Budget Resolutions

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I rise to welcome many elements of today’s Budget, notably the cut to the main rate of employees’ national insurance from 10% to 8%; the changes to the high-income child benefit charge, which will help half a million families; and the raising of the VAT threshold for small businesses from £85,000 to £90,000. Speaking on behalf of many small and medium-sized businesses in Fareham, I know that they will warmly welcome that change.

However, the real test for us today is to ask ourselves whether the measures that have been announced will turn the tide. Will they turn the tide on the highest tax burden in 70 years, since world war two? Will they turn the tide on our prospects of galvanising the British economy and stimulating growth after a decade of sluggish productivity? Will they turn the tide and send the message to British taxpayers that we, the Conservatives, are the party of low tax and on their side? Those are the real questions that we need to ask ourselves, honestly and with dispassionate fairness, because if we are not honest with ourselves, we have no one else to blame if we hand the keys of power to the Labour party.

I want the British people to know what that will mean for them. A Labour Government will mean tax rises to fund £28 billion-worth of uncosted promises—Opposition colleagues are shaking their heads, but it is true. A Labour Government will mean undoing Brexit and aligning the UK more closely with the European Union, and opening our borders to potentially unlimited numbers of people from the EU. Just as night follows day, a Labour Government would also—as every Labour Government in our history have done—leave this country with more unemployment and more job losses than when they entered government. That is something I do not want to see, and I am incredibly proud that since 2010 this Conservative Government have created 800 jobs a day. That jobs miracle is something that Conservative Members can all be proud of. It will bring huge prosperity and wellbeing to millions of people across the country.

Our approach as Conservatives must be one of responsible management of the public finances. Yes, we want to cut taxes, because that is the way to stimulate growth and then reinvest more tax revenue in delivering first-class public services. I am very proud of our track record on public service delivery over the past decade: whether it is the increased numbers of doctors and nurses, the phenomenal improvement in our literacy and numeracy rates in English schools, or 20,000 new police officers, I am proud of many of the outcomes that we have produced thanks to our commitment to our vital public services.

Just in my local area, Fareham Community Hospital has seen an increase of new services—from a new chemotherapy unit to same-day access to a GP service and a regional renal dialysis centre, all in the last few years—and there has been a £58 million investment in a new accident and emergency department at our local Queen Alexandra Hospital.

To be fair to the Government, things have been incredibly tough and challenging over the last few years. Needless to say, we paid the wages of millions of people to, in effect, stay at home. I am very proud of the furlough scheme, but I do think that we all need to reflect—again, dispassionately and fairly—on the decisions we made during the pandemic. My own view, with the benefit of hindsight—I am not absolving myself of any responsibility because I sat in Cabinet at the time of these decisions—was that we actually did spend too much, we did lock down too soon and too hard, and we did shut schools in a way that was harmful rather than helpful. In the event of a similar pandemic, I hope that we do not make the same mistakes again. I do not blame anyone—it was a time of unprecedented fear and uncertainty—but I think we have to learn the lessons, so that in the event of something similar happening we do not repeat those decisions. I think we overreached, overspent and overcompensated for what could have been handled in a less damaging way for the economy and for the British people in the medium term.

Returning to the Budget, if we are serious about putting the British taxpayer first, personal taxes are a good place to start, which is why I welcome the changes to national insurance. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis), as my preference would have been a 2p cut off the basic rate of income tax, an increase in the personal allowance and raising the income tax thresholds to properly fix a tax regime that has, I am sad to say, become a disincentive to work and endeavour in too many cases. A cut of 2p off the basic rate and an increase in the personal allowance—say from £12,500, where it currently stands, to £20,000, or even to £15,000 or £16,000—would have helped poorer households and lifted about 20% of all taxpayers out of tax altogether. Cutting income tax rather than national insurance would help a broader range of taxpayer, including workers, savers and pensioners.

