Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey]

Yes. As I was saying, the document points out that the use of the Sentencing Acts definitions is “problematic” because the definition of

“‘sex’…is not settled in law and a Supreme Court Case on the subject is pending. ‘Transgender Identity’ is similarly problematic because the concept of ‘identity’ is wider than the equivalent protected characteristic”

in the Equality Act.

The document moves on to the ineffectiveness of statutory defences, saying:

“While Clause 1(2) of the bill makes serious efforts to deal with concerns around prosecutions each defence raises serious issues in the following terms:

a. The religion defence is not a statutory defence at all because it cannot apply where a conversion practice has taken place. This means it is not an excusatory defence in criminal law.

b. The ‘approval/disapproval’ defence is vague and ‘disapproval’ is not defined

c. The ‘health practitioner’ defence is a complex three-part defence which places the ‘reverse burden’ on a Defendant. The definition of a ‘health practitioner’ at Clause 4 covers most but not all clinical roles, (unregulated therapists, counsellor, helpline operators or online forum moderators would not qualify). To rely on this defence, a health practitioner must also prove to the civil standard (i) they were complying with regulations (this term is not defined) (ii) that the action they took was reasonable and (iii) that there was no ‘predetermined outcome’. Placing reverse burdens on Defendants (particularly clinicians or similar) is generally considered to be undesirable because Defendants are not expected to prove their innocence. Legitimate clinical practice will sometimes have a predetermined outcome where a confident and clear diagnosis is made.”

I can think of examples where that would apply in clinical practice.

The document continues:

“d. The ‘assisting’ defence is unclear and undefined.

e. The ‘exploring or questioning’ defence suffers from the same flaw as the religion defence, it applies only where a conversion practice is not proved and so is not a statutory defence at all.

f. The ‘parental responsibility’ defence applies only where a person having parental responsibility (i) is exercising it and (ii) where they prove on reverse burden that the welfare of the child was their paramount consideration. As children get older parental responsibility in law is ‘exercised’ less and less. Requiring a parent to prove that welfare was not simply a consideration, but a ‘paramount’ consideration is onerous and likely impossible for a Defendant parent to prove.”

The Gay Men’s Network also addresses the human rights issues we heard about from the two KCs earlier:

“We take the view that the bill as drafted is not compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and would likely be declared incompatible with the convention for the following reasons:

Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6)

A prosecution alleging a parent supressed an identity by regulating clothing would require a parent to accept that such an identity exist. That is contrary to Article 6 which requires criminal tribunals be independent. It would also compel belief in the criminal sphere in such a concept while disbelief in such a concept is a protected characteristic in the civil sphere. That would create a serious inconsistency in law.”

That is very clear. The document continues:

“The bill leaves key terms undefined which is contrary to the Article 6 right that a Defendant understand the case against them in ordinary and clear language. The reverse burdens in clause 1(2) impose significant and onerous burdens on Defendants and in some cases do not amount to statutory defences at all.

Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8)

The bill makes significant incursions into family life by potentially criminalising parental guidance or regulation that touches on sexual orientation or ‘transgender identity’. Difficult conversations that parents have”—

as we spoke about some time ago—

“as a matter of course would potentially be criminalised. Further, a parent can only rely on the relevant defence as outlined above. This is highly likely to be viewed as significant state overreach by domestic and supra national courts.

Right to freedom of conscience (Article 9) and expression (Article 10)

This bill would significantly curtail both religious and political expression. A similar bill passed in Victoria, Australia, led to the domestic human rights body regulating public prayer. The fact that criminal liability can trigger from a single incident and the wide meaning of the term “supress” casts the net of criminal liability so widely the offence is likely to be declared incompatible with the convention.”

The document concludes:

“While the member for Brighton Kemptown has made significant efforts to deal with such concerns our position is that a bill based on the self-reported phenomenon of ‘identity’ and the wide term ‘supress’ might, despite best efforts, perversely fuel the very problem that it intends to solve.”

As I mentioned earlier, like section 28, the Bill would likely prevent a young person from securing an explorative conversation with even the most supportive and receptive trusted adult, due to its chilling effect. I have also raised the question of who would then provide the approved therapy.

Moving on to therapists, in a recent paper, educational psychologists Dr Claire McGuiggan, Dr Peter D’Lima and Lucy Robertson highlight the assumption that psychologists will be the ones who will guide the response and who have the skills to do so, but observe that psychologists are divided on this issue, too. They note the following:

“In response to the interim findings of the Cass review…the Association of Clinical Psychologists-United Kingdom…published a statement demanding a radical shift in the support for young people with gender concerns. They called for more comprehensive multi-disciplinary assessments and increased consideration of sociocultural factors, such as homophobia. The ACP-UK also strongly conveyed the uncertainty about how best to intervene related to the dearth of robust and high-quality data on the safety and effectiveness of medical transition, and the inability of clinicians to ascertain clearly who will persist or desist in their gender dysphoria…The ACP-UK statement was met with a rebuttal from a group of clinical psychologists in an open letter to the ACP-UK…They disassociated themselves from the ACP-UK response…Within educational psychology professions, however, only two educational psychologists have publicly referenced the concerns reflected in the Cass review.”

