the House on drafted and published legislation. Both main parties in the House can point to positive measures taken over many decades to bring about equality, dignity and protection for LGBT people, including decriminalisation, equal age of consent, civil partnerships, equal marriage, and the lifting of the ban in the military. I am proud to be a Member of Parliament who, as an out gay man, stands up for all in our LGBT community, using my position in this place to stand up for people not because I am one of them, but because they deserve our voice, every single one of them: the L, the G, the B and the T.
Having taken the time to read the reports of debates from those important milestones on the march to where we are now, I am struck by the voices calling for change. There were those who opposed them, but time marched on and progress was made. I hope and trust that we can make real progress today, and whether Members agree wholeheartedly with every word of the Bill, or think that it goes too far or not far enough, let us get it to Committee.
I recently visited Ghana as part of a delegation from Parliament to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, and had the opportunity to discuss the legislation that that country was planning to approve, which shockingly offered conversion therapy as a means of evading jail for homosexuality. The fact that that legislation has now been passed in Ghana, and embraces that which we are seeking to ban today, tells us all that we need to know.
In preparing for this debate, I was told of the story of a 13-year-old boy who knew he was gay but, because of the views of those around him, felt guilt and shame. He was subjected to shaking and incantations prayed over him for the demons of homosexuality to leave his body, and was encouraged to return regularly until he was cured of his homosexual desires. He was naturally shaken by that experience, and suffered the scars for many years. Thankfully, he did not go back. That young man now works as my parliamentary assistant, and is happy and content in who he is.
That small story is just one of many that have been shared in recent years as the debate about this ban has unfolded. There are some who do not believe that this abuse—it is abuse—exists. This House has enacted many pieces of legislation to offer protections from harms that we ourselves may not have experienced, but we in this place have a duty to provide protections for those who require them. Indeed, just this morning we prayed to God to lay aside our prejudices and seek to improve the condition of all mankind, as we do every day. If protecting people we do not know and will never meet from harms that we have never experienced is not living up to that noble ambition, I do not know what is.
I have spoken in debates on this issue multiple times and have asked questions many times, and I have been proud to do so. Many other Conservative Members have done so as well, consistently and passionately, and I am pleased that a number of them are here today to support the Bill.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the activist and musician Vicky Beeching on the book that she wrote about her experiences of conversion therapy, “Undivided”? I encourage him and everybody else in the House to read that book, because it is the experiences of people such as Vicky that are exactly why we are here today, to prevent further damage of the kind that has been done to those people. At the end of the day, government in its very nature is supposed to be behind the notion of first doing no harm, and harm is being done to our citizens. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely crucial that the Bill passes Second Reading today?
Peter Gibson
It is absolutely crucial, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady—dare I call her my hon. Friend—who accompanied me on that trip to Ghana and heard those harrowing stories from members of the LGBT community. We stand for some things in this place, and today is an opportunity for us to progress further.
The freedom and liberty to be whoever a person is, is at the core of my beliefs. No one, whether they wear a white coat or a religious cloak, should be able to attempt to change who that person is. It does not work, it never has and it never will, so let us ensure that we send a clear message from this Parliament. I am proud to support the Bill, and I give it my full support.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). I share many of his sentiments. He spoke very powerfully, particularly about his assistant’s experience.
Conversion practices are abuse. There is no other word for them. They cause harm, and that harm can be lifelong. We must be clear that, in the 21st century, we do not accept LGBT people being subjected to these practices. Of course, the Government promised to outlaw this abuse almost six years ago, and they have failed to do so.
In the absence of Government action, it has been left to a Back Bencher, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), to develop his own legislative proposal for a ban. I commend him, as many have, for working assiduously with Members on both sides of the House to bring forward this Bill. He has set an example in seeking to build consensus on a sensitive and important issue, and I share his regret that, despite that joint working, there is still a lack of clarity on where the Government will land on this issue. I hope that, following those intensive and very positive discussions and interactions, we will see the Government support the Bill, which I believe is a genuine attempt to help them with their repeated promise to enact a ban on conversion practices.
Labour stood ready to work with Ministers when plans for a legislative ban were included in the Queen’s Speeches of 2021 and 2022, and we looked forward to the promised pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill. Indeed, as recently as December, the Minister said that he remains committed to tackling conversion practices. We were promised further details of the Government’s plans in this space in the near future.
In fact, a ban on conversion practices has been announced, in some form or another, eight times by successive Conservative Governments since 2018, yet no ban has been forthcoming. This failure means that LGBT people are still at risk of this abuse.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the need for clarity. She has now said the word “practices” five times, and she has said: “Conversion practices are abuse.” So that I can better follow her, will she describe the scale, scope and nature of the practices that she references?
Anneliese Dodds
We have already had a thorough discussion of that in this debate. All the examples are detailed in the Bill, which I hope the hon. Lady has read. Not only are there instances that some might claim are covered by other forms of legislation, but there are cases that are not covered. I have looked thoroughly at the Bill, as she would expect, and I have considered the claim that some of these practices might be covered by coercive control legislation and so forth, but that is not the case. We are talking about abusive practices, and we heard an example just a few moments ago. I thoroughly encourage her to read this Bill, wherein she will find what she seeks.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Some Members will know that I worked closely on the Equality Act 2010 as a Government Whip. We worked carefully and cautiously to pass that Act. We addressed genuine concerns from both sides of the House, and we built cross-party consensus and support. I believe that we could do the same with this Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Anneliese Dodds
Yes, and that is why I believe the Bill should go to Committee.
Labour has been consistently clear on the subject of scope and definitions. We believe that there needs to be a ban on abusive practices, but we also believe that there needs to be clarity that any ban will also protect, for example, explorative talking therapies and counselling, the expression of religious belief, discussion within families and so on—I have repeatedly spoken about this on the record in different debates in the House—and those exclusions are replicated in the Bill, as those who have read it and studied it will be well aware. Again, I encourage Members to read and study the Bill.
We believe that a ban on these practices must be carefully, tightly and clearly worded and appropriately implemented and assessed, which should be par for the course for any legislation and must apply to a ban on conversion practices, too. I am confident that if this Bill is allowed to go on to Committee it will also be such, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown has made a noble attempt to bring those on the Government Benches with him in the journey towards a well drafted ban on conversion practices. To get there, his Bill should progress to its next stages so that it can be properly scrutinised by the House of Commons in Committee. In the absence of any draft legislation being laid by the Government, this private Member’s Bill represents an opportunity to protect LGBT people from harmful practices and to ensure that critical issues around scope can be thoroughly debated and resolved in Committee.
If those on the Government Benches are truly serious, as many have said they are, about fulfilling their repeated promises to enact a ban on conversion practices, they should support the Bill as a means of enabling that very progress. We on the Labour Front Bench support the Bill in that spirit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on bringing forward this Bill on such an important issue in an area where the Government are keen to make progress.
First and foremost, let me be clear that so-called conversion therapy practices are dangerous and abhorrent and any new legislation in this area must seek to identify those practices as a particular threat to the LGBT community and confirm the illegality of harmful processes intended to change someone’s sexuality. The Government remain committed to an approach that protects everyone from harmful conversion practices, including the transgender community.
LGBT people should be free to live their lives without threat or fear for simply being who they are. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are valued and important members of society and harmful conversion practices are inherently wrong and have no place in this country, first because they are abhorrent and, secondly, because they simply do not work. On this, we find strong and welcome agreement across the House and I am pleased that we have been able to have a balanced debate with differing views in all parts of the House. It is important that we lead by example in this place, because there is a wider debate across the country and we have to show that we can debate these sensitive issues in a responsible way.
However, the Government position is that unfortunately this Bill carries a lack of legislative clarity which risks unintended consequences, and the Government are well aware of the complexity of this issue from our own extensive work. I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown will not mind my saying that there have been honest meetings with Ministers and challenges have been discussed, and it is clear that he has wrestled with challenges in his Bill which has gone through various iterations. The Bill as it stands is a genuine attempt to overcome these challenges, but its clauses raise considerable concerns and I will come on to them in detail shortly.
The Government have rightly taken time to carefully consider our own position on these pitfalls and will be publishing a draft Bill on this topic for pre-legislative scrutiny—[Interruption.] I am coming on to that. We expect publication to be after the publication of the Cass review, which will be in the coming weeks.
Elliot Colburn
As we have heard throughout the debate, Dr Hilary Cass has said that there is no reason to delay a Bill on conversion therapy; she has said multiple times that there is no reason to await the Cass review to move forward. None of the promises made to bring forward a Bill ever mentioned the Cass review previously. It feels like there are more excuses about why we need to delay this. When was a decision made to now wait for the Cass review, because that is news to many of us?
Maria Caulfield
I welcome that valid intervention. I direct my hon. Friend to the Cass website, which says in frequently asked questions:
“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.”
However—[Interruption.] If I may finish, it also says:
“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.”
So the review has found evidence that may influence our conversion practices Bill, which is why we are waiting for the report.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that if the Bill were to get a Second Reading, any of the Government’s worries about the current wording could be resolved in Committee? Those concerns are not a reason not to give the Bill a Second Reading today.
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has made that argument as well, but we feel it is important to get the details right at the start of the legislative process rather than towards the end.
Sir William Cash
Would the Minister be good enough to give some indication of what such a draft pre-legislative Bill would look like? The arguments presented from our side of the equation demonstrate manifestly that it would be impossible for the Bill to overcome its difficulties in relation to criminal law and the like in Committee.
Maria Caulfield
I take my hon. Friend’s point. That is why the Government propose to publish our Bill and take it through pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses before it follows the normal processes in Committee. We will be able to shape the legislation in a way that deals with many of the concerns that have been raised today.
As the House is well aware, this policy area is complex and nuanced. It is clear from today’s discussion that colleagues are listening and thinking carefully about the challenges the Government have encountered in preparing legislation in this space, notably ensuring that legislation is clear, balanced and respects freedom of speech, belief and religion, and does not cause unintended consequences for parents, clinicians, teachers or religious groups.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Both sides have talked about the harm caused by many of the practices we have discussed, yet there is nothing in the Bill stating that intent to harm should be a prelude to any prosecution. Does my hon. Friend accept that if that were to be put into the Bill, it would remove many of the fears about the net being cast so widely that those who unwittingly cause offence might face such measures?
Maria Caulfield
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Some of the fears are about the unintended consequences of this legislation, and I am sure that amendments to the Bill would allay some of those fears. As it stands, although the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has made tremendous efforts to address some of the issues, the level of care and attention required to legislate responsibly means that we need to look at the subject from a wider perspective.
Peter Gibson
We have had so many promises from the Government about bringing this legislation forward—it has appeared in two Queen’s Speeches. We were promised the legislation in January 2023, but it is now 1 March 2024. If the Government want the House to debate their legislation, will the Minister publish it so that we can discuss it?
Maria Caulfield
My hon. Friend is right. I have not spoken from the Dispatch Box before about this particular subject, but my colleagues the Minister for Equalities and the Minister for Women and Equalities have been focused on trying to overcome some of the concerns raised today that could stop any legislation, whether it is this Bill or the Government’s Bill, getting through both Houses. Time has been taken to address those concerns so that we can come together to legislate against conversion practices.
Dawn Butler
For clarification, is the Minister implying that every time there is a new Minister we start again from day one? Is she able to give a timeframe for the Government Bill—by May, June or July?
Maria Caulfield
As a Government we speak together, but I am just expressing my frustration on behalf of colleagues. I acknowledge that this has taken a long time, and I want to explain why. I tried to indicate earlier that we are expecting the Cass review in the coming weeks, and we aim to publish the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny very soon after that.
Let me come to the Government’s concerns about this Bill and address some of the issues raised. We have concerns about four areas: the proposed definition of conversion practices, the inclusion of the term “suppression”, the proposed parental exemption and the territorial extent of the provisions. I will take those in turn.
First, we are concerned that the definition of conversion practices in clause 1 is simply too broad. A conversion practice is outlined as a
“course of conduct or activity”.
Even with the provisos that an act must be repeated and underpinned by a predetermined outcome in order to be in scope, that remains a very broadly drawn offence that lacks legislative clarity. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has produced explicit exemptions in clause 1(2) to clarify that certain actions are out of scope, but the Government are concerned that those exemptions are insufficient and there remains a risk that some reasonable behaviour would be caught.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I do not want to delay the Minister, because we want to get on with this now. She will acknowledge that I twice presented these clauses to the Government. Twice the Government came to me and said, “We will get amendments to you within a week.” I agreed that I would accept any Government amendment. Twice the Government came back saying, “No, we don’t have any amendments yet for you because we can’t find anything that we’ve signed off.” I worry a bit about bad faith, and I hope that if we accepted the amendments that she is proposing, she would be supportive, rather than produce just another list of questions.
Maria Caulfield
I take on board the hon. Member’s point, but the final Bill was published only this week. I take on board his point about future amendments should the Bill get to Committee. I appreciate that he intends his Bill to be a framework into which exemptions can be built, but when creating a broad new criminal offence that could be altered in future by powers, we believe that robust protections and scrutiny must come at the beginning of the legislative process, not the end.
Secondly, the risk is further heightened by the inclusion of “suppression” within the scope of the offences under clause 1(2). For example, if a religious leader supports an individual who wants to manage their same-sex attraction in order to align with their individual religious belief, where the individual consensually seeks out religious counselling, this Bill would still criminalise that support. That is just one tiny example of what we mean.
Despite the hon. Gentleman’s best efforts to the contrary, the Bill risks creating a chilling effect on clinicians—we have heard some of those concerns today—by positioning healthcare regulation within the context of criminal law. The impact on healthcare professionals may well be the single biggest challenge within legislation in this area. That is part of the reason why we consider pre-legislative scrutiny from the breadth of medical experience available across Parliament in both Houses to be so critical. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), that concern is cited by the independent Cass review, the final report of which is expected in the next few weeks.
Our third concern is about the Bill’s attempt to exempt parental behaviour in clause 1(2). The Government are clear that parents should be able to have exploratory and even challenging conversations with their children, and it would be absolutely wrong to criminalise them.
Nick Fletcher
I thank the Minister for the help she has given me recently with regard to the issues facing men and boys, which is a subject close to my heart. I am equally supportive of women and girls. Does she agree that this Bill—or any Bill that criminalises free speech—will have a huge effect on women and girls across this country? We will get to a point where parents will be unable to say to their sweet little girl who comes home from school, having seen the abhorrent material in relationships, sex and health education, “No, you’re not a boy; you’re a lovely little girl, and you’re going to grow up to be a lovely little girl.” Does she also agree that the Bill will put biological males in single-sex spaces, which again is abhorrent, and take away podium places from girls?
Maria Caulfield
The point I was making is that parents have a right and that we, when legislating in this area, must be careful to ensure that we do not criminalise legitimate conversations in the family setting. Sadly, we have seen cases—for example, those involving female genital mutilation—where a lack of parental responsibility has led to the abuse of children. We are concerned that, by not covering that in this Bill, there is potential for conversion practices, which could be abusive, to continue.
Alicia Kearns
I am slightly confused, because the Government are saying that this Bill protects parents too much, but those speaking against it are saying that it will criminalise parents. I am not sure where we will go, but I presume that Government lawyers know slightly more than those who are opposing the Bill from the Back Benches.
Maria Caulfield
That is the point I am making: this is a sensitive area, where there are arguments both for and against on all sides. We absolutely believe in parents’ legitimate right and freedom to bring up their children in any way they see fit, but we have to be careful about that tipping into abuse. We have seen that happen, for example with FGM.
Our final concern is about the territorial extent of the Bill. Clause 5 says that it will apply to the entire United Kingdom, which poses issues because, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown knows, justice is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed, as many Members here today will be aware, the Scottish Government are currently consulting on their own legislative approach to banning conversion practices. The requirement for the Director of Public Prosecutions to approve any prosecution is at odds with the Bill’s territorial extent, which I would say wrongly covers Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Crown Prosecution Service operates in England and Wales only, because Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own criminal justice systems, which means that the requirement to have CPS approval would not apply there. A separate provision creates equivalent requirements for the Northern Ireland equivalent of the CPS, but there is no explicit provision for its Scottish counterpart. Those are the four main areas where we have issues with the Bill.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
First, the Minister has to recognise that the Bill will be brought into force in Scotland or Northern Ireland only if there is the consent of the legislators and Ministers in those two places. Secondly, the argument she has just given is legally incorrect, because in Scotland there is already a requirement for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to give authorisation for private prosecutions. That is why it is not needed in the law. I would have thought that Government lawyers had told her that in the briefing. It is disappointing that they do not seem to know the law.
Maria Caulfield
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that way, but we have to be clear about the territorial extent of the Bill. We have concerns about that, because the Bill should relate only to England and Wales, but it does not.
Miriam Cates
The Minister has made an important point about the problems with the requirement for DPP permission, but is there not an even more significant problem with that? Although it seems like a safeguard, in reality—looking at the CPS website—all that means is that a Crown prosecutor has to give permission. Any Crown prosecutor—even an activist Crown prosecutor—could agree to such a prosecution and thus create case law that criminalises parents in future.
Maria Caulfield
We have set out our four concerns, which include the territorial extent of the Bill.
I have set out why the Government will not support the Bill today. I want the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown to know that I am really grateful for the work he has done in this space, and I hope that we can continue to work together on this issue, particularly on the legislation. Today’s debate has further highlighted the need for careful consideration before legislation is passed, so that unintended consequences can be avoided. It has also demonstrated the importance of taking action that is balanced and measured in order to protect those at most risk of harm, but also to protect the freedoms and rights of everyone. That is the kind of balance that can be achieved only with bespoke legislation, and although we absolutely pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, we will not support this Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Miriam Cates
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are a number of people left to speak on what is a very important and controversial Bill, and a number of issues have not yet been raised, so I object to the closure being moved now.
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
I rise to lend my support to the Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). I must say how disappointing it is that we have got to a position where it looks like the Bill will not be read a Second time. Due to filibustering by one Member on the Opposition Benches and a lengthy debate, it looks like we will be failing an entire section of the community.
I commend my hon. Friend for the way he has gone about bringing forward the Bill. He joked at the start that the Whips Office thought it could be “batshit”—that may or may not have been me, I don’t know—but he should be thoroughly proud of his approach in introducing it, which was moderate and level. I know his colleagues are immensely grateful to him, too. The Bill represents a crucial step forward in protecting the rights and dignity of the LGBT community across our nation. Put simply, the Government had a problem and this was a way to solve it.
On 6 December, I hosted a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue and I shared the stories of Sienna and Ben. For brevity, I refer colleagues to Hansard to see what was debated on that day. Conversion therapy is a barbaric and deeply harmful practice that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through psychological or religious means. It is rooted in bigotry, prejudice and outdated notions of sexuality, and it has no place in a modern, progressive society. No one can consent to abuse. In short, the practice is abhorrent and evil, and it needs to end now.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the harm caused by conversion therapy, successive Governments have failed to take decisive action to outlaw the cruel practice, and they have done so again today. When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Home Secretary, she announced that the Government would do just that, and since then numerous Ministers, including the current Leader of the House, have said that we should ban conversion therapy—no ifs, no buts—yet we are still waiting for that to happen.
That is a stark dereliction of the Government’s first duty, which is to protect all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity, and their right to wellbeing. The Government’s moral wrongs and hypocrisy on this issue are glaringly obvious. Although they claim to support the community and equality, their inaction on conversion therapy speaks volumes and sends a chilling message to LGBTQ individuals that their lives and identities are somehow less worthy of protection and respect. This is a dark day for this place. I hope the Government and the Minister find a way to come forward with amendments. I want us to work in a cross-party manner to address the situation.
We cannot allow vulnerable individuals to be subjected to this harmful practice under the guise of so-called therapy or treatment. By sending my hon. Friend’s Bill to Committee, we could have sent a powerful message that discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society. We could have reaffirmed our commitment to equality, dignity and human rights for all, and finally put an end to the scourge of conversion therapy, but it looks like we have chosen not to do so today. I will have to think about this long and hard on my train journey back north today, and I hope everyone will reflect deeply about what this means for them and for this place as a whole, because we are here to protect individuals.
It is still not too late to pass this Bill, so I urge all Members to stand on the right side of history and support this crucial legislation. Let us come together to protect individuals’ rights and dignity, and send a clear message that love is love. No one should ever be forced to change who they are, who they love and what they believe in. Ultimately, we must end this evil practice now.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I will try to keep my remarks brief, because a number of Members still want to get in. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle)—who is not in his place—because, as he said, he engaged widely with a range of colleagues. Although he and I have had our moments in this Chamber, which have been broadly publicised, I want everybody to know that behind the scenes we have had some very good, constructive, friendly conversations about this issue. I thank him sincerely for that, and for the very mature and calm way in which he spoke today; I think we would all acknowledge that.
There are a number of issues with this Bill, which have been widely covered by a number of hon. Members.
Robin Millar
Specifically on the point about the way the debate has been conducted, and what I have valued in it, the Minister said that it has achieved in bringing to the surface the issues, complexities and concerns that are preventing—or at least delaying—the Government from introducing a Bill in this House.
Miriam Cates
I completely agree. Despite the wide range of views expressed in the debate, we still have not established what it is that is not yet illegal but should be made illegal. That is why I do not believe this Bill should progress through Parliament. In fact, I do not actually think we can legislate safely in this area at all.
I do not want to rehash other hon. Members’ comments, but I have two particular concerns about the Bill and its drafting. First, we have already referred to the fact that a DPP would have to give permission for a prosecution to be brought. On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible safeguard, and certainly it is a good thing that private prosecutions cannot be brought, but from looking on the CPS website, it is clear that the permission of the DPP just means the permission of any Crown prosecutor, and all it would take is for one Crown prosecutor who particularly wants to secure a conviction on these terms to bring that case. Case law would then be made, and then the chilling effect that so many Members have referred to would indeed be achieved for parents, teachers and therapists.
The other safeguard that is very much lacking in the Bill as drafted concerns the ability for a Secretary of State to amend the Bill through a statutory instrument—in other words, a Henry VIII power. A number of Members who have spoken today in support of the Bill support it only because of the particular exemptions for therapists, parents and religious leaders, and those exemptions could be stripped out by a Secretary of State through statutory instrument. That ability to amend the Bill in future beyond all recognition and all agreement of the House in itself makes the Bill unsafe.
My particular concerns are for parents who sadly absolutely could be criminalised under this Bill. I agree that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has tried hard to create these carve-outs for parents, but if a parent in exercising their parental responsibility is found by a court to have committed an action that counts as conversion therapy, how would that court then find that that parent has been acting in the best interests of the welfare of the child? That seems highly unlikely to me and very likely to lead to parents being prosecuted, or at least to feeling that they cannot speak freely to their children, as they would wish to keep them safe and prevent them from making irreversible decisions.
I am also concerned about therapists. Again, I can see that the hon. Member has made significant attempts to create a carve-out for therapists delivering exploratory therapy and talking therapies, but unfortunately the carve-out includes that a therapist must be acting within the regulations of whichever body they are affiliated to. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these regulatory bodies, including the NHS, have signed up to a memorandum of understanding that essentially means that anything else but affirming a person’s gender identity is against those regulations. Again, this exemption, though well meant, unfortunately does not count for anything.
An example of a problem that could be caused came from a lesbian lady I met last year. She told me that she had experienced gender dysphoria since her teenage years. She had sought out a private therapist to help her to come to terms with her own female body and to live happily and successfully as a lesbian woman with a partner. She chose that therapist because they had a predetermined purpose of helping her not to move to a transgender identity. Unfortunately, that therapist, who I think many of us would agree should absolutely be allowed to practise on those terms, would be criminalised under this legislation because of their predetermined purpose to suppress a transgender identity. If such a purpose were made illegal, the lady I spoke to would no longer have access to that kind of therapy. Nobody in this place could really argue that that therapy is harmful. It is fully consensual, and we should not be criminalising those conversations.
Robin Millar
My hon. Friend is being generous, and I commend her on the points she is making, because these are legitimate questions we ask of the Bill. Perhaps she can answer this. It seems to me that in clause 1(1), in the absence of specificity about behaviours and in the reliance on the interpretation in clause 4 of those words “purpose and intent”, in effect we have legislation that is creating a form of thought crime.
Miriam Cates
I absolutely agree. Although Members have spoken about abuse and persistent patterns of behaviour—all of which are certainly serious—the reality is that in the drafting of the Bill, a single act could be brought as a criminal offence. There are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent that from happening.
For example, let us say that I was a primary school teacher and a girl came to me and said that she felt she was actually a boy and that she had been born in the wrong body. If I said to her on one occasion, “No, actually you are a girl. It is great being a girl”—perhaps she is gender non-conforming in some way, and she thinks that means she is not really female—I probably would not be caught by this Bill. But if I said that to her repeatedly—in other words, if I told her the truth and guided her, as adults should guide children—I very much would be caught by this Bill, especially if I were a gender-critical feminist who had put things on social media that prove that I did not believe in gender identity ideology, for example. Those are exactly the kinds of behaviours that we absolutely cannot criminalise in a democratic and free society.
Parents and children are my principal concern here. In the past two years, my inbox has been full of tragic stories of children, often girls, often same-sex attracted, often autistic, who have been groomed online and often by activist groups, sometimes in schools, into believing that they are actually boys. Sadly, some of these children have gone on to be prescribed puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones. Some are actively pursuing radical surgery that will leave them infertile, unable to breastfeed, and with medical problems for the rest of their life. It is already difficult enough for parents, teachers and employees to speak out against this ideology. The hon. Member for somewhere in Scotland—
Miriam Cates
Thank you very much. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) put the point brilliantly: the backdrop to this debate and legislation is one where gender ideology has very much pervaded our culture and institutions, and that is what parents are battling against. One mother wrote to me saying:
“My daughter began identifying as a boy at age 13, following a presentation by a trans adult in her school (all kept secret). Hers is the classic story: puberty, autistic traits, severe bullying, same-sex attraction.
She was socially transitioned without our consent, and then referred (with our consent) to the Tavistock. The GP later told me she didn’t support medicalisation due to the lack of evidence, but feared for her job if she said so.
In the four years since, I've been referred to social services three times for being ‘abusive’ (but deemed each time by social workers to be a loving mother). My daughter’s trans identity has been celebrated at school and ‘supported’ by mainly male teachers—one of whom told her he likes to cross-dress on the weekend. She learned she is 48% likely to attempt suicide, and that her family is committing hate crimes.
This has not been good for her mental health, or ours. My other daughters are 14 and 7. They too have learned about gender identity theory at school, and have been interviewed by social services each time we’re referred.
Our last school, which proudly displayed its Stonewall Champion certificate behind the reception desk, went even further. Every time I had safeguarding questions, they told me about equality, diversity and inclusion and also British Values.
They enrolled my daughter as male, and sent her to secret therapy since I was considered a risk. We have somehow managed to prevent her from accessing irreversible medical and surgical interventions, despite everyone else’s best efforts. The way I would describe my experience as a mother is that my daughter jumped in front of a train, so I jumped in front of her, and got hit by the train.
Intercepting letters from the NHS, being referred repeatedly to social services, and being socially ostracised have been worth it. Buying time has allowed her to go through puberty and consider whether it is autism that makes her feel different. For now at least, she has decided not to pursue more drastic options. If my actions had been criminalised, I don’t think she would have been in the fortunate position she is now: living at home with her loving family, and with her body, fertility and mind intact.”
I have countless other testimonies such as that, which I do not have time to read out now. Some of them are heartbreaking and some do not end in the same way—some of them end with the permanent severing of the relationship between parent and child, with the child taken down a route of permanent harm, against the parent’s best intentions.
Before I finish, I want to make it clear that, unfortunately, at the heart of the Bill is an irreconcilable difference between those of us who support the Bill and those of us who do not. The difference, for those who believe that it is not possible to change sex and not possible to be born in the wrong body, lies in the question: how do we define this concept of transgender identity? I appreciate that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has referred to a different piece of legislation, the Sentencing Act 2020, but if we read it, we see that it does not attempt to define these terms. It certainly refers to them and talks about them as aggravating factors in assaults, which of course they should be. It tells the courts to take account of whether someone has used some transphobic abuse or referred to somebody as transgender or transsexual during an assault, and says that should be an aggravating factor. However, that is not a definition of transgender or transgender identity. The truth is that we cannot define it because it is something that is felt. Although people might well feel it very strongly, if it cannot be defined in law, how can we safely legislate for it? How can we ban someone from converting someone to or from transgender if transgender cannot be defined? If, like me, people believe that gender ideology is not based on factual evidence, that we should therefore be telling children that they cannot change sex and that we should be helping them to live happily in their own sex, however they want to dress and whatever hobbies they want to pursue, how can we legislate for it if we do not think it is real? That is the problem at the heart of this Bill, and it is why we cannot safely legislate in this space. It is why we absolutely must not put these contested and unevidenced ideas into law.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I genuinely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for bringing forward this Bill. He has behaved in an exemplary way from the very beginning, and his conduct today demonstrates what a worthy proponent he is for this cause.
