Dame Angela Eagle
MP for Wallasey · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Kremlin increasingly relies on proxy organisations to pursue its objectives, seeking to undermine our security while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. The so-called GRU Volunteer Corps is a clear example of that approach. It is not an independent force or a loose collection of volunteers.”
“This Government have introduced support for the Jewish communities who have been threatened and directly targeted by IRGC proxies. Just a couple of days ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an extra £250 million for policing to ensure that we can support and protect our Jewish communities.”
“I will move on to the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right. The IMCR has publicly claimed seven attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities and to Persian-language media, including the antisemitic arson attack on four Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March.”
“We expect platforms to act responsibly and not to provide space for state threat-linked activity, propaganda or recruitment. We will be keeping a close eye on that, as well as liaising with social media companies to tell them about how this law impacts them.”
“The IRGC Quds Force and the IRGC Intelligence Organisation, together with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, form the Iranian intelligence apparatus. As a key component of the Iranian state’s security apparatus, the IRGC is answerable directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader.”
“It provides a targeted and proportionate means of disrupting those involved in foreign power threat activity based on the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threat legislation. To answer the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,924 lines we hold for Dame Angela Eagle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 119.
“It is a programme as ambitious for the country as the British people are, a programme that lays out a vision for a brighter, better future: to establish GB Energy to bring down energy bills; an employment rights Bill to end fire and rehire, and strengthen sick pay for workers; reforms to bus franchising to deliver local transport; regulation of water companies to clean up rivers, lakes and seas; and critical measures to strengthen Britain’s border security and improve policing across the country, two of this Government’s core missions. That is the change for which Britain voted on 4 July. It is a King’s Speech to be proud of, it is a King’s Speech to deliver, and I commend it to the House. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
“I am not a Whip, so I am not going to clarify what will happen. I am doing a difficult enough job as it is without trying to become the entire Labour Whips Office. We have to turn the page and move on from the last period that we have all lived through. The Gracious Speech is the first Labour programme for government in 14 years and it is an exciting and ambitious programme. There are 40 Bills on topics ranging from clean energy through to economic stability and the Hillsborough law.”
“Will the Minister recognise the seriousness of her predicament and apologise to disabled people for her Department’s obvious reluctance to engage meaningfully with the Equality and Human Rights Commission? Why has her Department presided over a benefit system that the commission believes could be unlawfully discriminating against disabled people? Will she take the opportunity to apologise to all those disabled people who have had their life torn apart by her Department’s potentially illegal administration of the benefit system?”
“This is the first time in history that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has decided to investigate whether a Secretary of State has “committed unlawful acts” by discriminating against disabled people as a result of the way that the Government have run the benefit system. According to a report by the all-party parliamentary group for health in all policies, it may have led to “the deaths of vulnerable claimants, by suicide and other causes”. Yesterday, appearing before the Work and Pensions Committee, the Secretary of State feigned surprise at the Equality and Human Rights Commission taking that unprecedented step, yet he previously claimed that he and his Department were close to securing a legally binding agreement to uphold disabled people’s rights. I wonder what has changed.”
“Does the Minister understand that as well as a duty of candour, we really need, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has consistently put before this House, a public advocate to make certain that victims in future scandals have somebody to look after them and take them through processes? That would stop this happening ever again. Will he say something about when he expects all the payments to have been made? He talked about an interim scheme which goes on to the end of this financial year, but also about full payments being made going further forward. When is his deadline for getting this done?”
“I want to make it clear that the Opposition do not object to the Bill at all, but I am quite surprised by the innovative way in which the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal has sought to pursue her desire to get this thing done quickly.”
“Member for Suffolk Coastal is trying to do, I was slightly surprised by the bulldozer approach that the amendments create. In this circumstance it is manageable, but it might not be quite so manageable in other, more complex circumstances. I suppose I seek some reassurance from the Minister about the precedent that the amendments will set. How wide will it go? Are we going to start including in Bills a precise timetable for when they will be put into effect, with a hard stop, regardless of their complexity? I understand that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) wants his Bill—we all want this to be done quickly—but there are some precedents being created here that would be slightly worrying if they were to extend more widely. I wonder whether the Minister might give us some thoughts and insights in that respect.”
