Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Miriam Cates Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Miriam Cates]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Danny Kruger]

Kirkcaldy.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Excess Death Trends

Miriam Cates Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I will be brief, because it is clear that there is far more demand to speak in the debate than there is time. That shows that we absolutely need a longer debate; we need a debate on the Floor of the House, because it is not just Members present who want to speak, and members of the public have shown enormous interest.

I will not go over the excellent points that have been made and the data that has been shared. We know we have a problem in this country with excess deaths, particularly among younger people and particularly from cardiovascular disease. That, in itself, is a huge challenge. We need medical experts and statisticians to address those issues—I am not qualified to do so.

What I will say is this: lockdown changed everything. Our response to covid changed everything. Just as we look back on different periods of history—before the war; before the industrial revolution—I believe we will look back at before and after lockdown. Lockdown has changed our economy and how we relate to each other. It has changed our health and our understanding of children’s development.

The conditions under which those decisions were made—decisions that were overwhelmingly wrong, in my opinion, although I do not blame any individuals, given the pressure they were under—have not changed. The conditions under which we suspended the precautionary principle, ignored the fact that interventions may cause harm, suspended the importance of children’s education, suspended the safeguarding of children, suspended the need for medical trials and suspended all sorts of safeguards that have stood society in good stead for a long time have not changed.

The conditions in Government, the media and wider society under which those decisions were made have not changed because, unfortunately, we have not yet got to the heart of the matter. Why did that pressure come from the media? Why did we have to follow what other countries were doing? Why were we obsessed with particular points of data, such as deaths from covid, rather than considering the wider impact on society?

My concern about the covid inquiry is that it is asking all the wrong questions. It is concerned with who swore at whom on WhatsApp, and not the wider conditions under which decisions were made. When, several Education Secretaries ago, the former, former, former Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), stood up in the House of Commons and said that he would close schools, I remember, as a mother, shouting at the television, “Don’t do it! Don’t do it!”. I could see the impact it would have—not just on my own children, but across all the wider components of society. Society is like a big machine; we cannot just take out one part and assume that the rest will continue to operate. We have seen that clearly over the past three years.

We must address the reasons why these decisions were made. We cannot do that in three minutes each—we must have a longer debate.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind colleagues that they have three minutes. I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I am afraid not; I really want to explain our concerns, and what the Opposition will do.

Unfortunately, through 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, the country has seen the Government do the exact opposite. On patients being seen on time, the situation continues to get worse; so many key NHS targets are being missed. The Prime Minister promised last year to get NHS waiting lists down by 2024, yet this month, waiting lists remain sky high at 7.6 million—400,000 higher than he promised. One year on, that is another pledge missed by the Prime Minister and this Government, and it leaves so many families waiting for urgent care across the country.

What is more, we are so far behind on critical health challenges. As the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned, on cancer mortality, thousands are needlessly dying because of slow and late diagnosis, combined with delays to urgently needed treatment. Cancer waiting time targets are consistently being missed, and some of them have not been met for over a decade—a leading cause of avoidable deaths in England. It is urgent that we swiftly tackle this crisis. That is why Labour has committed to improving cancer survival rates by hitting all NHS cancer waiting time targets, and to ensuring early diagnosis within five years, so that no patient waits longer than they should.

When it comes to the NHS and the health of our nation, Labour offers a different plan. We are fully committed to delivering a mission-driven Government who will cut NHS waiting times and build our NHS, so that it is there for the people when they need it. That includes measures such as delivering 2 million more appointments and operations a year at evenings and weekends.

[Miriam Cates]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

It means doubling the number of scanners, so that patients with conditions such as cancers are diagnosed early.

Gender Recognition

Miriam Cates Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady is right; we did carry out extensive consultations, but remember, this is something that we do repeatedly and periodically. The fact that we have not carried this out since 2011 shows that we have been remiss in our duties, and that is something that I am fixing. One of the issues is that a lot of people do not understand the law when it comes to self-identification. We are providing clarity there. We have engaged with numerous LGBT groups, but the fact of the matter is that many of them support self-ID. That is not this Government’s policy. Stonewall does not decide the law in this country—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Whatever it is that people want to campaign on, we will listen and we will hear, but we have been very clear about this. This is something that we are not budging on. We are updating the law in accordance with Government policy, and we will continue to do so.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which provides some much-needed clarity, because self-ID does threaten the dignity and safety of women and girls. She is absolutely right to say that the UK should not recognise GRCs from countries that operate policies of self-ID. Sex matters, in life and in law, and it is right that the UK has its own rigorous processes for gaining GRCs, but these safeguards do not apply to the process of changing sex markers on passports and driving licences, which are far more commonly used for identification in everyday life. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the Passport Office’s 2021 review and decide whether we can stop this self-ID by the back door through driving licences and passports?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is a good one. This is one of the things that came to light as we looked at Government policy across the board and it is an example of how the law needs updating. The reason that we have this is not that the Government supported self-ID but that before the same-sex marriage law came into being we wanted people to be able to change their legal documents so that they could get married. Now that we have a law that has fixed that, we should again look at some of the measures we put in place earlier, and that is why my hon. Friend is right to raise this. It is a Home Office issue, but I will raise it with the Home Secretary and see what we can do to repair it.