Let me say a word about pensioners. Yes, they have the benefit of the triple lock, but it is fair to say that since 2010 the income tax bill of the retired has increased by hundreds of pounds—some estimates put it at £400. The value of the triple lock has actually been depleted because of the fixed thresholds in income tax and, in particular, the personal allowance. I do regret that income tax was not chosen as the tax to cut over national insurance, because pensioners have lost out as a result.

I think those thresholds need to be raised to tackle the invidious problem of fiscal drag. We have seen too many workers—millions, in fact—on low or middle-level salaries being dragged into higher tax brackets in a way that was never intended. Nurses, teachers and police officers are paying a 40% rate of income tax, which was never the plan, because the frozen thresholds have not been raised in line with inflation. It has been proved that that is a disincentive to promotion and to working longer hours, and it is a reason why many more people are choosing to take early retirement or to work less. That is a drag and has an adverse impact of our tax system. I think this was a missed opportunity, and I hope the Prime Minister remembers the promise he made during his leadership campaign that he would plan to cut the basic rate of income tax eventually in this Parliament.

How do we actually pay for some of these tax changes? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) that we really have to start questioning the validity of the forecasts and the assessments made by the OBR. One way that savings could be made is in looking at net migration and overall levels of legal migration. I am very pleased that the OBR seems to have shifted away from its orthodox view, which has traditionally been that more people coming into the country, largely on low wages, is necessarily a net benefit for the economy. Just last month, David Miles of the OBR attenuated that view by saying that, no, we cannot assume there to be fiscal benefits from increased migration. There have been assessments that the UK has paid £24 billion since 2020 to cover the costs of non-working migrants, and the IFS has confirmed that non-EU net migration has had a net fiscal cost overall. Getting net migration down is key to saving costs.

I would have liked to have seen many other areas included, such as cutting public spending, which has been mentioned already. Overall, this Budget has some welcome elements, but it also represents something of a missed opportunity to properly send a message that we are on the side of the British taxpayer, that we will lower taxes, and that we will galvanise the economy to produce growth.

Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Suella Braverman Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which is helpful. The point I will make next is that in Scotland there was similar legislation. In a 46-page legal opinion, Aidan O’Neill KC, who is a double silk, talked about these types of proposals, which would see faith leaders and others imprisoned for up to seven years and hit by unlimited fines if convicted of involvement in so-called conversion practices. He states:

“This is perhaps best described as ‘jellyfish legislation’. The concepts it uses are impossible to grasp; its limits are wholly undefined; it contains a sting in the tail in the form of criminal sanction of up to 7 years and unlimited fines; and thus it will have an undoubted and intended effect of dissuading persons from ever even entering the now murky waters of what may or may not constitute unlawful ‘conversion practices’.”

Some have argued that there is a nervousness among some gay Members on the Government Benches that failing to support a ban would hold some equivalence to the impact of the controversial section 28 amendment introduced by the Thatcher Government in 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools. It is well understood by those of us who lived through that and opposed the legislation that it reinforced the then ubiquitous homophobia that stifled education and support for gender non-conforming young people. Thankfully, that policy was repealed in 2003 under a Labour Government, and that is a good thing. However, this proposal would undo all the value of that repeal. The effect of this Bill is much more likely to be directly comparable to the chilling effect of section 28 than in any way enhancing its repeal.



Let us consider, for example, a young gender non-conforming person who has a positive relationship with a member of the teaching staff. In the current situation, they are free to discuss and explore their emerging sexuality, and to be challenged on some of the views they hold. That is no easy conversation even in today’s context, but given that social media is full of misinformation and enticements that there is some magical, simple fix to complex problems, these are matters that a young person could choose to explore with a trusted adult or a parent. The introduction of this legislation would make that nigh-on impossible. Teachers, youth workers, nurses, doctors, social workers, church leaders and parents would be forced to think twice or refuse to entertain such a conversation, for fear of accusation and criminal prosecution.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I applaud the hon. Gentleman for his powerful and compelling speech. Parents have come to me in tears with their young adult child who had undergone transition some years earlier and has subsequently come to regret the decision. These parents are upset and distraught, as is the young person. They are filled with regret and pain, and they ask me, as their constituency MP, what I can do to help with detransition. There is really no answer to that. How does the hon. Gentleman think that parents in that very difficult situation, with a teenager experiencing gender dysphoria or exploring their sexuality, will be able to cope under this proposed law?