I will not speak for long. I did not prepare very much because I hoped for a successful closure motion, but I want to put on record my continuing support for a comprehensive ban on conversion practices. As we have heard in many speeches today, conversion practices are simply horrific, and it is utterly disappointing that this Government have, yet again, broken their repeated promises to act on these heinous practices.
What does it say about our politics that Parliament has been denied the chance to act against the heinous abuses we have heard about today?
Ms Brown
No. Do not try my patience.
I remind all colleagues that protecting the rights of LGBT+ people and advancing equality used to be seen as a shared mission across the House. As I said earlier, I was the Government Whip on the Equality Act 2010, and we worked so hard to pass a law that carefully and cautiously addressed the genuine concerns of those who opposed those measures. There were disagreements but, with real effort, we built cross-party support. I honestly believe that we can do the same with this Bill today.
When we debated the Equality Act, people could see that our common aim was to protect the vulnerable and to help all our communities live better together. Even a few years ago, however much we argued about the detail, most of us believed that progress was being made on equality in the UK and globally. That shared understanding was the basis for the Conservative Government’s welcome pledge to ban conversion practices.
Sadly, it seems that we are losing even the aspiration to work together on improving everyone’s life. Instead, the media narrative and our politics are driven by attempts to stoke division. Frankly, I now get emails from LGBT+ constituents whose understandable emotions are often fear and panic.
I know that the issues we are discussing today are far from simple, and I have received many impassioned messages from constituents with many different views, which makes it important for us to start with compassion and common sense. I believe that we can find our way through the disagreements and distortions about the scope of the Bill, as we have on many previous equality issues. Given that the Government’s agenda has completely stalled, I had hoped that Ministers would make a commitment today to work in good faith with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown on this Bill but frankly, given today’s shenanigans, I am not holding my breath. It could not be clearer that some Conservative Members would rather pursue their politics of divisive culture wars than engage.
I know that many Conservative Members recognise the damage that is being done to our country by all this division, and want to put compassion and solidarity with victims first. That is what I stood for today, that is what I voted for today, and that is why I supported my hon. Friend’s Bill.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), although I feel that I must correct her on one point. The House was not denied the opportunity to take the Bill forward. The fact is that only 68 Members supported the closure motion: that is the measure of support for it in the entire House.
There has been a fair degree of consensus on a number of issues today. Most important is the consensus that coercive practices which attempt to change by force the legitimate and legal beliefs and practices of any individual in our society have no place in the 21st century. It is worth reiterating that at the outset. It is also, in my view, not for the state to interfere in the non-harmful behaviour of any citizen—including the right to freely express one’s sexuality, which, as a doctor, I consider to be simply part of a natural spectrum of human behaviour, and it is worth making it clear that we have a consensus on that as well.
I do believe, however, that we have a duty to protect the vulnerable from undue pressure, from whatever direction and for whatever reason it may come. I strongly agree that we need to protect individuals from undue pressure to express themselves in a way that would be untrue to their natural character, which is not acceptable in a civilised society; but, in the wider debate about trans issues, we must be willing to protect young people from undue influence exerted by those who may have different motivations so that they do not make decisions that might be irreversible and which, with a different level of maturity and experience, they might choose to make differently for themselves.
A couple of contributions have been of particular value. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) talked about the risk of people being drawn inadvertently into the scope of the Bill through behaviour that they believed to be legitimate—for example, challenging young people so that they could gain the benefit of experience, in terms of what their parents might advise them to do. There is also the possibility of the medical profession being inadvertently involved if a practitioner expressed a particular view in private and was then asked to give advice. These are very complex issues.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who I think has genuinely tried to get round some pretty immoveable objects when it comes to law in this area, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) for reminding us that the debate is about people. It is not about abstract issues; it is about individuals and the impact that it has on their lives, and also how elements, at least, of the medical profession can be just as subject to the whims of fashion in politics as any of the rest of the population.
I am glad that the debate has been conducted, in general, in a thoughtful tone. It could easily have degenerated into what we might call strongly held views or inadvertent self-righteousness, but it did so at very few points. It is a debate that needs to be dealt with in a proper tone, but in the wider debate we have seen too much assertion and too little rational discussion. The best example I can think of is the treatment handed out to J. K. Rowling and her row on Twitter. Of course, our assessments of the volume of the response must take account of the fact that this is the world of the Twittersphere—or the X-sphere, as I suppose it is now—but such vicious, extremely aggressive and often threatening language really has no place in our discourse on serious issues in this country.
What struck me about that intervention was not that the writer herself was not entitled to post her views because of her background—as one critic put it, because
“her cis-identity and its majoritarian privileges are overwhelming”.
The sinister part was it was not a counter-attack or riposte to the views she had posted, but an attempt to delegitimise her and thus her intervention. Although the Bill will not go forward, I hope that across the House we can understand and agree that, wherever we come from on the political spectrum, we need to make it clear that the views of those like J. K. Rowling are just as legitimate as the views of anyone else. The aim to silence, cancel and delegitimise individual views has no part in proper democratic debate in our country.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown worked hard to try to get the Bill into a better position, and good law needs to be necessary, clear, effective and enforceable and to avoid unintended consequences. Like many in the House, I am not clear exactly what the necessity is for the Bill, because I did not hear described in any clarity the sort of offences that are not covered by legislation already and that would require yet another piece of legislation. When the Minister comes forward with the Government’s legislation, I look forward to its being clear about what exactly we intend to outlaw. We all understand the extreme elements that are the background to the debate, such as violent enforcement and so on. It disturbed me that part of the explanatory notes to the Bill, given to us by the House of Commons Library, said,
“techniques can take many forms and commonly range from pseudo-psychological treatments to spiritual counselling.”
That is where I had real reservations about where we are today and where I felt it was unclear what the necessity for the legislation was.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The right hon. Gentleman says he does not understand or has not heard scenarios in the debate that would be covered by the Bill but are not covered by existing legislation. I give him the scenario of an unregulated therapist—that is, someone who is not part of any registered body, of which we have many in this country who do significant harm, and there is another debate, possibly, about registering them. That unregulated therapist can take a vulnerable person—to some extent, anyone questioning their sexuality or transgender identity is vulnerable because they are questioning—and repeatedly tell them that they cannot be that, they should be ashamed of that, and they should be disgusted about that. That does not meet a criminal threshold. It might meet a threshold many years down the line of a psychological harm that we will not know. Surely that is a clear example where this Bill, or a Bill like it, would act, but he suggests there are no examples.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Again, interventions should be short—I understand the reason.
Sir Liam Fox
If the point the hon. Gentleman makes is valid, it is valid in the other direction, too. It should be wrong and, in his case, criminalised to tell any young person that they are definitely something when they are unclear about what they are. If that is what comes out of our debate today, that is a step forward in the wider debate.
Sir Liam Fox
I will give way briefly because other Members still want to speak.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the noble Lord Winston put it well in the other place when he said,
“The basic problem is this: we are at risk of legislating for a piece of biology that we really do not understand. We do not understand the underlying mechanisms”?
—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2024; Vol. 835, c. 1847.]
Sir Liam Fox
I would not want to contradict the noble Lord in any way whatsoever, but there are other elements of the Bill that give me cause for anxiety. I know those are part of the reason the Government have found bringing forward legislation difficult. We have talked on both sides of the House about the concept of the harm that could be done by these processes, but there is no test of harm in the Bill. If all forms of conversion therapy covered by the Bill can be harmful, surely it would not be unreasonable to have a test of intent to do harm prior to any prosecution being brought under the legislation, and yet that is not in the Bill. That is a vital part missing from the Bill, because that is about second-guessing people’s intent, rather than any concept of their wishing to do harm. That casts our net far too wide in law.
There are two other points about the drafting. The first is that the use of the term “activity”, as well as referring to a “course” of action, means that a single event—a one-off event, or a one-off conversation—could, if interpreted in a particular way by a prosecutor, bring people within the scope of the law. That needs to be tightened, and I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if the Government are bringing forward legislation, that is something we need to look at, as is use of the term “suppress” alongside
“orientation or identity…in full or in part”.
Again, this loose language potentially comes unstuck when a parent has a strong and necessary challenge to make against their child in order to give them a different view. It could be interpreted very wrongly if this was the wording of any legislation.
Finally, I will say this: we are here to produce good law in the House of Commons; we are not here to signal to any one part of the population that we are on their side. We have to ensure that the law we produce has the intended effect and that that law is necessary. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will look at these elements closely in the days and months to come.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I am grateful to have a chance to speak in this very important debate and I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for introducing this private Member’s Bill.
I noted the references that the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) made to common sense and compassion, and I share her aspiration for compassion and common sense in this debate. Rightly, we want to ensure that we have compassion and that our laws provide a compassionate level of support for the gay and LGBT community, who deserve to live freely and safely in our country and, indeed, the whole world. I also care about compassion for young people who will be exploring their sexuality, potentially with mental health challenges—vulnerable young people needing the help and support of informed professionals to guide them in a way that does not cause irreversible damage to their bodies, which they may later come to regret. The story of Keira Bell, illustrated very powerfully by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), is a case in point. We must have compassion for young people in the situation of Keira Bell.
I have compassion for parents who are trying valiantly to navigate this uncharted territory these days. I have met parents who are struggling, who are upset, and who themselves are depressed and overwhelmed by their teenagers trying to discover their sexuality and suggesting that they want to transition. As parents, they really are in no man’s land and they do not know what to do; they only want to do right by their young children. And I have compassion for teachers, who also find themselves mired in this minefield, not knowing what the guidance is or what the rules are, and who are scared of causing harm inadvertently or, on the other hand, denying legitimate rights.
That is why I welcome the Government’s issuance of draft guidance for schools on how to support gender-questioning children. It is a good start and has come after many years of requests. My personal view is that it does not go far enough and, ultimately, if we are to safeguard the welfare of children properly, we need to totally ban transitioning under 18. If that requires a change in the law, then I cannot think of any better reason to change the law than to support and safeguard young children in those circumstances.
I appreciate those who support the Bill; they are well-intentioned and I share their aspirations. I hate the idea of gay conversion—it is nasty, it is vicious, it is insulting, and it is disgusting that we are even talking about it. I feel sorry for those people who may have undergone those kinds of approaches and treatments; they did not deserve it. I am proud to live in a country where we support the gay community. I am proud that it was a Conservative Government who legislated for same-sex marriage in 2013. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time but, had I been, I would have voted in favour, because I believe in equal opportunities. Gay people should not be persecuted, discriminated against or victimised just because of who they love.
Let us remember that in many countries around the world, today in the 21st century, it is criminal to be gay —that is a grotesque shame on the society that we live in in this world. Homosexuality is a criminal offence in about 60 countries, half of which are in Africa. For example, the death penalty is legally prescribed as punishment for same-sex sexual acts in Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and some of the northern states of Nigeria. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia and the United Arab Emirates, the death penalty could be applied because of a lack of clarity in the law. I abhor that that is the case in parts of the world; that a person could be killed just for being gay.
That is why I am very proud of the protections that this Conservative Government have put into place over the past decade. That includes same-sex marriage— of which I am very proud—and the introduction, by the Ministry of Defence in 2021, of pardons for historical convictions for gay sex offences in the military. That finally brought an end to centuries-old legislation that had previously devastated the lives of many gay men. In 2017, Turing’s law gave automatic pardons to deceased men who had been convicted of since-abolished offences. It is very good to hear that there have been hundreds of applications for a formal pardon following the introduction of those measures by this Conservative Government—righting the wrongs of the past, as should be done, and bringing justice, eventually, to those who were wronged.
Yes, we in the United Kingdom have made progress in standing up for gay rights, and I am very proud of that. And I oppose this Bill. I feel obligated to make it clear on the record that I am not transphobic, and I am not homophobic, because I am sure that rising today to make this speech will lead to another barrage of trolling, abuse and hate mail because of the views that I hold. My views are born out of compassion for the gay community, but also compassion for young people; a sincere belief in the immutability and binary nature of sex; and my dearly held views about protecting single-sex spaces for women and safeguarding children. I feel obligated to make that clear today because, sadly, we will all be smeared very quickly after this debate—a sorry indictment of our public discourse on this subject.
I have grave concerns about this Bill, for several reasons. I will not go into them in a lot of detail, because a lot of them have been set out by other colleagues, but I will deal first with the need for the Bill. I have heard what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has said, but I strongly challenge his reliance on evidence that suggests there is a chronicled, verifiable problem that needs to be fixed by a new law. There is a complete absence of verifiable, quantitative evidence demonstrating that harmful conversion practices are widespread or occurring frequently in this country. I have referred to what is happening, atrociously, in many other countries around the world. Thankfully, those things do not happen in this country.
Suella Braverman
I will not, because of time. There is very little evidence that conversion therapy is a current problem in this country. The various surveys that have been quoted, such as the national LGBT survey of 2017 or the Ozanne Foundation’s faith and sexuality survey, have severe shortcomings in their evidence base and the ways in which they were compiled. A police freedom of information request demonstrated that police forces throughout the UK, when asked whether they had received any reports of electroshock treatment or corrective rape between 2010 and 2020, responded with relevant data and confirmed that no police force had ever recorded any such complaint.
Danny Kruger
The other thing that has been cited by the other side is instances of unregulated therapy, which would fall foul of this new law. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Children’s Act 1989 already specifies that therapy, or any practice that is likely to cause psychological harm, is already a criminal offence? Again, even the non-coercive, non-threatening and non-violent abuse, which the other side are trying to criminalise, is already illegal.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend brings me to my next point, which he has just made very powerfully. The existing law already protects gay and trans people from verbal and physical abuse, much as he set out. The offensive and abhorrent practices that we are talking about but cannot yet evidence include corrective rape, electroshock therapy, forced marriage, screaming in the face, holding down while praying, threats of physical violence, harassment, coercive or controlling behaviour, and other physical and verbal abuse. However, all such activity is already criminal under myriad laws, ranging from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. There is a long list, which I do not have time to go through.
Neale Hanvey
I want to make a swift point. A whole range of legislation is in place to manage many of the concerns that have been voiced across the Chamber, and no one is in any way suggesting that we support them—I certainly do not support conversion practices—but any legislation that looks at this has to have absolute precision about what exactly it is addressing. The problem with the Bill is that it is so wide in scope and it replicates legislation that is already in place. We need to look at what the current legislation covers, look for the gap and, if it does exist, then legislate precisely to address the problem.
Suella Braverman
The hon. Gentleman puts that incredibly well. It reminds me of Edmund Burke, who said:
“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”
Bad laws make bad customs, and in this place we want to avoid good people making bad laws. I am afraid that the coverage by the legislation of all sorts of horrendous behaviour that is being talked about means that there is no good reason for it. It is a bad law.
Peter Gibson
I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says about existing legislation covering many of the things that this Bill is seeking to protect people from. Will she outline to the House what work she did, while at the Home Office, to ensure that sufficient provision, advice and guidance was given to the Crown Prosecution Service and to police forces to ensure that they had the requisite knowledge to deal with such issues under the existing law?
Suella Braverman
During my time as Home Secretary, we issued new guidance on non-hate crime incidents, and it supports many aspects of what we are talking about—not all, but some. We clarified the parameters for such non-hate crime incidents to protect minority groups, to protect the LGBT community, and to ensure that fairness and safety were applied by policing.
The next reason is that the scope of the Bill is incredibly wide, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said. The Bill does not require the defendant to intend any harm to be caused in order for their action to be criminal, which I find incredibly concerning. That will capture so many types of behaviour where there is an innocent or well-intentioned objective and where legitimate practices, whether in the religious, therapeutic or teaching field—or just being a regular parent—will be caught. That might be inadvertent, as we have discussed today, but some things will necessarily be caught by interpretations of some of the clauses.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I do not agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member is saying. She must recognise that we do legislate in the House for things other than harms. For example, we legislate against false advertising. We legislate in other areas to say that people cannot do certain things, even if they do not cause direct harm to individuals, because it is for the social good of the fabric of our society that those things do not happen. Is not the point to say that, when explicit harm is caused, it is criminal and Home Secretaries should have put forward guidance for it to be prosecuted, and where it is not harmful but it is dangerous for our society, we should produce a threshold for that? Is that not the point of the Bill?
Suella Braverman
I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that we have victimless crimes and we have legislation that provides for those kinds of offences, but the Bill runs the risk of causing harm through bad law. I will come on to the point about the potential harm caused by the proposed legislation. As I said, I seriously and strongly challenge the evidence base that the hon. Gentleman relies on to suggest that there is a definable problem that needs to be fixed in this country.
My next point is about the potential harm caused by this well-intentioned but misguided Bill. There would be a disproportionate impact on people of faith. The language of “predetermined purpose” would disproportionately catch people of faith. Many religions—most religions, I would argue—make many claims about the truth, based on a body of teaching to which followers must adhere. In traditional religions at least, any religious advice will be predetermined by that teaching, and that will be communicated to people. A priest, an imam, a rabbi or any leader in one of the major religions who attempts to pray for a member of their congregation who has presented to them with concerns or anxiety about these issues would be caught by the Bill. There would be a real chilling effect on expression of religion and freedom of religious belief.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It is clear in the exemptions that individual prayer is not caught by the Bill, but if Members feel that that is too thinly defined, we could thrash it out in Committee. Can the right hon. and learned Member tell me any mainstream religion whose religious texts say, “You must change your sexual orientation or your transgender identity”? I am not aware of any, so I do not understand why any religion would be caught by the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the right hon. and learned Lady responds, I just want to point out that several other Members still wish to participate in the debate.
Suella Braverman
I am being generous with the promoter of the Bill. Listen, we all know that in religious contexts people will pray for all sorts of things about fellow travellers in their faith, so my point stands.
Lastly, because I am conscious that other people wish to speak, I am very concerned about the impact of the Bill on parents, teachers and therapists. I speak not as the Member of Parliament for Fareham, who has met many constituents, including parents who are upset and traumatised by observing what their teenagers or young adults have gone through, but as a mum of young children who are beginning their education in British schools. As a mother, I feel it is my responsibility to do everything—to give my life—for the safety of my children. I would do anything for my children, as I know every parent would. If I were in the position of having my own child presenting with anxiety or presenting questions like this, I would want to support them and I would want them to be happy, but I would also want to direct them in the way that I know best, consistent with my parental authority, educating and teaching them about gender and sex. In my view, in our household, in my family, we believe that a man cannot be a woman; a boy cannot be a girl. That is what I would be telling my children, with the best intentions and from a place of love. If that were to criminalise me, that would be a crying shame and a total undermining of good parenting in this country.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
May I start by wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker—my fellow Welsh expat—a happy St David’s day?
I want to pay my respects to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for introducing this private Member’s Bill. It is a real shame he had to do so. The Government have promised time and again to bring in their own Bill to ban conversion therapy; we have promised it in two Conservative party manifestos, and we have spoken about it in, I think, two Queen’s Speeches. It is important that no one in this country should be made to feel ashamed of who they are. I find it difficult to believe that a practice that seeks to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity persists in some parts of our country.
I know that this practice is an issue. I have to admit that I was sceptical that conversion therapy even existed in this country until a constituent came to see me. She was a lesbian woman who was under so much pressure to marry a male. She was being forced to go to family events and take part in religious ceremonies, because her family thought she should be able to stop being a lesbian, become a heterosexual and marry a man. The pressure and depression that this woman was suffering made me ashamed to have ever questioned whether conversion therapy exists among some communities in this country. It is imperative that the Government remain committed to protecting people from these awful practices so that they can live their lives free from the threat of harm and abuse.
Nickie Aiken
No.
I take this issue very seriously, as the LGBT+ community has always been a valued part of the two cities in my constituency. I feel fortunate that my constituency has a rich LGBT+ history. It is home to one of the world’s best-known gay districts, our beloved Soho. From hosting the first UK Pride march in 1972, Soho has played an important part in London’s, and perhaps the UK’s, gay community. It is of huge historical importance; many of the conversations on gay rights started in the same bars and spaces that still line the streets of Soho.
Madam Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am not converting you. [Laughter.] I will move swiftly on. I am a 55-year-old woman—I know it is hard to believe—and we have come so far in my lifetime on improving the rights of the LGBT community. I recall a bisexual friend of mine who has lived in the west end for decades remarking that we have come so far in places like Soho. In my lifetime—in the past 20, 30 or 40 years —a gay bar was hidden from view. People had to sneak in. They had to knock on a door, and the windows were boarded up. Today, we celebrate gay bars, and I am sure many of us in this Chamber do quite regularly—[Laughter.] I am not saying anything, Mr Deputy Speaker. But seriously, let us also remember the pressure and harm that the LGBT+ community has faced, and perhaps still does face.
Next month, 30 April will mark the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho, a beloved venue of Soho’s gay and non-gay community. I recall that night, as I was in Soho that Friday evening enjoying a night out. Since that terrible crime, where three people died and 89 were injured, our country has seen important changes in attitudes to gay people and trans people, with huge strides in the improvement of human rights for the LGBT+ community. We have heard today of so many different pieces of legislation and laws that we have brought in, including the Equality Act 2010 and the numerous laws that this Conservative Government have introduced over the past 14 years. We must ensure that we continue to do that.
I absolutely understand the concerns that have been expressed today about how we legislate on conversion therapy. It can be very difficult when someone wants to support a family member through love, perhaps to get therapy, or a teacher is approached. Taking advice and undertaking therapy are very different from coercive practices. The coercion element is key to this Bill, and I hope that, when it is introduced, the Government Bill will aim to enforce that.
We have such an outstanding history of fighting for LGBT+ rights, and it is so important that we continue that narrative. I believe that we must enforce on coercive conversion therapy practices because that would send a message to all gay people, all people from the LGBT+ community—whether they are starting out on their journey or ending it—that they have the right to be who they are. I compare this type of legislation with legislation on FGM. That has been on the statute book for decades, and we have only just seen prosecutions and, in the past week or so, the first conviction. Was it wrong to have legislation outlawing that heinous practice, whether it takes place here or involves a British citizen being taken abroad to undergo it? It is right that we send a clear message to the LGBT community that we support them and they are not alone, and that we send the message to those who want to coerce and stop them being who they are that they should not do it in this country.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on the very thoughtful way in which he introduced the debate on his Bill.
Any medical or psychological efforts or practices that include violence or coercion to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are wrong and already illegal. My primary concern about the Bill is that it could intrude into the legitimate activities and practices of religious groups and faith leaders.
Paul Bristow
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as I want to get a few points on the record.
Yesterday, I met local religious leaders from churches and mosques in Peterborough. Like me, they had significant concerns about the Bill and the profound impact that it would have on their ability to offer pastoral care. We spoke for an hour and had a good, constructive conversation about the effects that the Bill could have on them and their family and friends.
It is important to stress that we agree that everyone should be free to live their life, whatever their gender or sexuality, without being persecuted. This is 2024 in Great Britain: no one deserves anything less than the utmost respect and understanding, regardless of their gender or sexuality. However, it is obviously and rightly already illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality or gender, so not only is the Bill unnecessary on one level, but it could have unintended consequences. It risks silencing people for offering honest and good-natured support, often to very vulnerable people.
The Bill also does not comply with protections of the rights to freedom of speech and to religion set out in the European convention on human rights, as has already been said. That was one of the main action points of our meeting yesterday. It cannot somehow become illegal for a priest or an imam to offer advice to a member of their congregation. Obviously, that would be unthinkable.
Paul Bristow
I will not, sorry.
I wanted to make that point very clearly. When I sent out my email to that group of faith leaders in my city, I did not understand what sort of response I would get. It is always important for a local Member of Parliament to listen to their constituents and to those who have influence over a large number of them, so I am very grateful to Mohammed Younis of the Darassalaam mosque on Alma Road, Imam Mansoor from the Ghousia mosque, Tommy Cooper and David Weeks from the Way Family church in Werrington, and Giles Knight from the Open Door Baptist church. Those people came to that meeting and were very open minded; they wanted to contribute to discourse. Most importantly, they wanted to be able to offer the same pastoral care and support to their flocks.
The other main issue I have with the Bill is that it is too ambiguous and confusing. It is too open to reinterpretation and could be used in a potentially harmful way. For example, if a young man was confused about his gender and sought advice at his local church or mosque, would it be illegal for the relevant religious leader to suggest that he should not go ahead with a gender change? What about a married man who is told by a pastor or imam that he should stay with his wife and remember the promises he made to God? If he explains that he is attracted to another man, would it be illegal to say, “Remember your marriage vows, remember the children you have and remember the promises you made in front of God”? These are the very serious—
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).
Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 15 March.
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April.
Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill
Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Fertility Treatment (Employment Rights) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 7 June.
Arms Trade (Inquiry and Suspension) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March.
Prison Media Bill
Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Local Government (Pay Accountability) Bill
Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Child Criminal Exploitation Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
St Helier Hospital Improvements and New Hospital: Sutton
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to raise in this House my local hospital, St Helier Hospital, once again, and of course the delivery of a new hospital in the London Borough of Sutton. A rudimentary search of Hansard tells me that I have mentioned this over two dozen times, so I am grateful to the House for indulging me once again. Indeed, it was just one week ago last year that I had an Adjournment debate on a similar topic.
I committed a year ago that as soon as the new hospital was built and St Helier upgraded, I would stop banging on about it. I reconfirm that commitment here today. St Helier Hospital is not just close to my heart; it has a long history. It has been a vital part of the community long before it saved my life, long before it saved the life of my family and my partner in recent years, long before the new hospitals programme or covid, and long before I was born. In fact, as I have said in this Chamber before, the hospital is older than the national health service itself. It opened in the early ’40s during the second world war. Soon after opening it was bombed in an air raid, but remained open and operational. It has served generations of our local community, including my own family. Through my constituency work as a Member of Parliament and as someone who used to work for the NHS before I was elected, I have seen the fantastic work done by St Helier Hospital, the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, and the wider NHS.
I take this opportunity to place on the record my sincere thanks and gratitude to the fantastic NHS staff, who do such a fantastic job in keeping my constituents healthy. They are an example to us all, and I know at first hand how good their care is, often in the toughest of circumstances. It is about the work not only of our doctors, consultants and nurses but of all the other healthcare professionals, as well as the support of admin staff, porters, cleaners, pharmacists—I am so glad we are starting to recognise how amazing pharmacists are—and many others who help keep the NHS moving.
I mentioned earlier that I never miss an opportunity to mention St Helier. Indeed, my first mention of it was in my maiden speech, in which I praised the Government’s commitment to deliver over half a billion pounds’ worth of investment in the hospital, and to build a new hospital. I would like to do so once again today. Before being elected in the last general election, I campaigned to improve healthcare by protecting St Helier and building a second state-of-the-art hospital in my borough. I am thrilled that, despite what some people might say, it is this Conservative Government who are delivering that vital project. Some people’s lack of recognition of the work that has been done so far is appalling. They should be supporting any positive progression in our local healthcare. Our staff, our patients and my constituents deserve an improved St Helier Hospital that will continue to be there for them and, indeed, a second brand-new hospital to deal with the most complex cases.
To properly discuss St Helier and the need for this vital work, it is important to go back and look at the background. In July 2017, the trust began a comprehensive engagement exercise on the long-term future of the trust’s healthcare services. Years of work followed with the local clinical commissioning groups—the predecessors of integrated care boards—in Merton, Sutton and Surrey Downs, which led to a formal consultation being launched in early 2020, when it was proposed that the trust would take ownership of the consultation and the delivery of a new hospital as part of the Building Your Future Hospitals programme, with work starting on an outline business case.
Throughout the years, and throughout covid, the work continued. In May 2023, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), announced that the Building Your Future Hospitals programme would be fully funded and completed by 2030. The trust has been very quick to get on board and be ready to go at a moment’s notice, and it is eagerly awaiting confirmation while progressing with some of the work that need to be done in the interim. The trust has recently received the excellent news that it will get additional fees for 2023-24 from the new hospital programme, and hopes to have confirmation of the fees for 2024-25 shortly.
