Ban on political parties taking part in Pride ‘a retrograde step', says minister
Culture minister Sir Chris Bryant said the decision by organisers in five cities was a backwards move as he suggested activists did not give sufficient credit to politicians for law changes in recent decades. He was met with agreement by Conservative shadow culture secretary Stuart Andrew.
Sir Chris said Pride is important so young people do not 'internalise hatred and scorn', and hit out at Reform-led councils which have removed Pride flags from display in recent months as he praised the importance of visibility.
Organisers of events in Birmingham, Brighton, London, Manchester and Oxford said they had suspended political party involvement in events in 'unequivocal solidarity' with the transgender movement. June is Pride month, with marches and events taking place over the summer.
Sir Chris was asked by Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent East, whether he regretted the bar by Pride organisers.
Ms Butler said: 'Does (he) feel sorry that they've now said that no political parties are allowed to march, because of how the LGBTQ I+ community has been treated? I will still be marching, because I normally march with groups, but does he agree with me that this is a sad state of affairs?'
Sir Chris said: 'I think we should be absolutely proud of the fact that politics has changed the law in this country and political parties were absolutely essential to that.
'Of course I pay tribute to everybody in my political party who for many, many generations fought for equality. But it's true in the Conservative Party as well where people in many cases had to be even braver than they did in the Labour movement, and of course in many other political parties as well.
'So yes, I think it's an entirely retrograde step to ban people from political parties from taking part in Pride marches.'
Mr Andrew said: 'I do want to comment that I find it appalling and deeply disappointing that some Prides across the country have banned our political parties from this year's parades.
'LGBT Conservatives, LGBT Labour, the Lib Dems, not allowed to attend, and like (him), I would also remind the organisers that it was these groups and so many MPs in this House that brought about the changes that we enjoy today.
'And as Jo Cox said, there is more than unites us than divides us. Them causing this divide is a retrograde step.'
Former Green Party co-leader Sian Berry (Brighton Pavilion) said she could understand the decision, telling MPs: 'I fully support these decisions being made by the major Pride organisations telling us as political parties we are not welcome this year on their parades or marches.
'Is the minister not as sad as I am about the absolute state of political policy and discourse around trans rights which has directly led to this action?'
Sir Chris, who entered the Commons in 2001, said: 'When I was first elected as the member of Parliament here there was still many laws in this country that dramatically and drastically affected the rights of LGBTQ people in this country, and it's because of political parties that we changed the law in this country, and we shouldn't discard the democratic process, it is absolutely essential… to secure our rights.'
The fallout from the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex hung over the debate, with the Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall, Ben Maguire, calling prominent gender-critical campaigner JK Rowling 'desperate for attention and relevance'.
He said: 'As well as politicians, public figures desperate for attention and relevance like JK Rowling and others have poisoned the public discourse with attacks on our trans community, all under the false dichotomy that you cannot be a true feminist and protect women's rights without attacking and abusing the trans community.
'A phoney culture war which has left trans people fearful just to be themselves.'
Sir Chris said: 'We reject any attempts to weaponise this ruling to roll back the hard-won dignity and inclusion of trans people. This is not, and must never become, a zero-sum debate.
'We can protect single-sex spaces based on clear lawful criteria whilst also protecting the fundamental rights and dignity of trans people who… are amongst the most marginalised and misunderstood in our society.'
Speaking from the despatch box, he said the Government would be bringing forward a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices within the next nine months.
'These so-called therapies are nothing less than abuse, they do not work, they cause deep-lasting harm and their continued existence is a stain on any society that claims to be inclusive,' he said.
MPs later called on shadow equalities minister Mims Davies to 'start challenging' her party's leader Kemi Badenoch on her stance towards LGBT+ people.
Tom Gordon, Lib Dem MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, told the Commons that 'leaders of political parties with their words have power' and asked Ms Davies: 'Would she push for her party in particular just to make sure that when it comes to LGBT rights that we consider the humanity that we're talking about and don't whip up hate?'
The shadow minister replied that 'we are all leaders in our own ways' and added she was 'proud' the Conservatives 'set the ambitious and absolutely right goal of ending all the new HIV cases by 2030'.