Draft Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Miriam Cates Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 General Committees

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the opportunity to speak in this Committee. I do understand the Government’s desire to ensure that there is no watering down of equalities law following Brexit and the retained EU law Act, but it appears to me that this statutory instrument is not only unnecessary but could have some serious and unwanted consequences by creating almost a carte blanche for individuals to bring indirect discrimination cases on almost any grounds and with unlimited potential damages. Far from protecting British citizens from discrimination, it would undermine the very idea of discrimination itself. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could answer a few questions about this legislation, particularly about regulation 3.

The explanatory memorandum and the retained EU law dashboard explain that regulation 3 reproduces the legal effect of a European Court of Justice case, which is referred to as CHEZ for short in the document. Briefly, in that case, a woman was living in a Roma-majority suburb of a Bulgarian town. She herself was not Roma. The electricity company installed electricity meters at 7 or 8 metres above ground level in the suburb—much higher than the usual 2 metres. That was deemed to be based on the fact that the population was majority Roma. The non-Roma woman alleged that she had suffered direct discrimination based on race. The Court found that she had suffered indirect discrimination on the basis of race. In that context, she herself did not have the protected characteristic of race to which the discrimination pertained. However, she was allowed to seek equivalent relief as if she did, because she had suffered the same negative impact as someone who was being discriminated against on the basis of their race.

My understanding of that CHEZ judgment is that it applies to the Equality Act now, has been applied twice by the employment tribunal and will remain domestic law by virtue of section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There is no indication that the courts will overturn this, so my first question to the Minister is this: why do the Government believe that it needs to be enshrined in primary legislation?

The power to reproduce under section 12(8) of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act applies only to EU law that directly formed part of domestic UK law, without the need for implementing UK legislation. There is nothing in the CHEZ judgment that suggests it does have that direct effect, so why do the Government think that it does have that direct effect and therefore can be enshrined today in primary legislation?

My understanding is that the existing law on direct discrimination is enough to protect against this “same disadvantage” idea in cases like CHEZ. For instance, if a group of friends went to a restaurant and were refused service on the basis of the ethnicity of one of the members of the group, all of them would currently have a claim for discrimination. If that is enough to prevent that mischief in question, why are the Government proposing a new law that will put the existing law on steroids and have such disproportionate, unintended and unpredictable consequences?

My understanding is that, on the whole, UK courts have disregarded CHEZ because the existing law on direct discrimination does the job, and also because the real purpose of that CHEZ judgment was very specific: the Court wanted to address anti-Roma discrimination in central and eastern European member states. That is clearly not applicable here, so why are the Government treating this narrow, specific case-law judgment from another country as the basis for a general new law in primary legislation in the UK? I would be very grateful to the Minister if she could provide an answer to those questions.

In summary, the effect of this statutory instrument will be to undermine our understanding of discrimination rather than to strengthen it, because it will undermine our understanding of protected characteristics—which are there, obviously, to protect minorities—by gold-plating an obscure piece of foreign case law that essentially allows someone without a protected characteristic to piggyback off someone who does.

I very much regret that the Government have brought this legislation today. I have had engagement with the Secretary of State and I do believe that there is now some concern about this among Government. I understand that there is no technical case for asking for an adjournment of this debate today, but I think that that is a shame, because I do not think that it has been properly considered. I ask that the Minister urgently considers the long-term and unintended consequences of this measure, including the cost to businesses, because it will make it on to the desks of HR officials across the country and could potentially have quite a serious chilling effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miriam Cates]

My understanding is that the protection already exists, as I explained in my speech, but the point of this new legislation would be to allow someone who is outside and not connected with that group of people who have been classed, perhaps incorrectly, as LGBT by the employer to claim the same discrimination. We already have that protection in our law, but this would put it on steroids, for additional people to claim who do not necessarily suffer the disadvantage at the moment.

[Robin Millar]

My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a thought-provoking point. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East talked about the limitations of a Committee discussing detailed legal points.