The trust is already doing great work, at pace, to deliver parts of the programme on an accelerated timescale, and I understand that a final decision on the next financial year’s fees will be made alongside consideration of the business case later this year. I join the trust in hoping that it is confirmed as part of an early cohort of schemes, because it has already demonstrated how ready it is to go. However, some of the work that needs to be done in earnest includes land acquisition from the Royal Marsden Hospital, junction improvements, site demolition and the like. This is an issue that I will come back to later.
I fully understand the difficulties that exist with St Helier’s current site and the difficult situation facing the hospital. I can reassure my constituents—I know that the NHS trust wants to reassure people, because we see such an old building that is struggling to cope with delivering modern healthcare—that St Helier is progressing and pushing ahead with much-needed maintenance. As I have said, much of the St Helier estate is older than the NHS. In fact, 90% of the buildings are older than the NHS, and every year the trust invests millions of pounds to try to address the urgent challenges and improve the building and facilities, to ensure the environment is safe for patients and staff. A small fortune is spent each and every year on maintenance, and it becomes harder and harder as modern medical practices demand more sophisticated technologies.
That serves to highlight the vital need of this project and why we need to move at pace. Epsom and St Helier are ready to fully mobilise as soon as their fees are agreed and approved, and it is vital to fully spell out what this will mean for local residents. The programme will deliver a brand-new, state-of-the-art specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton. It is simply not true to say that St Helier is closing; in fact, quite the opposite is true. The project will upgrade the existing infrastructure at Epsom and St Helier hospitals. That means that we will have not one but two hospitals in the London Borough of Sutton. It will represent the largest healthcare investment in our local area for decades, replacing outdated infrastructure and attracting new staff to face down the challenges that are currently plaguing our local hospitals.
The new specialist emergency care hospital will provide critical emergency care, acute medicine, paediatric and childbirth services to the 15% most complex and sickest patients in the borough, while the remaining 85% of services will continue to be provided at Epsom and St Helier hospitals. That means that, despite all the times in the past when other Governments before us considered closing St Helier Hospital and getting rid of A&E and maternity, we finally have a plan that keeps all those services within our borough.
I will say once again for the benefit of those listening that this is a brand-new hospital in our borough, alongside a new and improved St Helier Hospital. That is incredible news for local patients, but we have to get on with it. Some incredible work has been done already to prepare the site at Sutton. Other work includes the recent refurbishment of B and C blocks at St Helier Hospital. Nothing could put it better than a recent Care Quality Commission inspection of services at Epsom and St Helier, which highlighted how difficult the infrastructure is for the patients cared for there and the staff delivering that care. It recognised the need for investment in the infrastructure. I am glad the Government have met that commitment, but we need to let the trust move as quickly as possible, because it is ready and raring to go. We must meet its ambition. I take the opportunity to invite the Minister, who is in her place, any Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care or the Secretary of State, to come and visit the trust, look at the site in Sutton, and see how excited the trust is and what amazing plans it has.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed at the Dispatch Box last June that the Government were fully committed to the new hospital programme, and that
“the Department is working closely with the trust to make sure that we can progress work as soon as possible, and we expect the new hospital to be delivered by 2030.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 295.]
I would very much like to receive that same reassurance today. The trust has been working within the constraints of what it can do so far, but, as I want to hammer home, it is ready to go at pace. I sincerely hope that we can match the trust’s ambitions. I hope that the Minister can update me or, perhaps when she is in a position to do so, write to me to confirm when the 2024-25 fees will be announced, which are fundamental to the preparatory works needed to deliver the new hospital. I hope she can reassure me that those fees will be substantial enough to fully allow the trust to move at pace, as it is ready to begin delivering these projects.
The trust is so excited, as are my constituents and I, about what this means. I cannot stress enough how many times there has been a question mark over the future of the hospital—at least our A&E and maternity services. We now have a plan, which was developed by our NHS colleagues and funded by this Government, to prevent any of that from happening. In fact, it is the largest investment in our local healthcare in decades. The trust is ready to go. We need to ensure that we deliver the finances and the infrastructure to allow it to do so. We can see progress this year, as the trust has a plan to deliver that visible progress, so I sincerely hope that I can tempt the Minister and her Department with that visit.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Department, and I must say how constructively it has worked with me and my constituency neighbours when we speak about how much we want the programme to be delivered at pace. I thank the Department for that, and I hope that the Minister can give me some good news that the Government are equally excited to ensure that the project continues at a very quick pace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this debate. I assure him that the Department is also very excited about this project. He is a tireless campaigner for healthcare in his constituency, and I know he has advocated for this new hospital on many occasions. I am delighted that the trust has done an amazing job of decreasing backlog maintenance year on year across its sites, particularly at St Helier Hospital.
We are working closely with Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust on its plans for a new specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton as part of our new hospital programme. The trust is currently preparing its refreshed outline business case, supported by the new hospital programme team, to ensure that its plans are aligned with the national approach to standardisation, are deliverable and, of course, provide value for taxpayers’ money.
The plans for the new specialist emergency care hospital will include a new major emergency department, acute medicine, emergency surgery, critical care for intensive monitoring and paediatric care, as well as both midwife-led and consultant-led birth units. However, 85% of care will still be delivered at Epsom Hospital and St Helier Hospital.
Elliot Colburn
I could kick myself for forgetting to mention that we have not only those incredible services but a brand-new working partnership between the Royal Marsden, an incredible cancer hospital that we are very lucky to have in Sutton, and the specialist emergency care hospital. We can provide more and improved services for cancer patients with the two trusts working closely together.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of working across specialties to deliver the best possible care.
I am delighted that the trust continues to work collaboratively with the programme on developing designs for its new hospital scheme, following our national approach to standardisation, Hospital 2.0, through which we will see the most benefits from economies of scale and efficiencies.
The scheme had received more than £23 million in development funding by the end of the 2022-23 financial year. This funding has supported the trust’s activities to prepare for main construction, including the vacation of blocks at St Helier ready for demolition, and a new electronic patient record system that will be implemented next year. In the current financial year, we have released over £1 million in fees to support the trust to develop its business case for early works to prepare the site for main construction.
Part of the funding is for a programme of demolition and groundworks to prepare the Sutton site, which we expect will start later this year, as well as to ensure that vital utilities are available at the new site, including power upgrades and junction improvements. I assure my hon. Friend that Ministers are committed to keeping him updated as further funding is released.
I am pleased to note that the trust has received additional funding from national programmes in recent years, including £7.3 million allocated for the relocation of services from the new Epsom and Ewell cottage hospital and The Poplars to Epsom General Hospital. The construction is complete and has been patient ready since August 2023. The trust previously received £6.1 million for A&E upgrade works at both Epsom Hospital and St Helier Hospital, to improve flows through the emergency departments by increasing A&E capacity and capability.
I take this opportunity to provide a general update on the new hospital programme and the ambitious work it has been undertaking. I am very pleased that four of our new hospitals are now open to patients: the Northern Centre for Cancer Care; the Royal Liverpool Hospital; stage 1 of the Louisa Martindale, also known as the 3Ts Hospital, in Brighton; and the Northgate and Ferndene Hospitals in Northumberland. A further four hospitals are expected to be opened by the end of the next financial year: the Salford Royal major trauma centre, Dyson Cancer Centre, the National Rehabilitation Centre and Midland Metropolitan University Hospital. A further 18 hospitals are either in construction or have early construction activity well under way or completed to prepare their sites. That includes surveys and crucial work on non-clinical infrastructure, such as energy centres, demolition and car parking. The programme will deliver facilities that are at the cutting edge of modern technology, and we are engaging with clinical staff to ensure we are providing them with a better working environment, enabling increased efficiency, promoting staff wellbeing and improving retention.
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued engagement on his new hospital scheme. I know that my ministerial colleague with responsibility for the programme, Lord Markham, is arranging to meet him and other colleagues to discuss the new hospital plans in more detail. I appreciate how tirelessly he campaigns for his constituents, and I assure him that we are committed to delivering the new hospital for Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust by 2030.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Justice
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Farris
The point was made about a person having a difficult experience of litigation against the Home Office, and we heard the example of the high-profile case related to the effect of an Ofsted inspection; there could be a number of other scenarios. I think we have to look at clause 11(1)(b) when we are thinking about those. We are not considering simply whether the perpetrator is said to have done an act that is capable of encouraging self-harm. By the way, I think that when that is considered by the court, it is not going to include something unpleasant that makes a person feel terrible and leads them to a bad place. That is not the purpose of the clause. In the context of this legislation, “encouraging” has to mean a direct incitement.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 11 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 163.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my response to the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
The point was made about a person having a difficult experience of litigation against the Home Office, and we heard the example of the high-profile case related to the effect of an Ofsted inspection; there could be a number of other scenarios. I think we have to look at clause 11(1)(b) when we are thinking about those. We are not considering simply whether the perpetrator is said to have done an act that is capable of encouraging self-harm. By the way, I think that when that is considered by the court, it is not going to include something unpleasant that makes a person feel terrible and leads them to a bad place. That is not the purpose of the clause.
Laura Farris
We are also creating two offences to do with the installation of spycams, which I am afraid we see more and more of in cases going through the courts: an offence of installing, adapting, preparing or maintaining equipment with the intention of taking or recording intimate photograph or film; and an offence of supplying for that purpose. To be clear, it will not be necessary for the image to have been taken; if equipment was installed for that purpose, that is enough to meet the requirements of the offence.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 11 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 166.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
We are also creating an offence to do with the installation of spycams, which I am afraid we see more and more of in cases going through the courts. It is an offence of installing, adapting, preparing or maintaining equipment with the intention of taking or recording intimate photograph or film. To be clear, it will not be necessary for the image to have been taken; if equipment was installed for that purpose, that is enough to meet the requirements of the offence.
Laura Farris
One of the challenges in adopting a definition of “intimate” that includes, for example, the removal of a hijab is that we are creating a criminal offence of that image being shared. It would not be obvious to anyone in this country who received a picture of a woman they did not know with her hair exposed that they were viewing an intimate image and committing a criminal offence.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 11 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 168.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my response to the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
One of the challenges in adopting a definition of “intimate” that includes, for example, the removal of a hijab is that we are creating a criminal offence of that image being shared. It would not be obvious to anyone in this country who received a picture of a woman they did not know with her hair exposed that they were viewing an intimate image and if they shared it would potentially be committing a criminal offence.
Criminal Justice Bill (eighth sitting)
The following are extracts from the eighth sitting of the Public Bill Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, on 16 January 2024.
Laura Farris
Around a quarter of all homicides in England and Wales are classed as domestic. In other words, the perpetrator is a partner or former partner of the victim.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, Vol. 743, 16 January 2024, c. 257.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
Around a quarter of all homicides in England and Wales are classed as domestic. In other words, the perpetrator is a partner, former partner or relative of the victim.
Laura Farris
We have also introduced a new statutory aggravating factor for murders involving gratuitous and excessive force, sometimes referred to as overkill. That is something that Clare Wade found to be strikingly prevalent in not only domestic murders, but all the cases she assessed.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 258.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
We have also introduced a new statutory aggravating factor for murders involving gratuitous and excessive force, sometimes referred to as overkill. That is something that Clare Wade found to be strikingly prevalent in domestic murders.
Laura Farris
A new mitigating factor will apply in cases where the victim of an abusive partner or family member has killed their abuser, in recognition of their experience as a victim of abuse preceding the killing, which is exactly what happened in the Sally Challen case. This is consistent with the conclusion of the Court of Appeal—it is essentially taking the court’s conclusion and making it a statutory mitigating factor.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 258.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
A new mitigating factor will apply in cases where the victim of an abusive partner or family member has killed their abuser, in recognition of their experience as a victim of abuse preceding the killing, which is what happened in the Sally Challen case.
Laura Farris
It is well known that this is the Ben Kinsella amendment, which Jack Straw introduced in 2007 in response to a campaign fought very passionately by Ben’s sister, Brooke, and his family.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 266.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
It is well known that this is the Ben Kinsella amendment, which Jack Straw introduced in 2010 in response to a campaign fought very passionately by Ben’s sister, Brooke, and his family.
Criminal Justice Bill (10th sitting)
The following are extracts from the 10th sitting of the Public Bill Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, on 18 January 2024.
Laura Farris
We have strengthened the statutory guidance to require agencies to consider discretionary management under MAPPA in all domestic abuse cases. In the last reporting year, we have seen a 30% increase in the take-up of that offer. For that reason, we consider it appropriate to put it in the Bill.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 301.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
We have strengthened the statutory guidance to require agencies to consider discretionary management under MAPPA in all domestic abuse cases. In the last reporting year, we have seen a 37% increase in the take-up of that offer. For that reason, we consider it appropriate to put it in the Bill.
Laura Farris
I thank the shadow Minister for his speech and for supporting the clause. In answer to his final criticism that we have abandoned women and girls, the Serious Crime Act that created the offence of coercive, controlling behaviour received Royal Assent in February 2015.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 304.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my response to the speech by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
I thank the shadow Minister for his speech and for supporting the clause. In answer to his final criticism that we have abandoned women and girls, the Serious Crime Act that created the offence of coercive, controlling behaviour received Royal Assent in March 2015.
Laura Farris
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, in the data we have, which is from 2022, 566 people were convicted of coercive control, and it is estimated that, as she suggested, around 200 would be serving 12 months or more and would have been eligible for MAPPA management. We simply make the point that the MAPPA framework is used for the most serious offenders; whether it is a sexual, violent or terrorist offence, people qualify for MAPPA if their sentence is one year or more.
[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 304.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).
The correct information should have been:
Laura Farris
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, in the data we have, which is from 2022, 566 people were convicted of coercive control, and it is estimated that, as she suggested, around 200 would be serving 12 months or more and would have been eligible for MAPPA management. We simply make the point that the MAPPA framework is used for the most serious sexual, violent and terrorist offenders, and those convicted of violent offences must have received a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment or more to qualify.
Written Statements
Leveson Inquiry: Variation Notice
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
This is a joint statement with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
As Ministers with joint responsibility for the Leveson inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press, today, under section 20(7) of the Inquiries Act 2005, we have decided to vary the final restriction order (FRO) issued by Sir Brian Leveson on 29 November 2012. This variation, at the requests of the claimants, will allow documentation provided to the Leveson inquiry to be disclosed for the purposes of the legal proceedings following the claims brought against Associated Newspapers Ltd by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and Sadie Frost Law.
The following documents will therefore be disclosed for the purposes of the legal proceedings:
Daily Mail ledger cards recording payments to private investigators.
The Mail on Sunday ledger cards recording payments to private investigators.
We do not consider that it is necessary in the public interest to withhold these documents from any disclosure or publication and have decided to vary the FRO so as to allow the disclosure of these documents solely for the purposes of the proceedings. In this case, in our judgment, the public interest in promoting the just, speedy and economic resolution of the proceedings outweighs the countervailing public interests.
A variation notice has been shared with the parties to the legal proceedings, and published on gov.uk.
This decision makes no comment on the merits of the proceedings, which is wholly a matter for the courts to determine.
[HCWS303]
Levelling-up Measures: Update
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Introduction
It is now a decade since the launch of the northern powerhouse, an ambitious programme to catalyse growth in our great northern cities and rebalance the UK’s economy away from an overdependence on London and the south-east. It symbolised a step change in our commitment to turn the tide to ensure the potential of Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bradford and communities across the north.
Building on this foundation, the levelling-up White Paper articulated a strategy to level the playing field, by spreading opportunity more equally to realise the potential of every person and every place across the UK.
And we are delivering against this strategy to drive growth and support change across each nation, with total levelling-up funding to date of more than £2.9 billion for Scotland, more than £2 billion for Wales (plus a further half a billion to secure the future of Port Talbot’s steel industry), and nearly £1 billion for Northern Ireland.
Progress through collaboration
Our levelling-up fund has been a multi-billion-pound catalyst to level up the UK, turning aspiration into action, with over 270 projects funded to date. For example, in Bolton, £20 million will support the delivery of the Bolton Institute of Medical Sciences, a pioneering education and skills facility that will train 3,000 students annually and provide a direct route for learners into healthcare careers. In Sunderland, £20 million will fund a construction skills academy to teach local people modern methods of construction, as well as build new sustainable housing in the city. And in Leeds, £20 million will support the Connecting West Leeds project, improving transport links between communities, especially for walking and cycling, and making the city’s roads safer.
We are restoring the social and cultural fabric of our communities through the community ownership fund by securing the future of over 250 venues across the United Kingdom.
Innovative examples of how this funding is being used include the Margaret Haes riding centre in Holcombe, Bury, which received £172,000 to purchase the site to secure its future and to expand the facilities it offered, including an art hub, a holiday lodge for people with disabilities, and venues for community and cultural events. And in Oldham, the Oldham Boxing and Personal Development Centre (OBPDC), received £550,000 to secure the long-term future of its home, Victoria House —a century-old former billiard hall that was semi-derelict when the OBPDC occupied it in 2013. The funding will also help the OBPDC to significantly extend its programme of elite and community boxing classes, wellbeing activities and personal development services for young people at risk.
Our levelling-up partnerships are delivering tailored regeneration plans in places like Hull, where funding is being used to support the city’s transition from medieval trading port to a modern hub for renewable energy. And in Middlesbrough, where we have invested in Middlesbrough College to increase access to training in high-demand sectors, new public health centres, a new arts centre to rejuvenate the high street, and projects to tackle housing needs and crime.
We are also driving innovation in our city regions across the UK, through our programme of 13 investment zones, with each area benefiting from funding of £160 million over 10 years, including south and west Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region, and the north-east, and 12 freeports spanning the UK, including Teesside, Liverpool, Humber, and east midlands, generating billions in investment, creating thousands of jobs and opening new avenues for growth.
But we know that our approach must be grounded beyond funding to empowering communities to forge their own path towards economic and cultural regeneration. This evolution is epitomised by the £1.1 billion long-term plan for towns programme and our commitment to regenerate 20 places made in the levelling-up White Paper.
Empowering local leadership
True levelling up is only realised through strong local leadership, with devolution giving our towns and cities the tools and freedoms they need to unlock social and economic opportunities over the long term.
The convention of the north celebrates the great strides we have made in fulfilling our ambition that every corner of England that wants a devolution deal should have one, and that those with one can strive to build on their role and deepen their powers over time.
As things stand, nine in 10 people in the north—some 14 million people— live in an area with a devolution deal established or in implementation, up from about two-thirds before the White Paper was published.
In May, we look forward to people in the north-east and York and North Yorkshire, as well as the east midlands, going to the polls to elect new mayors with significant powers and funding.
Today, we have confirmed that West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Liverpool city region are eligible for level 4 devolution and will now proceed to implement level 4 agreements with these areas.
We are also committed to continuing discussions on level 4 devolution with Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley after the mayoral elections, and we continue to unlock new flexibilities for Andy Street in the west Midlands. We also want to go further, expanding devolution where possible, including with areas like Cumberland and Westmoreland and Furness; and Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
I am delighted to support these great leaps forward in securing further powers and funding for mayoral combined authorities, to unlock decision making by those who know their places best and boosting accountability to citizens. The north now has a national platform and a strong cadre of regional leaders, who will have the ability to deliver integrated transport networks, match training to employers’ needs, and confidently work with investors, backed by long-term funding settlements.
Vision for the future
Building on the foundations set since the White Paper, we continue to drive our levelling-up agenda: revitalising and regenerating our great cities and towns across the north through cultural, educational, and economic development to create vibrant, sustainable communities. We are investing—using HS2 savings—£19.8 billion across the north and £9.6 billion across the midlands in transport projects. Last week, we extended this successful model to all local authorities in the north and midlands through the £4.7 billion local transport fund, providing the first transport budget of its kind for our smaller cities, towns and rural areas.
Today, I am announcing the details of the £20 million levelling-up partnership with Blackburn with Darwen. Investment will revitalise heritage buildings into modern cultural venues, including King George’s Hall, Imperial Mill and The Exchange. We listened to local people and the reopening of the much-loved Tony’s Ballroom will preserve its place in northern soul music history, while creating a new arts space bringing communities together. While our investment in cyber skills will prepare the young people of Blackburn with Darwen for employment opportunities of the future.
In Blackpool, £90 million of regeneration investment will transform deprived areas of the town by bringing forward new high-quality homes. This significant funding will complement our existing skills and jobs investments, including supporting the “Multiversity”—a state of the art further education campus—and “Blackpool Central” —a £300 million leisure development—as part of our plan to work with local leaders to unleash Blackpool’s potential and restore pride in place.
Building on our work to date with Bradford and Cheshire east, DLUHC, DfT and Homes England will provide masterplanning support for Bradford’s southern gateway and support Cheshire east to revisit their vision for Crewe post-HS2 to maximise the development opportunities and investor confidence.
Working in collaboration with Leeds City Council and West Yorkshire Combined Authority, we are committing to the comprehensive regeneration of Leeds through the announcement of our Leeds transformational regeneration partnership and will shortly publish a document setting out the vision for a decade of city centre growth and wider prosperity in Leeds. Together, Government and local partners will unlock the delivery of up to 20,000 additional homes in Leeds. I can also announce that we have agreed final plans for West Yorkshire’s investment zone, which will drive innovation and growth of health tech in the region, drawing on existing strengths in the life sciences, and digital and technology sectors. Infrastructure investment of over £50 million will accelerate delivery of key initiatives including: the refurbishment of Leeds’ old medical school to unlock 4,000 square metres of innovation space and create a life sciences and digital health science park; the development of digital technology innovation assets in the Bradford knowledge quarter; and specialist clinical teaching and research facilities at the £250 million national health innovation campus in Huddersfield. With a further £25 million revenue funding, the investment zone will deliver a new regional accelerator and three place-based incubators, create a sector-specific skills offer and strengthen the innovation ecosystem by providing enhanced access to finance and business support to grow spin-outs, start-ups and existing businesses. The investment zone has already unlocked over £25 million of investment from pioneering health tech companies and will support further significant private-sector investment. Taken together local partners expect these proposals to create over 7,300 jobs in the region.
In Sheffield, we are supporting the city’s ambition to deliver 20,000 new homes in its urban core, through £67 million of brownfield, infrastructure and land funding by Homes England to secure brownfield land for two city-centre catalyst sites, capable of delivering more than 1,300 new homes (supporting circa 2,000 new city centre residents) and over 4,000 square miles of new commercial/community floorspace. This investment will complement existing funding through the brownfield housing fund to transform a former brewery into 550 new homes and levelling-up fund investment in new leisure facilities at Parkwood Springs urban country park.
And we are confirming Liverpool as one of our priority places for regeneration, marking a new era of partnership working between Government, the combined authority and the city council. We are supporting the vision set out in the Liverpool strategic futures advisory panel report with £31 million in Government funding to support an initial suite of regeneration projects.
Conclusion
Reflecting on our progress to date, our continued commitment to collaboration and partnership ensures that no person or place is left behind.
By working together, we can harness the full potential of every region, transforming our ambitious vision into a tangible reality for all.
[HCWS304]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Baroness Henig
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, yesterday. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Bamford
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from today of the noble Lord, Lord Bamford, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Alternative Investment Fund Designation Bill [HL]
Friday 1st March 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Alternative Investment Fund Designation Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Alternative Investment Fund Designation Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, the Bill seeks to remedy legislative errors that have contributed to a haemorrhaging of funds away from UK-listed investment companies. Flawed interpretation of EU regulations, which no EU country has applied as we have, has stoked massive selling pressure, with pension funds, wealth managers and retail investors having to abandon listed investment companies here.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, her officials and other Treasury colleagues, including the EST, my honourable friend Bim Afolami, for their engagement on the Bill. I am particularly grateful for the guidance, knowledge and insights of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and Herbert Smith Freehills, who have helped to draft the Bill. I am also grateful to the officials in the Public Bill Office, who have assisted so ably; my honourable friend John Baron MP, who has raised this issue within government; many industry leaders, such as the London Stock Exchange, the Investment Association and the Association of Investment Companies; and colleagues across the House who support the aims of the Bill.
Investment trusts are a long-standing British success story, democratising investment for small savers and delivering excellent returns. They also provide the only way for most pension funds to gain access to expertly managed specialist portfolios of less liquid assets in UK sustainable growth, infrastructure, social housing and other areas, which pension investors want and need to diversify into and which the Government want them to support.
This important financial sector comprises over one-third of the FTSE 250, and 60% of these companies specialise in managing portfolios of real assets and small growth firms. But waves of selling have led to large discounts in these UK investment trusts and added to the overall weakness of the FTSE itself. Between 2014 and 2021, over £70 billion was raised by investment company IPOs and secondary fundraising, but under £1 billion has been raised since then. The problem has worsened since 2013, when UK-listed investment companies were unfortunately included in the EU-derived Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations—AIFMR—introduced after the 2009 global financial crisis, when regulators wanted to bring Wild West unregulated vehicles, like private hedge funds, that potentially posed systemic risk under some regulatory control.
By contrast, UK investment trusts were already well regulated under the requirements of stock exchange listing rules and pre-existing corporate and company law. Boards were providing the governance responsibilities that AIFM regulations were intended to provide for unregulated funds, and they were disclosing all their costs transparently in regular shareholder reporting.
As far back as 2009, our Investment Management Association had written to the EU Commission, stressing the importance of the UK listed-investment company structure to UK financial markets and investors, and stressing that they should be excluded from the AIFM classification. Listed investment trusts were far more extensive and important to UK markets than in other EU countries. Nevertheless, in 2013, all these companies were classified as alternative investment funds. This may have been a minor irritation for UK investment trusts, adding extra costs estimated at £50,000 to £100,000 a year for each fund. AIFM duties included cash-flow monitoring services, asset safekeeping and due diligence over net asset value reporting, which generally duplicated some liabilities of the board of directors. It also introduced potential conflicts of interest, as the investment adviser is allowed to double up as the AIFM. But the sector adapted, absorbing the costs.
Clause 1 would exclude closed-ended investment companies listed on a UK-recognised exchange from the 2013 regulations. In subsequent years, EU-derived MiFID rules for financial product distributors, PRIIPs requirements for retail investors, KIDs and further tightening of consumer charge disclosure rules were all unhelpfully applied to UK-listed investment trusts and REITs. The result has been a disaster for many UK investment companies, which must now disclose exaggerated and misleading investor charge figures. In line with the classic boiling-frog principle, each ongoing layer of regulatory change added extra burdens, now reaching the point of existential damage.
Of course, investors must be fully informed of all charges—those that they pay directly out of their investment each year. However, the combination of UK financial regulations, which have evolved to encourage investors to select investments on the basis of lower cost, charge caps introduced for workplace pension funds and flawed rules intended to give consumers full charges information so that they can make properly informed decisions is having the opposite effect.
Regulators decided that charge disclosures should focus on just one figure: the so-called ongoing charges figure, or OCF. I believe in full transparency with no hidden fees, but information must be clear and not misleading, which is precisely where the problems that this Bill seeks to address have arisen. The way in which the FCA applies the EU-derived PRIIPS and MiFID rules to UK investment companies misinforms investors, telling them that they bear costs that they do not actually pay. No other EU country, by the way, applies those same rules as we do. The inflexibility of the UK requirements, focusing on one reported high-level figure, has undermined this sector, worth more than £0.25 trillion. The corporate expenses for managing these funds and their business are labelled as “ongoing investor costs”, making them look artificially expensive to own and driving investors to switch into overseas companies or higher-risk individual shares instead.
The market dysfunction is exacerbated by UK-listed funds which have chosen simply to ignore the legal requirements, without any regulatory consequences, and by overseas competitors receiving unfair competitive advantage. UK wealth managers and pension funds must double-count or exaggerate investment costs, so they have been selling their holdings, despite large discounts. Also alarmingly, flawed OCFs have caused retail investment platforms such as Fidelity to remove UK investment trusts or incorrectly label them as extremely expensive, blocking retail access to funds that invest in areas such as wind farms, solar farms and battery storage—crucial areas for our future sustainable growth. Investors are now selling these good-value assets on the basis of flawed information. I believe that the obsession with driving down costs is also resulting in investors being misled into believing that the investment charge, the OCF, is more important than expected returns and ignoring the vital elements of investment decisions that need to be understood before purchasing assets, such as liquidity factors and discounts or premia to net asset value.
Clause 2 of the Bill would remedy a clear misinterpretation of the wording in the MiFID regulatory annexe, which the FCA has interpreted differently from everyone else. It states that charges which must be disclosed are any deductions from the value of the investment. For listed companies, consumer value is the share price. It does not, and should not, include the management fees or other expenses that are not deducted directly. But the FCA seems not to agree and refuses to bring its own interpretation into line with everyone else’s, despite the damaging consequences for the markets and our economy. This Bill could help Parliament take back control by excluding investment companies from MiFID disclosure rules which should never have been applied.