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her intervention, which raises important points. They would do so with a sword of Damocles hanging over their head. They would do so with the risk that if their child wanted to be belligerent, to challenge them and push boundaries—the normal actions of any adolescent—they would be able to use that as a weapon and say, “I’ll go to the police if you don’t give me what I want.” That is the reality. That would be one of the pernicious effects of this proposed legislation. It would have a direct impact on family life and the normal functioning of the family by undermining parents’ role in providing counsel and guidance, and in testing things out with their child. Being open and able to speak freely with their child about difficult issues at the dinner table is one of the most important roles a parent has, but this would snuff out the ability to facilitate such conversations.

The Bill would affect a broad range of people and it would leave the young person at the mercy of radicalised activists and social media influencers who operate under the pseudo-theocratic rules of a doctrine that, as I have said, is chaotic, anarchic and disruptive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I am grateful to have a chance to speak in this very important debate and I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for introducing this private Member’s Bill.

I noted the references that the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) made to common sense and compassion, and I share her aspiration for compassion and common sense in this debate. Rightly, we want to ensure that we have compassion and that our laws provide a compassionate level of support for the gay and LGBT community, who deserve to live freely and safely in our country and, indeed, the whole world. I also care about compassion for young people who will be exploring their sexuality, potentially with mental health challenges—vulnerable young people needing the help and support of informed professionals to guide them in a way that does not cause irreversible damage to their bodies, which they may later come to regret. The story of Keira Bell, illustrated very powerfully by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), is a case in point. We must have compassion for young people in the situation of Keira Bell.

I have compassion for parents who are trying valiantly to navigate this uncharted territory these days. I have met parents who are struggling, who are upset, and who themselves are depressed and overwhelmed by their teenagers trying to discover their sexuality and suggesting that they want to transition. As parents, they really are in no man’s land and they do not know what to do; they only want to do right by their young children. And I have compassion for teachers, who also find themselves mired in this minefield, not knowing what the guidance is or what the rules are, and who are scared of causing harm inadvertently or, on the other hand, denying legitimate rights.

That is why I welcome the Government’s issuance of draft guidance for schools on how to support gender-questioning children. It is a good start and has come after many years of requests. My personal view is that it does not go far enough and, ultimately, if we are to safeguard the welfare of children properly, we need to totally ban transitioning under 18. If that requires a change in the law, then I cannot think of any better reason to change the law than to support and safeguard young children in those circumstances.

I appreciate those who support the Bill; they are well-intentioned and I share their aspirations. I hate the idea of gay conversion—it is nasty, it is vicious, it is insulting, and it is disgusting that we are even talking about it. I feel sorry for those people who may have undergone those kinds of approaches and treatments; they did not deserve it. I am proud to live in a country where we support the gay community. I am proud that it was a Conservative Government who legislated for same-sex marriage in 2013. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time but, had I been, I would have voted in favour, because I believe in equal opportunities. Gay people should not be persecuted, discriminated against or victimised just because of who they love.

Let us remember that in many countries around the world, today in the 21st century, it is criminal to be gay —that is a grotesque shame on the society that we live in in this world. Homosexuality is a criminal offence in about 60 countries, half of which are in Africa. For example, the death penalty is legally prescribed as punishment for same-sex sexual acts in Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and some of the northern states of Nigeria. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia and the United Arab Emirates, the death penalty could be applied because of a lack of clarity in the law. I abhor that that is the case in parts of the world; that a person could be killed just for being gay.

