Draft Conversion Practices Bill
Debate between Lord Scriven and Lord Collins of Highbury(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, before I start, it is worth remembering that in the middle of all this conversion therapy are individuals who are dealing with trauma. It is beholden on all of us to dial down the volume and discuss this much more calmly.
We on these Benches welcome this Statement and the publication of the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. For eight years, across five Prime Ministers—most of them Conservative—we have heard repeated commitments to end conversion practices. It is conduct that the British Psychological Society and professional bodies have long condemned as unethical, so it is a relief to the one-in-six LGBT individuals who have been offered this unacceptable practice that this Government have finally advanced a draft text to fill any potential gaps in our laws.
However, publication for pre-legislative scrutiny is the commencement, and not the conclusion, of where we will get to. The Liberal Democrats have constantly pushed for an effective, workable ban. We acknowledge the Government’s intent to create a framework that includes protections regarding gender identity, as it is vital that no individuals are subject to genuinely abusive, coercive or harmful practices. Yet we must acknowledge that, for some, it is precisely around the intersection of gender identity, clinical guidance and the family sphere that this legislation will face its most contentious challenges. Striking the right balance here is an incredibly delicate task. We and the Government must get this right to avoid any unintended consequences.
In particular, we must ensure that the threshold of “abusive acts causing serious harm” is drawn with clear legal precision, so that it does not create problems for some parents, for example. It is a fundamental part of loving parenting to guide children as they navigate deep, complex questions about who they are. A parent who in good faith advises a child to take time or who expresses questions about social or medical transition is acting out of care and duty for their child’s protection. This legislation must be drawn carefully enough to guarantee that these supportive conversations within families do not unintentionally cause a crime to have been committed.
Furthermore, we must ensure absolute clarity for teachers, clinicians and therapists so that they can continue to offer objective, non-directive and exploratory support, without the fear of legal reprisal or professional hesitation. The Liberal Democrats have always championed a balance between robust protections from abuse and the defence of civil liberties, free expression and freedom of religion. These boundaries between parental guidance and legitimate healthcare must be balanced, and the work of the Joint Committee will be incredibly welcome in guiding this House in deciding on this legislation. It provides the exact rigorous cross-party forum needed to test these definitions, listen to all viewpoints and build the workable consensus required.
Therefore, I ask the Minister three important questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the draft definitions explicitly and robustly protect the rights of parents to have open and loving conversations with their children without fear of investigation? Secondly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that the Joint Committee’s scrutiny processes actively engage with all views within the LGBT+ community, family support groups and medical professions to ensure that these boundaries are balanced and appropriate? Finally, what is the anticipated timescale for this pre-legislative scrutiny, so that this House can eventually examine a Bill that is genuinely balanced, fair and effective?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their questions. I am acutely aware that there is a consensus across this House. There are no bipartisan divides here. The previous Government were committed to the principle of this legislation, and I welcomed it at the time. So, irrespective of what the noble Baroness says, there is consensus and there is concern. At the end of the day—I agree with the noble Baroness here—we can all agree that no one should face abuse just because of who they are, and our draft Bill is about protecting LGBT+ people from serious physical and psychological harm.
The Galop anti-abuse charity has for many years supported people who have suffered abuse. It is only reflecting the evidence that has been given to it. We must be clear that we are talking about victims of severe abuse here. One case of this abuse is one too many, which is why we are criminalising it. So let us not say that we are getting this out of proportion.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, addressed the fact that there are gaps in the existing law that mean we cannot prosecute offences properly with domestic abuse legislation. For example, on coercive control, the legislation is designed for someone who has a relationship with an intimate partner, and it would not capture an offence committed by someone they did not know. There are many other examples of gaps in the law that need to be addressed.
Secondly, the noble Baroness missed an important point: for the first time, we will have a clear definition in law of conversion practice. As with other offences, such as upskirting or non-fatal strangulation, a definition is important to help victims understand what has happened to them and be able to come forward, and for prosecutors to build a case. I am confident that there is a need to legislate in this area.
On the points that both noble Lords raised about parents and legislation, I want to be absolutely clear that this Government and this law will not dictate how people raise their children. Our measures are not intended to infringe on the right of parents to bring up their children in line with their beliefs or core values. We are absolutely clear that the ban must be balanced and targeted so as not to impinge on legitimate healthcare or the range of broader support that those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity might seek or receive. I also stress that this draft Bill is not about regulating medical care. We understand how important it is that people get the medical support they need, depending on their particular needs and circumstances. This is a matter for the DHSC and the NHS.