“I rise just to seek some reassurance on the amendments. I am not at all against them in principle—when I read them on the amendment paper, I could understand what the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) was attempting to do and exactly why—but it strikes me that they rather run roughshod over established procedures, particularly with respect to the devolved Administrations, by giving quite a strict timetable. I wonder whether the Minister could reassure the House. Although it is not the case here, the changes made by Bills can often be quite complex and have to be made appropriately, and putting a very hard stop in a Bill, regardless of context, sets rather a difficult precedent. Although I do not object to what the right hon.”
“It is an indictment of 14 years of Government failure and neglect of our public services that so many people are spending the end of their life in poverty, struggling to make ends meet and worrying whether they can afford to run the equipment that is keeping them alive. The way our country treats those nearing the end of their life should be a mark of how civilised we are, and I fear that we are not passing that test as well as we should. I finish by repeating my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on his work on this Bill. We fully support its aims, and we hope to see further work in this area.”
“Every hour, 10 people die in poverty in the UK, and one in four terminally ill people of working age spends the last year of their life in poverty. The cost of living crisis has acutely affected those who are nearing the end of their life. A terminally ill person’s energy bill can rise by 75% after their diagnosis, with critical equipment often sending bills soaring. For example, the cost of energy to run an oxygen concentrator can be £65 a month. A dialysis machine can cost £27 a month and a ventilator can cost £35 a month. Very few people wish to be in hospital when they have access to these services but, all too often, it appears that we are leaving them with the cost of running these vital bits of machinery to keep them alive.”
“I wonder whether any other inconsistencies are lurking in the DWP on the change from six months to 12 months, and whether the Minister might trawl through the many bits of legislation and many statutory instruments that deal with such things to see whether any other inconsistencies could be quickly put right. Will she commit from the Dispatch Box to ensuring consistency across all the definitions of terminal illness and, because the move has been made to shift the definition from six months to 12 months, undertake to make certain that there are no other inconsistencies lurking, so that we do not have to do this again with another private Member’s Bill to make sure the definition finally lands at 12 months, with no remaining six-month definitions causing inconsistency?”
“We supported the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022, which amended the DWP’s definition of terminal illness, for the purpose of social security rules, to less than 12 months to live, raising it from less than six months. It was right to make that change then, but I wonder why more work was not done by the Department under the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal to check the consistency of those rules when the Act was put on to the statute book. If that had been done, we would have had two more years of support for the terminally ill between 2022 and 2024, and many people would have been helped.”
“Member for Tewkesbury has rightly identified, this Bill will go some way to ease the financial burdens on those who are lucky enough to have a defined benefit pension entitlement, but unlucky enough to have had their pension fund go bust and end up in the Pension Protection Fund. Extra access to cash can allow those nearing the end of their life to focus on spending the time they have left with those they love, supported with dignity and respect, which is what I think everyone in this House wants to see. Labour welcomes this change, but I question why it has been left to a private Member’s Bill, albeit we are very happy to support the glorious achievement of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury in bringing it forward.”
“This is the so-called double burden of income loss and the additional costs that a terminal diagnosis can often bring about. It pushes families towards insecurity and fear about their income, and forces them to confront poverty at a time when they have to deal with other insecurities and fears, adding another layer of distress at the hardest of times. Those with a terminal illness should not be forced to spend the end of their lives worried about making ends meet, and I am sure that all Members would feel a lot happier if not so many of our pensioners found that that is what they face. By opening up eligibility for support, be it through a lump sum payment from the financial assistance scheme or payments through the Pension Protection Fund in the narrow range of circumstances that the hon.”
“It points out that one in four people of working age who are diagnosed with a terminal illness spends the last years of their life in poverty, and that one in six pensioners is below the poverty line at the end of their life. There are different reasons for all those things, but one has to imagine the circumstances in which people find themselves to understand that this Bill is a tiny step in the right direction for a group of people in a particular context. By no means will it solve a lot of issues related to old age, poverty and illness, which the Bill touches on. Marie Curie has also highlighted that, all too often, terminal illness brings with it huge financial burdens and extra costs of between £12,000 and £16,000 per year for a household.”
“Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) formerly led. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury highlighted, the Bill is narrow in scope and, thankfully, concerns a fairly small number of people, but its impact for that group will be significant, because it will unlock access to a vital lifeline of support when they have received a diagnosis. For that reason, Labour supports and welcomes the Bill. Receiving a terminal diagnosis is devastating, both for the individual themselves and for their family and loved ones. Such a diagnosis brings with it a slew a challenges and difficult decisions. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) mentioned, the Marie Curie report on this issue makes for very sobering reading.”
“I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on bringing this Bill before the House on Report and Third Reading. As we have heard, the Bill seeks to ensure that there is financial support for terminally ill people who have seen the sponsors of their pension schemes become insolvent. Thankfully, it is a small number of people, and we hope it does not get any bigger, but that illustrates the narrowness of the Bill. It seeks to expand eligibility for terminal illness payments from the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme from those with less than six months to live to those with less than 12 months to live, bringing the definition of “terminally ill” in line with that used for social security payments by the Department for Work and Pensions, which the right hon.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State is making a good recovery—she is probably watching us even now, in between her physiotherapy. Is it not the case that on this Government’s watch, food bank usage has doubled for pensioners, and over 2 million pensioners—nearly one in five—are now living in poverty? That figure is not stable; it is rising, so what is the Minister going to do about it?”
“But 2 million pensioners are in poverty. Labour got far more pensioners out of poverty than the Minister’s Government have, and the number of pensioners in poverty is now rising: it was 1.6 million when the Conservatives came into office, and it is now 2.1 million, so there are more pensioners in poverty. Despite the Minister’s bluster, the Government’s own statistics show that well over a third of pensioners entitled to pension credit are not receiving it, which saves his Department almost £3 billion a year. Even when pensioners do apply, the Minister’s Department is missing its own 10-week service standard for processing new claims in nearly a quarter of all cases. Why is his Department so reluctant to ensure that pensioners are receiving the benefits they are entitled to?”
“Is it not time for targets, and transparency about the numbers of people with disabilities who are in work? Is it not time for reporting, more rigour and, if needs be, an application of the law?”
“I hope that the Minister’s response will include a far more positive approach, telling us that the Government intend to do something about the review. I hope that they will take up some of the issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham raised in his contribution about targets rather than nice words and warmth, which we all agree with. We want targets and a commitment to practical action, not just a repeat of the issues about Disability Confident employers. As my right hon. Friend said in his remarks, analysis shows that disabled people do not report better experiences working for Disability Confident employers compared with employers that are not part of the scheme. An employer can say that they are Disability Confident without employing a single disabled person.”
“On inclusion measures, there was a contradiction that struck me when listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, between the bleak picture that the review paints of the continuing barriers that autistic people face while trying to get into work, and some of the other attitudes that can be discerned in the Government about how to deal with that. The Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), is on the record saying that equality, diversity and inclusion measures have already gone too far, dismissing them as “snake oil” and performative, and deriding disability equality and inclusion measures in the economy as woke and something to be eliminated and driven out. That sends confusing and mixed messages about the Government’s approach.”
“We had the national disability strategy, which was largely viewed as tinkering around the edges. We had the health and disability White Paper, which raised more questions than it answered. We had the disability action plan—again, a smattering of well-received, small policy ideas. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham pointed out, we had the dropping of the target for increasing employment of disabled people more generally. We have had consultation after consultation, pilots and various hearts and minds initiatives with employers, but little has changed, as we have seen in the Buckland review. We need proper action, not more gentle observations. We need to deal with the societal barriers that make the lives of people with neurodiversity challenging and their employment prospects far too narrow.”
“What steps will the Minister take to ensure that other neurodivergent and disabled people benefit from measures similar to those outlined in the review? What can she say to back up the remarks made by the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), about increasing the predictability and speed of access to work, making it easier for people to know that they will be supported in a practical way if they make the step into work? Over the last few years, the Government have brought a hodgepodge patchwork of piecemeal measures claiming to strengthen and improve the rights of disabled and neurodivergent people. There has been lots of activity, but very little effective output in terms of a change in the number of people with disabilities in work.”