To return to the practical application, how can a human resources officer foresee all the individuals who might suffer some disadvantage under these regulations and bring a claim in the employment tribunal? That is unworkable. In particular, how will employers satisfy themselves that the disadvantage is justified in each case, when they cannot possibly foresee each case?

I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Hollobone, and that of the Committee. I think these are profound questions. I tread softly and lightly into this space, but I think it has been important to raise these issues. I urge the Government to respond to them in a timely fashion so that these regulations are not enacted in haste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

The reason is that the provisions currently fall under section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and that if we do not replicate them under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, they will fall. That would mean that protections for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding fall at the end of the year. That is why we need to replicate them.

Let me touch on the point about whether the measure provides expanded powers—I think “power on steroids” was the phrase that was used. The legal advice is that CHEZ can be interpreted as already giving horizontal rights, so we are not introducing such rights through this statutory instrument. Even if it did not give such rights, section 13 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, which Parliament voted on, gives Ministers powers to resolve ambiguities and remove doubt or anomalies to facilitate the improvement of the law. That is the power that that Act provides. We believe that the CHEZ ruling already gives horizontal rights, but even if it did not, the Act gives leeway to Ministers to tidy up those provisions.

[Miriam Cates]

Is the Minister saying that she believes that the legal probability is that the CHEZ judgment already has direct effect in UK law? On my understanding, that is the only situation in which the power can be used to reproduce the judgment in primary legislation. It is not clear to me that it did have direct effect. At the moment, there is clearly no case in the UK courts to suggest that.

[Maria Caulfield]

The legal advice is that it is arguable that it can be interpreted as giving horizontal rights, and that is why the instrument reflects that.

The basis of this argument was that we believed that, in leaving the EU, it was fundamental that Parliament made decisions about which laws we retained, repealed or amended. That is exactly what we are doing today. We may differ over whether we believe that the protections are needed or whether they go too far, but it is now Parliament that is making that decision.

[Maria Caulfield]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but if we had not left the EU, the CHEZ ruling would still be the basis of the way in which decisions are made right now on discrimination cases. Any law can be challenged in courts and precedents can be set, but that does not mean that we should not set out the law as we determine it should be interpreted. Obviously, case law can change that, but the CHEZ case was back in 2015, so it falls under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. We have decided as a Government to retain those protections. Let me set them out for hon. Members: they are around maintaining equal pay for pregnant women; protecting women from less favourable treatment because they are breastfeeding; and helping pregnant women facing discrimination with being able to return to work.

[Miriam Cates]

I completely agree with the Minister about the need to protect equal pay, pregnant women and so on; I do not think there would be any disagreement on that. The problem is the unintended consequences.

I will come back to the example of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. At the moment, let us say that a group of people were thrown out of a pub because of a homophobic landlord who thought that they were all LGBT. Let us say that they were not LGBT; the people who were not would currently, under UK law, have a case for discrimination, and rightly so.

The problem is that the effect of this legislation would be that if someone else walked into the pub who was not LGBT, and the landlord did not think he was LGBT but still threw him out, he would be able to claim that he suffered the same effect of discrimination, even though he did not have the protected characteristic. That is the impact. The lady who won the CHEZ case was not Roma, and nobody thought that she was Roma. She experienced the same discrimination as Roma people, but she was still able to claim. That is the difference between existing law and what this legislation potentially puts into practice, and that is the unintended consequence.

[Maria Caulfield]

That is open to interpretation, and that is exactly what the courts are there for: to decide how existing laws are interpreted. However, the CHEZ judgment is part of existing case law. It is the basis of how discrimination is determined right now. If we did not have this instrument and we had not left the EU, that would continue to be the case. At the end of this month, if we do not retain the law, those protections for pregnant women, disabled people and those with protected characteristics will fall completely. The CHEZ judgment is actually the basis of case law.

Legislative Definition of Sex

Miriam Cates Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, few doubted that Parliament’s intention was that sex should mean biological sex: either male or female, recorded at birth—an immutable characteristic. However, uncertainty has since arisen, specifically as to whether or not a person with a gender recognition certificate has legally changed their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Whatever the law actually says, the extent of the confusion is such that many people now believe that when someone expresses a desire to live as the opposite sex, that person then has a legal right to be treated as if they have changed sex.

This is not an academic argument. It has significant practical and safeguarding implications, as the outstanding work of Policy Exchange’s Biology Matters unit continues to reveal. Take the example of a tribunal brought against Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust last year. A male catering employee known as V, who identified as a trans woman, was given permission to use female changing rooms. When female staff complained about being forced to undress with V—in particular, seeing him naked from the waist down—the issue was raised with V by a female manager. In response, V brought a harassment case against the trust and, unbelievably, won.