The Chancellor asked the FCA to remedy this problem urgently in his Autumn Statement, but its subsequent forbearance announcements, widely anticipated, made no difference in practice. It says that it cannot do more under current legislation, but this seems questionable, since it could simply adopt the interpretation that all other countries have given to these same rules. The FCA could just forbear on its own enlarged interpretation to end the misleading charge disclosures. Does my noble friend agree, or could she check with her department, that the FCA could just bring its guidance into line with everyone else in the world so that its own interpretation of the current legislation no longer causes this market and economic detriment?
Clause 3 seeks to remedy an erroneous interpretation of the PRIIPS regulatory disclosure requirements. These cost disclosures need apply only to funds with a redeemable value, so they should exclude investment trusts. Unlike open-ended funds, investment company shareholders have no right to redeem their investment at net asset value on the next dealing day; they must sell at the market price, possibly at a significant discount. The FCA has suggested that such investments are savings products. I am afraid that seems utterly misguided. They are not savings products; they are not used as such. Just because, for example, Sainsbury’s has a share option scheme does not make all Sainsbury’s shares a listed investment company. Removing those companies from PRIIPS charges disclosures would again stop the requirement to mislead the retail investor by telling them that they are paying costs that they do not directly bear. Of course, the costs are still fully disclosed in the relevant documentation that they must produce.
This Private Member’s Bill is a simple, short-form measure to correct regulatory errors that have had increasingly damaging consequences over time. It seeks to offer the fastest-possible legislative route to help industry and regulators uphold the principles on which our financial system is based, as instructed and intended by Parliament.
Sadly, the FCA has failed to take urgent action. Its eagerly anticipated forbearance statement is no resolution and may even add to investor confusion, because UK investment companies now have to report, or are able to report, two different OCF figures, one for the fund KID, which is more correct, and one for the distributor—the OCF—which is still wrong. So the European MiFID template, which is that used by the whole industry for the OCF figure, is unchanged. It is also important to note that the ongoing dithering and delays are leaving many excellent UK investment companies vulnerable to predatory takeover or even to collapse—a collapse that could be alleviated by the rapid issuance of new regulatory guidance, requiring the industry to use EMT data feeds accurately to display correct OCF information. By not requiring these firms to do so, the FCA is responsible for retail platforms and authorised corporate directors but is encouraging them to produce misleading information rather than going by its own statutory duty to ensure that information is clear, fair and not misleading. It is also breaching its duty to ensure orderly markets, maintain international competition and promote growth and sustainable investment in financial markets.
I hope the Government will support this Bill, notwithstanding the apparent concerns that my noble friend the Minister expressed in our recent meeting. Even better, I urge the Government to try to persuade the FCA that it should issue new guidance urgently so that the Bill is not even necessary. I hope that our unique interpretation and application of the legislation, which is damaging vital parts of the UK economy and cutting them off from capital flows at a time when the Government seek to encourage more pension and private funds into productive investments, can be remedied to the benefit of all in society. This Bill is both important and urgent. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her detailed and comprehensive explanation of why this Bill is needed. The matter before us is straightforward, and the question that has to be answered is why we would not correct this total inconsistency in the way information is provided to potential investors.
With most investments, the charges are added after you invest the money. With investment trusts, the expenses are included within the price you pay. That is the essential difference. To require these two completely different approaches to expressing expenses is clearly inconsistent and properly addressed by this Bill. This is a valuable way in which to present the issue before us, but it is unfortunate, as the noble Baroness explained, that we have to go through the process of doing it through primary legislation when other avenues might be swifter or more straightforward. Unfortunately, they are not available, for whatever reason, so we have to resort to this legislation.
The key reason why this is important is that expenses are important. There may be a slight difference in tone on this issue between me and other commentators on investment matters, but expenses are important; we know what they are and they can be declared. Issues such as value for money and expected future return are important, but they are to a greater or lesser extent assumptions based on assumptions—they are hypotheticals—whereas the expenses are there as part of the contract that is being entered into. There is a tendency within the investment industry to try to downplay the importance of expenses, but they are crucial and it is right and proper that they are the subject of this Bill.
As someone who has been following the financial press for far too long, 60 years or so, I know that the question of investment trusts makes regular appearances in the financial press. It is a staple of the financial journalist to come up with these articles, and they do it on a regular basis. Nevertheless, they are still a bit of a niche approach to investment; there are certain aspects, and to an extent you are presented with a basket of investments—and, very often, they are being sold to you at a discount. You think, “Well, I’ve got a bargain here”, but you have to ask why they are at a discount and whether there is an additional element of risk that you should have in mind when making your decision.
Nevertheless, those investments should be available, and should be presented with the information in a way that provides what the potential investor needs to know. There is a pension point involved here, because they are suitable investments. In some ways, I think they are more suitable for pension funds, which have the resources and expertise to undertake a proper evaluation of the potential investment. Nevertheless, having the expenses declared in a clear and consistent way is an important principle.
That brings us finally to the question of the FCA. What is illustrated here is the extent to which the Financial Conduct Authority is answerable to Parliament; it is an illustration that it is not answerable to Parliament. I hope that our new financial regulation committee will look at this and arrive at a more consistent pattern, whereby these issues receive proper parliamentary consideration.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I declare my financial services interests as in the register. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on her speech and on the great energy that she has put into seeking clarity for the consumer, and fairness for listed investment companies and their investee businesses.
A series of legislative time bombs planted under listed investment companies have culminated over the past two years to force misleading information to consumers and strangle a thriving sector that is over a third of the FTSE 250. The first bomb was the alternative investment fund managers directive, and this Bill starts by excluding listed investment companies from the UK version. Industry representations to the EU Commission in 2009 explained that listed investment companies were already significantly regulated and transparent, but they were never explicitly excluded—and indeed the UK itself then removed wriggle room that other countries use. This was the start of the UK ignoring the fundamental structure and regulation attached to a listed company.
AIF categorisation meant that these listed companies had to have fund managers and reporting requirements that are expensive and duplicative of listing requirements and set aside the proper role of company directors. Then the FCA further railroaded listed investment companies along a track that should never have existed. It was the start of pretending that they are the same as open-ended funds when they are not, and the start of misleading consumers into thinking that they should select by the same criteria, focused on assessed net asset valuations and fund manager costs rather than the real market value of shares, bought and sold using the established indicators of premium or discount that signpost market sentiment about assets, performance and costs or expenses. Explicit details of each of those were always presented anyway.
AIF classification seeded the treatment of a listed security as a financial product, which is remarkable given that the definition of a financial product is that it has a value derived from reference values not set by the market. But ignoring market valuation is a central plank of the FCA’s excuses for levering listed investment companies inside subsequent legislative bombs when the EU legislation itself actually did not.
Bomb number two came along with packaged retail investment and insurance products legislation. The clue is in the name—“products”—and as I have said, a listed security is not a financial product, but the FCA pretends it is. The PRIIPs legislation even contains its own definition of the collective investment undertakings to be included. The definition is:
“an investment ... where the amount repayable is subject to fluctuations because of exposure to reference values or the performance of one or more assets which are not directly purchased by the retail investor”.
But listed company shares do not have an amount repayable; you sell the shares on the stock exchange. This is among the issues I have challenged with the FCA. It reverts to suggesting—albeit in witnessed mumbled verbal comment rather than a written response, but witnessed—that there “can sometimes be amounts repayable, in some circumstances”, by which it means insolvency, hardly a mainstream interpretation. In Ireland, when the then FSA’s interpretation first became known, three counsels’ opinions were commissioned, all of which stated that listed investment companies did not fall within the definition, so Ireland kept them out, as did everybody else.
Listed investment companies can be found on stock exchanges all over the world but only the UK, through the FCA, maintains its own irrational interpretation that differs from common understanding. As a consequence, the tangle of ill-fitting and misleading disclosure requirements started which has destroyed the market. Clause 3 removes listed closed-ended funds from the misapplied cost methodology in PRIIPs.
The coup de grâce came via MiFID II in 2018, when Investment Association guidance—it insists that it follows FCA interpretation—resulted in the UK forcing firms to allocate listed investment companies’ corporate expense numbers into an EU-wide industry reporting data template, which then displays them as ongoing cost forecasts on platforms such as Hargreaves Lansdown, AJ Bell, Fidelity and so on. The displayed information indicates that there are ongoing charges in connection with holding listed investment companies. This is untrue, of course, because the share price has already factored them in: that is what you have bought, and that is why every other country puts “zero” in the template. It also feeds in to wrongly elevate the costs of funds holding investment companies. Everyone in this chain of misinformation, from authorised corporate directors to platforms, is part of an FCA-sponsored failure of consumer duty that has killed off investment by frightening away consumers and causing fake breaching of cost caps.
This coup de grâce would never have happened if the legislation were interpreted as written, but the FCA has, again, its own conniving explanation to wheedle listed investment companies into a slot where they do not belong. It deliberately misinterprets “value”. The annexe of the MiFID Commission delegated regulation is clear that only deductions from the value of the investment should be aggregated as ongoing costs, because that is what the investor loses. But the FCA insists that deductions from assessed net asset value must be included in the cost disclosure and, as a direct consequence, the investor is informed as if they have to pay them again, and annually, when the truth is that the efficiency of the company and its expenses are already taken into account in the actual market share price—share price undeniably being the investment value to the consumer.
Ignoring the harm, the FCA listens to voices urging this fake comparison with open-ended companies. You might as well compare ice cream and toothpaste—they are sometimes both white—even while the FCA’s own consumer panel is warning against simplistic measures such as these. Nowadays, even the superficial similarity with open-ended funds is gone, with most listed investment companies investing directly in real economy assets, not other listed equities. Meanwhile, the FCA takes no action against a few large firms that do not comply, probably knowing it would lose the litigation, showing inconsistency and further distorting competition, knowing that ACDs and smaller firms cannot take the risk.
The FCA also claims that it cannot help, as it has no leverage over an industry-run reporting template, despite the fact that it is based around the FCA’s core misinterpretation and all the actors are regulated by it. It would have to say only, “It is really a zero”, but the leading official has said—witnessed, in the presence of their superiors and more than once—that they do not want zero and “What’s the problem? They can always not list under chapter 15”. That means that they are reading different listing rules than I am. Clause 2(3) clarifies that, for closed-ended listed investment companies, the value is the share price. Other amendments clarify that there is nothing relevant in UCITs.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, eight minutes is guidance, but we appreciate it if people try to stick to it. If the noble Baroness will close, I will be very grateful.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I will exercise my privilege to continue, if the House is willing. It is necessary for such an important subject.
The FCA alleges that it cannot change the rules to undo the misleading cost allocations, as they are in retained EU law, but as has been said, it has to change only its own interpretation. For the record, the damage that the FCA’s illegal, irrational and inconsistent interpretation is causing includes: some £15 billion and counting of lost investment in real UK assets that has largely gone overseas; depriving SMEs in manufacturing, technology and infrastructure companies in the real economy of investment, affecting jobs, tax revenue and causing cheap asset sales to foreign buyers; depriving consumers and pension funds of investment opportunity in the real economy; and causing reputational damage to UK markets and regulation. And, yes, we are being laughed at for this mess. EU people phoned me up at Christmas to tell me that.
Add to that harming international competitiveness and presiding over a market failure caused by knowingly tricking the consumer, and I ask myself how many jobs should go at the FCA. Do not be fooled into thinking that it cannot do anything. It is “won’t”, not “can’t”, and it is accountable for that. If nothing is done, our system is demonstrably broken. This Bill and Parliament can offer a fix.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support this Private Member’s Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lady Altmann, which seeks to remove investment companies from the scope of AIFMD, and exclude them also from PRIIPs and CCI disclosure, including concerning costs. As the noble Baroness stated, this would correct regulatory errors. I declare an interest as an owner of shares and some investment trusts.
My noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, have outlined how we have arrived at this unfortunate situation. I applaud them both for their tenacity and perseverance in attempting to find a solution to this issue. The Bill is required to address the malaise in the listed investment company sector, which has resulted in the withdrawal of investors from the market and depressed valuations. This, in turn, is leading to city brokerage firms exiting the sector, and job losses among salesmen, traders, market makers and bankers.
The malaise extends to the UK equity markets in general, which are suffering from the damaging shift of our pension funds out of equities into fixed income over the past 20 years. The withdrawal of institutional funds, resulting in reduced liquidity and lower valuations, has ramifications for the overall health of the UK markets, and notably in the decisions of UK and overseas companies on whether to list on AIM or LSE rather than other international stock exchanges. A stock market with reduced liquidity and valuations also runs a risk of an increased number of take-privates, which, while not necessarily a problem per se, does serve to reduce the overall size and depth of the public markets. So, while the Chancellor can be congratulated for personally engaging with the Chinese fashion retailer Shein, to persuade the company of the merits of a London Stock Exchange IPO as opposed to a New York listing, I hope that the Treasury might also bring influence to bear to resolve the strife in the investment company sector.
In many ways, the perilous position in which the investment company industry finds itself has similarities with the disastrous unintended consequences brought about by MiFID II, in respect of the unbundling of the costs of research from the services provided by equity brokers to their investing clients. The junior and mid-tier City brokers hit by the additional bureaucracy and associated costs discovered that there was not a market or culture among institutional investors to pay separately for unbundled research. As a result, within a short timeframe, numerous broking firms slashed their research product and sacked their analysts, and some were forced into mergers. Research coverage, particularly for junior companies, has been decimated. This has had a knock-on effect of reducing share liquidity and company valuations.
I welcome the fact that the regulators are consulting on revoking MiFID. Action cannot come soon enough, although much damage to the City’s equity research product has already been done. In both these instances, excessive regulation has resulted in investor withdrawal, and consequently lower share liquidity and valuations. Both situations have resulted in considerable harm to the overall health of the stock market and the equity departments at brokerage houses. Some firms are exiting the investment trust sector entirely. Before this situation deteriorates further, the FCA needs to act by amending its interpretation of existing legislation, or the Bill needs to be passed.
With its new secondary objective of enhancing the competitiveness of the UK market, the FCA should be focusing on resolving the excessive and unnecessary regulatory burdens that have been highlighted by the Bill. Instead, the regulator seems to be spending far too much time and energy introducing consultations, such as its recent paper, Diversity and Inclusion in the Financial Sector. Among other things, this paper proposes requiring firms to set diversity targets which must be disclosed, and to show progress towards meeting them. Firms will be forced to recognise a lack of diversity and inclusion as a non-financial risk. Other requirements of the consultation would suggest that the FCA may be pursuing gender ideology at the expense of women’s rights.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can explain how this consultation is compatible with the FCA’s objective of facilitating international competitiveness and the growth of the UK economy, and, further, how this meddling is appropriate while a major constituent part of our listed equity market is struggling as never before.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Scottish American Investment Company, which last year celebrated its 150th anniversary, and also as a happy shareholder in several investment trusts. I therefore feel well placed to speak both for retail investors and for the providers of investment trusts more generally.
I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, for introducing the Bill, and for securing this timely Second Reading debate. I also thank them for their tireless advocacy of sensible regulation that protects consumers, even though, when I was at the Treasury, I was sometimes on the receiving end of their complaints.
The investment company industry is a British success story, but, above all, it is a Scottish success story, contributing to Edinburgh’s role as an international financial centre. Investment companies are an effective way of building a diversified portfolio. Their closed-end nature means that investors are not subject to the vagaries of sustained outflows, and the potential lock-in or gating of their savings. Looking back over their history, they have always been at the respectable end of the savings industry, providing reliability and resilience. Unlike more conventional open-ended funds, investment companies have independent boards, whose role is to put the interests of shareholders first.
Investment companies have therefore provided a great savings vehicle for all investors, including those with modest means, as well as the better off. I was recently looking at the original subscribers to the Scottish American Investment Company back in 1873. They may have included the odd wealthy widow, but they also included one William Mackenzie, a sergeant major of Stirling, who bought 20 shares, as well as John Bothron, a fish curer from Anstruther, Fife, who bought 12. Hard data on who owns investment trusts today is more difficult to come by. However, given the easy access to shareholding provided through the proliferation of platforms, I am confident that the investor base in investment companies is more diverse than it was 150 years ago. The investment trust sector manages some £260 billion-worth of assets and provides important capital to companies who need it, both in the UK and across the world. In short, the sector provides the investment resources for sustainable growth.
Like many in this House, I supported the UK’s membership of the European Union, for all its limitations, and I feel that, whatever its political benefits, Brexit has damaged the performance of the British economy—but that is water under the bridge. Where I can agree with successful advocates of Brexit, such as my former Minister at the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is that we are all now united in wanting to grasp every opportunity Brexit provides to support economic activity. It is a little disappointing that, seven years on from the referendum vote, the Government have not made more progress in removing unnecessary regulation.
The fact is that the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013 were not the European Union’s finest hour. I admit to being implicated, because I was the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury at the time. As I recall, the Treasury and the FCA did their best to improve its drafting—but clearly not enough. The so-called PRIIPs regulation imposes requirements on investment companies that do not apply to listed trading companies or, even more bizarrely, real estate investment trusts. I am all in favour of transparency when it comes to transaction costs and charges, but, as defined by PRIIPs, the relevant cost metrics are positively misleading and are as likely to harm consumers as to protect them.
I will highlight a couple of areas, and I apologise if they are a little technical. First, the inclusion of future performance estimates based on evidence from past performance is a flawed approach, as any shareholder in Northern Rock or RBS can bear witness to. If any disclosure on performance is necessary, it is surely right that, in line with the current UCITS KIID requirements, past performance becomes a standard disclosure and replaces the need for future performance estimates, which have the clear potential to mislead consumers.
Secondly, I highlight the inclusion of gearing costs in the ongoing charges figure. The cost of the debt must be disclosed without information on the borrowing terms—critically, the interest rate and term to maturity. The key point here is that the costs of gearing do not benefit the investment manager; they are actually paid to the lender. Often, borrowing enhances shareholder value, especially if you took out the borrowing when interest rates were lower.
The flaws in the PRIIPs regulation discourage savers from investing in investment companies. Although I would not like to exaggerate their effect, they are potentially contributing to the scale of discounts to net asset value that many companies are currently experiencing. I therefore welcome the recent publication by the Treasury of its draft statutory instrument on the UK retail disclosure framework. The residual Treasury official in me has some sympathy for the view that, if we are to reform EU legislation, we should go about it in a holistic way. I recognise that it is important to get things right, but the result is that we are missing easy wins, and I fear that the best is becoming the enemy of the good.
In conclusion, I encourage the Minister, even at this late stage, to support the Bill. If she cannot, can she confirm that the Treasury’s and the FCA’s intent is to implement the spirit of the Bill? In short, will they amend the law so that listed investment companies will no longer be classified as alternative investment funds? Can she give us a clear timetable indicating from when any changes to the law will come into effect?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord. I was introduced to investment trusts by my late father, who was a proud Scot and a modest investor. Sadly, since his passing, my investment portfolio seems to have been on the downward trajectory.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Altmann on the excellent and timely Bill before us, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who is supporting it. I lend my full support for the proposals contained therein. I commit to their energy and enthusiasm for the provisions of the Bill and the aim of protecting investors, whether minor or major, who are shareholders in investment trusts. My noble friend called for the urgent issue of guidance, and I support her request. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether there is any reason why guidance could not be issued? That would support the call from the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, for an urgent review and revision of the law.
I press the Government on the matter of a consultation. Will my noble friend the Minister bring forward a consultation at the earliest possible opportunity, with a view to introducing legislative measures in short order thereafter? Presumably, that could be by way of statutory instrument and regulations, rather than the need for primary legislation such as that before us today.
Further, does my noble friend the Minister agree with my noble friend Lady Altmann, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and others who have spoken that the current situation is unacceptable and—as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, said—highly misleading to potential investors? This is a serious but typical case of gold-plating, whereby, as I understand it, the original directive was not prescriptive but a domestic interpretation, through regulation, added bells and whistles.
This is not the only example of this. From my personal experience of serving as a Member of the European Parliament, I know of the abattoir directive. That was very much a framework directive, but the home department, the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, looked at it as the opportunity to close a number of family-run abattoirs, with the perverse effect that animals had to travel further to slaughter. Another example is the toy safety directive, which, in its domestic implementation, added all sorts of provisions that meant that the donation of second-hand toys to charity shops dried up. That led to the then Trade Secretary—the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—calling time on that highly-damaging practice to the domestic industry.
In support of the Bill, I can do no better than quote my noble friend Lady Altmann from a recent article in Money Marketing. She wrote:
“UK investment companies have historically been a world-beating success story, offering an excellent way for investors to back sustainable British growth. But this once thriving sector, with over 350 companies quoted on London stock markets and assets exceeding £250bn, is in crisis”.
She concluded:
“It is … galling to see new EU-derived cost disclosure rules, not applied in the EU or any other country”,
undermine
“a once thriving UK financial sector”.
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, the Brexiteers won and have achieved their goal, but they must accept that this is the complete opposite of a Brexit dividend. It is highly damaging to both existing and potential investors, and has been highly damaging to the financial sector. The Bill is an opportunity for my noble friend the Minister to address that, and I hope that she will take that opportunity today.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Altmann on introducing this proportionate, timely and sensible measure. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on setting out clearly where the existing legislation is going wrong. Some 11 years after the event, I belatedly offer an apology to the noble Baroness and some of her colleagues in the European Parliament. We served there together, representing the same region. In common with a number of Conservative MEPs, I used to tease our Lib Dem colleagues by saying, “They will sign anything that is put in front of them from Brussels. They never read it; they unambiguously support it”. But that was not really true—and it was not true on this occasion.
For all the reasons we have heard, this legislation was using a sledgehammer to miss a nut. This was legislation intended as a response to the financial crisis, but, as somebody put it, when there was a general melee in the bar brawl, instead of looking for the person who started it, they just hit the nearest person.
I remember the unanimity in this country against the AIFMD in 2013, in the industry itself, in the City more widely and among all the political parties. I remember one of the fund managers saying, “This is such a needless and costly measure that we are exploring whether just to break it and pay the fine and call that a fee. We think that that may be less intrusive than having to assimilate the compliance costs”.
I assumed that, the day after Brexit, this would be at the top of the list of the measures to be axed, since it had literally no support. In fact, I had assumed—rather innocently and naively, I now see—that the first response of the Government after Brexit would be to go back and look at all the measures that the UK had opposed and voted against in council, and at the departmental arguments raised against them, and then see whether those still applied. I am afraid that that has not happened. I had underestimated what Milton Friedman called the tyranny of the status quo: the way in which, however irrational and arbitrary your arrangements, some people have found a way of making a living out of them and become opponents of change.
I am afraid that this is one of the dynamics that makes deregulation very difficult. AIFMD is maybe not the best example, but it is an example none the less of the entire industry opposing something, yet, once people have assimilated the compliance costs themselves, they lose interest in repeal. Indeed, in some cases it is not just that they lose interest in repeal; they do not want the next guy to come in and undercut them, so they sometimes perversely become advocates for the thing they used to oppose, because they now see it as a barrier to entry.
By the way, this goes way beyond the field of financial services. It applies to some of the more bizarre SPS and food safety things we have inherited, right the way through to the REACH directive. People say, “Well, the industry is now in favour of it”. Of course they are—once they have taken on the compliance costs. However, the role of a Minister and of a Government is not just to act as the agent, tool or mechanism of the existing producer interest, but to think about the companies that do not yet exist and about the consumers, the start-ups and the entrepreneurs.
As some of your Lordships know, I was quite wet about Brexit: I wanted a Swiss-type deal all the way through, and I argued that we should have maintained a lot of the accumulated single market measures, which would have solved a lot of problems. We did not do that. The Theresa May Administration took a different attitude, and we paid a fairly high price in the disengagement talks for the right to regulatory autonomy. Okay; I am on board with that if that is the policy. However, surely we can all agree that the worst of all worlds is to pay that price in the talks and then not use the regulatory autonomy. It is bizarre to insist on the ability to have these freedoms and then, even in a case like this, where all sides agree that we are doing something costly and needless, we do not use them.
I get that there will be probably a majority in this House who, in other areas, want a much closer deal now with the EU and to go back into some kind of customs union arrangement. Fine; but I think we are all agreed that we are now autonomous and competing globally in financial services, and we need to make the City of London a place where people want to invest.
I close by saying to my noble friend the Minister that when she sees my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—and indeed, I assume, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, although she has yet to speak—all effectively lining up and saying, “We need to be doing more to take advantage of our Brexit freedoms”, perhaps something has gone wrong and this is the time to act.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as the first of the winding-up speakers, I will just say that in this area I lack the expertise of everyone who has spoken up to now, so I will not attempt to summarise the contents of the Bill or discuss the detailed nature of the industry. However, I hope the Government understand that although the Bill may have many highly technical elements, in fact a much more fundamental issue is being addressed. Frankly, it is about the survival of a crucial and key part of our financial sector that makes up both the life of the City of London and of Edinburgh, and of our financial services industry more generally.
I do not think I have ever before participated in a debate where every speaker from every side of the House—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on the Labour Benches, and there is another Labour Member to follow—is of the same view, be it the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, the Cross-Benchers, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. I hope that the Minister will understand the message embedded in that. We are looking at an issue of real significance and urgency, and I stress the word “urgency”.
The one group resistant to tackling this issue in a timely way, minimising the damage already done and preventing further damage, appears to be the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. The Government are in a position, through Treasury, to invite the FCA to take a look again at the regulation it has in place and encourage it—I know they cannot instruct it—to act much more rapidly to stem the issues raised today and the sense of anger across this House, because the regulator seems quite complacent in its response to a deep and underlying problem.
It is clear from today’s speeches that we are dealing with the most extraordinary misapplication of legislation and gold-plating, and I doubt whether a single person in either Chamber would defend those two fundamental approaches. I join others in giving special thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lady Bowles. It is extraordinary that, although we have an expert regulator, we have had to rely on the chance factor of expertise in the House of Lords in order to perhaps be able to force action. I hope the Government will look at the expertise and resources embedded in the FCA, because I cannot believe that if it truly understood this issue, it would be taking the complacent approach it seems to be taking.
There are obviously beneficiaries from this approach, but none of them are British. The United States will be a major beneficiary of the outflow of business, as will, ironically, Luxembourg, Paris and Dublin. As I say, it is very much a gold-plating issue, as many of us here today have discussed.
I wanted to pick up on an issue the noble Lord, Lord Reay, raised: the FCA’s focus on diversity in financial services. I hope my speech will not be seen as an endorsement of that. It is important that our whole industry and every sector understand the issues of diversity, but in no way should that be a distraction from dealing with a fundamental issue concerning the listed investment companies.
In conclusion, these Benches are entirely behind the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, my noble friend Lady Bowles and the others who drafted and shaped this legislation. I recommend that the Government hand them the pen, as they really have the ability to sort this problem out. However, if they cannot do that, will they turn directly to the FCA and again invite it to take the necessary steps? I think there are powers they can use to issue that invitation in fairly strong language and with strong impact, in order to get a resolution—and rapidly.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to listen to and learn from contributions from many genuinely expert noble Lords. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on securing the Bill and pay tribute to her not only for raising this issue to the prominence it deserves in your Lordships’ House and for the hard work I know she has put in to get her Bill to this stage, but for her tireless campaigning on behalf of consumers, pensioners and investors, not just on this topic but on many others over many years.
In her excellent and persuasive opening speech, the noble Baroness made an extremely compelling case for action. I agree strongly with much of her analysis and many of the objectives of her Bill. I will briefly review some of the key points that underlie the Bill.
First, we have seen in the debate today a clear consensus on the importance of this sector to the UK economy. It makes up over 30% of the FTSE 250 and supports vital economic growth areas, as well as a wide range of environmental and social investments. It is also clearly a sector that we as a country should feel pride in. As the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, UK investment trusts are a long-standing British success story, offering for over 150 years access to ready-made portfolios which the vast majority of investors could neither put together nor manage themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, who has highlighted this issue in your Lordships’ House several times already, today took us on a thorough and concerning tour from her own expert perspective of how we ended up where we are today.
It is clear from what we have heard in this debate that charges disclosure rules, derived from the EU, have been inappropriately applied to UK-listed investment trusts. As a result, those companies have been forced to show misleading information to investors, exaggerating the costs of holding their shares. Despite the Financial Services and Markets Act specifically empowering UK regulators to shape financial regulation in the national interest, this inappropriate application has made UK-listed investment companies appear misleadingly expensive for investors to hold.