Apart from those two voices, the psychologists claim that there is silence, avoidance and suppression.

Silence: there is no response from the Association of Educational Psychologists or the Division of Educational and Child Psychology, and no guidance or caution, despite it being reported that educational psychologists are expertly placed to support trans-identified young people. Avoidance within the profession: it almost appears as if the Cass review did not happen at all, and that there is clear consensus on how best to support trans-identified youth. Their approach is affirmation, and that is the problem. Alongside that, there is suppression. That is being enacted on social media, where clear messages have been put out that if anyone asks a difficult questions, they are to be shut down and reported to the regulator and will face disciplinary action. That is the culture at the back of all of these pieces of legislation. That is the risk: professionals cannot become activists. That is happening in education and in educational psychology.

The paper led the authors to raise the fundamental position—I absolutely agree with it, and it applies to so many disciplines—that surely a healthy profession, a profession which prides itself on child-centred, evidence-based reflective practice, cannot continue to avoid, ignore or suppress the issue any longer. It must openly, explicitly and deeply engage with it. Disagreement must be tolerated and explored. The alternative is avoidance of the issue to protect educational psychologists from discomfort at the expense of the needs of children.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. I live by this quote of Thomas Sowell:

“There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young.”

It has stuck with me ever since I read it. The House needs to remember that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we can only affirm a child’s choice, to believe that they are in the wrong body, we are in a desperate situation and would be in a place where we were misleading the young? That would be absolutely tragic for every child, every parent, every teacher, every member of the clergy and every practitioner, not just in this country, but across the world.

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. This is a question that every single Member of the House needs to bear in mind: what will they do in five or 10 years’ time, when a sea of people who were affirmed and rapidly put on to a pathway of irreversible treatment, come to the politicians and say, “You did this to me. You said this was okay. You made this policy. You stopped me from accessing therapy. I needed therapy”?

We have had the warning signs from Keira and others. We know that that is a real risk and we know that detransitioning is under-reported. A lot of people are out there, suffering in silence. They are not being listened to. No services are reaching out to them. They may feel completely lost and at sea. We have to think very carefully about facilitating that and putting a new tranche of young people on to that irreversible pathway.

The EPs made a really important point, and I will take up another point from the intervention of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). My professional background is in working with young people in cancer care. I worked with older paediatric patients from the ages of 11 upwards and sometimes into young adulthood. It is quite amazing how young people can accommodate some of the most difficult information. They can face challenges that would humble most of us and make well-informed decisions, but the reality is they have no choice in that situation, because they have cancer, and nobody can make that go away. I know that young people can make courageous decisions, but there is a fundamental difference between helping and guiding a young person through those types of choices and affirming a young person on an irreversible pathway of medical surgical intervention that is completely unnecessary. I cannot for the life of me understand how any professional can say, “I did a good job today because I have allowed this young person to go down this irreversible pathway,” knowing full well the later effects of those types of treatments.

All that is important, because comprehending one’s adult self as a child is different from dealing with difficult questions that cannot be avoided. While children have aspirations and ideas about who they want to be when they grow up, based on their experiences and observations, their understanding is limited by their cognitive, emotional and physical development. Proponents of queer theory often claim that Gillick competence allows all children to consent to any treatment or process, but that is a complete misunderstanding of what Gillick competence is. It is a name conferred to a legal principle established in the UK with Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority, which states that minors under the age of 16 can consent to medical treatment without parental consent if they demonstrate sufficient understanding and intelligence to comprehend the nature and implications of the treatment.

I refer back to the comments I just made: that is simply not possible, because that is not something a young person can do. Children cannot grasp the full complexities of adulthood in the way that adults can, and they do not have the ability to project themselves into their as yet unformed future adult self. However, children can still develop a sense of their future selves, which may evolve and change as they mature. The best way to deal with that is to build a relationship with them, talk about how they feel about things and themselves and have that dialogue. This legislation limits that, and that is important parenting.

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development highlights how children’s understanding of themselves and the world evolves as they mature, and other researchers have also looked into childhood development. We know the science behind all this, and the Bill gets in the way of allowing children to actualise and become their authentic selves by limiting their exploration of these important and defining facets of who they ultimately will become.

All the above leads me to my final argument: the inversion of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle. Articulated in his work “On Liberty”, it asserts that the only justification for society or the state to interfere with an individual’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. According to Mill, individuals should have the utmost freedom to act as they please, as long as their actions do not harm others. That principle rests on the idea of individual autonomy and the importance of personal liberty in a free society, and it has profound implications for the role of Government and the limits of state power. It advocates for minimal interference in the private lives of individuals, allowing them to pursue their own interests and lifestyles without undue constraint, as long as they do not infringe on the rights and wellbeing of others. The Bill unquestionably interferes with the freedoms, rights and wellbeing of everyone, including those whom it claims to protect.