That is why I am very proud of the protections that this Conservative Government have put into place over the past decade. That includes same-sex marriage— of which I am very proud—and the introduction, by the Ministry of Defence in 2021, of pardons for historical convictions for gay sex offences in the military. That finally brought an end to centuries-old legislation that had previously devastated the lives of many gay men. In 2017, Turing’s law gave automatic pardons to deceased men who had been convicted of since-abolished offences. It is very good to hear that there have been hundreds of applications for a formal pardon following the introduction of those measures by this Conservative Government—righting the wrongs of the past, as should be done, and bringing justice, eventually, to those who were wronged.

Yes, we in the United Kingdom have made progress in standing up for gay rights, and I am very proud of that. And I oppose this Bill. I feel obligated to make it clear on the record that I am not transphobic, and I am not homophobic, because I am sure that rising today to make this speech will lead to another barrage of trolling, abuse and hate mail because of the views that I hold. My views are born out of compassion for the gay community, but also compassion for young people; a sincere belief in the immutability and binary nature of sex; and my dearly held views about protecting single-sex spaces for women and safeguarding children. I feel obligated to make that clear today because, sadly, we will all be smeared very quickly after this debate—a sorry indictment of our public discourse on this subject.

I have grave concerns about this Bill, for several reasons. I will not go into them in a lot of detail, because a lot of them have been set out by other colleagues, but I will deal first with the need for the Bill. I have heard what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has said, but I strongly challenge his reliance on evidence that suggests there is a chronicled, verifiable problem that needs to be fixed by a new law. There is a complete absence of verifiable, quantitative evidence demonstrating that harmful conversion practices are widespread or occurring frequently in this country. I have referred to what is happening, atrociously, in many other countries around the world. Thankfully, those things do not happen in this country.

[Ms Brown]

Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Suella Braverman]

I will not, because of time. There is very little evidence that conversion therapy is a current problem in this country. The various surveys that have been quoted, such as the national LGBT survey of 2017 or the Ozanne Foundation’s faith and sexuality survey, have severe shortcomings in their evidence base and the ways in which they were compiled. A police freedom of information request demonstrated that police forces throughout the UK, when asked whether they had received any reports of electroshock treatment or corrective rape between 2010 and 2020, responded with relevant data and confirmed that no police force had ever recorded any such complaint.

[Danny Kruger]

The other thing that has been cited by the other side is instances of unregulated therapy, which would fall foul of this new law. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Children’s Act 1989 already specifies that therapy, or any practice that is likely to cause psychological harm, is already a criminal offence? Again, even the non-coercive, non-threatening and non-violent abuse, which the other side are trying to criminalise, is already illegal.

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend brings me to my next point, which he has just made very powerfully. The existing law already protects gay and trans people from verbal and physical abuse, much as he set out. The offensive and abhorrent practices that we are talking about but cannot yet evidence include corrective rape, electroshock therapy, forced marriage, screaming in the face, holding down while praying, threats of physical violence, harassment, coercive or controlling behaviour, and other physical and verbal abuse. However, all such activity is already criminal under myriad laws, ranging from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. There is a long list, which I do not have time to go through.

[Neale Hanvey]

I want to make a swift point. A whole range of legislation is in place to manage many of the concerns that have been voiced across the Chamber, and no one is in any way suggesting that we support them—I certainly do not support conversion practices—but any legislation that looks at this has to have absolute precision about what exactly it is addressing. The problem with the Bill is that it is so wide in scope and it replicates legislation that is already in place. We need to look at what the current legislation covers, look for the gap and, if it does exist, then legislate precisely to address the problem.

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Gentleman puts that incredibly well. It reminds me of Edmund Burke, who said:

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

Bad laws make bad customs, and in this place we want to avoid good people making bad laws. I am afraid that the coverage by the legislation of all sorts of horrendous behaviour that is being talked about means that there is no good reason for it. It is a bad law.