This has likely given rise to three key consequences. First, it has contributed to UK investment trusts being starved of capital because waves of selling, lack of buyers and share price weakness have stopped capital raising for vital growth sectors, as UK investment companies suffer an exodus of capital from institutions and wealth managers.
Secondly, funding has materially declined as investors use non-UK-listed investments or riskier individual shares instead. This has exacerbated the UK’s shortage of an important source of growth capital for the very areas that we need the private sector and pension funds to support, since most investment trusts invest in real assets, including vital infrastructure projects such as schools, motorways, affordable housing, police and fire stations, and NHS hospitals. Taking the right action now could bring stability back to the investment trust sector and help to harness the power of UK pensions, ISAs and retail investments in order to better support the British economy.
Thirdly, UK-listed investment trusts have been made to look uniquely unattractive compared with our global competitors. Investors are needlessly switching out of UK markets, depriving consumers of dependable dividend-paying investments and denying them access to ready-made portfolios that could add diversification and improve their long-term returns.
The Financial Services and Markets Act specifically introduced the secondary competitiveness objective in order to speed up the pace at which regulators can act when UK competitiveness is under threat. Yet that does not appear to be happening here. Neither does it appear that the new consumer duty is being upheld, as the current system arguably misinforms consumers by exaggerating the costs involved and preventing them making properly informed decisions about what investments to buy.
Ultimately, the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, calls for the Government to act with urgency. That must be right. There is widespread and cross-party agreement, as reflected in the contributions we have heard in today’s debate, that these rules clearly are not working for UK-listed investment trusts. The ultimate responsibility for remedying that and making progress must lie with the Government.
We have been reminded during today’s debate that, in his most recent Autumn Statement, the Chancellor asked the FCA to take action to remedy the problem of charges disclosure regulations forcing investors to sell UK-listed investment trusts and driving pension funds to buy overseas investment companies instead. Since then, what has changed? It would appear that nothing has changed; in fact, the exodus of capital from the investment companies sector has actually accelerated. Having recognised that the rules guiding charges disclosures for UK-listed investment companies are misleading investors, the much-needed urgent change simply has not materialised. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could set out when she responds to the debate the concrete steps that the Government will now take to remedy this problem. Action is needed; if the Government decide to take the appropriate action, we will support them in that.
I end by once again congratulating the noble Baroness on her Bill. It is a timely piece of legislation exposing a significant problem that has been left unsolved for too long, at considerable cost to both the sector and the wider economy. This Bill unarguably makes the case that urgent action is required. I hope that this debate, as well as the further passage of this Bill, will help to expose these issues and compel the Government and regulators to move further and faster than has so far been the case.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Altmann both on securing this important Second Reading debate on her Bill and on her excellent contribution setting out the challenges that she hopes to fix. I am grateful to her for her engagement on this issue; I hope that it will continue as we continue our work in this area. I am also extremely grateful for all the contributions made in your Lordships’ House today. I note that there was violent agreement that something must be done; I hope to set out the Government’s plans to do this, but I will ensure that my colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, has a look at Hansard because it is important that he understands the breadth of feeling and some of the important issues that were raised.
As noble Lords have heard, this Bill would amend the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations to remove listed investment companies, also known as investment trusts, from scope. It would also make amendments to other assimilated law, formerly retained EU law, in order to make changes to cost disclosure requirements for listed investment companies.
The Government share my noble friend Lady Altmann’s drive to champion the investment company sector and ensure that the UK’s capital markets continue both to thrive and to drive forward our economy. It is true that, over the past two years, there have been relatively few initial public offerings globally; the UK has not been immune to those trends. This market turbulence has also impacted the investment company sector, in which the UK is undoubtedly a world leader. However, London continues to be Europe’s leading hub for investment; it raised more capital in 2023 than Frankfurt and Amsterdam combined.
The Government are committed to building on the UK’s strong foundations in this area by taking forward, through the smarter regulatory framework, ambitious reforms to streamline the regulatory rulebook, boost investment into UK markets and improve the competitiveness of the UK as a listing destination.
Investment companies are a wonderful British—more specifically, Scottish, according to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson; he is right—invention dating back more than 150 years. The way in which they have become such a backbone of our investment economy is quite incredible. I assure all noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting this very important sector.
However, I must express some reservations about my noble friend Lady Altmann’s Bill, although we recognise the rationale behind its being brought forward. I will first address the amendments that would exclude listed investment companies from the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations, or AIFMR. Amending the scope of these regulations could have a significant impact. It would not be appropriate for the Government to change the regulatory perimeter using this Private Member’s Bill in isolation, without proper and appropriate consultation and further consideration.
As part of building a smarter regulatory framework for financial services, the Government are already carefully considering how to make AIFMR more streamlined and more tailored to UK markets. The Government recognise the concerns about regulatory inefficiencies for listed investment companies under AIFMR. However, we are also conscious that some investment companies value being regulated financial services providers; at this point, I note the warnings put forward by my noble friend Lord Hannan.
Given the spectrum of views on this issue, it is vital that the Government provide an opportunity for all impacted stakeholders to comment. It is for this reason—this is the first time that it will be publicly known, I think—that the Government will consult in the next quarter on how the UK should approach AIFMR. This will, I believe, fulfil my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s requirement for some consultation. Obviously, we want to do this as speedily as possible, but we need to get information from the industry, the investment companies sector and beyond about how to take it forward. Once we have that, we should be able to move fairly rapidly.
We know that only through careful consultation and consideration can we provide listed investment companies with the longer-term certainty of an appropriate regulatory framework. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson: sometimes, it is really important to get these things right. Although some people often criticise the Treasury for taking too long and being—dare I say this as a Treasury Minister? I am not sure—a bit staid and sober, we have to get things right.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I have a question for the Minister. With much of this gold-plating, I am not sure that the regulator consulted on implementing it. Why would it then have to consult on removing it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will come on to gold-plating. I am not entirely sure that everybody is in alignment on whether or not this regulation is implemented, but consultation is just good government. I do not see us making substantial changes to the regulatory scope on the basis of having not done it before we are not going to do it now. We need to get it right, but we absolutely support the investment company sector and want to get on with this. That is why I am so grateful to my noble friend Lady Altmann for bringing this forward, allowing us to have a conversation in the Treasury and beyond.
I turn to the second element: cost disclosures. My noble friend Lady Altmann has rightly identified that EU-derived legislation is not currently fit for purpose, as many other noble Lords, the Government and the Financial Conduct Authority would agree. The packaged retail and insurance-based investment products regulations, commonly and more easily known as PRIIPs, were originally meant to provide more transparent and standardised disclosure for retail investors across the European Union. Noble Lords are well aware that there are many problems with the EU PRIIPs regulation. It is prescriptive, misleading to retail investors and prioritises comparability over a wide range of financial products at the expense of consumer understanding.
That is why, as part of the Edinburgh reforms, the Chancellor announced that, as a priority, the Government would reform PRIIPs. We have already made significant progress on delivering this commitment. Most recently, at the Autumn Statement last year, the Government published a draft statutory instrument to replace PRIIPs with a new framework tailored to UK markets.
We understand industry’s concerns regarding broader legislation that prescribes firms to calculate their costs as they are required to do so now, and so the Government and the regulator have not stopped there. At the same Autumn Statement, the Government announced that they would bring forward the repeal of relevant cost disclosure provisions in the markets in financial instruments directive, or MiFID, alongside the replacement of PRIIPs.
Many noble Lords have mentioned that the FCA has published the forbearance statement, and some feel that it has not gone far enough. I will ensure that the FCA is made aware of the debates that noble Lords have had today. There has been significant criticism, which it will no doubt be interested in, and some suggestions of how it might be able to go forward.
I hope that this brief summary has provided sufficient reassurance to my noble friend Lady Altmann, and to all noble Lords, that the Government are treating this as a priority. We have a comprehensive plan to alleviate the harms faced by the investment company sector, but are committed to making sure that we get it right for the long term, to ensure that 150 years already gone by becomes another 150 years in the future.
I have mentioned consultation, so I will move on from that to cover some points raised in the debate on timelines. I accept that, for many noble Lords, and indeed Ministers, it is never fast enough. This was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hannan and the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson. We are delivering a very ambitious programme to build the smarter regulatory framework for financial services. At Mansion House, the Government removed almost 100 pieces of unnecessary EU legislation from the statute book, and now we are looking at wider reforms—those mentioned in the debate today and others, including Solvency II—that will deliver the biggest potential benefits.
I note that my noble friend Lord Hannan would have liked us to go through things in a different way. The Treasury is very much focused on looking at where we can have the biggest and quickest potential benefits to economic growth. We are conducting a phased approach to bringing in this change of regulation because we must also ensure that the system and different financial sectors can cope with this change in legislation.
I note the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, to make commitments from the Dispatch Box on certain matters. I am not able to do so just yet—maybe soon.
There is debate around gold-plating. I hope that that will all be laid to rest as we are able to reform this and ensure that we have the right framework going forward.
My noble friend Lady Altmann mentioned investment companies being removed from platforms. We note and recognise the frustration that some investment companies feel at having been removed from investment platforms. I reassure her that, although this is a commercial decision, the Government and the FCA are well aware of this issue and are carefully considering what options are available. Ditto in the use of the EMT, the MiFID template. This is a voluntary template, but we understand that it may not be providing the best information to retail investors at the current time.
Many noble Lords have noted the competitiveness of the UK capital markets. That is what underpins the smarter regulatory framework. Despite recent challenges, the UK has many vibrant and dynamic capital markets, and they remain some of the deepest and strongest globally. However, we cannot rest on any laurels; we have to keep moving forward in this area. That is why the Government are delivering on my noble friend Lord Hill’s listings review, the wholesale markets review, and the Chancellor’s Edinburgh and Mansion House reforms.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the FCA’s activities and scrutiny of the regulator’s role. My noble friend Lord Reay mentioned the FCA’s D&I work, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Parliament does have scrutiny over the FCA and many other regulators. Assimilated law is being replaced, in line with the UK’s domestic model of regulation. This means that the UK’s independent financial services regulators will generally set the detailed provisions in their rulebooks, instead of firms being required to follow EU law. This approach was following two consultations and it received broad support across the sector. Parliament debated this approach during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, and it secured parliamentary support then.
The Government recognise the importance of effective parliamentary scrutiny of the regulators, including their approach to rule-making and other activities that they may choose to undertake. That is why FiSMA 2023 introduced additional mechanisms to strengthen Parliament’s existing ability to scrutinise the regulators’ work, including requirements for the regulators to notify parliamentary committees, such as the new Financial Services Regulation Committee, of their consultations and to explain, when publishing final rules, how representations by parliamentary committees have been considered. I warmly welcome the formation of that committee. It will be hugely helpful, and it is quite right and proper that independent regulators are held to account by Parliament.
I will write with a few further comments on the investment in the UK capital markets by UK pension funds and on a few other issues which have arisen and need a fuller response. For the time being, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Altmann and many other noble Lords for their continued championing of the investment company sector.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I am sure that my interruption is unwelcome, for which I apologise, but it is quite important. Further consultations have been measured and, as my noble friend Lady Kramer pointed out, the aspects of PRIIPs and MiFID where there has been gold-plating that is causing these problems were never consulted upon. It is within the gift of the FCA to make changes.
These cost disclosure issues have featured massively already in two consultations from the Treasury on PRIIPs and in evidence that was submitted to the Treasury last summer, after my own attempt to amend FiSMA 2023. On these discrete issues, legislation does not need to be amended; what the FCA is doing needs to be amended. Support has been heard from these Benches and the Labour Benches for the Government taking more intrusive action. Has that message been received or are we still bogged down in officialdom and consultations? That is what we want to know.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I set out in my closing remarks, the consultation is for AIFMR. It is not related to the other issues that the noble Baroness has raised, because, as she says, they have already been consulted on. That element of it is under consideration by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. There may be more news fairly shortly.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who highlighted the substantial challenges faced by this uniquely British, nay Scottish, asset. I am also grateful that the noble Baroness brought her concerns to the Government’s attention. I hope I have reassured noble Lords directly that the Government take this issue very seriously, that we are working at pace on finding a resolution and that I will ensure that all Ministers and regulators are aware of the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House. I hope to have further news in due course.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her concluding remarks and engagement with this issue. I hope that she will indeed take some of the messages back to the department because, so far, they do not seem to have been taken on board as seriously as one might have hoped. We all want thriving capital markets in this country, and I thank all noble Lords—I will thank them individually rather than taking up the House’s time now—who each explained so clearly why this is so important.
That is where I would urge my noble friend to focus, because the SIs for PRIIPs and MiFID, even if they were introduced “quickly”—which presumably means in the coming months—would still require further consultation before anything changed in the market, unless listed investment companies are excluded from the definition of the CCI. But that is not the current proposal. We are actually keeping them in there, despite the industry unanimously recommending against that; hundreds of members of the industry have said that this needs to be done. If this is not achieved—and it sounds to me as if it may not be in the plan—the Bill would be the quickest way to resolve the problem that is affecting the market now.
I urge my noble friend to urge her colleagues to speak to the industry, because selling waves have begun again. This is depriving the economy and investors in this country of capital that otherwise would be directed here. It seems there is a sense of complacency at the regulator and a fear of change, even when it is clearly required. As so many noble Lords have said, we need to ensure that investment comes back to the UK.
Could my noble friend perhaps write to me—I hope that we can engage further on the Bill in the coming weeks—on whether it is the FCA’s interpretation of the legislation that is causing the problem? No EU country is interpreting the very same rules in the way that the FCA has applied them to our investment companies. No other investment company, either in the EU or anywhere else, is misleading investors in this same way. If that is the case, the guidance from the FCA could be brought into line with that everywhere else in the world, and that would solve some of these issues in relatively short order.
As I have said, I would be happy to withdraw the Bill or discuss amendments with my noble friend—for example, to add a clause saying that there must be consultation on removal from the AIFMR, if that is considered essential. I hope that the views of the House, which have been unanimously expressed, will prevail, as this matter cannot be left to languish any longer, because the industry of which we are so proud is under existential threat. Capital is fleeing this country and we need it to come back. I thank my noble friend for all her engagement.
Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL]
Friday 1st March 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to propose for your Lordships’ consideration what I believe are urgently needed changes in the law to protect UK workers from gross exploitation. I am referring to the shameful practice of dismissal and re-engagement, otherwise known as fire and rehire, where workers are threatened with the sack unless they agree to cuts to their pay, terms and conditions.
Exploitative employers have abused a legal loophole for many years by threatening to sack staff while protecting themselves against unfair dismissal claims, with so-called substantial reasons for the firing. This immoral practice took off in the pandemic, when major firms, such as British Airways, British Gas and many more took advantage of the crisis to boost profits off the backs of their own workers.
Fire and rehire continues post pandemic. At PHINIA in Gillingham, workers began industrial action in January over plans to remove paid lunch breaks, and the firm has now threatened to fire and rehire everyone to force through this pay cut. This does not affect just the private sector; Wiltshire Council is trying to fire and rehire care staff, social workers, traffic wardens and others to remove unsocial-hours payments. Border Force staff at Heathrow Airport are fighting against proposed pay cuts of up to 20% due to changing their shift patterns and allowances.
We ask ourselves how on earth this can be allowed to happen. Firms currently have free rein to cut workers’ pay, terms and conditions, as long as they tick a few boxes, such as claiming financial difficulties and holding a superficial consultation. There is no need to prove that the proposed cuts are necessary to save the business from collapse or for redundancy payments if staff do not agree to new contracts. They just lose their jobs. It is scandalous. There is also no need for company directors and executives to cut their pay and pension pots; that is just for the little people.
The Government accept that fire and rehire is a problem, but say that legislation is not needed because they have a new code of practice. While I welcome the Government’s efforts, the code as written is completely toothless. There is no requirement for employers to open the books to prove that the pay cuts or other changes are absolutely necessary to stop a firm going bust.
The code creates no new legal obligations on employers at all. In fact, paragraph 12 is clear that breaching it does not make a company liable to any proceedings. The worst that can happen is that they might—I emphasise “might”—have to pay an extra 25% on any compensation awarded by an employment tribunal, no matter how small. With respect, this is woefully inadequate punishment for such abusive behaviour.
Of course, we all know that employment tribunals are notoriously hard for workers to win. As I have said many times, what is needed to end these fire and rehire abuses is legislation. I offer my Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill to your Lordships for consideration.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for drafting the Bill alongside Professor Keith Ewing. I am grateful to Barry Gardiner for bringing the Bill to the other place and raising public awareness. I am very grateful to the TUC and its numerous member unions who support the Bill, and particularly to my union, Unite. I am very grateful to my party, the Labour Party, for backing the Bill enthusiastically, and for committing to end fire and rehire abuses within the first 100 days of government.
Before I explain what the Bill does, let me explain and make clear what it does not do. It does not ban fire and rehire completely and utterly in all circumstances. That is an important point, which I ask the Minister to take note of. I accept that, when a company is in financial crisis, this might sometimes be necessary, as a last resort, when the alternatives really are seeing the business going down. I think we can all agree that this would be a regrettable but acceptable use of fire and rehire. I am sure the Minister agrees, because this is exactly the scenario the Government always use when they say we must not ban fire and rehire—extreme circumstances, where the alternative is bankruptcy. Likewise, I am sure the Minister will also agree that fire and rehire should never be used simply as a tactic—a “bully-boy tactic”, in the words of a Minister in the other place.
That is exactly what my Bill seeks to address. Quite simply, it puts on a statutory footing the procedure that decent employers—and there are many of them—already follow. Central to this is the requirement for employers to show workers and the trade unions that such an extreme step really is a last resort; to show that, without this drastic action, everyone would lose their jobs because the business would go under. As my Bill puts it, they must show that
“there is a real threat to continued employment”
because of
“the economic situation affecting the employer”.
This is exactly what the new code of practice does not do—not at all. Respondents to last year’s consultation suggested that
“the Code should use a tighter definition of when dismissal could be used, for example when the employer has shown that it is required to ensure the survival of its business”.
Disappointingly, the Government do not agree with this tighter definition, so it is not part of the code.
My Bill would compel bosses to hand over any information
“without which the appropriate representatives would be … impeded in carrying on consultation with the employer”.
Unions could also involve the Central Arbitration Committee if bosses drag their feet or refuse to engage in meaningful consultation. This would be far more effective than the Government’s meek suggestion to employers, at paragraph 26 of the code, that they,
“should share as much information … as is reasonably possible”.
Remarkably, the code then suggests that bosses can avoid sharing even the basics by claiming imminent bankruptcy—how convenient. Paragraph 32 says that,
“if a business is suffering a financial crisis … the employer may not be able to provide as much information as a business in more settled times”.
Then, in paragraph 35, the code gives a get-out clause for any information that bosses believe to be “commercially sensitive or confidential”. How convenient, yet again. My Bill would allow information to be withheld only if sharing it would
“seriously harm the functioning of, or … be prejudicial to”
the operation of the business. I suggest that this is a fairer way of operating.
My Bill would also provide enhanced protection to any workers who refuse changes and find themselves fired as a result. Above all, it would help level, at least to some degree, the unequal playing field between bosses and workers. Right now, bad bosses are using fire and rehire as a tactic to boost their profits at the expense of workers. For these bosses, it is not about saving their business from bankruptcy; it is about using the current cost of living catastrophe as cover, basically to blackmail workers into worsening wages. It is simply not right to treat a loyal workforce—many with long service—in this way. That is why I am asking for support to take the Bill into Committee, where it can rightfully be fully scrutinised and, I am sure, vastly improved by the many fine minds we are fortunate enough to have in this place.
In finishing, I ask the Minister the following questions. Does he accept that my Bill does not ban fire and rehire in all circumstances but simply stops it being used as an abusive tactic by bad bosses to boost profits? Does he appreciate that fire and rehire could still be used as a last resort when a company is genuinely facing financial ruin, and that this line of argument should not be used as a reason to oppose my Bill? Does he believe that the code would have stopped British Airways, British Gas or, to take a live dispute, the Border Force at Heathrow Airport, where the Home Office is firing and rehiring loyal staff over rosters and allowances? Does he appreciate that the 25% uplift—the one and only sanction contained in the code—applies only if a worker wins at an industrial tribunal, which is difficult at the best of times? Does he understand that this lack of any serious consequences is why the code is widely seen as toothless? Will he explain why the Government did not agree with the consultation respondents who said that dismissal should be used only when needed to ensure the survival of a business? Does he agree with respondents who warned that the code was “too weak” and would actually “legitimise” fire and rehire? I thank noble Lords for their patience and consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in this debate. I trust that what I say is fully within the guidelines laid down by my noble friend Lord Cameron when, as the then Prime Minister, he appointed me here and said, “See what you can do to help the trade unions—just make sure it does not cost us any money”. I think the Bill helps the trade unions and I am not sure it costs the Treasury any money—so it is within those guidelines.
First, I should make some personal declarations. As the register will record, I am the honorary president of BALPA, the pilots union, and very proud to be. I have also spent most of my life as a member of AUEW, TASS and its successors, which now puts me in the same union as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. When I began my trade union career at the age of 16, it was in the Civil Service Clerical Association, which is now the PCS. On this day, when it launches its ballot for industrial action, it gives me great pleasure to endorse what the PCS general secretary, Fran Heathcote, said: fire and rehire is nothing short of bullying and is a nasty ploy used by unscrupulous employers to drive down pay, terms and conditions. It is worth placing that on the record. It was with that union that I held my first union position, when I became the acting chairman at 17. Because the communists of the Labour Party could not agree who should be the vice-chairman, it ended up as me, and then the chairman very inconveniently fell ill. At the age of 17, my bedtime reading was Citrine. I will not move today that the previous question be put, but that was one of my favourites in the Citrine handbook.
Let me move on. This Bill effectively tightens the rules around fire and rehire, but it really is an absolutely disgraceful practice for workers such as those I just quoted in the PCS ballot, many of whom have had their terms and conditions for 20 or 30 years—this is not something they got in a recent industrial action. This is not the way you build good industrial relations. Now, the CIPD recently did a survey and could not work out how many employers had used fire and rehire. It decided in the end that it was about 3% who had done so by dismissing and rehiring workers. That sounds a very small number, does it not? But it is over 40,000 employers. That is a big number, so we need to remember that, while this is not the biggest problem in Britain, it is certainly a big problem, particularly if you happen to be one of the workers involved.
I have spent my entire life in bits of the trade union movement; 25 years of it was spent in the European Parliament. One of the differences between that Parliament and our Parliament is that with the people in that Parliament who sit on this side of the House—the Christian Democrats, which was where I was for at least some of the time I was there—there is a trade union organisation within the party, led by a German Christian Democrat trade unionist. We used to have regular meetings, and our job was to harmonise the relations between capital and labour—not to stir them up but to make them work better, in the interests of society and industry. That is best done by co-operating with each other.
The trouble I sense with the present Government, I am afraid, is that the default position seems to be disinterest bordering on hostility. That is not a sensible way forward in industrial relations. All the people who go to work every day—I often use this example in my union—do not come from privileged backgrounds. Most pilots have worked their way up; they have been to technical school, found places in universities, become graduates and then engaged in very expensive training to do this hugely skilled job. The reason BALPA’s strapline was “Every flight a safe flight” was because the pilot is responsible for possibly 300 passengers and £150 million-worth of equipment. There was not a single fatal passenger plane crash in the world last year, but that exists because of work between the two sides of industry—and that should be our standard.
The standard we should be working to—I am afraid I have a lot of unfortunate heroes in my life—is that put forward by the late Ted Heath. He genuinely believed —although he got it a bit wrong on occasions—that the two sides of industry had to work together. They do have to work together; that is how we get a prosperous economy.
Apart from my history lectures, one of the things I talk about from time to time is the Conservative Party and its tremendous ability to reinvent itself. It has been doing so ever since it stood up for James II in 1688; noble Lords will recall that that does not appear in the manifesto anymore. But the fact of the matter is that, if we are going to move forward, the new Conservative Party has got to take a leaf out of the Ted Heath book and the European progressive trade union book, and has to learn that the future prosperity of Britain rests on both sides of industry working together for the common good. Working people need a decent wage and the employers need a decent dividend, but what they should not be doing is preying at each other’s throats all the time. That is not the way to build a successful country and a successful economy. I am pleased to support the Bill.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as former leader of the TUC. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and also to congratulate my noble friend and fellow trade unionist Lord Woodley on bringing forward this Bill.
In the wake of the P&O Ferries scandal, Grant Shapps, who was Secretary of State for Transport at the time, said on Sky News that the Government would
“send a clear message … that we will not allow this to happen again. That where new laws are needed, we will create them. Where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them. And where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them”.
The Government’s new code of practice, sadly, comes nowhere near meeting that promise. It does not close the legal loopholes that allowed P&O Ferries to evade the law and financial sanctions. It does not strengthen unfair dismissal rights to prevent an employer sacking their workforce, and either rehiring or replacing them on inferior conditions. A 25% uplift in compensation hardly adds up to a deterrent. Noble Lords will recall that the P&O boss brazenly admitted that employers can simply price-in the cost of one-off payments.
Emma Wayland of Keystone Law has said:
“The cynical might say that this can be treated as a tick-box exercise that will present no more than a minor inconvenience to an employer, for whom the threat of fire and rehire can still be used”.
That cynicism is justified and rooted in real experience. It is disappointing that Ministers have pushed through this code when it does not have the confidence of the very people who are on the front line fighting fire and rehire—namely, workers and trade unionists. Businesses use fire and rehire tactics for the simple reason that, in Britain today, sacking workers and rehiring or replacing them on worse paying conditions is far too cheap and easy. Those guilty of this practice over recent years are not just those running a few back-street sweatshops, or a few struggling employers who have fallen on hard times. The roll of shame includes big names in the mainstream, which have absolutely no excuse—the likes of Tesco, British Gas and British Airways.
In many cases, unions have fought back and won, but no working family in Britain should be put through the worry, hardship and humiliation of being treated as throwaway labour. Workers need stronger protection against unfair dismissal from day one in the job and tougher tests that require employers to consult with unions with enough time to explore reasonable economic alternatives. Instead of making it harder for workers to protect their pay and conditions, as with the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, the Government should recognise that, when faced with the threat of fire and rehire or replacement, workers must be able to respond quickly and exercise their democratic rights to withdraw their labour. Where an employer flouts the minimum standards set out in law, for example by not following the required steps for consultation before sacking workers, those workers must be afforded an immediate remedy, notably automatic reinstatement.
Finally, let us recognise that fire and rehire is often just a fancy name for casualisation: long-standing hotel staff on full-time contracts being rehired on short-hours arrangements; university lecturers facing similar, not least at SOAS, where worse conditions for staff mean a worse education service for students; and seafaring crews on collectively agreed terms and conditions being replaced by agency staff paid a pittance. As TUC analysis shows, it is no accident that black and ethnic-minority workers are twice as likely to find themselves on the sharp end of fire and rehire.
Paying lip service in the form of a code is not good enough. The Bill offers the Government a second chance to get this right, to make good on their P&O promises and to stop the slide towards insecure employment in Britain. I urge the Government to support the Bill so that the decent employer is not undercut by the bad, and so that everyone at work gets the respect and dignity that they have earned.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady O’Grady. I too compliment my noble friend Lord Woodley on securing the Bill. I declare my trade union interests as in the register.
Fire and rehire is widespread, as my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lord Woodley and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, have demonstrated. It places workers in an awful dilemma: they must accept a cut to their standard of living or face unemployment. The anguish of that horrible choice needs little elaboration at a time when real wages have been stagnant since 2007.
The Office for National Statistics reports that median regular pay in November 2023 was as low as £27,588 per annum, which means that half the working population —16 million workers—earn less. Indeed, a quarter of the UK’s workers earn less than £16,068 per annum. No wonder the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in its report UK Poverty 2024, estimates that 14.4 million people were in poverty in 2021-22 and nearly 3.8 million people experienced destitution,
“an extraordinary 148% increase over just five years”.
That is significant, because TUC research shows that fire and rehire is used predominantly against the lower paid, and disproportionally represented among the lower paid are, naturally, women, ethnic minorities and those with a disability.
The use of the tactic is not just bad for the workers on whom it is inflicted; it is bad for the economy. According to the ONS, the UK’s economy grew by 0.1% last year and has declined since. Reducing the spending power of workers shrinks the economy still further. That is a powerful reason to address this obnoxious practice.