Mill’s harm principle remains a cornerstone of liberal thought, emphasising the importance of individual freedom while acknowledging the need for societal constraints when harm is involved. This Bill ushers in a wholesale redefinition of the harm principle whereby it will be illegal to say the “wrong thing” even if it inflicts no perceivable harm, while simultaneously inflicting a totalitarian queer theory world view on everyone else. That is my fundamental concern about the Bill. I think it important that we address the issue, but now is the wrong time, this is the wrong Bill, and queer theory is absolutely the wrong backdrop. If we really want to protect gender non-conforming and other vulnerable young people, we should recognise that they deserve a robust defence of free speech as a basic right, essential for the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth.

Despite the sincere attempts of the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown to carve out exemptions, we simply cannot ignore the fact that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge of the introduction of queer theory doctrine into UK law, and the survival of those exemptions is contingent on their not being amended or nullified by the insertion of new clauses and amendments. This is not a ban on conversion practices; it provides the ammunition of criminal accusations for radicalised gender activists, many of whom are vociferously homophobic. Any legislation that facilitates a process to “trans away the gay” is deeply sinister and dangerous.

As I said at the outset, legislation is supposed to fix a problem, not create a new one. This proposal does real and foreseeable harm, and it should be rejected by every Member of the House and every LGB and T person who truly values the equality and the fundamental human rights of everyone. This legislation must ultimately be defeated, or we will risk depriving a generation of young LGB and T people from becoming the fabulous, vibrant and unique gender non-conforming people they have every right to be.

I will end where I began my contribution to the recent Westminster Hall debate, by quoting Kierkegaard, who said:

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

I take on board the hon. Member’s point, but the final Bill was published only this week. I take on board his point about future amendments should the Bill get to Committee. I appreciate that he intends his Bill to be a framework into which exemptions can be built, but when creating a broad new criminal offence that could be altered in future by powers, we believe that robust protections and scrutiny must come at the beginning of the legislative process, not the end.

Secondly, the risk is further heightened by the inclusion of “suppression” within the scope of the offences under clause 1(2). For example, if a religious leader supports an individual who wants to manage their same-sex attraction in order to align with their individual religious belief, where the individual consensually seeks out religious counselling, this Bill would still criminalise that support. That is just one tiny example of what we mean.

Despite the hon. Gentleman’s best efforts to the contrary, the Bill risks creating a chilling effect on clinicians—we have heard some of those concerns today—by positioning healthcare regulation within the context of criminal law. The impact on healthcare professionals may well be the single biggest challenge within legislation in this area. That is part of the reason why we consider pre-legislative scrutiny from the breadth of medical experience available across Parliament in both Houses to be so critical. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), that concern is cited by the independent Cass review, the final report of which is expected in the next few weeks.

Our third concern is about the Bill’s attempt to exempt parental behaviour in clause 1(2). The Government are clear that parents should be able to have exploratory and even challenging conversations with their children, and it would be absolutely wrong to criminalise them.

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the Minister for the help she has given me recently with regard to the issues facing men and boys, which is a subject close to my heart. I am equally supportive of women and girls. Does she agree that this Bill—or any Bill that criminalises free speech—will have a huge effect on women and girls across this country? We will get to a point where parents will be unable to say to their sweet little girl who comes home from school, having seen the abhorrent material in relationships, sex and health education, “No, you’re not a boy; you’re a lovely little girl, and you’re going to grow up to be a lovely little girl.” Does she also agree that the Bill will put biological males in single-sex spaces, which again is abhorrent, and take away podium places from girls?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

May I start by wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker—my fellow Welsh expat—a happy St David’s day?

I want to pay my respects to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for introducing this private Member’s Bill. It is a real shame he had to do so. The Government have promised time and again to bring in their own Bill to ban conversion therapy; we have promised it in two Conservative party manifestos, and we have spoken about it in, I think, two Queen’s Speeches. It is important that no one in this country should be made to feel ashamed of who they are. I find it difficult to believe that a practice that seeks to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity persists in some parts of our country.

I know that this practice is an issue. I have to admit that I was sceptical that conversion therapy even existed in this country until a constituent came to see me. She was a lesbian woman who was under so much pressure to marry a male. She was being forced to go to family events and take part in religious ceremonies, because her family thought she should be able to stop being a lesbian, become a heterosexual and marry a man. The pressure and depression that this woman was suffering made me ashamed to have ever questioned whether conversion therapy exists among some communities in this country. It is imperative that the Government remain committed to protecting people from these awful practices so that they can live their lives free from the threat of harm and abuse.

[Nick Fletcher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Nickie Aiken]

No.

I take this issue very seriously, as the LGBT+ community has always been a valued part of the two cities in my constituency. I feel fortunate that my constituency has a rich LGBT+ history. It is home to one of the world’s best-known gay districts, our beloved Soho. From hosting the first UK Pride march in 1972, Soho has played an important part in London’s, and perhaps the UK’s, gay community. It is of huge historical importance; many of the conversations on gay rights started in the same bars and spaces that still line the streets of Soho.