I and Minister Bailey in the other place have been clear right from the beginning about the importance of the pre-legislative scrutiny. I very much welcome the fact that the Liaison Committee has agreed to this. It will be scheduled and the usual channels will bring forward calls for participation in that committee fairly shortly. That will hopefully be a great opportunity to reassure people about what are genuine questions and concerns that we should not be afraid to deal with. Many people in this House know and have met people who have experienced the abuse defined in this Bill, so I hope that through the pre-legislative scrutiny we can all come together and return to the consensus that we have had on dealing with this terrible abuse.
Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice
Debate between Lord Scriven and Lord Collins of Highbury(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement on a profoundly important yet sensitive matter. When we debate the updated code of practice, we must remember that at the heart of this issue are fellow citizens. If we listen closely, we find that people affected by the code are driven by exactly the same fundamental human needs: respect, dignity and the desire to live with peace of mind. We hear the deeply held convictions of some women who look to single-sex spaces for privacy, companionship and dignity. For them, preserving the integrity of these spaces is not an abstract legal concept but a practical requirement for their dignity. We also hear the equally profound anxieties of some transgender individuals who fear that the new guidance will effectively lock them out of public life, strip away their dignity and subject them to humiliation or hostility when simply trying to access basic services. Both views are valid, and we must not ignore either.
As a House and as parliamentarians, our duty is to look objectively at the governance, economics and practical workability of this draft code in the light of the laws of the land. Following the laying of the draft code, the final stage impact assessment reveals a striking economic reality: the central estimated annualised costs sit at £81.7 million, with an overwhelming 82% of this financial burden falling squarely on the private sector. Further, 60% of the entire 10-year cost profile is front- loaded in the first 24 months.
Yet the assessment admits an extraordinary level of uncertainty and contains no independent verification from the Regulatory Policy Committee. Crucially, the document explicitly acknowledges that, due to severe data limitations, the Government have been entirely unable to assess the specific impact on small businesses and micro-businesses. The Government are, in effect, flying blind, passing a statutory framework that could heavily penalise local businesses without any hard evidence or baseline data on how smaller enterprises are supposed to absorb these costs. We must look also at how this code will work on a Wednesday afternoon for, say, a local charity or small independent business. Right now, it will create significant contradictions that would leave them exposed to litigation. To that end, I wish to press the Minister on four critical issues regarding implementation.
First, what practical or financial support will be provided to small businesses that simply lack the physical space or capital to build the self-contained gender-neutral facilities recommended in the impact assessment?
Secondly, what operational guidance do the Government intend to issue to public-facing service providers regarding the precise mechanism by which front-line staff can lawfully and proportionately verify an individual’s sex recorded at birth without breaching Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, GDPR rules on special category data or Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004?
Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the potential legal conflict for service providers between the provision in the draft code that a single- sex service will lose its statutory status if it includes an individual based on their gender reassignment characteristic and the ongoing statutory requirement under the Equality Act 2010 to demonstrate that the exclusion of that individual constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?
Fourthly, the code will pass via the negative procedure unless Parliament acts within 40 days. Given the concerns about the uncertainty and costs it will create, will the Government consider supporting a Joint Committee of both Houses to give these questions raised by the ruling and subsequent code the parliamentary scrutiny they have not yet fully received?
If we want a society that is fair, we cannot pass down ambiguous guidance that forces business owners, charities and low-wage front-line staff to act as constitutional lawyers, risking complicated litigation. They need clarity and a code of practice that is operationally and economically viable. Above all, we need an approach that treats all individuals, and those trying to run services for them, with the certainty and dignity they deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions and contributions.
I start by picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and addressing the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, about the general principle. We forget what the Supreme Court itself said in its judgment, which is, of course, repeated in the Statement. It is worth repeating. The court
“warned against reading this judgment ‘as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another’. That is why this Government will always treat these issues sensitively and will refuse to use any group as a political football. The Government have been clear that we will protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex where they are needed, such as women’s refuges. We have also been clear that everyone, including trans people, should have the right to access the services they need in a way that is respectful, protects dignity and privacy, and ensures adequate provision”.