Currently the tactic is lawful so long as the employer gives the employees the minimum notice of dismissal—contractual or statutory, whichever is the longer. The risk of a successful unfair dismissal claim is minimal for the employer that can show an economic need to reduce labour costs—what the legislation calls “some other substantial reason” for the dismissal. Even if that defence fails, the employer can argue that the offer of reduced terms was reasonable in the circumstances, and that dismissal for rejecting it was not unfair. So in effect the potential 25% uplift on compensation under the proposed code of practice is useless, as my noble friend Lord Woodley said and as the P&O Ferries scandal to which my noble friend Lady O’Grady referred shows, in relation to statutory capped compensation.
Fire and rehire is currently lawful because the law allows both the employer and the employee to give notice to terminate the contract of employment. For that fundamental reason, it is impossible to ban the practice, yet the tactic is plainly unacceptable where it is deployed simply to exploit managerial power in circumstances where the business faces no existential threat.
Its use may at least be understandable, if still not acceptable, in the rare situation where a business faces a dire and sudden crisis. The Bill allows for that so, as my noble friend Lord Woodley has pointed out, it does not ban fire and rehire. Instead, it imposes modest procedural obligations on employers seeking to reduce labour costs in this way. It applies only to establishments with 50 or more employees. It applies only where there is shown to be a real threat to continued employment or to contractual changes likely to affect 15 or more employees. In those circumstances the Bill imposes two obligations on employers. The first is to consult with a view to reaching agreement to avoid dismissals or contractual changes. Those consultations will be, as elsewhere in the legislation, with representatives of recognised unions or elected representatives. The second obligation is to disclose the information necessary to have meaningful negotiations and as required for good industrial relations.
There is an exception for information whose disclosure would seriously harm the undertaking or be contrary to the interests of national security. Any disputes over disclosure can be referred to the industrial relations expertise of the Central Arbitration Committee. Likewise, a dispute over whether there is proper consultation or proper disclosure can be referred to the CAC, which can then either refer the complaint to ACAS for conciliation or determine the complaint itself and make an order. In the case of non-compliance with a CAC order, a worker’s representative can seek a court injunction to compel compliance or to render void any dismissals or contractual changes in breach of the order.
Alternatively, a worker offered re-engagement on different terms may obtain an employment tribunal declaration if the tribunal concludes that the employer breached the Bill’s requirements of consultation and disclosure. In that case, “just and equitable” compensation may be ordered in respect of losses attributable to the dismissal or contractual changes. An employment tribunal may also declare that any “less favourable” variation of a contract of employment is void if brought about by the threat of dismissal where the consultation and disclosure obligations have been breached.
Where an employee is dismissed for refusing a contractual variation, “some other substantial reason” will no longer serve as a justifiable defence; and the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection will not apply. Dismissal in breach of a CAC order or a collective agreement will render a dismissal automatically unfair. The remedy of reinstatement or re-engagement is strengthened by the Bill in these circumstances.
The Bill will also relieve trade unions of the procedural burdens in relation to industrial action in response to an employer’s proposal to vary terms and conditions under threat of dismissal. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State must be notified of situations giving rise to the obligation to consult, and it will be an offence on the part of the undertaking and of any responsible director or manager not to do so.
By these means, so long as the employer does its reasonable best to consult and disclose, it has nothing to fear from litigation and can achieve variation of terms and conditions, if necessary by compulsion. I commend my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Bill to the House.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, what happened at P&O was a dreadful abuse of employment rights—an abuse that was rightly condemned but one that, regrettably, is not limited to a few ruthless employers such as P&O. Employers across our economy, public sector and private sector alike, are now routinely using fire and rehire to force through unilateral changes to employment contracts—British Gas being among the worst.
During the 2020 Covid-19 lockdown, while the nation applauded our essential workers, British Gas, unbelievably, threatened to fire and rehire its entire workforce of 20,000. In May 2020, all employees were told that they would have to sign new contracts—contracts far worse than the ones they had—or face redundancy. The new contracts increased hours with no extra pay, took away payments for weekend working and undermined the long-standing pay agreements within gas. Trade unions such as mine that stood up for the workforce were threatened with derecognition; for British Gas, the current legislation is an irritant to be ignored.
Many in this Chamber have expressed their concern at the dreadful salaries earned by our care workforce. The care service is on its knees, with hundreds of thousands of vacancies, yet who would believe that care workers could be the victims of fire and rehire? But that is what is happening to care workers employed by Shaw healthcare in Powys. Carers, already the lowest paid, are losing their contractual 30-minute paid break; their shifts are being extended with no extra pay; their contractual right to eating prepared food with residents is being snatched away; and their livelihood is gone if they do not sign new contracts.
Fire and rehire is now routinely used across our public services to undermine employment rights. Sandwell Leisure did not want to pay the nationally agreed 2.75% pay increase. So what did it do? It fired and rehired its entire workforce of 280. Bristol-based St Monica Trust, a care trust, in seeking to cut the pay of senior staff by 21% and all other staff by 10%, threatened to sack care workers if they did not accept the pay cut. For some, the pay cut was over £3,000. Clarion Housing, the UK’s largest landlord, is using the threat of fire and rehire to force through worse pension arrangements for staff transferred from local government. Councils, too, from Tower Hamlets to Caerphilly and Wiltshire, are issuing new contracts with care workers and social workers told to accept worse conditions or be dismissed. The list goes on.
I make it clear that today is not about seeking to improve the pay and conditions of vulnerable workers; that is for another day. Today I want to impress on noble Lords that the devastating use of fire and rehire, dismissal and re-engagement, is not the tool of a few recalcitrant employers who can be ignored. When we talk about fire and rehire, we use terms such as “unscrupulous”, “abhorrent”, “cynical” or “a few bad apples”. The implication is that we are dealing with a few ruthless employers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Employers across the whole economy, including public service employers, are increasingly using fire and rehire and increasingly just paying lip service to current legislation.
The draft code of practice from our conciliation service will do nothing to constrain employers while the current legislation is so weak. That is why I ask this House to support my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Bill, rather than relying just on a draft code of practice—a code which is not fit for purpose and which we all know is toothless.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Woodley on this much-needed Bill, which will make the UK a better place for workers and businesses alike. As my noble friends Lord Woodley and Lord Hendy have explained, the Bill does not completely ban fire and rehire; it merely curbs the abuses and requires companies to properly consult employees on a statutory footing before any major restructuring that might lead to fire and rehire.
The Bill has reminded me of the words of a former US Republican President, who said:
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration”.
That President was Abraham Lincoln and his views are as relevant today as they were in 1861.
We all know that within our economic system there are antagonisms between labour and capital, but there is also a mutual dependence of the two. Workers’ rights are an indispensable part of wealth creation and building a sustainable economy. The Bill comes at a time when fire and rehire is being used as a bully-boy tactic to undermine workers’ pay and conditions across a number of industries.
A study by the Observer newspaper stated that 70% of employers using fire and rehire of staff on worse contracts maintained healthy profit margins and that, in most cases, also increased executive pay. British Gas used fire and rehire tactics to dismiss 500 engineers, but it has now reported a tenfold increase in profits in just one year. At Asda, some 7,000 workers are being impacted by fire and rehire as private equity owners seek to boost their returns.
We cannot build a sustainable economy by increasing worker insecurity. That has not been done anywhere, yet it is what the Government are trying to do here. Workers’ economic security is undermined wherever employers wield the capacity to demand, deny or discontinue work completely at will and with impunity. The Work Foundation estimates that in 2023, around 6.8 million workers—around 21% of them—were in severely insecure work, with wholesale and retail, agriculture, professional and scientific, and hospitality workers particularly badly affected. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has reported that, since the pandemic, nearly one in 10 workers have been told to reapply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions or face the sack.
Women are 2.3 times more likely to be in insecure work than men. People from ethnic minorities, 18 to 25 year-olds and 1.45 million disabled workers are more likely to be in insecure work than any other sections of our population. Fire and rehire increases insecurity, anxiety and physical and mental health problems. Up to 300,000 people with mental health problems arising from their work situation lose their jobs each year. Around 51% of long-term sick leave is due to stress associated with work and insecurity. Since 2019, the total annual cost associated with poor mental health has increased by 25%. Employers are losing £56 billion a year because of the insecurities created for workers. Through this Bill, we can recover a part of that: it offers a road to economic recovery and improved labour supply.
A considerable body of scholarly research shows that improved worker rights and rewards provide a solid foundation for strong and stable economic growth by supporting demand and stabilising local currencies and financial systems. Better worker rights are essential for levelling up and result in higher productivity growth, thus leading to faster, stronger and sustainable economic growth. Improved worker rights result in a better distribution of income, both among workers and between workers and companies. In other words, better worker rights lead to a larger output that is more evenly distributed as well. As the benefits of faster growth are more evenly distributed, local demand tends to be stronger and more stable, preventing our town centres becoming economic deserts with swathes of empty shops.
In the face of fewer safeguards for workers, cuts in income reduce demand and Governments increasingly rely, as the current Government are doing, on a shrinking proportion of the population to reflate the economy. Households with unpredictable employment rights and loss of livelihoods resort to pawning things and borrowing money, which ultimately leads to lower spending, lower consumption, a higher risk of financial distress and higher risks to the financial system. We all know what happened before the 2008 banking crash; many people simply could not afford to pay their mortgages. That is one of the consequences.
In short, the Bill curbs the abuse of fire and rehire policies and facilitates economic benefits. I strongly urge all Members of this House to support it
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Sikka. It is not the first time his admirable forensic skills have made the House much better informed. He is, in my view, the antithesis to the widely held view that accountants are boring; he is certainly not.
I also commend my noble friend Lord Woodley and the ecosystem that supported him, not just for drafting this legislation but for the powerful, comprehensive and convincing speech he introduced the debate with. Mostly, I thank him for securing a Second Reading that helpfully coincides with the publication and laying of the Government’s feeble draft code of practice. It is remarkably easy, as all the speeches today have shown, to support this legislation. It is even easier to criticise and disaggregate the useless code the Government have come up with. I intend to spend a bit of my time trying to do that.
I have read almost every word that has been recorded in Hansard about the practice of firing and rehiring, and there seems to be a broad consensus on the unfairness of this practice. The debate is not a diagnostic one; we all know that this is a problem. It is rather a debate about solutions. While I recognise that recently the Government have fulfilled their commitment to publish and lay a draft statutory code of practice, I simply do not believe that it will have a material impact on removing the thumb on the scales that currently tilts the balance of power strongly in favour of unscrupulous employers. There is a catalogue of companies, and now, unfortunately, local councils, which have used this dreadful practice. There is no point in going through them; we all know that.
Given that the introduction of this code was first announced in response to P&O Ferries instituting mass redundancies in March 2022, I understand those who feel a little sceptical when the Government claim they wish to provide urgent redress. What can explain the slowness with which they have moved in this matter? The then BEIS Minister, Paul Scully, explained the Government’s commitment to introduce a statutory code of conduct in emotive and highly colourful language. He described the practice of firing and rehiring as “deceitful”, and “disgraceful”, labelled the actions of P&O “appalling” and “unscrupulous”, and vowed that the Government would “stand up for workers” against the “flagrant disregard” shown by companies that use sudden mass dismissal as a negotiating tactic. What has been the response to this clarion call—the Government’s own clarion call? We have seen the glacial emergence of a code of conduct over two years that will impinge on employers only at the point if a case were to reach a tribunal.
Given that, it may be worth examining the degree to which the tribunal system is currently calibrated to provide swift and effective redress for victims of this practice at all. Although backlogs have eased from pandemic levels, the average waiting time for claims to arrive at final hearing has increased, with some cases taking between 12 and 18 months from the date of issuing a claim. Furthermore, the Government have just begun a consultation on reintroducing fees for those who wish to bring a case before an employment tribunal. The last time this was tried, the Supreme Court ruled that unlawful in UNISON v Lord Chancellor 2017, and the judgment in that case was unambiguous. It cited the Leggatt report, which had identified the absence of fees as one of the three key elements that had made tribunals successful, and it concluded that levying fees was unlawful because
“it has the effect of preventing access to justice”.
The fees currently being considered by the Government are appreciably lower and accompanied by a fee remission scheme. They will certainly not encourage victims of fire rehire to have recourse to the tribunal system, and they will likely act as a further discouragement.
My final point on the tribunal system concerns the Government’s reasoning for introducing fees. The open consultation they have started explains that it is unfair for the taxpayer to bear the burden for the tribunal system while those who have recourse to it can access it without charge. Are they serious? There are some areas of policy in which this reasoning holds true, but this is not a question of repaying an investment or a discretionary activity; it is about access to justice for the vulnerable, which is a fundamental tenet of a civilised society.
Rather than reposing its faith in the forthcoming code of conduct, the Bill enshrines good practice into law and provides clearer lines of redress where appropriate standards are not met. Ultimately, the Bill is about justice and accountability. It protects workers from having their pay and conditions degraded under duress and ensures that, where companies or public sector employers, such as councils, choose to do this, they will do so only at the price of breaking the law.
Guidelines in the form of a non-binding code of conduct are simply inadequate. I do not believe that managers who threaten to fire several hundred employees unless they accept a pay cut do this without knowing that they are doing something wrong. They simply choose to do it anyway. The Bill prevents that, enshrining good practice into law. As my noble friend Lord Woodley told your Lordships’ House, the Bill would mandate appropriately deep consultation with unions. It would allow employees automatically to claim unfair dismissal in the absence of the best practice, and it would allow unions to do what they are designed to do and take rapid action where a reaction is needed to a fire and rehire threat.
Clause 2 speaks directly to the debate about equity between employers and their staff. First, it states that any change to an employment contract would be void if it was obtained under threat of dismissal. Secondly, it removes one of the arguments currently in the Employment Rights Act 1996 that an employer can make, in the case of fire and rehire, to show that such a dismissal was fair—namely, that there is “some other substantial reason”. Instead, the employer would be obliged to prove bad conduct, lack of competence, a threatened breach of the law or that the employee’s job had become obsolete. This specificity will ensure that fire and rehire will no longer be possible as a negotiating tactic.
Crucially, as my noble friend stressed and re-stressed, the Bill does not ban fire and rehire outright. There are cases where it is the only means of protecting jobs by preventing a company from collapsing altogether. The Bill is an attempt not to strangle enterprise but to ensure that those whose hard work has made an enterprise possible are protected from having their pay and conditions changed by managerial fear.
I began my remarks by saying that politicians of all stripes have acknowledged that the use of fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic is wrong. Granting that, the question that follows is about what solution we believe will be most effective: is it the passing of provisions that will explicitly prevent this practice, or placing our trust in adherence to a code of conduct that is not legally binding? My answer to that question is reflected in the support I offer the Bill and the support I will offer any similar measure that will come before your Lordships’ House.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare that I am a member of Unite, an excellent trade union. I am glad to follow my distinguished noble colleagues in this House; it is an honour. In truth, this has not really been a debate. The case has been set out with total clarity and force. Indeed, there have been no dissenting voices—I am hesitating slightly because my questions will be directed at the Minister, but the Whip is here and can no doubt pass on notes.
The context of the Bill is Labour’s new deal for labour, which would be a much broader and more effective way of addressing the problems that workers face, but the Bill is still valuable, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Woodley on bringing it before us now, particularly given that is in line with the Government’s stated objectives.
In March 2022, the Department for Business, Energy and Industry Strategy stated that it intended to
“clarify and give some legal force to government expectations that employers should behave fairly and reasonably when seeking to change employees’ terms and conditions”—
that is exactly what the Bill does—and it went on to promise the broad outlines of what the Government wanted to achieve. Given that we are all agreed, including the Government, on the need to take action in this area, I want to highlight and reiterate questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.
First, does the Minister accept that this Bill, worth while but limited, will simply stop abusive tactics? That is its intention and that is its effect. It is not a blanket ban on fire and rehire; it is targeted exactly at abusive tactics. Does the Minister accept that that is the Bill’s intention and effect?
Secondly, does the Minister accept that the Bill focuses on being a last resort, where employers are genuinely facing financial ruin, and is not a generalised ban on changing conditions of employment where it can be justified? Does he also accept that there is a weakness in depending on the code? I am sure he would not agree that it is a toothless code, but I hope he can agree that it does not fully address the issues with which workers who are challenged in this way need support.
The issue here is consultation. Again, I quote from what the Government said in March 2022: that the process would involve
“fair, transparent and meaningful consultations”.
What we have in the code is a generalised objective that I suggest does not fully comply with that objective. There is a generalised call for consultation. Consultation must be meaningful, and to be meaningful, it requires not just disclosure of information but a response from the employer to the questions that the workforce puts in response to that information. It must not become just a sort of ritual—“Here’s the information, and we’re going to stick with doing what we wanted to do in the first place”; it needs to be a meaningful, to-and-fro process. I hope the Minister agrees that that is correct and that, given the strength of that definition, the code before us is insufficient.
I hope the Minister will also say that he understands that the 25% uplift on compensation from an employment tribunal, achieved way down the road, is not a sufficient penalty to ensure compliance with the code. My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton raised the problems that employment tribunals are facing. Given those problems, an extra 25% compensation way down the road is not a sufficient deterrent. Rather, for some employers it simply becomes a cost of business.
The key issue is that the Bill, narrowly focused, will be used to ensure that this tactic—we do not call it “fire and rehire”—will be used only when it is important for the survival of a business and the protection of employees’ jobs. Maybe the Minister thinks it does not quite get the balance right, but let us sort that out in Committee. I strongly urge the House to support the Bill.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I would have had my name on the list, but I did not expect to be here for the start of the debate. I declare an interest, in that this year, I shall clock up 50 years of membership of the union that is now Unite—that is the fifth name the union has held over the years, through a number of nominal mergers, although it did not always feel like that. I was also a full-time official of the union for 12 years, before becoming an MP.
As an MP, I participated in 1992 in the passage of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act in another place, an Act probably best remembered for ending secondary picketing and the closed shop and introducing strike ballots, although it also provided some protections for workers in industrial disputes. But it is appropriate that that is the Act my noble friend Lord Woodley seeks to amend through his Bill.
I will not go into the various arguments as there is not time for that. Certainly, I agree that the whole issue of “fire and rehire” should be cast into the wilderness, except in the very rare cases my noble friend mentioned. However, I want to say something about the code. My noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lord Browne said that it was toothless and a waste of time, and that is true. My noble friend Lord Browne said that it comes into use only in industrial tribunals. As a full-time official, I remember representing members at many industrial tribunals. I am not a lawyer, and it was a real uphill struggle. It is always an uphill struggle, unless you have a top-class lawyer—like one or two noble Lords here today—to represent you. So that is not normally a situation in which it is easy to get a meaningful decision. The code is really a waste of time.
It is important that emphasis be put on the whole question of what companies seek to get away with and think they can get away with. It has to be made absolutely clear that those practices are totally unacceptable. The code will not assist with that, but this Bill would, and I look forward to contributing to discussions in Committee.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today, and especially acknowledge the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, on the Conservative Benches.
I declare my interests as the director of several businesses and companies, as set out in the register. I have been in business for the past four decades and employed several thousands of people. One of the most important things I have learned from my time in business is that good employee relationships are absolutely vital for business success. My employees have worked hard to enable the business to succeed and grow, and several of them have become very close family friends. I believe that most businesses are good, responsible employers that do the best for their employees. This Bill is not targeted at businesses like those. No, the Bill will affect only a few bad apples in business, those who disrespect their employees and seek to exploit them. As already mentioned by my noble friends Lord Woodley, Lord Hendy, Lord Browne and Lord Davies, the Bill will not prevent any employer changing the terms of its employee contracts or arrangements because of an impending financial cliff edge.
I pay tribute to the dogged determination of my noble friend Lord Woodley, no stranger to long, drawn-out bargaining over employment rights, in bringing the Bill to the House. He has spent decades fighting for workers’ rights as a union official and a union general secretary, and now in this place he brings his Private Member’s Bill, the third attempt in recent years by Labour parliamentarians to seek to make this Government act and recognise that current employment law fails to address the injustice of fire and rehire. This omission, as others have argued, enables companies to threaten their workers with losing their jobs if the management decides it wants to weaken agreed terms of employment. Every year, such shameful bullying has a devastating impact on the security, lives and livelihoods of millions of workers in this country, and despite recent high-profile scandals, fire and rehire continues to be used. Naming and shaming does not work. Expecting bosses to do the right thing has not worked. It is long past time to change the law to make it work for workers.
When the most recent scandals appeared in the media, warm words from the Prime Minister were cold comfort to those who have suffered from the sharp practice of fire and rehire. It is not just the high-profile cases of well-known, iconic British companies that my noble friend Lord Woodley famously described as trading under this country’s name but not in this country’s interests. What is especially galling is that it appears that some of the companies that treat their workers so poorly in fact received financial support from the Government during the pandemic. The Government could have required that companies receiving assistance would not engage in such practices. They chose not to do so. Most shockingly of all, government departments, including local authorities and statutory bodies that really should know better, have offered procurement contracts to companies known to have threatened workers with fire and rehire tactics. Even with my low expectation of the Government, even knowing their heartless attitude towards hard-working people in the public sector, this came as a surprise to me.
There has also been an attempt to give the impression that fire and rehire has mainly been a last resort in the exceptional circumstances of the Covid pandemic. The thorough response from the TUC to the Government’s proposed code of practice demonstrates that this practice was being used before Covid, was used during Covid and has in fact gained prominence in negotiations during the years since the lockdowns ended. The TUC has estimated that one in 10 workers, almost 3 million people, have been subjected to fire and rehire tactics since the first lockdown. Young workers, women, black, Asian and minority-ethnic workers, as referred to by my noble friend Lady O’Grady, and those on low pay have been disproportionately impacted, which only exaggerates the inequalities that many of them already face. This alone is reason enough to consign fire and rehire to the history books by getting this Bill on to the statute book. Roads paved with good intentions, whether labelled promises, pledges or non-binding, just-published codes of practice, lead only in one direction. It is the workers, threatened with either losing their job or continuing to do it in worse conditions, who will always feel the heat. That is why so many of us support my noble friend’s Bill.
Labour’s new deal for working people recognises that outlawing fire and rehire means that workers can be safe in the knowledge that terms and conditions negotiated in good faith cannot be ripped up on threat of dismissal. They will be more secure and more able to plan and save for the future with legislation that gives them security in their pay and terms.
The Bill enshrines in law necessary improvements in consultation procedures where employers want to change employees’ contracts. It will make it illegal to dismiss workers for failing to agree to a contract that leaves them worse off. The Bill ensures that the highly restrictive trade union legislation introduced by this Government does not inhibit action to protect existing terms and conditions for employees. Recent experience shows that fiddling with a code of practice will not be enough. I agree with Unite the Union’s response:
“The idea that a ‘code of conduct’ is going to stop employers like P&O from doing this is just a bad joke”.
The TUC and lifelong veterans of the union movement, such as my noble friend Lord Woodley, know from bitter experience that in the real world, without legislation to prevent fire and rehire, workers will continue to be exploited.
The Bill offers the Government a chance, an opportunity to do the right thing to get ahead of the curve and outlaw this cruel and unjust practice, and to do it now. It will be a terrible irony if the issues addressed by the Bill are dismissed by the Government in favour of a non-binding code that offers weaker legal protections. The time is long overdue to put an end to fire and rehire with robust and binding legislation. My noble friend Lord Woodley’s Bill does just that.
Does the Minister agree that good industrial relations result in higher productivity? Also, will the Government bring forward the long-awaited employment Bill? I look forward to his response to my and other noble Lords’ questions.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I am, as always, extremely grateful to noble Lords for this debate. Before we begin, I direct Members of the House to my register of interests, although I do not believe there is any conflict relating to the Bill today. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for bringing this Private Member’s Bill to this House. It affords us an extremely helpful debate, and I will go through some of the points shared by so many Members of this House who are rightly concerned that the primary function of a strong economy is a fair workplace regulatory framework.
I absolutely agree with the noble and wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Leong, at the end of his address, that we should have strong relationships between the people who work in our industry and the people who employ them—with the shareholders, investors and consumers, and in fact with our entire habitat and environment. That is exactly the sort of harmony that this Government are trying to deploy.
I will talk about some of the technical elements around the Bill and dispel some misconceptions. The first misconception to dispel, if noble Lords will allow me, is that the P&O situation was a dismissal and re-engagement process. It was not. If I may, I will correct noble Lords who have conflated that situation—which in my view was absolutely abhorrent behaviour by an organisation with such lineage as P&O towards its staff, who had such loyalty to the company. It was strongly condemned at the time by the Government and is continually condemned by the Government today, and by me personally. I am aware that there is an inquiry by the Insolvency Service into P&O, on which it would be inappropriate for me to comment, but at no point should noble Lords conflate what P&O did with the concept of dismissal and re-engagement.
I will also touch on the principles around the proclivity of companies to use this practice to control their workforce. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence, but there is not a great deal of specific evidence to suggest that this is as widespread as noble Lords may recommend. In fact, some of the high-profile cases—they tend to be so because they are relatively unique; this is important—often resulted in better outcomes for the employees post the relationship renewal with the unions. It is important to understand how big a situation we are dealing with here; it is not as significant as people suggest. The statistics vary significantly—from one in 10 to 3%, whatever that may be—which causes me concern. I am delighted to make a commitment to continue to do more work on how significant a so-called problem this is.
I will make two very important points about the principle of dismissal and re-engagement. First, for me, it is an extremely useful and powerful mechanism to allow employers to engage effectively with their workforce to create and establish new terms and conditions that may be appropriate for the modern age or for the needs of the company at the time. It is very important that we retain those flexibilities. The concept of dismissal and re-engagement is also very valuable in resetting and clarifying employment terms; I am sure that I am surrounded by people with far greater legal expertise on that than me. As I said, it is not simply a question of using this as a mechanism to bully staff; it is a very important legal process for the contractual relationship between the employer and the workforce.
My next point is something I think we are all agreed on. While I have great respect for the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and indeed for the noble Lord himself, we must have the flexibility to enable companies to manage their workforce in times of crisis. I am sure that, when we are faced with these situations ourselves, either as employers or workers, and we need to come together to respond to an economic crisis such as Covid, it is absolutely right that we have mechanisms to enable us to protect the workforce. This is about fairness, protecting workers and allowing us to have a flexible workforce. It will allow me and my friends, associates and children, and the rest of our citizens, to have the opportunity to work in a flexible environment that has not become too rigid or ossified to respond to economic volatility.
However, very importantly, this should never be used to bully the workforce. The code is very strong on this; it is extremely clear that it is not to be used inappropriately to try to force unacceptable terms on a workforce. Instead, what the code does is clarify the obligations of the employer to ensure that they have to consult with their workforce. For the first time, they have to—this is very important, when you look at the other reasons for dismissal and re-engagement—look at alternatives, not just to the overall plan but to how the individual workers themselves are treated.
There is the 25% uplift, and I take noble Lords’ comments, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on the tribunal service; I am very sensitive to that. I will come back to the noble Lord on his comments on the workability of that process, because it must be an easy-to-use process that is accessible; that is absolutely at the core of protecting workers’ rights. But we do have the 25% automatic uplift that can be fed into the process. There is an obligation—I believe the code advises it in every case—to consult ACAS when it comes to using dismissal and re-engagement. These are actually quite significant.
Clarity is very important. As we know from statutory codes—again, I defer to noble Lords who have greater legal experience than me—they are central in ensuring that we have a strong framework for navigating employment law and giving protections to workers, and, very importantly, also giving obligations to employers. Having been on both sides, and certainly as an employer, the more clarity I can have about how I can work with my workforce, the better. It is very clear from the tone of the document and this Government that it is the expectation that this is a last resort, that there is a significant degree of consultation and that every other option is exhausted before it is appropriate to use dismissal and re-engagement.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that the Bill offers employers the flexibility to consult their workers before the terms of the employment are changed? It does not ban the practice; it is just a last resort that offers a consultation period with the employees.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am very grateful for that challenge. I will now turn to the Bill. As I said, many elements of its sentiment are wholly welcome, but its practical application would result in less fairness, wealth and job security than the noble Lord might wish. There are several reasons for that. First, the increased consultation becomes extremely onerous on companies. Often you have a very limited period of time to react to a significant economic circumstance. As I said, this is dismissal and re-engagement, rather than simply some type of long-term planning for a business. We must be extremely careful about the onerous conditions that we are placing on companies. I have looked through the Bill, and they are substantial and, I am afraid, heavily tilted towards union practices—maybe because every Member of the House who has spoken so far, apart from the Front-Bench spokesman opposite, is a member of a union. In many instances, not all companies have union bodies represented within them and not all workers are members of unions, so it is possible to conflate those two consultation processes, which is inappropriate.