Rachel Taylor, Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, said the Tories' 'words will sound hollow up and down this country unless they start challenging their leader to do what is right for LGBT people up and down this country', to which Ms Davies replied: 'I think this goes for all parties.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
32 minutes ago
- BBC News
Rachel Reeves bounces back after tears but challenges remain
It might be uncomfortable territory, but it's worth reflecting on just how unprecedented Wednesday's events in the House of Commons images blared across the media of Rachel Reeves in tears as Sir Keir Starmer answered questions from the dispatch box were devastating for a chancellor who has made having an iron core central to her public believe it is unfair for the media to note that the chancellor was visibly distraught on live television for half an hour. Yet the markets, which quickly responded unfavourably, did not wait for media coverage to decide to trade against counter-intuitively, those market movements point the way through this for least in the interpretation of many, the markets were responding to the possibility that Reeves might soon be replaced as chancellor, and that her replacement would be less committed than her to limiting government borrowing for day-to-day may be why the markets then bounced back when Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC's Nick Robinson that Reeves would remain chancellor for many years to brief interview this afternoon was also geared at reassurance, attributing her tears to a "personal issue" and a "tough day".She insisted she was "totally" up for the job of chancellor - and that she and the prime minister would continue to work in "lockstep together".It came after she made an unscheduled appearance at an East London hospital for the launch of the government's 10-year NHS made no mention of her tearful episode in the short speech she made about the health service and the there were smiles all around and a hug from the prime minister, who said it was "just fantastic that she is here".That's probably enough to draw a line under this excruciating episode. But the challenge for Reeves remains the same as it was just before PMQs is a straightforward difference of opinion between the chancellor (plus the prime minister and perhaps the bond markets), and a large group of Labour MPs. The gutting of the government's welfare policy - in a series of panicky U-turns - displayed this in vivid rebel MPs who forced the U-turns believe strongly that a Labour government should not be, as many put it, "balancing the books on the backs of the poor". But it's broader than just that. "If the chancellor comes to us in the autumn with a cuts Budget," one member of the government said, "Labour MPs will say no."Yet the chancellor, in turn, is firm in her belief that the markets will not wear further borrowing for day-to-day spending, and that therefore the choice is either spending restraint or tax rises. On tax, she is hemmed in by the promises she and the prime minister made during the general election fundamental tensions between what Reeves, Starmer and - it seems - the markets want on the one hand, and what the Parliamentary Labour Party wants on the other will have to be resolved before long.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Smaller firms to escape ‘burdensome' Companies House filing rules
Changes to Companies House rules that would have axed an exemption allowing smaller businesses to file abbreviated accounts have been delayed amid concerns they could burden them with more red tape. Legislation brought in by the previous Conservative administration is due to compel companies with a turnover under £10.2m, balance sheets under £5.1m and fewer than 50 employees to disclose more detail in their annual accounts from April 2027. However, the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, is understood to be have reversed the move to reduce regulatory hurdles for small firms. A government source said: 'We have paused them, Jonny is worried it's too burdensome'. Last month the government unveiled its industrial strategy in which it said it aims to 'reduce regulatory burdens and speed innovation [by] cutting the administrative costs of regulation for business by 25%'. The proposals to make companies publish more comprehensive financial information were designed to remove longstanding exemptions that allowed small firms to file 'abridged accounts' and counter criticisms that the more relaxed rules for qualifying businesses had enabled fraud. The intention had been that small companies would be required to use a set format to electronically file a profit and loss statement, which would be able to be viewed by the public and would include information such as turnover and costs. Business groups had criticised the move saying that small companies would be forced to pay to use expensive computer software to meet the new regulations. However, Companies House had said the measures, which were set out in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, would 'be a critical step towards improving the quality of the data on the register'. Companies House has long faced criticism of how it polices the information that it holds. In April it emerged that the agency had collected just £1,250 in fines after being given new powers to crack down on corruption. A spokesperson for the Department for Business and Trade said: 'This government is committed to avoiding undue burdens on businesses as part of our plan for change.'
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Daily T: How long can Rachel Reeves last?
After crying in the Commons on Wednesday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves was back out today alongside Keir Starmer, who declared the two are 'in lockstep'. But it's going to take more than a fresh hairdo and a jolly photo op to convince voters – and indeed the markets – that all is well inside Government. Tim and Gordon consider whether their credibility is shot for good after the welfare fiasco; how the Chancellor will handle the £5 billion hole it created; and the NHS reform plans that were overshadowed by it all. Plus, while Nigel Farage is parking his tanks on Labour's lawn, figures on the Left are circling too. Journalist Aaron Bastani explains why the Greens and independents like Jeremy Corbyn are making gains. He argues Keir Starmer's approach to governing is 'deluded' and 'ineffective'; Rachel Reeves's career 'is over after the autumn Budget'; and working people 'pay too little tax'.