Madam Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am not converting you. [Laughter.] I will move swiftly on. I am a 55-year-old woman—I know it is hard to believe—and we have come so far in my lifetime on improving the rights of the LGBT community. I recall a bisexual friend of mine who has lived in the west end for decades remarking that we have come so far in places like Soho. In my lifetime—in the past 20, 30 or 40 years —a gay bar was hidden from view. People had to sneak in. They had to knock on a door, and the windows were boarded up. Today, we celebrate gay bars, and I am sure many of us in this Chamber do quite regularly—[Laughter.] I am not saying anything, Mr Deputy Speaker. But seriously, let us also remember the pressure and harm that the LGBT+ community has faced, and perhaps still does face.

Next month, 30 April will mark the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho, a beloved venue of Soho’s gay and non-gay community. I recall that night, as I was in Soho that Friday evening enjoying a night out. Since that terrible crime, where three people died and 89 were injured, our country has seen important changes in attitudes to gay people and trans people, with huge strides in the improvement of human rights for the LGBT+ community. We have heard today of so many different pieces of legislation and laws that we have brought in, including the Equality Act 2010 and the numerous laws that this Conservative Government have introduced over the past 14 years. We must ensure that we continue to do that.

I absolutely understand the concerns that have been expressed today about how we legislate on conversion therapy. It can be very difficult when someone wants to support a family member through love, perhaps to get therapy, or a teacher is approached. Taking advice and undertaking therapy are very different from coercive practices. The coercion element is key to this Bill, and I hope that, when it is introduced, the Government Bill will aim to enforce that.

We have such an outstanding history of fighting for LGBT+ rights, and it is so important that we continue that narrative. I believe that we must enforce on coercive conversion therapy practices because that would send a message to all gay people, all people from the LGBT+ community—whether they are starting out on their journey or ending it—that they have the right to be who they are. I compare this type of legislation with legislation on FGM. That has been on the statute book for decades, and we have only just seen prosecutions and, in the past week or so, the first conviction. Was it wrong to have legislation outlawing that heinous practice, whether it takes place here or involves a British citizen being taken abroad to undergo it? It is right that we send a clear message to the LGBT community that we support them and they are not alone, and that we send the message to those who want to coerce and stop them being who they are that they should not do it in this country.

Gender Recognition

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right. Self-ID impacts on all the things she mentioned. We speak less about freedom of association and the impact on that. It goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) that we need in many respects to separate sexual orientation from what we refer to now as gender identity—that is, what is under the “T”. We have lumped them together before. That was helpful in many circumstances, but I have seen this issue arise in other equalities work that I have done around race, where we use the term BAME to lump together lots of different groups. When that occurred, we missed a lot of information about what was happening within those groups. We need as much granularity as possible if we are to serve people who are LGB as well as people who are T.

The hon. and learned Lady asks what work we are doing to stop lesbians being made to feel as if they have to be trans-identified males. I have asked the Equality Hub to do some work with The Lesbian Project, which I know is interested in fixing this problem. On the point of international treaties, she is absolutely right in what she says. So much of the criticism about how our international standing will fall is not evidence-based policy, but “not a good look-ism”. It says, “This is not a good look and we probably should not do it,” but that is not how we should be making policy. We should be looking at the facts, thinking clearly about the outcomes we want and acting accordingly. That is the way the Equality Hub, under my leadership, will continue to behave.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State for Education said today that to completely stop children being able to socially transition at school required change in equality law, yet children who do socially transition can end up on a pathway to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries that leave them infertile and have an impact on their bone, and even their brain, development. This is tearing families apart up and down this country, and we cannot continue to let it happen in our schools. I will therefore be supporting the Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) this afternoon when she lays it before Parliament. Will the Secretary of State meet concerned colleagues from across the House to change this law in order to protect our children at school, because that is a must?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am happy to meet Members from across the House on this issue, but I stress that changing the law is not going to be easy. It will not be straightforward and it will need consensus, broadly, across the House, because of many of the issues I alluded to earlier.

On his earlier point about social transitioning, he is actually right. It is probably worth my putting on the record what social transitioning is, because I know that a lot of people may not necessarily be clear about what I am referring to. Social transitioning is a relatively new phenomenon. It is rooted in gender identity theory, which I must stress is a very contested ideology. The term is often used to refer to a range of actions that a child may take to appear more like the opposite sex, accompanied by an expectation that they will be treated as if they are. That may include requests for a child to change their name, the pronouns associated with them or their uniform, or to use different facilities from those provided for their biological sex. Not all of those requests will comply with legal duties on schools, particularly those to safeguard children.

Social transitioning is not a neutral act, as it has been recognised that it can have formative effects on a child’s future development, which is what my hon. Friend is alluding to when he talks about cross-sex hormones. We are taking this very seriously. We will have the gender questioning guidance out very shortly, and I hope it will address many of the issues he is concerned about.