It is also very difficult. While I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle of a so-called bankruptcy clause, it is not a position that those running a business want to be in that they can do something only if they are about to go bankrupt. The reality, as I think Hemingway said, is that you go bankrupt:
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly”.
You have limited time to act and have to be precipitous. You must try to prevent the point at which you go bankrupt, because otherwise all your staff will lose their jobs.
The principle of what we are discussing is how to protect as many workers as possible, in a difficult situation. The code does, but I am afraid that the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has put forward would put at risk the security of more workers than it would protect. Importantly, it removes the breadth and range of principles around which dismissal and re-engagement can be used. That is difficult, because businesses require flexibility and it should not be up to politicians to decide this on a case-by-case basis. That would cause enormous problems, reduce flexibility, make it far harder for businesses to operate appropriately, and reduce employment in this country and security for workers.
However—and I personally will be pleased to engage in this—before the code comes into force in the summer, there will be a full debate in both Houses. I have been very clear with my officials in the department and to my colleagues that we will keep this under review. It is right that we understand exactly how many companies are using this practice and to assess that more appropriately. As I said, I will look into the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, around tribunals.
As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, knows, I continue to be extremely desirous of continuing to engage with him on this important subject. Nothing is more relevant to this Government than strong relationships between investors, companies, the people who work in those companies, consumers, the broader citizenry and the environment to create the sort of harmony that gives us growth and security for the future.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
I thank the Minister and your Lordships. I think we can all agree that this has been a stimulating and valuable debate. I do not know about anyone else, but I have certainly learned some lessons from today’s speakers and I thank them for their excellent contributions.
I thank my noble friend Lord Balfe; it was nice to have cross-party support, especially as nobody here has spoken against my Bill. Also, on this important issue, it is nice to listen to your own trade union roots. One interesting comment—which I thought about mentioning but did not—is that, in a recent analysis, in which around 1,800 participants were surveyed, 3% indicated that they had used fire and rehire. Across the business population of Britain, as was said that this could equate to 40,000 employers; it is actually 48,500 employers. So this is not a small issue. If you look at the scope and size of the problem surrounding us at the moment, you see that it is almost a pandemic.
As always, I found my noble friend Lady O’Grady’s contribution stimulating. She is correct to suggest, again, that the Government did not give very strong commitments to stop these abuses happening in the past and, to make sure they do, they need to put legislation in place to stop the casualisation of our industry, which blights working people. There is no doubt in my mind that assuring the importance of workers’ rights from day one would go some way to helping prevent the abuse that is out there.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his forensic analysis of the Bill and for explaining the legal logic behind it. It is always interesting to listen to an expert and it is good to know that people know what they are talking about. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude for drafting this elegant and powerful piece of legislation. He points out that the millions of predominantly low-paid, black and ethnic minority workers who will be, and are indeed being, attacked by fire and rehire are not protected at all under the current proposals, which is why we need legislation. I thank him for those comments.
I thank my noble friend Lord Prentis for confirming what I have said: this is not just about the private sector but is endemic right across the public sector. The examples that he gave were clear for everybody to see.
I thank my noble friend Professor Lord Sikka for highlighting the important economic advantages to the Bill that are so desperately needed to rebuild our broken economy and to give people security in their jobs and as workers. All that is really important and is contained within the Bill. If anyone disagrees with me that at the moment our country certainly needs that security—there is no doubt at all about that.
On my noble friend Lord Browne’s comments, I did not appreciate until he mentioned this earlier today that the Government were indeed thinking of bringing back employment tribunal fees. When you realise what that could mean in relation to the proposals that the Government have down there, never mind the outrageous time it takes to even get an industrial tribunal heard, that is detrimental to the well-being of workers right across our country.
To my noble friend Lord Davies, I say that there is no doubt that a new deal would be incredibly important for us. He mentioned that the limitations within the code of conduct are clearly there for everybody to see, and he highlighted, as indeed did numerous speakers today, the limitations of what is presently on the table. That is why it needs changing.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Leong and, as I said in my speech, I am grateful for the support that my own party has shown for the need for change and for the Bill. It is really important that we bring in the legislation that is needed, and I sincerely hope that if we cannot get this Government to move at the moment, my own party in power will indeed honour its commitments.
The Minister mentioned P&O and said that, to some extent, it was not a case of fire and rehire. I accept those comments, but at the same time, with respect, it got away with it, and did so when the Government promised that it would not. It is as simple as that. The Minister said that what is actually happening out there may not be as significant as speakers point out. I say to the Minister that, with respect, he is absolutely wrong on that—hence the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made in his contribution.
I thank the Minister for his response, but I am bitterly disappointed that, although the Government accept that there is a problem with fire and rehire, they are not prepared to give real support to struggling workers who are facing the prospect of being forced out of their jobs and seeing their wages and conditions slashed. It is simply unacceptable that workers can be fired and rehired without proper consultation and fair compensation, and, despite the Minister’s assurances, the code of practice is simply no substitute for legislation, as all speakers today have expressed to him very clearly. As I said, nobody here today has opposed the Bill.
I am also disappointed that the Minister has not answered satisfactorily the straightforward questions that I posed to him, and I respectfully request that he write to me on those particular issues.
I will just say this to the Minister. We have nothing to fear from the Bill and, if I am honest, I have yet to hear any coherent argument against it. If the Government have serious objections, I urge them and the Minister to engage with the Bill in Committee. I thank all noble Lords again for their contributions and for being part of this debate today and I beg to move.
Schools (Mental Health Professionals) Bill [HL]
Friday 1st March 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Schools (Mental Health Professionals) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Schools (Mental Health Professionals) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this Bill on a subject that is very close to my heart. I have been calling for counselling to be available in all schools since I first entered the House. I declare an interest as vice-president of the charity Relate. My heartfelt thanks go to the many organisations in the sector that have shared their expertise and briefings with me in preparing for this debate.
Only last Thursday, we had a good debate on the vital role that schools play in promoting good mental health and well-being. Along with other noble Lords, I talked about the need for a whole-school approach to mental health and highlighted evidence pointing out the links between children and young people experiencing mental health difficulties and attendance, exclusion, bullying and academic attainment. My Bill, which provides for all schools—primary and secondary —to have a counsellor or equivalent-level mental health professional, very much fits with that whole-school approach.
Our many previous debates on children’s mental health have revealed a fair degree of consensus that the scale of the problem is growing and requires an ambitious and comprehensive response. It is also clear that the Government take this issue seriously and have taken important steps to improve mental health support in schools, the NHS and the community. I have always welcomed that action. The only real difference is whether that action is sufficient and nationally available. My Bill is about plugging one vital gap in mental health support teams that many who are active in the sector have highlighted, which would improve much-needed mental health support for many young people.
Our debate today is timely. This week’s Resolution Foundation report, on poor mental health preventing people in their 20s working, provoked a predictably wide range of reactions in the press. However, there is simply no getting away from the fact that, unless they are tackled early, mental health problems can easily escalate as a young person enters adulthood and the workplace.
Let me briefly explain why the state of our children’s mental health and the support available to them is so important. I know that it is familiar territory for many noble Lords here, but it is vital to put my Bill into context. According to NHS statistics, almost one in five—18%—of children between the age of seven and 16 years old have a probable mental disorder. For slightly older children, almost half—44%—of those aged between 17 and 18 were classified as experiencing high psychological stress.
According to a report last May by the Children’s Commissioner, the number of young people urgently referred to mental health services had tripled since 2019. Last year, less than half—44%—of the 1.5 million children who needed additional support had received a CAHMS appointment. The average waiting time in England between referral and the start of treatment is the highest it has been in two years.
According to a survey conducted last year by Young Minds, 65% of the young people surveyed who were struggling with their mental health had not asked for any sort of formal help. Critically, 61% of those waiting for some support had stopped attending school, college or work, with one in five children waiting for support missing six months or more of school. According to a YouGov poll commissioned by Barnardo’s, 61% of parents with school-age children experiencing mental health difficulties said that those difficulties were affecting their performance at school. Almost half noted a drop in concentration and focus on their schoolwork.
The cause of this increase is much debated, including in this Chamber. In last week’s debate, although I recognised that many schools are doing a great job, I pointed to the increasing pressure from the academic environment, the growing influence of social media and the online world, and the lasting impact of the pandemic. Indeed, surveys show that most parents are worried about their children’s mental health, with the impact of social media a major cause of concern.
In January 2023, the House of Commons Education Committee stated that it had seen
“overwhelming evidence indicating a radical increase in mental health difficulties amongst school pupils since the Covid-19 pandemic”.
Additionally, the committee argued that the capacity of mental health services was “grossly inadequate”.
I turn to the detail of the Bill. Clause 1 places a duty on governing bodies of state-funded schools in England to provide access to a qualified mental health practitioner or school counsellor. Clause 1(2)(b) states that the qualified mental health professional or school counsellor should be an individual with a graduate-level or postgraduate-level qualification of that name accredited by NHS England. Normally that would be a counsellor or a psychotherapist. Clause 1(2)(c) states that schools with 100 pupils or fewer may collaborate with other schools and share access to this provision, while Clause 2 places a duty on the Secretary of State to give, or make arrangements for, financial assistance to state-aided schools to help them to meet their duty to provide this mental health support.
Before explaining precisely what the Bill would achieve, I reiterate my support for the concept of mental health support teams in schools, which were first piloted in 2019. These teams support a whole-school approach to mental health, working closely with school staff and delivering group and individual interventions offering low-intensity therapy—that is what cognitive behavioural therapy is called in the trade—for children and young people with mild to moderate mental health difficulties.
The teams are mainly staffed by educational mental health practitioners—I am sorry about all the jargon today—who study on a one-year postgraduate course. By last December, nearly 400 mental health support teams were operating in schools and colleges across England covering some 3 million children, which is roughly 35% of pupils. The Government have said that they aim to increase that coverage to 50% by April next year, although that will be considerably lower for primary schools and of course it still leaves millions of children and young people without any support.
An early evaluation of the programme found that many schools reported that they needed most help for children and young people whose mental health exceeded the threshold that the mental health support team practitioners could provide but either did not meet the threshold for CAMHS or needed support while they waited, so a gap in provision is becoming clear. However, I was encouraged by the evaluation showing that, where mental health support teams and counselling services were already working together, the teams were able to pick up and deal effectively with the lower-intensity need, enabling counsellors to work with the more complex issues. Those are two different roles and skill sets but they are a mix that works well together.
I was struck by the research evidence from Barnardo’s, which delivers a number of these teams across England. It found that support teams are effective at supporting children and young people with mild to moderate mental health problems; they improve outcomes for those with access to them and, critically, are cost effective, saving the Government £1.90 for every £1 invested. However, the research also identified a specific gap in the current model in addressing the needs of children with moderate or more complex needs, those with special educational needs or younger children for whom cognitive behavioural therapy is often not appropriate or who do not respond well to its structure. Simply put, some children need to explore their feelings more fully in other ways that are not time limited. The report recommended that the model should include school counsellors to fill this gap, which is what my Bill is all about: ensuring that every school also has access to a qualified school counsellor or psychotherapist.
I shall explain what has been called this missing middle in what I hope are everyday terms. Qualified counsellors and psychotherapists can work safely with young people who are experiencing trauma and abuse, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, violence, anger, issues with food and eating, bereavement, bullying and so on but none the less still do not meet the threshold for CAMHS. Lower-intensity interventions that are currently delivered by existing mental health support team practitioners might include such issues as motivation, exam anxiety, mild to moderate anxiety and depression and behavioural difficulties. Please do not get me wrong: existing practitioners within these teams provide a vital and valuable role, working with children experiencing less intensive symptoms linked to their poor mental health, but many are not trained to work with children who are seen to be at active risk, such as those who may be self-harming or experiencing suicidal thoughts.
There is a clear need for a wider range of therapeutic interventions to be delivered in schools by counsellors and psychotherapists, whose training generally lasts between two and four years, which enables them to hold a greater level of complexity and risk. Without a clear pathway to counselling where required, issues can easily spiral, increasing pressure on already overstretched CAMHS. It is very much a question of both/and, not either/or.
I turn briefly to workforce considerations. When we have had these debates before, Ministers have often raised workforce issues as the reason for the slow pace of rollout or the limited scope of support teams. However, there is good news to be had. The workforce challenge is not simply a question of training more practitioners from scratch. The major counselling and psychotherapy registration bodies—BACP, UKCP and NCPS—collectively represent over 25,000 therapists who currently work with children, most of whom are trained to work with considerably greater levels of complexity than existing support team staff. According to BACP’s most recent member survey, these existing therapists have the capacity to offer over 50,000 counselling sessions for children and young people every week. I strongly urge the Government to look at ways of harnessing the capacity of this workforce in schools, including exploring the integration of counselling within the national mental health support team model. This model has a richer skill mix and the benefit of providing important career progression opportunities and learning opportunities for existing staff, where there have been high levels of turnover.
I cannot end without a quick word on funding. Of course, it is important to acknowledge that the last couple of years have seen welcome increases in funding, but the money is not ring-fenced, nor is it presented in a format that easily enables us to look at total spending across the NHS, schools and elsewhere. There is simply no getting away from the fact that years of underfunding and neglect of children’s mental health services have taken their toll. Recent increases do not in any way match the scale of demand. Back in 2022, the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, in those days chaired by the current Chancellor, called on the Government to increase the funding and scale of mental health support teams to cover all schools by 2027-28. Might we expect to hear something to this effect in next week’s Budget?
To conclude, we have the opportunity to transform the landscape if mental health support teams are rolled out to all schools and colleges, as I fervently hope they are, and within that model include a school counsellor in every school, as my Bill proposes. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for this Private Member’s Bill, which enables your Lordships’ House to focus once again on the mental health needs of young people. The figures of the increased prevalence in young people of mental health symptoms and illness are alarming and I dare say that there is no one in today’s debate or in your Lordships’ House generally who does not know of a young person struggling like this.
The underlying mischief that the Bill seeks to address is to get mental health support early through school counsellors to avoid those mild to moderate symptoms deteriorating and therefore to sustain access to education, which is vital. Whether through the mental health support team, designated senior lead, school nurse, educational psychologist or school counsellor, mental health services need to be accessible via schools. I suggest that the school counsellor could also be the person who co-ordinates the education provision when a child is so mentally unwell that they can no longer access education in school, a cohort that I think is even beyond that outlined by the noble Baroness.
Within the statistics on this issue, one of the most startling is the rise in the prevalence of eating disorders. Among 11 to 16 year-olds, the incidence rose from 0.5% in 2017 to 2.6% in 2023, while among 17 to 19 year-olds it rose from 0.8% to 12.5%.
When the Mental Health Act was passed in 1983, it was not envisaged that children would be detained, save possibly under the Part 3 criminal justice provisions of that Act, but many children are indeed detained under the Act. NHS Digital recorded 997 detentions under the Act of people aged 17 and under in 2022-23, although the true figure will be higher, as not all providers submitted data. The figure also did not include those children who consented to be admitted, or whose parents consented to them being admitted, to a secure institution. The Children’s Commissioner report in 2020 outlined not only racial disparities in admissions to secure facilities, but more girls being detained and consenting to admissions than boys, which may of course be due to the rise in eating disorders that I outlined, which are more prevalent among girls.
Continuing education for those in secure units is so important. Although education can be provided remotely, it may be more difficult if the child has been placed out of area—an issue that I know His Majesty’s Government have been grappling with for years. Can my noble friend the Minister outline whether out-of-area placements of children and young people have ended if they are detained under the Act? If you are so detained, do you then come out with an EHCP, or is it the obligations under Section 117 on aftercare that help you get additional resources to catch up on lost education?
In 2018 the Department for Education prepared a very helpful research paper into the education provided for children in secure mental health institutions, but only 58% of units providing education in the secure estate responded to the call for evidence. Encouragingly, in most units that did respond, discussions with home schools were reported to take place at all points during the pupil’s time in the unit—their admission, their stay and as part of reintegration to the home school. But units had mixed experiences when obtaining sufficient information on baseline levels and progress from pupils’ home schools, with only 60% indicating that this was provided for more than half their pupils. That is 60% of the 58% that replied, so less than half of those trying to teach children in these units have significant information.
We need to ensure that teachers whose careers are dedicated to teaching in the secure mental health estate—I pay tribute to them—have all the necessary information about the child’s previous education. The Bill’s suggestion of every school having access to a school counsellor would provide a person who could ensure that secure units have sufficient information about a child’s current education. It could reassure noble Lords that someone is informed or aware of what is happening in the 42% of institutions that did not respond to the research paper. That represents hundreds of young people whose education we do not know about while they are in the secure mental health estate. It is a gap that I believe needs to be filled.
While the need for mental health expertise in schools is obvious, I am not convinced that legislation is needed to achieve this. It could, in fact, be counterproductive. What if one school has a major event, such as the school next to Grenfell Tower? If that had been part of a multi-academy trust, which it was not, could not all the mental health professionals be reassigned to that school for a period of time? Sadly, that could not happen under the Bill as currently framed, for fear of acting unlawfully.
What is the sanction if a school does not provide access to such support? Sadly, recourse to the courts by way of judicial review looks like the only enforceability option. Do we really want to encourage that? Is a school leader not free to say, “I will spend my resources elsewhere, as my school is in one of the 75 local authority areas that has a family hub and students have access to mental health support and counsellors there”?
I also wonder why the requirement in the Bill is not proposed to extend to the independent sector, as to provide such services would match the requirement to provide PSHE in independent schools. While arguably, of course, some will have access to private mental health support, often late diagnosis there will put the same strain on resources in the NHS that the noble Baroness seeks to avoid, and it will have similar adverse effects on the student’s prospects. As 70% of secondary schools and 52% of primary schools in England already offer counselling services, this causes me to doubt the wisdom of needing to legislate.
It is so encouraging that 14,400 settings have claimed a grant to train a senior mental health support lead. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure me that she has used her well-known expertise with data to look at the settings that have not applied? Are they in areas of deprivation? Is there cross-referencing with NHS data for areas where young people are most at risk of poor mental health outcomes to check whether these are the settings that have not applied for the grant and to enable them somehow to do so?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving your Lordships’ House the opportunity to focus on the mental health of children and young people. While the progress by His Majesty’s Government could perhaps be quicker in its rollout, I regret that I cannot support legislation as the appropriate means to fulfil this important aim.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for introducing this important Bill. It is certainly welcome because the extent to which young people are exhibiting mental health disorders in school has increased dramatically and the measures introduced thus far by the Government are proving inadequate to the task in hand.
In her powerful opening speech, the noble Baroness demonstrated an existential crisis in the mental health of far too many school students. Why should that be? To paraphrase The Who, one of the seminal bands of my childhood, the kids are not all right—at least, not according to the Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA. Its 2022 survey, whose results were published recently, showed that 25% of UK students reported that they are not satisfied with their lives, compared with the OECD average of 18%. The question is why, but I am afraid it is not one that we can begin to answer today.
As the noble Baroness said, around one in five children and young people aged eight to 16 years in England had a mental health disorder. That in itself is most worrying, but even more so is the fact that, as reported by the Local Government Association, evidence suggests that NHS specialist mental health services are turning away one in three children and young people referred to them for treatment. The NHS, the Government, the system—point the finger wherever you want—but the reality is that young people who need support with their mental health are being failed.
It is hardly necessary to add that experiencing mental health problems can impact educational outcomes, including attainment and attendance, in only a negative way. On the other hand, there is evidence to show that, when effective, mental health interventions are likely to improve educational attainment, particularly in high-risk groups. One example, a study of school-based interventions delivered by the children’s mental health charity Place2Be, found that school-based counselling positively influences educational engagement.
Clearly, although the extent of mental health cases among children and young people had been increasing before the Covid pandemic, they exploded following the weeks and months of school closures. Those latest figures that I mentioned earlier showed an increase from one in eight in 2017, with three-quarters of a million children and young people accessing NHS-funded mental health services in England during 2023. The extent of the crisis is greater than those figures suggest, because the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health reported a year ago that more than 400,000 children and young people were waiting for treatment. We can only imagine the compounding effect that being denied the treatment they require will have on their conditions.
The most recent parent survey by Parentkind, the membership association for PTAs, showed that the most common causes of school stress and mental health problems were exam stress, homework-related stress, anxiety, depression and bullying. In each of those categories, the figures were considerably higher for pupils in academies—part of a MAT or stand-alone—compared with maintained or community schools. I am not sure what that tells us, but the disparity requires closer scrutiny.
It is clear that too many children are going into school not ready to learn. This places additional burdens on teachers, many of whom are taking on responsibilities that go way beyond their teaching and learning responsibilities. Last year a survey undertaken by Education Support, a charity dedicated to supporting the mental health and well-being of teachers and education staff in schools, found that three-quarters of education staff often helped pupils with matters beyond their academic work, while almost 70% helped pupils to process their emotions and talked to them about their mental health. A third had even helped pupils to resolve a family conflict. A significant number of education staff feel that there is insufficient support for their pupils from other public services such as CAMHS, social services and the NHS; 11% said there was no such support at all.
These additional demands naturally increase staff working hours and have a negative impact on their own mental health and well-being. This matters, because schools cannot properly support children and young people if their workforce is mentally exhausted or unwell. Healthy teachers are more engaged and effective in the classroom. Proper mental health support in schools is needed to support children and the staff responsible for their learning. Mental health support should be embedded in every school, accessible to every pupil through a school-based counsellor or mental health practitioner. School-based mental health services need to deliver both targeted and universal provision through a whole-school approach.
The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition has called for the Government to embed whole-education approaches to mental health and well-being in all their policies and across all education settings to promote positive mental health and well-being for both learners and staff. This would have a universal impact on the health of every child and young person. The coalition estimates that a whole-school approach programme in England would cost approximately £530 million a year. In the longer term, the cost of not adopting such an approach would be much more.
In fairness, the Government recognised the mental health issues associated with children and young people’s support as long ago as 2017, when they published the Green Paper that led to the introduction of mental health support teams, based on the principle of early intervention. However, by the end of last year, the Government reported that although nearly 400 mental health support teams were operational in England, these covered a mere 35% of school pupils. Understandably perhaps, the Government did not look beyond 2025, by which time they have projected that the figure will have increased to 50% of pupils, which of course means that 50% will not be covered—an entirely unsatisfactory position for the parents and families of children waiting for help, support or treatment.
The other strand of the Government’s approach has been the establishment of mental health leads in schools. That is well intentioned, but cannot be seen as a replacement for adequate capacity in children’s mental health services. Making teachers social workers or therapists by stealth cannot be the answer to this complex challenge. It requires greater funding than the £1,200 grant that schools and colleges can apply for to train a mental health lead. Last month, the DfE reported that more than 15,000 schools had applied for the grant, which equates to around 60% of all schools, again leaving many thousands of children and young people without access to even that limited level of mental health support.
It is to be hoped that the Bill will ramp up the level of support provided. Noble Lords may be aware that the Labour Party has promised to legislate for the provision of quality mental health support in every school, giving every child the support they need to transition back to school and manage personal challenges, with access to qualified in-school counselling staff. It remains to be seen what that means for the level of staff provided. The Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, spells out that a qualified mental health professional or school counsellor is an individual with
“a graduate-level or postgraduate-level qualification … earned through a course commissioned by NHS England”.
That is a reasonably high bar, and it suggests that funding will be required to attract people qualified at that level. I certainly hope that will be the level to which a Labour Administration will aspire in their aim to place mental health within their children’s recovery plan.
For now, we can only wish the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, well with her excellent Bill and hope that it receives the support and fair wind from the Government that it certainly deserves. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that she believes it is unnecessary because the Government are already doing all they can to support the mental health needs of children and young people. What they have done is good, but, as the young people’s organisations that have provided briefings for today’s debate have made clear, it is not nearly good enough.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate in support of my noble friend Lady Tyler’s Bill. I pay tribute to the years of work that she has done in this area.
The first line of the House of Lords Library briefing reads:
“This private member’s bill would require every school in England to have access to a mental health professional”.
My first reaction to this was: why is this not the case already? I declare my interest to the House again as a parent of a child who has gone through a past prolonged period of very poor mental health. In her case, the illness arrived like a freight train on the level crossing of her life. I am pleased that she is better now, and I am aware and, frankly, feel profoundly guilty that perhaps the only reason that she is better is because we, as parents, were able to find and financially afford the means to pay many tens of thousands of pounds for a prolonged period of private residential care.
I am all too aware that many other children are also suffering, often in silence. Too many children are struggling right now to keep themselves safe and well. Equally, too many parents and carers are not getting the help and support that their children need. Poor mental health is a trauma that affects and impacts whole families. I speak only as a parent and, I hope, as a voice for other parents who are going through similar situations and are struggling to find access to the support and care that they need.
I want these children and young people who are suffering to understand that we, as politicians, get them, and that we are here to work together to try to make their lives better. I shall probe and pressure, but my voice is intended to be a constructive and helpful one. I know that Ministers in this place and across government are not only aware of this issue but are working on it and have already provided significant resources to meet these needs.
I will run through some of the arguments again here very briefly, as I have made them before. We face what I call a children and young people’s mental health emergency. There is an unprecedented crisis in children and young people’s mental health. As we have heard, one in five young people now has a probable mental health condition, up from one in nine in 2017. The causes are many and complex, but the headlines are clear, and they are that our young people are suffering. The demand for services is at an all-time high: nearly half a million young people require help, and 2023 saw the highest number of emergency referrals ever. Despite this, many children—perhaps two-thirds—do not have any contact with the NHS.
CAMHSs suffer from chronic underfunding. The average wait time is 21 weeks for a first appointment, and 80% of CAMHSs say they are not able to meet the demand. Many young people are effectively denied treatment, even after episodes of self-harm and attempted suicide. I have called on the Government to accelerate the rollout of mental health support hubs to all schools and colleges nationwide. I ask the Government to commit to bringing forward their target of 50% access by 2024-25 and making it 100%. While I recognise that resources have already been delivered, I hope that the Budget next Wednesday brings some extra much-needed money to this important issue.
The Bill, put simply, is about plugging a service-level gap, the physical health equivalent of which would be only doing blood pressure checks and urgent cancer operations but not providing any other healthcare in between. The rollout of mental health support hubs is welcome and vital, but their intended purpose is for lower-level issues, such as mild depression and low self-esteem. Treating these issues before they worsen is essential. At the same time, many children with already moderate to severe needs are either waiting far too long for access to CAMHS treatment or are being denied any treatment at all.
This is exactly where the Bill comes in, to plug this real and considerable service-level gap in the system. Frankly, it is a very innovative and clever proposal, and I ask the Government to give some serious consideration to it. Even with the rollout of mental health support hubs, it has been estimated that some 6 million children with moderate-to-severe needs will remain in this treatment no man’s land. The Bill will cover what is known as the missing middle—those children with moderate to more complex needs, such as those experiencing trauma, abuse, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. These matters require help to be provided by therapists and councillors with a higher degree of training.
Filling this missing middle under a whole-school approach, in combination with mental health support teams, begins to get us towards the united service delivery system that we need. This system will help to provide early access to treatment, to help to prevent matters escalating and to help to keep children in school, where they need to be. This would also help to relieve the pressure on CAMHSs and help them to specialise as well in the most urgent and challenging cases of all—providing the more immediate treatment that is so desperately required. The number of briefings provided to Members on these issues shows the level of interest in the wider professional community, where these measures carry support.
Finally, while I am aware that there is extra cost associated with these measures, this comes against a background of chronic underfunding in these areas. Only 8% of mental health services spending was allocated to children and young people’s mental health in 2021-22, despite children and young people’s referrals accounting for 18% of the overall NHS mental health demand.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who made a sincere and moving speech. I wish him well in his endeavours, and his family for the future.
I welcome the Bill presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, not least because we are both members of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. She obviously has enormous expertise arising from her time with Cafcass and with Relate. However, I take a similar view to that of my noble friend Lady Berridge, in that I am not wholly convinced that new legislation is what we need. We need a holistic, joined-up, integrated and co-ordinated strategy for children and young people’s mental health, and I am not sure that new primary legislation would deliver that.
The noble Baroness was good enough to refer to the great progress the Government have made following the Green Paper, Transforming Children and Young People’s Mental Health Provision, in 2018, which gave rise to the mental health support teams. I accept that there are now 398 teams and that only a third of children are covered, but there is good progress, and we are going in the right direction. Integrated care boards also have a mandate to provide the appropriate commissioned services for children and young people in their areas. Reference is made in the 2019 NHS Long Term Plan for staffing to putting significantly more money into mental health services. That is good.
