The Government has faced claims of making “more excuses” to delay a ban on so-called LGBT conversion therapy as a proposal by a Brighton MP was blocked.
Equalities minister Maria Caulfield said the Government intends to bring forward draft legislation once a review examining gender identity services for children and young people is completed in the coming weeks.
Conservative MP Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) argued there is “no reason” to wait for the Cass Review, telling the Commons: “It feels as if there’s more excuses as to why we need to delay this.”
The exchanges came during consideration of the Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill, tabled by Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle in a bid to ban offering or advertising LGBT conversion practices.
Mr Russell-Moyle’s Bill would create new offences for a course of conduct whose “predetermined” purpose was to change a person’s sexual orientation or to change a person to or from being transgender.
It also offers “clarifications” about actions that do not meet a criminal threshold, including for the actions of parents, health practitioners and those exercising freedom of religion and other beliefs.
Mr Russell-Moyle brought forward his Bill in the absence of a Government proposal, which was first announced in 2018 and has undergone a series of delays.
But the MP for Brighton Kemptown’s Bill was talked out on Friday and therefore blocked, with some Conservative MPs and the Alba Party’s Neale Hanvey among those expressing opposition.
The second reading debate was still ongoing as the clock reached 2.30pm, which is the cut-off point for consideration of Private Members’ Bills.
Mr Russell-Moyle asked for the debate to resume on March 15 although it is unlikely to be considered further.
Ahead of a failed vote to curtail the debate, Ms Caulfield said the Bill has a “lack of legislative clarity, which risks unintended consequences”.
She told the Commons: “The Government has rightly taken time to carefully consider our own position on these pitfalls and will be publishing a draft Bill on this topic for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we expect this to be after the publication of the Cass Review, which will be in the coming weeks.”
Mr Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington), intervening, said: “As we’ve already heard throughout the course of the debate, Dr Hilary Cass has said there is no reason to delay on conversion and she’s said that multiple times.
“There is no reason to await the Cass Review to move forward with this and this was never mentioned before. All the promises that have been made to bring forward this Bill have never mentioned the Cass Review before.
“It feels as if there’s more excuses as to why we need to delay this. So when was the decision made to now wait for the Cass Review because that’s news to many of us?”
Ms Caulfield, in her reply, said: “Through the review there has been some evidence found which will, may – and this is why we’re waiting for the report – be of influence to our conversion practices Bill and that is why we’re waiting for that.”
Tory MP Peter Gibson (Darlington) said: “We have had so many promises from the Government of bringing this legislation forward. It has appeared in two Queen’s Speeches. We were promised this legislation in January 2023.
“It is March 1 2024. If the Government wants us all in this House to debate and consider its legislation can I please urge her to publish it, and table it so that we can discuss it?”
For Labour, shadow women and equalities secretary Anneliese Dodds earlier criticised the Government for a lack of action to introduce a ban.
She said of Mr Russell-Moyle’s Bill: “In the absence of any draft legislation being laid by the Government, this Private Member’s Bill represents an opportunity to protect LGBT people from harmful practices and to ensure that critical issues around scope can be thoroughly debated and resolved during committee stage.”
Mr Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) said young people would struggle to speak to trusted people if the Bill was approved.
Mr Hanvey, who spoke for more than an hour against the Bill, said: “This is the wrong legislation for young gay, lesbian and transgender people. It attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and fosters a new, chilling, homophobic culture just like section 28.”
Opening the debate, Mr Russell-Moyle said the Bill offered protections to expressions of religious belief, parents and others.
He added: “To frustrate this Bill today would be to break the pledges of the last five prime ministers, the election promises at the last election and before.
“But, most importantly, to frustrate this Bill today would be to let down the survivors and the future victims.”
Nasty little Tatchellite gremlin.
So that’s your take from this article?
Not that the Tories promised legislation in their 2019 Manifesto to end this heinous practice yet have failed to bring any forward?
Spotted another Tatchellite gremlin.
Don’t worry about Blatchberg, their comments on here are usually just hate-filled insults of very little to no substance. LRM absolutely is right to have pushed for the ban of this pervasively immoral practice.
Whereas your comments are simply of very little or no substance : full stop.
Lack of understanding doesn’t mean lack of content.
This ‘heinous practise’ is virtually non-existent, yet weirdo fetishist pederasts want to pretend otherwise and compel the government to make it easier for them to mutilate and sterilise confused children.
They lie through their teeth to prevent any scrutiny of their sick cult.
Of course anti gay conversion is evil. But so is drugging and operating on children.
I mean, your words would also condemn surgeries like cleft lip corrections. But I take the spirit of what you’re trying to articulate. And it is right and proper to have a debate to when, if at all, should gender affirming treatments be reasonable.
That can be a complicated conversation, looking at what the threshold is to have informed consent, laws, and safeguards to protect children. Maybe the challenge there is the individual approach each one must have, so there’s not a clear single approach.
Throwing insults around, like Blatchberg likes to do, doesn’t advance conversations and deepen understanding. It just creates pointless inflammatory arguments.
Fixing a cleft pallet and mutilation of someone’s genitals are 2 very different things. I’m not against trans people having surgery or whatever but pushing children down this route before they are old enough to know who they are is simple child abuse.
I think there’s a valid argument there; how are we standardising a diagnosis of body dysmorphia, and should an under 16 year old ever be considered for non-reversible procedures?
Shocked but not surprised to see B&H News allowing homophobic and transphobic comments on their website – for a blog that serves Brighton, they should know and do better
The only homophobia here is the insanity being peddled by gender cultists. That’s what should concern you.
Hmm, whilst I don’t support some of the views here, I don’t think they are derived from fear. If it comes from a genuine place that they feel children are endangered, then passionate but amicable conversation should be allowed, in my opinion.
Transphobic. Ah the word idiots use to shut down debate they don’t agree with.
Homophobic, not read anything so far that was that.
Where does LRM stand on the deliberate gender confusion and coercion of underage schoolchildren in breach of safeguarding laws? Or on our Council having its own trans inclusion schoolkit policy in direct contradiction of national government educational policy?
LRM doesn’t believe in child safeguarding.
It would appear that merely entering a debate about such matters makes a person run the risk of being labelled a homophobe or a transphobe in the current toxic, cancel culture that pervades in this city.
We should be able to have a grown-up conversation, I agree. Either side of the fence you stand.
Fair comment.
I don’t know too much about this but I do have issues with giving children hormones and surgeries before they have finished puberty and are of age.
One thing that we learned from the Blair times is that fast law is bad law. Something like this needs very careful thought and interpretation as it could do more harm than good. It also has the appearance of a vanity piece from a very career centric politician.
I like that phrase Chris. Fast law is bad law. Totally agree with careful discussion.
So if a ‘child’, by that I assume you mean someone insert the age of 16, isn’t adult enough to make an informed decision on puberty blockers then I assume you don’t believe they should be using contraceptives either as it may encourage them to have sex.
Astonishingly stupid comment.
Those are two very different conversations, David, it’s false equalivance. The ability to consent to different things is quite well explored already in literature and law.