Instead of considering whether the manager acted reasonably in being concerned about the exposure of male genitals in the ladies’ changing room, the judge decided that V had been treated differently from another woman. The judge treated V as though his sex was female when the issue was the fact that his body was male. Of course, the women who complained about V were not discriminating against him because of his trans identity, but because he was male, and such discrimination is of course—

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I check that this is a concluded case, please?

[Miriam Cates]

It is a concluded case.

The women were discriminating against him because he was male, and such discrimination is perfectly within the Equality Act if it is

“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”,

which in this case was to protect the integrity of single-sex spaces.

I have nothing but compassion for people whose biological sex is a source of distress; they should of course receive the best evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria. But while a small number of people rightly have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, everyone, including trans people, has the protected characteristic of sex—male or female. Where those protected characteristics collide, we must ensure that everyone is protected according to their sex and that proportionate accommodations are made to assist those who do not wish to use the facilities of their sex.

We must clarify the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex and to ensure that the providers of single-sex services and facilities understand and protect the single-sex nature of the provisions. It is extraordinary that in 2023—a time of unprecedented knowledge—we are arguing about the definition of something that has been known since the dawn of time. The most contentious question of our day has famously become “What is a woman?”—a question that no previous society has felt the need to answer.

Despite the semantic acrobatics employed by some to dodge the question, we all know, instinctively and intrinsically, what a woman is. The sex binary—the biological state of being either male or female—evolved hundreds of millions years ago, before we humans walked the earth. Being able to tell the difference between a man and a woman is not a matter of acquired knowledge. It is as instinctive as being able to tell up from down. Indeed, our survival as a species depends on it; if we want to reproduce, and to protect ourselves and our children, we had better know the difference between a man and a woman.

Men and women are different physically, psychologically, sexually and socially. All civilisations are built on an understanding of these differences, creating structures, rules and boundaries to protect women and children from male violence and to preserve the dignity of both sexes. There is nothing more destabilising to society than to dismantle the legal, social and cultural guardrails that protect women and children by pretending that males become females and vice versa, and allowing that to creep into our law.

While academic elites cave in to aggressive and misogynistic trans activism, ordinary women are frightened to go to hospital, ordinary men fear for the safety of their daughters in public toilets, ordinary children are subjected to a psychological experiment in which they are told they can choose their gender, and ordinary toddlers are used to satisfy the sexual fetish of adult men dressed as eroticised women. Understanding the difference between male and female underpins society, safety and security. We must clarify the Equality Act, and give ordinary people the certainty that our laws can be trusted to protect women and children and that sex means sex.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I feel it is incumbent on me to make a point of order on the fact that trans people are being characterised as predators, and that is deeply undemocratic and deeply worrying. That is not what this debate is about. For the Member to be using such language is unparliamentary. I seek your guidance, Mrs Cummins.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order because it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Miriam Cates]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Cummins. In response to the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), I was making the point that the vast majority of sexual predation is by men on women and children. That is what society has evolved to protect against.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Lady, but that is not a matter for the Chair. I call Dame Angela Eagle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Miriam Cates Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Illegal immigration enforcement—up. The amount of people processing claims—up. The backlog is down. The number of returns agreements is up. Hundreds of people have been returned to Albania, and now we have new laws to detain and deter illegal migrants. It is clear what we stand for. We are doing what is right: we are acting with compassion, we are acting with fairness and we are acting to respect the laws and borders of our country. We are delivering on what we said. It is crystal clear from listening to this that it will be the Conservatives, and only the Conservatives, who stop the boats.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

Q6. Graphic lessons on oral sex, how to choke your partner safely and 72 genders—this is what passes for relationships and sex education in British schools. Across the country, children are being subjected to lessons that are age-inappropriate, extreme, sexualising and inaccurate, often using resources from unregulated organisations that are actively campaigning to undermine parents. This is not a victory for equality; it is a catastrophe for childhood. Will my right hon. Friend honour his commitment to end inappropriate sex education by commissioning an independent inquiry into the nature and extent of this safeguarding scandal?

[The Prime Minister]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns and thank her for her work in this area. That is why I have asked the Department for Education to ensure that schools are not teaching inappropriate or contested content in relationships, sex and health education. Our priority should always be the safety and wellbeing of children. Schools should also make curriculum content and materials available to parents. As a result of all this, we are bringing forward a review of RSHE statutory guidance and will start our consultation as soon as possible.