International Men's Day

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Men’s Day.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, especially after all the work that you, Mr Davies, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) have already done on this subject. We are here to celebrate International Men’s Day, which took place on Sunday 19 November. It is a day to celebrate all the good that men have done, but also a day to shine a light on the things that adversely affect men so much.

The theme this year was suicide. Thirteen men a day take their life. Thirteen men who woke up yesterday morning are no longer with us—and today, another 13, and tomorrow, again, another 13. Every day, every week, every year. Just let that sink in. Thirteen men, every day, think the only out is to take their life. In 2023, that cannot be right, can it?

What is the answer? Sadly, there is no silver bullet, but there are steps we can take—steps we must take—and suicide is not the only issue affecting men, so I am going to take us through a few of them but then through some solutions too.

Let me start by taking us through a boy’s life. Let us call him Tommy. Tommy never asked to be born—none of us did—but Tommy is here. Tommy needs care and attention from day one, not just from mum at home, but also from dad. Human interaction is crucial to a child’s development. Playing peekaboo is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) said, so much more important than we would think.

Sadly, Tommy’s mum and dad argue a little too much. Money, housing, health, work—there are so many things that make relationships hard. We know that life is not easy; that is why marriage vows have, for centuries, included the words, which we all know, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health. Tommy’s parents separate. Sadly, too many times, it turns into a battle. In come the solicitors. To win their case, too many use blame as a tool, a child as a weapon. The legal system makes it so hard for children. Lawyers want to win at all costs, parents say things that should not be said, and the truth is often embellished on all sides. An acrimonious split is achieved. Tommy now does not see dad, and Tommy’s mum now has it all to do. Not work, rest and play; just work, then work at home, and then little sleep for Tommy’s mum.

What of Tommy’s dad? Dad is ousted from the home, unable to see his son. Many fathers are prevented unfairly. There is child maintenance to be paid; the Child Maintenance Service presents another challenge. Tommy’s dad often turns inwards and often to the fridge, looking for relief. It could be beer, the wrong food, both—or worse.

Little Tommy gets a PlayStation and a smartphone. The world wide web influencers now come into play in Tommy’s life. They want to sell a brand and themselves; they have no care for what little Tommy sees. Tommy’s schoolwork suffers. There are no male teachers at his school—there are very few male teachers now—no role models to follow other than the wrong ones. There is a decreasing number of positive male role models on TV. Tommy plays up at school. Nobody expects anything of him—written off at such an early age. Knowing this, Tommy plays up even more. One day, he finds himself excluded from school. Tommy becomes easy prey. A local gang shows him respect for now, shows interest for now. Antisocial behaviour follows: disrespect for police, drugs, a knife, a spell inside. Mum is in despair. Where did it go wrong?

Tommy’s father is now probably overweight. He is drinking too much, has anxiety, no sense of value and feels that he has nothing to live for. Sadly, Tommy’s dad becomes another statistic; one of the 13 a day who die by suicide. Tommy finds a girl amid this car crash of a life. They want to make a go of it together. They have a beautiful little boy—Tommy junior—and, sadly, the cycle begins again. That is quite depressing, but we all know that it is true.

It really does not need to be like that. As I said, there is no silver bullet, but there might be something close. Let me go through this and show how it cuts across all Departments of the Government. Tommy’s first 1,001 days are so important. We need to push the family hubs out across the country as soon as possible—Department: Work and Pensions.

Keeping families together saves so much pain and heartache, and saves the state so much money. Some 66% of mums want to stop at home and look after their child. We need to offer them the same support that we offer mums who want to return to work. Mums have a genuine choice; we need dads to have the same choice. We need to build many more homes where people need them. That way, we will have more choice, which will automatically raise the standard. We also need a fairer tax system for families—Departments: DWP, Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Treasury.

To stop the hate and separation, we need a new model when it comes to family law: fairness for fathers, as well as for mothers, and a system that treats fathers as equally in practice as it does in theory. What works in civil litigation does not work here. Little Tommy needs mum and dad, so that has to be the starting point of any separation—Department: Justice.

Influencers need to understand their audience, and the damage that they can do. We have to get them to quit being a problem. The Online Safety Act 2023 will help, but we cannot legislate for people being decent, just as we cannot legislate to force people to be kind. We need to name and shame the culprits.

We need leisure centres and youth clubs. Tommy missed out again yesterday in Edlington; there is no leisure centre for Tommy, so he spends 14,000 hours on his games console, like the average boy does up to the age of 21—Departments: Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and DLUHC.

There are four million children living with only one parent. In 88% of those families, the parent with care of the children is mum. If we assume an even distribution in family size, we can estimate that around 3.52 million children live with their mothers; that is 1.76 million boys without a dad at home. We need to introduce and maintain a flagging system in schools that flags fatherless boys as they start secondary school. All boys need mentorship and to be met with a positive attitude. Fatherless boys need that especially—Department: Education.