“For example, shadow Minister for Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), went to an event attended by BT a few months ago to highlight how to improve its hiring practices and workplace support for neurodivergent people. She told me that BT spoke highly not only of the positive benefits felt by autistic employees, but of how the company has been able to capitalise on the unique skills that they bring. There are many examples of that, some of which we have heard today. The review has been largely welcomed, but we must ask how quickly it can be implemented and whether we can give it a bit more bite. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very gentle in his way, and no doubt he has been sent down particular railroads by the Government in producing his report.”
“We simply cannot let generation after generation of very talented people be wasted in this way. The review’s key recommendations are only a first step on the road to eliminating some of the barriers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, although he is appropriately passionate about what he discovered in his review. Undoubtedly, many of the recommendations have the potential to have a positive impact on autistic people’s experiences and open up those important vistas of opportunity for them in our society. The review rightly has a strong focus on collaborating with autistic people, employers, employer organisations and specialist support groups. That is important because there are unique insights to be had. Clearly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s report has done that very well.”
“It is not always deliberate, but it must feel like it, whether it is suffered because of benign ignorance or bigotry. We must think about how to get rid of the ignorance that the report talks about, and we must give neurodivergent people the confidence that the law will support them if they are subjected to bigotry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s report talked very much about the soft power end of tackling that, but we also have to think as a society about the harder end. We have discrimination law in place for people with disabilities. Perhaps we need to think about how to give that more bite. I admit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not done that in his review, and it probably was not in the terms of reference, but it is important to remember that context when considering this issue.”
“Where they are in work, autistic people face the largest pay gap of all disability groups—that is simply not a fair reflection of the benefit they bring to employment. Autistic graduates are the most likely to be overqualified for their position and least likely to be in a permanent role. Our society and our economy suffer as a result of the waste that the Buckland review has outlined to the House. We ought to be anxious to do something about that. The review highlights that a startling 50% of managers feel uncomfortable with the idea of hiring disabled people. Let us imagine someone wanting to work but being prevented from doing so because the hiring manager feels uncomfortable around them, does not understand the way in which they relate to the world or has preconceived ideas about their ability. That is pure discrimination.”
“As we have heard this afternoon, the Buckland review has been broadly welcomed by charities and other organisations. It has shone a light on the barriers that neurodivergent people continue to face when trying to get into, stay in, and get on in the workplace. It has also demonstrated that there is an increasing understanding of the benefits of ensuring that people with neurodivergence can get into work: they often have a unique view and unique talents. Not only does GCHQ know about those talents, but many other sectors could benefit if they only realised it. The review is filled with statistics that make for grim reading, to say the least. Only 30% of autistic adults are currently in work—what a waste!”
“I am the next in line to congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) on securing and opening this debate, but also—and particularly—on the contents of his report. His persistence in pushing to raise awareness of the barriers autistic people face in employment is greatly to his credit, and benefits this House and our understanding of these issues. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and colleagues for making such valuable and insightful contributions. In passing, I also put on record my admiration for Autism Together, formerly the Wirral Society for Autistic Children—a great local charity that has been around for 50 years and does very good work in this area, which has not always been fashionable for people to concentrate on.”
“I, too, am quite surprised at the difference between what was briefed and some of the information that the Deputy Prime Minister has given us today, and the sum of the action taken. He said that the Government had taken rapid and robust action when talking about things that happened three and four years ago, and the sanctioning of two individuals and a minor company does not seem to meet the definition of robust. How does he think that taking the tiny steps he has announced today will deter the Chinese from carrying on in the way they have been doing, as the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined and is very clear from the China report that the Intelligence and Security Committee was finally allowed to publish late?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not above the Minister’s pay grade to be able to confirm that the conventions and arrangements that give the ISC a particular constitutional place in the way our system works ought to operate, even if they have not done so for the last 10 years? Does he, like me, look forward to being able to hear the Minister—rather than dismissing this important concern about the dereliction of a constitutional duty—give us an assurance that this will be the case in the future?”
