“Action Plans are not headline grabbing, but they do help civil servants, politicians and departments plan more coherently and achieve tangible progress.”
Over the last 75 years, political parties have debated how to ‘handle’ the issue of LGBT+ rights. After the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967, the UK went through a period of hostility towards LGBT+ communities. The societal response to the spread of HIV and the demonisation of the communities it most affected was compounded by the introduction of Section 28, a piece of legislation that prevented the promotion of homosexuality by UK local authorities and schools. For LGBT+ people, it was a period of fear and anxiety, fuelled by decisions made by the Government of the day.
In 1991, Sir John Major met with Sir Ian McKellen. The archives suggest this significantly contributed to Major’s awareness of both the issues faced by LGBT+ people and changing social attitudes towards the LGBT+ community, leading to the decreasing of the age of consent in 1994.
When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the Labour Party began a programme of work that would see the introduction of workplace rights, same-sex adoption, repeal of section 28, the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act, the introduction of the Civil Partnership Act, and equal access to goods and services. The ban on LGBT+ people serving in the armed forces was lifted and hate crime legislation was amended to introduce aggravated sentences relating to homophobic incidents. The Equality Act placed a duty on the public sector to prevent discrimination against LGBT+ people.
Gordon Brown continued these efforts, parenting rights of lesbian couples were reformed and community activists and campaigners were invited to Number Ten to celebrate Pride.
Policy positions and strategies on LGBT+ communities act as an indicator of where a party stands more generally. David Cameron knew his advocacy for same-sex marriage would serve as a signal of where he wanted the Conservative party to be positioned. Cameron also knew that this required drive and impetus from the Liberal Democrats as coalition partners. Same-sex marriage was totemic then, and now. Similarly, when Theresa May was Prime Minister, she actively pursued policies that would improve the rights of LGBT+ people in the UK. This included increased rights for trans people.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all have had LGBT+ Action Plans of sorts. During Cameron and May’s governments, those plans were written down, with key measures and deliverables connected to the objectives. Such plans have been reflected in manifestos. Action Plans are not headline grabbing, but they do help civil servants, politicians and departments plan more coherently and achieve tangible progress. Regardless of your political position, bringing about real change that can be tracked and assessed does seem to be an essential pre-requisite of being in government.
An LGBT+ Action Plan can align with wider political objectives: whether that’s getting more people into work, reducing health inequalities, or reducing crime. Conversely, the absence of a Plan leads to a lack of joined up policy making. For example, the Government’s stated ambition to make conversion therapy unlawful relies on changes to how the UK approaches trans identities, which will have implications for the Department of Health. Negotiating new trade deals provides opportunities to influence international attitudes towards homosexuality. If there is a coherent policy to advocate for the decriminalisation of homosexuality internationally, this could have an impact on illegal migration. A Plan helps the Government to act more efficiently in achieving its objectives.
When there is no Plan, it’s sometimes easy for those outside of politics to think that announcements are driven by a need to generate headlines, rather than shift the landscape for LGBT+ people and communities. Strategy led by a comms grid is not a strategy. It’s also unlikely to lead to any meaningful changes, regardless of what I or anyone else might think about the underlying ideas.
For example, announcing an end to gender neutral toilets raises important policy questions. Which toilets should trans people use? Where should fathers take their daughters? What should we do about toilets on aeroplanes and trains? An announcement of intention is not a strategy. The on-going commitments to ban conversion therapy are laudable, but there does not seem to be a plan or timetable to achieve it. The policy position was announced in 2018 but no legislation is forthcoming.
An LGBT+ Action Plan will help a future government to map out its objectives, determine its measures, and track its progress. Not only does this greatly increase the likelihood of efficient and effective operations, critically it also serves to build trust between those in power and those seeking greater societal acceptance and social protections. At a time of undeniable division and uncertainty, a future government can use an action plan to ensure its accountability and avoid the mistakes of the past.
This essay was first published in a collection of essays – ‘Thoughts and Reflections’ – from members of the House of Commons and House of Lords, published by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights, which the Baring Foundation supports.