That is where everybody in this House should be focused.
As the noble Baroness knows, having participated in a number of Oral Questions about the timing of the code, we have repeatedly said that it is important the code gets this right or it will lead to further legal challenges. I have seen the letter from the shadow Minister for Equalities on the issues of delay and changes. It is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to answer that specific set of questions. Our focus, as I have repeatedly said, has been to make sure that organisations have the guidance they need and that it is clear and practical. We have made sure of this by doing a thorough job of ensuring that the duty bearers have the guidance they needed to comply with the Equality Act. The EHRC has been clear that it made a decision to amend the draft code following feedback, consultation, responses and legal advice. That is where we are.
One of the key elements is to ensure proportionality, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has raised a valuable point, particularly about costs. The commission has been clear that service providers might comply with the law in different ways due to different factors, such as physical building constraints. There is no blanket requirement for a particular approach and duty bearers should take a proportionate approach. For example, a small café might have only one individual lockable toilet for all customers, and there are lots of examples like that.
The estimated costs that the EHRC has provided have been spread across different parts of the economy, not just one sector of business, over a 10-year period. Many of those costs will be one-off, rather than ongoing. This is about complying with the law and the draft code provides guidance to support organisations to do so.
On an issue that has been raised before, I have been clear, as has my noble friend Lady Smith, that the Supreme Court judgment was clear and must be complied with. All government departments must comply with it; we have been clear about that. The Cabinet Office has updated Civil Service model policy and departments will work to implement the policy changes as soon as possible. Compliance with the law is clear. We will continue to keep our guidance updated, to ensure that it takes account of the latest case law and any future updates by the EHRC to the code of practice on employment. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is right that there are other changes in the code that have brought it up to date, particularly around breastfeeding mothers and people with disabilities. We should see it in that context, and no doubt there will be periods when we need to do that.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of the NHS. The NHS is for everyone. The Secretary of State for Health is clear that NHS services should protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex, while at the same time protecting the rights, dignity and safety of trans people. The Government have taken action by publishing the draft code, and NHS England will be publishing guidance to bring it into effect in due course.
I have said before that in the past, the debate on this issue has been incredibly toxic. I think that everyone in this House wants to ensure that we can move forward respectfully and compassionately and understand the needs of all our communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, knows that I have been part of a situation where a Government decided that a category of people in our community was not safe to work with children. That was Section 28. We should not forget that and the consequences of that. I am absolutely determined that we should protect everyone’s interests, including those of women, women’s safe spaces and, of course, single-sex spaces, as committed by the Supreme Court, but we must not forget that trans people deserve respect too, and that is what we will continue to do.
Human Rights Violations: Consular Assistance
Debate between Lord Scriven and Lord Collins of Highbury(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Again, let me reassure the noble Lord that we do take his imprisonment seriously. He knows very well that I raised these issues, together with him, when others did not. I assure him that the Foreign Secretary has raised the case. In fact, on 18 October, the Foreign Secretary raised it with Foreign Minister Wang Yi; and it was certainly raised under the previous Government on 5 December. We take this incredibly seriously. The problem remains with some issues of consular access because of dual nationals. The noble Lord knows that he and I have taken up other cases on that basis, but rest assured that we will continue to put much pressure on the Chinese Communist Party officials who are taking this action. We are extremely concerned about the continued imprisonment and I repeat that the Foreign Secretary will, as he assured the House of Commons on Monday, meet the family so that we can continue to give support at all levels.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of a case that I brought to his attention regarding a British citizen held in a jail in the Gulf states. His basic human rights have been undermined and he is being held in conditions that fall far short of international standards. Considering that this type of case is not unique, when will the 2022 Labour conference promise of David Lammy to introduce a legal right to consular assistance be implemented, and will minimum standards be part of that Bill?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hope I made it clear in my opening response that we are actively exploring with officials the implementation of our manifesto commitment. It is not just a statement from the Foreign Secretary but a manifesto commitment and we want to ensure that we get it right. We are having proper examination of this, both legally and diplomatically, so I hope that we will be able to make an announcement in due course. The problem with a lot of these individual cases—the noble Lord knows this as well—is that sometimes the efforts we put in cannot be as public as perhaps some people want. At the end of the day, as my noble friend raised in his original Question, we want to get these people out. We want to ensure that they are not detained arbitrarily and that proper due process is continued.