I am indebted to my noble friend the Minister for her very helpful Answer, which just got in under the wire and came yesterday, to the Question I tabled on 19 February. It talked about
“delivery of the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan, which was published in March 2023”,
which is of course a work in progress. It went on to say that the department
“is establishing a single national system that delivers for every child and young person with SEND, so that they enjoy their childhood, achieve good outcomes, and are well prepared for adulthood and employment”.
We have had heavy briefing and lobbying on this Bill. I make the point again that it is a very laudable Bill and I agree with the spirit of it. We would of course support a full national rollout of mental health support teams in all schools and a fully resourced national implementation programme to support every school, college and university. My own daughter has just gone to university, and I know that that is a big mental health challenge in terms of loneliness, homesickness, socialisation and other issues.
However, I am going to concentrate on a particular area of interest of mine. I declare an interest in that my brother, Stephen, is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Nottingham University and has occupied that position for 20 years. He has done an enormous amount of work on human movement studies, in relation not just to Parkinson’s disease but to Tourette’s. I want to talk about a specific area of concern, children with Tourette’s. It is an acute issue, in that those children and young people fall between the gaps in provision in NHS specialised commissioning services and between mainstream and SEND education. They are often bounced around the system—the term is “service neglect”. Often, they are expelled and removed from schools and then, even if they get to the NHS, they are stuck between paediatric services, neurology services and other mainstream services. Often, they have no diagnosis. When they do have a diagnosis, it is a document that lies unused, in effect, and they do not have any follow-on care. Often, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made clear, parents are forced to pay for private provision. Those children often suffer isolation, school refusal and alienation. There is only one clinic in the whole country that specifically looks after children with Tourette’s syndrome and provides out-of-area referral, and that of course is Great Ormond Street Hospital.
Tourettes Action has done what it can over the years, and I am indebted to it for the help and support it has given me. In fact, I led a Westminster Hall debate 14 years ago when I served in the other place—so long ago that we had a coalition Government, and the Health Minister was Paul Burstow. That was in October 2010 and, in all fairness, there has been great improvement since but there is more to be done. Tourettes Action is involving itself in training and support, not just in schools and colleges but workplaces, where it supports employers who have employees with Tourette’s, as well as in youth centres and job centres, disability advisory facilities and prisons.
Just to recap, Tourette’s syndrome is an inherited neurological condition. It is not rare and affects one schoolchild in every 100. This is a similar prevalence to autistic spectrum disorder and paediatric epilepsy. However, unlike with the latter, there are no NICE guidelines in place for its care. Over 300,000 children and adults are living with TS in the UK and, as noble Lords will know, the key features are tics, involuntary sounds and movements. In many areas, there is currently no pathway for children or adults to be accepted into local or even regional services for the diagnosis and treatment of Tourette’s syndrome.
Specific support in schools is vital for children with TS. Children with the condition have to live with the consequences of their education. If they are not given the right support in school, to which all children are entitled, they risk ending up facing unemployment and social exclusion. Special educational needs teachers are currently not given any specific training on Tourette’s syndrome, even though TS prevalence in SEN classes is high. Tourette’s syndrome has hitherto been treated as the subject of risqué jokes and ribaldry, but for the children and young people afflicted with the condition, who are fearful of its effects on themselves—and of the understandable fear and ignorance of strangers—it really is no laughing matter. They too deserve to have a hearing from our policymakers.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reassure us that there is at least a commitment to develop a policy on the condition between the Department for Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, because a coherent strategy across government will not only save taxpayers’ money in the long run but help to relieve TS sufferers and their families of a lonely burden that they have carried for many years. I hope that my noble friend can address some of these issues in her response, or at least write to me at her convenience on the issues I have raised. In the meantime, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for this debate and the opportunity to discuss these very important issues because, at the very least, we are all committed to improving the lives of children in our country.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this Bill to us for its Second Reading. We indeed face a crisis in this area and need to be aware of the long-term consequences of not addressing it.
The Bill would pave the way for just the kinds of interventions that are sorely needed. The NSPCC and our own Library briefing state that more than 20% of children and young people are living with poor mental health. CAMHS referrals are provided for only the most severe presenting issues, while early intervention, though widely recognised to be key to good long-term outcomes, is now a thing of distant memory. The sobering fact is that children are taking their own lives while they wait to be seen, and that is deeply shameful.
Last summer, the Church of England published the document Our Hope for a Flourishing Schools System, which makes specific mention of mental health, it being the issue school leaders most often raise with us. It states:
“Children’s mental health and wellbeing is prioritised and resourced generously by a society that invests in the long-term future of its nation by placing children first in funding and political direction. The fulfilling of a child’s potential should never be hindered, blocked or prevented by the system in which they find themselves”.
However, those words are, sadly, far from being the current reality.
There is, of course, much good practice out there. In my own diocese, Abbotts Ann Primary School has a group of “gardening grannies”, who have helped the children plant and maintain their own veg patch. Milford uses its “beach school” activities to engage pupils with beach art and games, to help them feel better connected to the natural world. St Katherine’s in Bournemouth has “head, heart, hands” time every Friday, to promote mental, spiritual, emotional and physical health. St James’ school in Pokesdown has just rethought pupils’ mental and emotional health, with several designated rooms where children can receive extra support—in the sunshine room, the rainbow room and the harbour.
There are many other excellent examples I could cite, but, excellent as they are, they are not a substitute for policy consistently applied. Schools need specific training in children’s mental health and on its impact on pupils’ behaviour, their attendance and their ability to access learning. This should be for all staff, not just for one individual, as all staff have contact with pupils. Schools also need access to specialist expert support to support and manage children’s mental health in their own settings. This is critical, since access to CAMHS has become so limited over recent years. Schools should not have to find the funding for this from their own budgets.
The intersectionality of mental health with poverty, those involved with social care and other disadvantaged groups must also be considered, since pupils are much more likely to be excluded or refused schooling the more disadvantaged they are. I chair the ChurchWorks Commission, and it is no surprise that our three priorities are vulnerable children and families, tackling poverty, and mental health and well-being. This issue sits at the intersection of all three. According to the Church of England’s toolkit on UKME mental health, a disproportionately large number of people from a GMH background will come into contact with mental health professionals not through the NHS or education system but through the criminal justice system. School and government policy needs to recognise all of the above, and not negatively disadvantage pupils who struggle because of their mental health, leading to yet more severe issues and, ultimately, to disengagement from education.
More broadly, we must recognise that the quality of education matters much more than standards in education. I welcome the fresh approach of Ofsted to include mental health training for its inspectors, but it is tragic that it took the death of a dedicated head teacher to precipitate that. Quality must always trump standards, for without high quality you will not have high standards. Specifically, a narrow focus on attendance statistics might be positively counterproductive. Poor attendance needs addressing by prevention, via high-quality, value-rich education, rather than by simply penalising non-attenders, because poor mental health is the main reason that children—especially those with special needs and disabilities—give for failing to attend. So investing more broadly in mental health via holistic person-centred education would effectively address the Government’s narrower focus on attendance.
In closing, I will set this in an even broader context: we must look at causes. There are abundant reasons why young people today might suffer from poor mental health. The world in which they are growing up is an increasingly dark place. They live with the growing threat of climate change and against a background of the rise of aggressive, dominant and domineering global powers. Is it any wonder that they face the future with anxiety? We may feel that we have little agency in the face of such pressures, but we have much more than the children of whom we speak today. I feel this very much as a new grandparent. What kind of world will Josiah Arthur Zachary, just five weeks old, grow up in? What kind of world are we making for him? I hope and pray we will not let him down, nor so many others like him.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my education interests as set out in the register, including as a non-exec board member at Ofsted, though of course I am speaking in a personal capacity. I am also the mother of three young girls, aged 13, 11 and nine, all in state schools. I am not sure whether that makes me more or less qualified to speak in this debate—I think they would probably say less.
Before I get to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as my noble friend did, that I was profoundly moved by what he said about his daughter. I know he has referred to her in a previous debate, and I send my very best wishes to the family. I very much back his point about continuing to speak up and talk about these matters. We are fortunate to have someone such as him to speak on them, as we are to have the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, whom I congratulate on her Bill and her tireless work for children and families. I have been lucky to work with her on numerous committees in this House, and it is a pleasure. We are very lucky to have her.
I want to try to weave a message of hope into my speech, without sounding like I am being dismissive or not calling out where there are major problems. We all care passionately about this issue, and inevitably we have to call out where things are going badly wrong. It is essential that we do that for the children we want to help.
It is also very important that young people know that many people are committed to this cause, including, I know, my noble friend the Minister. The tone of the debate generally has recognised some of the work that the Government have already done, and I endorse that.
I absolutely support the principle of the Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I have campaigned for better mental health provision in schools for some years. I promise that this is not a co-ordinated move, but I share most of my noble friend Lady Berridge’s concerns and am not completely convinced that the practicalities of the proposed legislation would work. However, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, would want to explore this if the Bill were to get to Committee. I think it will take a lot of work.
I want to use my time to talk a bit more about the wider context and the critical role that schools play. I have three points to make. My first point is about homes and families. I agree with the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, of the scale of the problem. Everybody has set it out very well, so I will not repeat what has been said. Under the strain of the pandemic, every young person in this country, at whatever stage they were at, spent some formative years at a time of extreme national anxiety. I do not think we yet fully understand the full impact that that has had, but we are recognising it and we are taking children’s mental health seriously. It is important to do this thoughtfully.
To go back to parents, one of the most important and hardest jobs for parents and carers is being able to strike a balance and understand when difficult feelings are normal and part of growing up and when professional intervention is appropriate. I do not know who said that there is a lot of jargon in this area—and there is—but somebody apologised for the jargon which makes it more difficult for parents and families. I have raised before the difficulty of navigating the system.
Even before we get to the school stage, I draw attention to the family hub model, which again has been mentioned. It should be able to help with this and create a partnership between homes and schools. In the same way that, in the early years, people have been able to turn to their health visitor and ask whether development is normal, we need to have a culture whereby people can say, “Is this mental health development normal, or do we need something else here?” The partnership between homes and schools is so important.
Attendance at school is so important for mental health and well-being. I see the stress on attendance as coming from a place of caring, not wanting to be punitive. The Chief Medical Officer was entirely right to say that it is often better for children with mild or moderate anxiety to be in school. I saw myself, during the pandemic, the impact on many children in our local community, and how they missed the structure and the social side of school, and the fun they had, even if they were not missing double maths.
However, provision has to be there. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is entirely right: the key point about mental health is the importance of early intervention and tackling problems, rather than letting them fester and escalate. We should applaud, and we have, the work already being done in many schools. I am grateful for all the briefings we received. I am aware that I am beginning to sound like a stuck record in my pleas to the Minister, which are straightforward, but this needs to be prioritised in funding decisions.
I hope my noble friend is shining a spotlight on the evidence base; I know she will be. The data from NHS Digital and Place2Be around school attendance is compelling, and I have seen the impact of these projects myself on school visits. I have seen the work of charities such as Place2Be. When you hear it from the children and see the development that is made, it is really heart-warming. We should acknowledge that the Government are rolling out services and targets.
Like everyone else in this debate, I remain hugely worried about the number of children who fall through gaps in support. The “missing middle” is a horrible term, but there is no other way to say it quickly. We need to make people’s experience of navigating the whole system kinder and more human, because the people who work in this field are kind and human, and there is help out there, but the system sometimes feels impossible to navigate. Signposting and possibly better use of government communications could help with this.
My final point, and the thing I really want to say, is about admiration for the current generation of children and young people. As policymakers, we all need to be more adult in the way we talk about them. I hate seeing anything about “snowflakes”, or “Why aren’t they more resilient?”, because on Select Committees with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, we have taken evidence from the bravest, most resilient children I have ever met. It is our job to speak up for them. I wish they did not have to be so brave and resilient, because the fact is that they are having to be resilient every single time something happens to them and it is impossible not to be despondent when a young person does not get the treatment that they deserve.
However, there are absolutely brilliant people working in this area. There is proof that early intervention works. The system can work incredibly well, with insightful triaging and access to the right help at the right time. Young people need to know that feelings do not have to last for ever. I was trying to think of an equivalent song to counter the example from the Who and I cannot think of one—but we have got to give them some hope.
Once again, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Tyler and thank her for her commitment to children and young people. I know that I keep saying, “Can you just do more?”, but that is my message: just do more.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I obviously start with a big thank you to my noble friend Lady Tyler for this Private Member’s Bill. She is a worthy parliamentarian to take up this issue and to stick with it until she gets the result that is so needed for our children, schools and colleges.
I have rarely been in a debate where I have agreed with every single point that colleagues have made, whether it is about eating disorders, gardening grannies or Tourette’s. I was so glad the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, talked about it, because I had not thought of the effect on children themselves. I suppose that, in some respects, it has all been said before. Indeed, we had the precursor to this Private Member’s Bill last week. Good: the more we talk about it and the more we raise these issues, the more we all learn, and Governments of the day take action.
I look back on my 23 years as a head teacher, and mental health was not talked about in schools. Yes, there was bullying, and schools had bullying policies. Yes, there were behavioural problems, and schools had behavioural policies. Yes, there were children who perhaps behaved in odd ways, and did not turn up for school, et cetera. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, were absolutely right to say that you do not deal with non-attendance by penalising but by finding out the reason why pupils are absent—it might well be because of a mental health problem. The last thing that we want in the world is for those people not attending school to suddenly decide to be home educated so they will not be penalised.
So these things did not happen and then gradually local authorities and the health service started establishing CAMHS. That was a lightbulb moment for all of us; we saw how effective CAMHS could be in supporting children and young people. And then, sadly, through no fault of politicians perhaps, along came the recession and Covid. Everything ground to a halt. Cuts were made and services suffered. I look back, as I have said many times before, to my local authority of Liverpool. We lost a third of our budget and so looked for things that had to go. Some support services were lost.
I will make a few brief points. We talk about mental health support for children and young people, but get this: it is also needed for teaching and non-teaching staff in schools. Two months ago, I met a head teacher of a very large primary school who had had a serious mental breakdown. He was so busy being concerned about and supporting his staff and pupils that his own health suffered. He should have had support readily available.
As my noble friend Lady Tyler said, across the political divide, we all want the same result: qualified and readily accessible mental health support provided in our schools and colleges. There are variations in what we can provide and how we make that provision. We on these Benches feel that it should be for all schools, not just secondary schools, although we recognise that it may make sense to share that provision across smaller primaries. As my noble friend points out in her Bill, we need properly qualified staff, with wraparound support from other professionals. We understand that there will have to be a rollout, but this should not be an opportunity for delay and penny-pinching.
I also make the obvious observation that early intervention by proper diagnostic support is the most effective provision. The earlier the support needs are identified, the better the pupil, student or staff member can be helped.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, used the term “lobbying”—well, the more they lobby me, the better. We have had important briefings from a number of organisations, such as the Mental Health Foundation, Barnardo’s and the Centre for Mental Health. The Mental Health Foundation makes the important point that levels of mental health awareness within education settings remain highly variable. It calls for a minimum level of provision and qualified mental health professionals in every school. It also stresses how important anti-bullying programmes are to young people, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out. Mental health issues often start with low-level bullying.
The Centre for Mental Health called for the full rollout of mental health support teams in schools and colleges and a fully resourced national implementation programme to support every school, college and university so they can adopt a whole-education approach to mental health and well-being.
Barnardo’s backed the call for mental health support in all schools, but made the important point, as did my noble friend Lady Tyler, that mental health support teams do not work for all children. Many with moderate or complex needs cannot be supported by MHSTs and do not meet the criteria for child and adolescent mental health support—CAMHS. It believes that the model should be expanded to include counsellors to allow children to access a consistent offer of support.
I think we were all moved by the personal tale from my noble friend Lord Russell. Perhaps “courage” is the wrong word for it, but good on him for being able to stand up and use his own personal experience.
I have two questions for the Minister, which may already have been raised. First, where does mental health figure in the training of teachers, if at all? I think the right reverend Prelate mentioned that. If it does not, why not? Secondly, we are talking about schools but there has been some mention of universities and higher education. I am conscious that universities and the higher education sector are either wholly autonomous or semi-autonomous, but how do we make sure that the necessary support and provision are there? Is it just left to those stand-alone institutions to provide it?
Finally, we must all hope that my noble friend Lady Tyler is successful with her Private Member’s Bill, and I once again say a big thank you to her.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up for the Opposition. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that this has been an incredibly well-informed debate. We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for bringing the Bill forward and for the way she argued for every school to have access to a qualified mental health professional.
The growing increase in the incidence of mental disorder suffered by so many young people is alarming, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, rightly said. My great fear is that we are storing up so much trouble for the future that, unless we deal decisively with the issues now, we as a nation will face severe problems in the decades ahead. That is not confined to mental health: last month, the Academy of Medical Sciences released a very stark report highlighting wide-ranging evidence of declining health among children under five in the UK. More than a fifth of five year-old children are overweight or obese, one in four are affected by tooth decay and vaccination rates have plunged. Although we are focusing on mental health today, we must recognise that there is a much wider health dimension to the situation for many of our young people. As the right reverend Prelate suggested, this will have an impact on them for generations and on our economy, in terms of the number of people who will be fit to work in the future.
My noble friend Lord Watson correctly asked why that is happening and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, had a go at answering. She suggested that it was because of pressure in education and I agree with her. I will not mention SATs much today, but there are issues around the pressure that some children feel because of the insistence on the SATs process. There is also the impact of social media and the pandemic. The right reverend Prelate also mentioned concerns about climate change. I think he was thinking of malevolent, dominant global powers; we know what he means by that.
This issue, however, is surely also linked to the persistent absence of children. In dealing with that, we have to understand the underlying causes. I look forward with interest to the Minister giving her analysis of why she thinks it is such a persistent and worrying problem.
The second major issue that comes across is the challenge for us all—particularly as parents, grandparents, guardians and those concerned about young people—in what to do when faced with a young person in distress and the problem of navigating the system. Again, I ask the Minister to explain more about what she thinks is, and ought to be, the response of local agencies to that gap. I particularly want to understand the relationship between education and the integrated care services in the health service. What mechanisms are there to provide some kind of point where one can go to seek help? I am afraid that, at the moment, barriers are set up and rationing processes are put in place. For parents desperately concerned about the impact of mental health issues on their child, it becomes alarming, so we need to think about what immediate help we can give.
Noble Lords quite rightly commented on the number of young people affected by mental ill health and the problem of providing appropriate access to services. The scary thing for me is that one in three children and young people referred by a professional was unable to access any mental health treatment whatever. That has been called the missing middle—the gap. We also heard the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, speak very movingly about a small coterie of people struggling hugely to get the support that they need.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke so movingly about some of the challenges that parents face. Again, can the Minister say what we are going to do, faced with this massive number of children—it is estimated to be 232,000—who cannot access any support whatever? Of course I recognise that schools can be tremendously helpful in this regard. As I understand it, in research they are the most commonly reported source of advice and help by families. However, the question is whether they have enough resources or enough access to other resources to be able to fulfil that responsibly.
The economic case for investing in support for schools is pretty overwhelming. There is a direct link between the number of children with poor mental health and those who do not do well in education. The Resolution Foundation found that if children aged 11 to 14 suffer poor mental health, they are three times more likely not to pass five GCSEs, including English and maths, compared with healthy children. That, of course, goes right through the system. They do not get into work as effectively and their life outcomes are very poor. As a society, if we are concerned about the future, and are therefore concerned about the number of people in the working-age population who are not in work at the moment, as we certainly ought to be, the case for investment in young people’s mental health and in schools in particular is very strong indeed.
Like other noble Lords, I acknowledge that the Government, through NHS England, have rolled out nearly 400 mental health support teams, and more are planned. The Minister will of course know that one can hardly resist the temptation to quote Jeremy Hunt at her; he said that the current programme is “unacceptable” with regard to progress in rolling it out to the rest of schools. I ask her again whether at this point the Government will review this and listen to the arguments that have been put today to ensure that we give it the right priority.
As regards the Opposition—the Labour Party—we believe that we have to put far more energy and focus into: improving mental health services; cutting waiting lists for mental health services by recruiting more staff; introducing specialist mental health support for children and young people in every school; having open-access children and young people’s mental health hubs in every community to meet some of the gap that noble Lords have identified today; and passing legislation for a new register of home-schooled pupils to keep track of those not in mainstream schooling, as part of a new package of measures to deal with persistent non-attendance.
In conclusion, in welcoming the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and what she said today, we cannot be complacent. The scale of mental health disorder among young people is now so great that their future and the country’s future are very much at risk. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to this afternoon’s very well-informed debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I also offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, on securing a Second Reading for her Bill. I thank all those noble Lords who shared their personal experiences of how the mental health issues of their children and wider families have had an impact on them. I join noble Lords in recognising the extraordinary job that our schools do in supporting pupils every single day and, of course, I thank those charities that work in our schools and outside them to support young people.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Wyld for stressing the importance of good attendance as a protective factor for children’s mental health. As she rightly said, the Government approach this with a very caring intention. There must be boundaries around it as well as consequences in certain cases where children do not attend and parents facilitate that without good reason. The intention is clear. Of course, enabling children and young people to thrive is a priority for this Government, which is why we actively explore approaches that could improve young people’s mental health and well-being.
Of course, I welcome the noble Baroness’s tireless commitment to ensuring that mental health support is available for all children, but I must express reservations about this Bill. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, most schools already have in place mental well-being provision, including counsellors, educational psychologists and pastoral support staff. All of those can play a valuable role, but maintaining a school’s flexibility to choose what works best for its pupils is paramount. For instance, depending on their needs, not all children will benefit from specific mental health interventions such as psychotherapeutic counselling. Schools are well placed to decide which approach will be most effective, drawing on specialists where necessary.
Beyond this, it is important to reiterate that schools are not health services and should not be expected to act like one in terms of managing specialist staff. They may choose to do so where they have appropriate expertise, but we believe that our current approach, which encourages collaboration with specialist services where appropriate, avoids putting the extra role and burden on schools that the Bill would involve.
On the co-ordination between the health service and schools, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough asked, specifically in relation to Tourette’s syndrome, whether there is co-ordination between the two departments. We are more broadly taking a joint approach to workforce planning and reforms to the special educational needs and AP systems. There is an implementation board, chaired jointly by Education Ministers and Health Ministers.
Returning to our schools, our aim is for schools to be a place where positive well-being is promoted and mental health difficulties are picked up on early, with referral to specialist services as needed—an aim that is being pushed forward through our programme of grants for senior mental health leads in schools and colleges and the continuing rollout of mental health support teams. My noble friend Lady Berridge asked about the take-up of grants for senior leaders in different areas, including whether schools with particularly high levels of disadvantage had lower take-up. I do not have that specific data for her, but we know that lower take-up has been seen in London, the east Midlands and the east of England, so we are working hard there to encourage higher take-up.
The Government’s focus, as many noble Lords have advocated, is to support schools to develop a whole-school approach. That wider approach to well-being works alongside more specialist support, which is why we agree with the spirit of the Bill, if not its specificity. That is why we have a comprehensive plan to roll out mental health support teams, including access to education and mental health practitioners, who deliver interventions and support schools to develop their whole-school approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked whether there was more focus on mental health in the initial teacher training and early career framework. The very recently updated framework, published in the past few weeks, has a much greater integration of special educational needs and disabilities, including mental health within that. We expect these teams to cover at least 50% of pupils by April 2025.
We come to the issue of funding, which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned. He will understand very well that it takes time to train mental health professionals. Although I absolutely acknowledge and share the urgency that noble Lords have expressed this afternoon, it is important that we learn from early intervention to make sure that the support team model is as effective as possible—but we are also trying to co-ordinate and take a responsible approach to rollout, working with NHS England to make sure that we do not draw professionals away from the wider mental health workforce, which clearly would not be desirable.
We are also building on the learning from the independent evaluation of the Green Paper programme and data and intelligence from the ground, which will help to shape future delivery. One of the strengths of the mental health support teams is that they are an NHS service focused on supporting schools and pupils in a responsive way. That need for it to feel human, as I think my noble friend Lady Wyld phrased it—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, also referred to the difficulty that people sometimes have in navigating these systems—is absolutely critical. They are specifically trained to do that, and to build those links between sectors.
It is also true that even a significant number of additional staff in mental health support teams cannot provide all the help that pupils need, which is why the range of pastoral support and early interventions that schools already provide, including drawing on counsellors and educational psychologists, is so important. We have been working with the mental health support teams to make sure that they support that provision and do not displace it. But we are concerned that, by specifying just two types of professional support, the Bill is likely to constrain the range of support options that pupils can benefit from, which I know is not the noble Baroness’s intention.
We have also committed to offering all state schools and colleges a grant to train a senior mental health lead by 2025, enabling them to introduce effective whole-school approaches. More than 15,000 settings and the great majority of secondary schools have claimed a grant so far. This training and associated support equip schools to offer the right support from the full range of sources, making the best use of their funding.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I do not know whether I picked this up correctly, but I think the Minister said that all schools would have access to mental health support teams by 2025. I thought the figure the Government were aiming for was 50%. Have I got that wrong?
Baroness Barran (Con)
There are two different elements, and I apologise to the noble Lord if I was not absolutely clear. He is quite right that with the mental health support teams we aim to cover 50% of schools by April 2025. What I was referring to just now was the senior mental health lead training, so that there will be a senior mental health lead in every school, supporting staff in their response and giving them confidence to respond to children, which we know is so vital.
My noble friend Lady Berridge referred to children in secure mental health institutions. I will write to her. We are reviewing and redesigning provision to support the move to more community-based provision closer to home—a concern that my noble friend rightly raised. I am not aware of whether there is updated data on this but if there is, I will share it with my noble friend and put a copy in the House Library.
In conclusion, we believe that, to continue to support children and young people, rather than having a new set of requirements in schools, we should continue with the rigorous implementation of the evidence-based approach exemplified by the mental health support teams and the senior mental health leads. For that reason, we cannot support the noble Baroness’s Bill.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thoughtful response. It is true that we share broadly the same aspirations and, as she said, there is plenty in the spirit of the Bill that we can all agree on. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this excellent debate. I know we often say, “It’s been an excellent debate”, but this really has been, and I have learned so much from it. It has really added to my understanding.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for pointing out the position of children detained under the Mental Health Act and in secure units. That was an extremely important point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for his support and for emphasising that children need to go into schools ready to learn. At the moment, too many do not. I thank him for his support and for saying that the Bill would ramp up the provision needed.
I am particularly indebted to my noble friend Lord Russell, who, as other noble Lords said, so movingly referred to his personal experience. He highlighted the plight of parents who cannot afford to pay for the provision that they know their children and young people need. It is heart-rending, frankly, to think of that. He vividly described the missing middle that I have been talking about in the Bill. I just wish I had thought of that analogy myself.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his insightful contribution and for raising the issue, which I had not thought of before, of children with Tourette’s, and how that is another example of children falling through the gaps in provision. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester made a powerful and wide-ranging intervention; I was grateful to him for drawing the links with poverty and disadvantage.
It has been my pleasure to work closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld. I am so grateful for her support for the principle of the Bill and for reminding us about the importance of family hubs. As she said, there must be hope, and I hope that the Bill can in some way add to that hope.
I thank my noble friend Lord Storey for his historical perspective on the development of mental health provision in both the NHS and schools. I thank him for his focus on teaching and non-teaching staff, which was a really important point.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his general support and welcome, and particularly for the way he highlighted the problem of navigating the system, which so many people and parents find so difficult.
Putting that all together, I have been heartened by the cross-party support for the spirit of the Bill. There is a strong understanding that at the moment too many young people are in that missing middle and falling through the gaps in provision. I am firmly of the view that mental health support teams, which do an excellent job, must contain professionals who are properly qualified to help young people who have moderate to more complex needs so that they do not fall through the gaps because they still do not meet the threshold for CAMHS.
I thank everyone for their contributions. It is heartening to have so much support on the principle. There is perhaps slightly less agreement on the precise way of securing it, but the consensus on the importance of this issue has been exemplary. That is why I hope we can carry on these discussions. I would welcome any amendments to the Bill to explore the practicalities that people have pointed out might not be quite right at the moment. I hope we can find a way that will allow us to take this debate forward and find a way forward. We all wait with bated breath for next week’s Budget—let us see what happens there—but I hope to continue engaging with the Minister on this important issue.