When it comes to stopping gangs, the police’s Operation Duxford is working, but we need to do more. We need a zero-tolerance attitude and a broken-window strategy, so that our young people know how to behave. The gangs must be dealt with from the bottom up. Capturing the ring leader is not the answer; he is often replaced within an hour, once caught, so we need to stop his workers on the street—Department: Home Office.

On a quick side note, tags are a deterrent to others, as well as to the one who is tagged. One young man told me that, when he had to wear one, all of the individuals who might have dragged him back into crime actually kept away. They did not want to be with him, because they could be traced. Through being tagged, that young man has been able to leave criminality behind and is now back on the straight and narrow.

I will get back to the Departments. Separated dads are often unable to spend time with their children. They are in despair, and we need to do more to help them. Men may often turn to the wrong lifestyle choices when things are not right. We have an NHS system that does not fit around the patterns that men often work. We need men to discuss their issues, become part of a community, feel valued and have access to their kids—Department: Health and Social Care.

I have listed many Departments, but there are issues for men who work that are covered by so many more. I have heard of loneliness in occupations. With regards to suicide, lonely farmers are a concern. Spending long days in tractors on their own is no good. Isolation is hard to cope with—Department: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The soldier who leaves the forces and cannot find his way in civilian life on civvy street is another concern—Department: Defence.

The list goes on, and many Departments are doing much to help. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and Ministers both past and present, have been amazing. They have been listening. Just this weekend, they announced help with issues that so many men face: prostate cancer screening, access to health services online and a taskforce to understand how men access physical services. All of that is good to hear. These steps will undoubtedly save many lives, and it goes further.

The announcement of a men’s health ambassador is great news too—a huge stride forward. We have a Minister for women, and she is doing great work, but if we want to help all the men and boys such as Tommy with their poor life prospects, we must do more. If we want to stop men such as Tommy’s dad taking their own life, and to give Tommy’s mum a life that is not just sheer hard work for seemingly very little return, we need a Minister for men and boys—a Minister who will connect all the dots and join all the Departments together, who will take men’s health and wellbeing seriously, and who will ask the following questions whenever any policy is announced: how does it affect men? How does it affect their families? How does it help society as a whole? As Warren Farrell states:

“When one sex loses, both sexes lose.”

That is very true.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for presenting a very well-researched speech and for telling us the story of Tommy. Does my hon. Friend believe that it would be a major step forward to have a Minister for men?

[Nick Fletcher]

Yes, I do. That is what we are building up to, and we desperately need it.

I thank the Minister for everything she has done, but she should use her influence to inform our Prime Minister about the debate and give him this message: no matter how many men there are around his Cabinet table, or how many men there are in the boardrooms of FTSE 100 companies, men still need help. She should tell him not to forget little Tommy. Trust me, he is desperate. Whether he is five, 15 or 25, he is desperate.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has made a passionate case for why young boys need very strong male role models. I would argue that young girls and women need those strong role models too. I entirely support his call for a Minister for men, but would he take this opportunity to congratulate A Band of Brothers, a group in my constituency that provides male mentorship? It has seen incredible, inspiring, transformational success in the lives of the young men it has come alongside. That essential ingredient, role modelling, by a more experienced and mature man, has truly made the difference.

[Nick Fletcher]

I could not agree more. Girls need role models too, which is so important. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on issues affecting men and boys, and as a Member of Parliament who takes this issue so seriously, I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my thanks to the charity for all the work it is doing.

I am the biggest believer in personal responsibility. Not everything can or should be down to the Government, so I ask the nation to talk up men. I ask the nation to look for the good in them. I ask the nation to ask them if they are okay. When they say they are fine, ask them again. Many men are not fine; they need our help and support. Look out for the little Tommy in your community. See if you can be of help to him through his mum or his school. Trust me, if we do not do so, the 13 suicides a day will not stop at 13. The figure will rise, the prisons will only get more full, and too many more women and girls may be hurt along the way.

In conclusion, when the subject of a Minister for boys and men is mentioned, stop sniggering and start supporting. We need to quit being part of the problem and start being part of the solution, because when one sex wins, both sexes win.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in this debate on International Men’s Day. It is a particular pleasure to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this debate, and for making such an important contribution.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the way in which gender stereotypes are harmful to men and boys. Issues include family breakdown, excluded boys being drawn into antisocial behaviour, drugs and crime, and men’s attitudes towards seeking help not just for mental health but health per se, as well as a legal system that too many men feel militates against them, particularly when it comes to family law. I would argue that gender stereotypes, in all their forms, are harmful to human beings, and my hon. Friend made a very cogent case for the way in which they are harmful to men and boys.

I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend’s policy suggestions. I would suggest that if men and women had equal voices at the policymaking tables, we could ensure that the lives of both men and women could be seen in all the polices that come forward in this Parliament. If we encourage male Ministers to do as much as they can, and particularly to look at their female counterparts and the work they do on how gender affects policy, that could go some way towards addressing some of the issues that he is talking about.