[Peter Gibson]

I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says about existing legislation covering many of the things that this Bill is seeking to protect people from. Will she outline to the House what work she did, while at the Home Office, to ensure that sufficient provision, advice and guidance was given to the Crown Prosecution Service and to police forces to ensure that they had the requisite knowledge to deal with such issues under the existing law?

[Suella Braverman]

During my time as Home Secretary, we issued new guidance on non-hate crime incidents, and it supports many aspects of what we are talking about—not all, but some. We clarified the parameters for such non-hate crime incidents to protect minority groups, to protect the LGBT community, and to ensure that fairness and safety were applied by policing.

The next reason is that the scope of the Bill is incredibly wide, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said. The Bill does not require the defendant to intend any harm to be caused in order for their action to be criminal, which I find incredibly concerning. That will capture so many types of behaviour where there is an innocent or well-intentioned objective and where legitimate practices, whether in the religious, therapeutic or teaching field—or just being a regular parent—will be caught. That might be inadvertent, as we have discussed today, but some things will necessarily be caught by interpretations of some of the clauses.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I do not agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member is saying. She must recognise that we do legislate in the House for things other than harms. For example, we legislate against false advertising. We legislate in other areas to say that people cannot do certain things, even if they do not cause direct harm to individuals, because it is for the social good of the fabric of our society that those things do not happen. Is not the point to say that, when explicit harm is caused, it is criminal and Home Secretaries should have put forward guidance for it to be prosecuted, and where it is not harmful but it is dangerous for our society, we should produce a threshold for that? Is that not the point of the Bill?

[Suella Braverman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that we have victimless crimes and we have legislation that provides for those kinds of offences, but the Bill runs the risk of causing harm through bad law. I will come on to the point about the potential harm caused by the proposed legislation. As I said, I seriously and strongly challenge the evidence base that the hon. Gentleman relies on to suggest that there is a definable problem that needs to be fixed in this country.

My next point is about the potential harm caused by this well-intentioned but misguided Bill. There would be a disproportionate impact on people of faith. The language of “predetermined purpose” would disproportionately catch people of faith. Many religions—most religions, I would argue—make many claims about the truth, based on a body of teaching to which followers must adhere. In traditional religions at least, any religious advice will be predetermined by that teaching, and that will be communicated to people. A priest, an imam, a rabbi or any leader in one of the major religions who attempts to pray for a member of their congregation who has presented to them with concerns or anxiety about these issues would be caught by the Bill. There would be a real chilling effect on expression of religion and freedom of religious belief.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It is clear in the exemptions that individual prayer is not caught by the Bill, but if Members feel that that is too thinly defined, we could thrash it out in Committee. Can the right hon. and learned Member tell me any mainstream religion whose religious texts say, “You must change your sexual orientation or your transgender identity”? I am not aware of any, so I do not understand why any religion would be caught by the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the right hon. and learned Lady responds, I just want to point out that several other Members still wish to participate in the debate.

[Suella Braverman]

I am being generous with the promoter of the Bill. Listen, we all know that in religious contexts people will pray for all sorts of things about fellow travellers in their faith, so my point stands.

Lastly, because I am conscious that other people wish to speak, I am very concerned about the impact of the Bill on parents, teachers and therapists. I speak not as the Member of Parliament for Fareham, who has met many constituents, including parents who are upset and traumatised by observing what their teenagers or young adults have gone through, but as a mum of young children who are beginning their education in British schools. As a mother, I feel it is my responsibility to do everything—to give my life—for the safety of my children. I would do anything for my children, as I know every parent would. If I were in the position of having my own child presenting with anxiety or presenting questions like this, I would want to support them and I would want them to be happy, but I would also want to direct them in the way that I know best, consistent with my parental authority, educating and teaching them about gender and sex. In my view, in our household, in my family, we believe that a man cannot be a woman; a boy cannot be a girl. That is what I would be telling my children, with the best intentions and from a place of love. If that were to criminalise me, that would be a crying shame and a total undermining of good parenting in this country.