It’s no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention that the draft Conversion Practices Bill raises some extraordinarily sensitive and contentious questions. From multiple cases in the Employment Tribunal to the Cass Report and its aftermath, we’ve now seen more than a decade of disagreement, sometimes vitriolic, about where exactly we draw the line between one person’s right to express their gender identity in safety and dignity, and another person’s right not to be forced to accept ideas they don’t believe are true or helpful.
Making good law is never easy
So, it was always going to be exceptionally difficult to deliver a new legislative ban on harmful conversion practices, as both Labour and previously the Conservatives have undertaken to do. These challenges are especially acute when it comes to young people who are exploring their identity and need the space to do that without being rushed into what can be highly consequential decisions for their future lives.
It is helpful that the Government has opted to submit the draft Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny by a committee of 12 MPs and peers. Making good, effective and workable law is never easy, and this is particularly true when Parliament is seeking to protect young people, families, healthcare and freedoms of speech, self-expression and religion all at the same time.
The point of pre-legislative scrutiny is to help MPs and ministers to decide how best to proceed on an especially complex or technical issue. It allows for serious and public interrogation of proposed new laws, with expert evidence to test the boundaries, and recommend changes. Legislation that starts this way is nearly always substantively improved by the process.
It’s therefore unfortunate that some of the responses to the draft Bill committee are instead giving the false impression that the debate is already over. To be clear, the draft Bill is exactly that, a draft, not a final version of any law. It will not become law tomorrow; it has not even been introduced to Parliament.
The Government has not, as some have suggested, declared war on parents or decided children can identify as cats. No Labour MP would accept this, I certainly wouldn’t, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest fearmongering that does not serve anyone.
It is particularly disheartening to see people who should know better deciding to play politics instead of allowing democracy to take its course. For the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Equalities Minister, amongst others, to insist that the draft Bill is a done deal is cynical and irresponsible, not to mention insulting to the three members of the scrutiny committee who they themselves chose. Young people, parents, doctors, gay, lesbian and transgender people all deserve far better.
Politics is for tackling the tough subjects
My views on this issue are no secret. I have long held deep concerns about the push to uncritically support affirmation of gender identity, especially in relation to vulnerable young people. And particularly when those who challenge the affirmative position are too often unjustifiably attacked in attempts to silence them.
This toxic environment is why the committee leading this scrutiny has its work cut out. The issues that have emerged so far need to be dealt with both carefully and decisively. It is particularly essential to ensure any change to the law does not intrude into the decisions that responsible parents and health professionals make about how to talk to children.
And if the committee concludes, as some witnesses have already suggested, that the draft is too broad, this will actively damage the very people it is intended to help. If medical professionals are discouraged from working with people questioning their gender identity because they fear prosecution, this will only make it more difficult for vulnerable people to access the help they need.
In the coming weeks, we can expect to see more evidence from a wide range of affected groups likely to include parents’ groups, clinicians and their professional bodies, religious leaders, and people who feel they were wrongly encouraged to identify as transgender and were ultimately harmed by it.
Disagreements, perhaps strong ones, will be aired, and difficult personal experiences shared. But politics is for nothing if it is not for tackling the toughest subjects.
As a democrat and a legislator, I won’t accept that we can’t deal with these, as long as we focus relentlessly on what the people we represent sent us here to do, and especially that we prioritise what the electorate truly need and want.
And as a Labour MP, I won’t accept that we cannot support families, vulnerable people and our NHS alike, including by making sure any new laws we pass are workable, safe and effective. We do not achieve this by spreading fear and misinformation in an attempt to make political gain.
This Government has shown repeatedly that it has the courage to listen and act on what it hears. I am confident that it is possible to get the right result from the committee scrutiny process, and I believe it should be supported to do its job.