“and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said in his contribution to the debate, the only qualification apart from being a Secretary of State that the Government appear to have admitted is that the person standing in for the Prime Minister ought to have had a 20-minute security briefing about warrantry.”
“We are now down to the last piece of disagreement between the ISC and the Minister, which is about what the qualifications of those Secretaries of State should be. In seeking to try to draw out precisely what the Government mean, we have asked as a Committee that the relevant Secretaries of State who may be down to do this duty ought already to be responsible for warrantry, or have had previous responsibility for it. Thus far, however, the Government and the Minister have been unwilling to be that deliberate in the arrangements they have made. As the right hon.”
“One of the ways we defend our democracy is by allowing Members of Parliament to do their unique jobs without interference unless it is for an exceptional and a very good reason, and has been authorised at the highest level. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing while the Bill has been going through its parliamentary stages about precisely how this widening of the power to make such a warrant away from the Prime Minister, if he or she is indisposed or unable to be near secure communications, should actually be defined. We have got down to the stage where everybody agrees that to make the system robust there should be an expansion, and we have even come up with a number of Secretaries of State—five—who should be authorised in such exceptional circumstances to make that warrant.”
“However, there is one area of detail that I want to comment on, which is about the triple lock amendment—amendment 22—on the qualifications and experience of the Secretaries of State who, under the widening of the triple lock, could if the Prime Minister of the day is incapacitated for some reason, be drawn into making a warrant to intercept the communications of a Member of this Parliament, or indeed a Member of any of the devolved legislatures in the UK. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) was very explicit about why that particular protection should be in existence, and I completely agree with his analysis.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and indeed all the fellow members of the ISC who have spoken on both sides of the House in our debate on seeking to improve this important piece of legislation. I must say that it is very rare, when one is called towards the end of a debate, for there to have been concessions on most of the areas at issue, leaving very little else to say. It makes me happy that I did not write my speech in advance, since I would have had to rip most of it up following the Security Minister’s very welcome concessions on a range of issues during our debate. They are on the record, and they are indeed extremely welcome.”
“I am rather disappointed that the Minister is not leaping to his feet, since he has been leaping to his feet a lot while my colleagues have been making their speeches. I see no such flicker in him as I am making mine. I suspect and hope that that is because he is just thinking about how he will wind up the debate and give us that final assurance that we need.”
“Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has just pointed out, strengthens the situation, because that means the Prime Minister will have to be notified of such a warrant. However, my right hon. Friend is also correct in pointing out that the warrant cannot be rescinded if it has already been granted. I therefore gently ask the Security Minister whether he will not take the opportunity, in responding to the debate, to give the ISC members and the public we all represent the reassurance that the Secretaries of State who may have this power delegated to them either will already be responsible for warranting, or will have previously had responsibility for warranting. I do not understand why he cannot just get up and give us that final assurance. If he does, I think we will have done extremely well on Report and in Committee.”
“Yes, and it is clearly important that there is a reassurance that the Secretary of State who is picked to do that job in these exceptional circumstances will either have previous experience of being responsible for warrantry and issuing warrants, or have current experience. I do not see why the Security Minister cannot concede that that is where we should be. I do not understand why, over all of the parliamentary time spent on this Bill, the Government have not been able to give us that assurance, which just shores up the important nature of the commitment to widening the triple lock. Clearly, the Minister’s very welcome decision to make the concession on amendment 23, as my right hon.”
“We also know that if our citizens are to give us effective permission and consent to take some of these powers, any increase in powers has to be accompanied by an increase in proper oversight, to reassure them that democracy is being defended, not undermined. That includes oversight by the ISC, which is why I am a big supporter of new clause 1 as tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). It is important that that can be an ongoing reassurance. I do not want to repeat a lot of the arguments made by colleagues, and it is important now to listen to what the Minister has to say. I thank him for the concessions he has made, and I hope he can make just a slight move towards us on the warrantry issue in the instance of the triple lock, so that we can be even more content than we are now.”