It is not good for men if the health system is designed for men, because men have daughters, partners and mothers. We want all our public services to work for men and for women. If we currently have a system where that is not the case, we need to encourage all Ministers—whatever the Prime Minister might decide on a Minister for men—to think about the gender differences that are at play. It is not only the Minister for Women who thinks about Government policies and how they affect women. Many of my female colleagues who are Ministers do a huge amount to think about how their policies will affect women. Perhaps their male counterparts need to be doing similarly.

In Parliament, we make polices and law for people—few are gender specific. But we know—as my hon. Friend has just said—that men and women experience the world very differently. That is why I really welcome this debate on International Men’s Day. As right hon. and hon. Members might know, I often lead the debate on International Women’s Day. That is an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of women, but also to raise a lot of the issues. This debate is just as important, because it reminds us that we live in a gendered world, and we have to deal with that as politicians. We do not make the best policies unless we recognise that there is a difference.

I am sure you will not be surprised to know, Mr Davies, that I would love a world where gender is no longer an issue that drives the sort of differences that my hon. Friend just talked about, but we deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. He is absolutely right that we need to consider gender when we develop policies. Chromosomal difference, although significant, is not really what he was talking about when he set out the parameters of this debate; those differences are added to by societal norms. We could have an enormous debate about nature versus nurture; I would say that nurture plays a huge part in many of the issues that my hon. Friend clearly articulated.

International Men’s Day is not only about the issues that I will come to in a moment; it is about celebrating the men in our lives and the amazing contribution men make. Men shape our lives, whether we are women or men. My father told me to go to the best university I could, and that my imagination was the only limit to my achievements—crumbs, that is a fantastic role model to have. It is about my brothers, my husband and my sons being there; such are the people who shape our lives. There are far more men in my life than women, although I give a special call-out to my daughter and mother, because they are very special too. Men are there to shape our lives, and I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who would argue differently.

All the evidence shows—my hon. Friend made this point—that men’s and women’s lives are different. We should be concerned about the pressures that men face, including the pressure to conform to notions of masculinity, which I would argue are very out of date. I hope my sons do not feel that pressure, but I am sure they do. I do not want their childhood to be filled with phrases such as, “Don’t start acting like a girl.” I hope that is in the past, but perhaps it is not. To be branded as the breadwinner in adult life puts huge pressure on men. In reality, one in three women earn more than their partners or husbands, yet society still sees men as the breadwinner. We treat each other differently because of our gender, and the evidence shows that, as a result, we live different lives.

In the UK, we find gender a difficult concept. That came out in the trans debate recently. It also came out in 2013, when many people found it quite difficult that the Government said it was wrong for the state not to allow people of the same gender to marry. I was the Minister at the time, and we changed the law to enable that to happen and for it to be a happy occasion.

That we continue to have a gender pay gap clearly shows that society treats men and women differently, and too many boys are still being told to “man up” during their childhood. We treat men and women differently. I do not think that is right, and the world would be a better place if we outlawed those sorts of gender stereotypes.

[Nick Fletcher]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. She mentioned the gender pay gap, and I keep hearing this all the time. Will she confirm—she has an awful lot of experience of that issue—that it is illegal for anybody to pay a man more than a woman to do the same job?

[Dame Maria Miller]

I think my hon. Friend is probably thinking about something different. The gender pay gap is about looking at groups of people who earn differently for doing the same thing in their workplace. It is not about pay levels—pay rates for the individual. If my hon. Friend looks at the data available now, he will see that the gender pay gap has actually disappeared for groups of men and women in their 20s and 30s, and quite remarkably it reappears vigorously over the age of 40. When companies look at what they pay groups of people who are over the age of 40, they will see that women are paid less. I wonder why that is. The average age of giving birth is now around 30—it is a lot older than when I had my first child. It is women who are finding it very difficult to come back into the jobs market and get jobs that are actually comparable with their qualifications. There is also an issue around productivity there.

This debate, however, is not about women. It is about men and we should focus on International Men’s Day. In this day and age, I think that most men want to see fairness at work and, if they have a female spouse, for them to paid fairly. I do not think that this is necessarily about men wanting to gang up on women. It is societal structures and norms that are causing the problems. We, as politicians, have a great deal to do to reset those societal norms and to ensure that the structures do not create a perpetuation of gender stereotypes, which, as my hon. Friend set out, are so harmful, particularly to men and boys.

I think that Brits are far less comfortable than our continental friends in agreeing that inequality between the genders is serious. There has been some research done to suggest that, in continental Europe, one in three sees gender inequality as a serious concern, whereas in the UK that figure is one in four. Perhaps, as a society, we need to challenge ourselves a bit more on these things.

As both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have said, the way in which our public services are structured, in terms of perpetuating some of these gender stereotypes and inequalities for men, is best seen in our health service when it comes to men’s health. It is quite concerning that men are expected to live almost three years less than women, which is extraordinary. It is even more extraordinary that I do not really see a policy to directly address that. There are some policies there and, of course, the Minister has huge expertise as a Health Minister, so she will turn to matters such as the prostate cancer work being done.