“I can see that the Minister is looking pensive, so I hope that means he is thinking of some way to reassure us on this final, important point with respect to the triple lock and the widening of those powers to other Ministers who are not the Prime Minister. The whole debate around the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill demonstrates that when threats evolve, the requirement to meet them also has to evolve. We know that this area is rapidly developing, and we know also that we will probably be back in the not-too-distant future to see how these powers can be changed again to defend our democracy and meet some of the threats of serious organised crime and terrorism, which our security forces help us deal with day in, day out.”
“The hon. Gentleman and I both attended the debate last Friday. Was he as disappointed as I was that, despite how modest the Bill was and how reasonable it attempted to be, some of the arguments against it were so unreasonable?”
“Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), has said, more hidden than we are now; to celebrate the present and the progress that we have made; and for us to be clear-eyed about some of the potential problems we may face in the future.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, in a room that is, for once, warmer than it is outside. Clearly, something is working better than it used to. Today’s debate comes after LGBT History Month, due to, I think, logjams in Back-Bench business. It is an opportunity to celebrate the many events that have happened in the last month, in schools, libraries, pubs, clubs and across our country. LGBT History Month is a huge, ongoing event that has many different facets across the country. It is also a time for us to remember our past, when we were, as my co-chair of the APPG on global LGBT+ rights, the hon.”
“I know that the international development Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is very aware of that, and we as an APPG have been to see him about it. It would be interesting if the Minister said a bit about whether there is funding to help to support a battle against those worrying developments on the African continent. We have made progress, stalled and progressed again, and are going forwards and backwards in a non-linear way. There are challenges ahead, but we have to redouble our efforts not only to be proud of who we are and proud of our communities, but to try to create a circumstance where once more Britain leads the world in LGBT+ rights.”
“That is being exported by American Christian groups, which ploughed more than $280 million into campaigning against LGBT+ rights and abortion rights worldwide between 2007 and 2020, targeting communities and Parliaments around the world with their well-funded and co-ordinated doctrine of hate. The legislation in Uganda and Ghana is peculiarly similar because it was drafted in that context. That does not arise spontaneously; it is well organised, and it has to be fought. Britain, as a country that respects international human rights and has better standards on that, ought to be financing some of the battles to prevent the spread of that pernicious and damaging ideology. Britain has to get back on the international stage to advance LGBT rights across the globe and has to support those campaigning to change those unacceptable laws at home.”
“Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Discussions in schools on LGBT+ issues are outlawed in Russia, as is being LGBT+, and in Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia. In Poland, nearly 100 municipalities have self-declared as LGBT-free zones. I hope that President Tusk, who—thank goodness—has just been elected in Poland, can start to undo some of the damage done in this area by the previous long-standing regime. Across the Atlantic, the American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 474 anti-LGBTQ Bills in state legislatures across the country. That was the number as of yesterday, but it is probably out of date already because several get promulgated every day. Florida’s so-called “Don’t say gay” law bans discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity in schools for children under 10—that is their very own section 28.”
“They are marginalised or focused on for whatever reason the authorities feel that they wish to focus on them. We have heard that the first person arrested who faces capital punishment under the law was not even gay. They were homeless, and they were arrested for being shirtless, which was because they were poor, and they were charged under the legislation. The Ugandan authorities are using the law to brutally criminalise the LGBT+ community, but also to go for any marginalised groups they want to attack. It is one of those catch-all things that they can put people in jail for. As is often the case, an attack on one minority is only ever the beginning of attacks on many others. On our own European shores, over a fifth of countries lack broad protections for LGBT+ people—again, mentioned by my friend the hon.”
“It includes the death penalty for the offence of “aggravated homosexuality”—whatever that is—life imprisonment for the offence of homosexuality and up to 20 years in jail for promoting homosexuality. A report was compiled late last year by the Strategic Response Team, which is a coalition of Ugandan LGBT+ rights organisations, which have been criminalised for even existing in their own country and have to operate in very difficult circumstances. They found that between May, when the Act became law, and September there had been 180 cases of evictions, 176 cases of torture, abuse and degrading treatment, and 159 incidents of discrimination. All of those were against both real and perceived LGBT+ people. We have to remember that just because something is anti-LGBT+ legislation, it does not mean the people caught by it are necessarily LGBT+.”