Cancer rates are 20% higher among men, and men are more likely to go to hospital with heart disease, more likely to smoke, more likely to die from alcohol conditions, more likely to use illegal drugs, and more likely to die in a workplace accident. The Government do have policies, but are they really focused on the disproportionate way in which those issues affect men? I think they probably do on heart disease, and obviously they do on prostate cancer—although, again, there are issues for trans people, particularly trans women, in accessing those healthcare systems.

In terms of men’s mental health, there is an increasing gap between men and women. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, suicide rates among men are a concern. In fact, they are not just a concern; we have seen that women’s suicide rates have halved and men’s suicide rates have fallen just a fraction. Again, I challenge the Minister to ensure that we have a gendered approach to healthcare in our country.

Let us not pretend that there are no differences between men and women—there are. I would like to see a world where men and women are recognised for their separate needs and one where we celebrate our differences, but our aim should be to remove that difference when it is destructive, to enable us all to live in peace and prosperity together. That is the way in which we are going to have the best world possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank everybody who has contributed to this excellent debate, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to take place, and I thank you, Mr Davies, for all the work you have done on this issue in the past. I thank the Men and Boys Coalition for organising International Men’s Day; the Men’s Health Forum for the leading work it does; the APPG team, Mark Brooks and Mike Bell; the wonderful charities that are doing great work, such as Andy’s Man Club, Men’s Sheds, Lads Need Dads, Prostate Cancer UK, and so many more.

Finally, seeing as though the debate was purposefully about suicide, I want to thank all the good men out there. It is sometimes tough being a boy or a man, but when you are feeling low and you think nobody cares, please, please, please reach out. Trust me: people do care. I care, we all in this room care, and most importantly, I know God cares too.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered International Men’s Day.

Legislative Definition of Sex

Nick Fletcher Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. As we have heard, the petitioners want to make a simple amendment to clarify the Equality Act with regard to the interpretation of the word “sex”. That clarification would prevent serious problems from continuing. We are in a position where some biological males believe that they have a right to enter single-sex spaces—female changing rooms. I suspect that when many think of that they think of a grown man—a trans woman—entering a grown woman’s space. That to me is obviously wrong, but my real concern is what happens when a six-year-old girl is in that changing room—somebody’s daughter, somebody’s granddaughter, somebody’s niece. It just is not right.

[Sir George Howarth in the Chair]

I want to make an aside—hon. Members will see where I am going with it. I worked in construction most of my life. Health and safety has taken a real turn for the better over the last 30 years. We now report near misses—where an accident could have happened, but luckily did not. A tripping hazard may have been seen, or an oil spill. We do that to learn, and to prevent accidents from taking place. We put items only in designated areas, and prevent the spill or have spill kits on hand. That does not mean that everyone was going to trip or slip, but some might have. We learn from near misses and prevent accidents. I think we would all agree that that is wise.

While our construction sites are getting safer—well done to those in the Opposition for bringing in health and safety legislation—our single-sex spaces are not. Let us do what we need to do to clarify the Equality Act and ensure that no biological male can enter that six-year-old girl’s changing room. To me, that would be excellent legislation, and a must—a near miss reported to stop tragedy happening. That does not mean every biological male going into a female changing room is a danger, like not everyone was going to trip or slip, but some might be, so we should say no and prevent the possibility of something bad happening. That is why I support the petition and hope the Government will, too.

We can also use the analogy of a near miss when it comes to women’s sport. If we do not make this change right now, we could quite easily end up with no women’s sport. Many young girls will see what is happening—biological males winning in female sports, or perhaps a woman or girl being injured—and think, “What’s the point in trying?” Let us sort out the Equality Act right now and protect our women’s sport for good.

If we can stop the use of new gender pronouns in schools, we will stop many issues for our young people later in life, too. I am glad that we have been able to discuss this near miss today. I hope we can learn from it and prevent the tragedies that could follow if we do not.

Let me assure all those who think it is unfair that I believe we need to help and support those with gender dysphoria and treat them with respect, too. But we need to do so while respecting other rights, and I feel that I have to stand up for the six-year-old girl in the changing room confronted with a 50-year-old male who is going through a tough time. I am standing up for the nine-year-old who wants to stand in first place at the Olympics but thinks, “What’s the point?” when a biological man will be there in her place.

I am standing up for the 12-year-old allowed to use pronouns at school who is being sold a story that she can be something that she never can. I am thinking of her after her transition, when she wakes up one morning when she is 25 and realises that she can no longer have children. She is growing facial hair, her health is generally poor, her bone density is down, her voice has broken, she has no real friends, and she has probably fallen out with mum, who is now broken for letting her take those puberty blockers and hormone replacement tablets. I am thinking of that girl sold a lie by the influencers who have now moved on to another ideology to make them money. No—in this place, we have to make the hard decisions to protect the vulnerable. I know the Government will make the right decision and clarify the Equality Act.