Suella Braverman
MP for Fareham and Waterlooville · Reform UK · United Kingdom
“We all know that child safeguarding is non-negotiable, so does the Secretary of State share my concern that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s most recent schools briefing appears to put the safety of girls at risk, given that it has removed the express requirement that adult supervisors of pupils getting dre…”
“There are aspects of the Secretary of State’s statement that I welcome. I was going to say that no one had yet mentioned white working-class boys, but she mentioned them just a minute ago. She will know that the data is compelling.”
“I was in Portsmouth harbour this morning, near Eastney marina, speaking to local people in Fareham and Waterlooville. This is the message that they wanted me to send the Government. They are terrified, furious and desperate. They are not far-right racists.”
“I agree with one word that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) said, “betrayal”, but the Bill is not a betrayal of the Labour party; it is a betrayal of the British people.”
“I am glad that it has taken the Conservative party three years to catch up with me, but it is three years too late and too little. When they had the power and the mandate, and when they had Ministers telling them that we needed to leave the ECHR, they blocked, attacked, criticised and vilified people like me.”
“Ann’s tragic murder has shocked the nation. Dear Ann was the personification of political courage, patriotic tradition and the importance of faith. I got to know her when I was Home Secretary, through her immense support for the Amess family when we unveiled his plaque—a poignant reminder of the threat facing our democracy today.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Suella Braverman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I would not be here if it were not for their sacrifice and the great small private school that my parents had the choice to send me to.”
“I stand against it because of my own personal educational journey. We will all have personal experiences and views informed by our own education, but mine is apposite. My parents were working-class people; they were migrants who came here with nothing. They themselves had poor educations in Mauritius and Kenya, so they valued the opportunity to give me a good chance at getting educated. I started in a local state school, where the teachers would go on strike every week, outcomes were poor and discipline was bad. However, my parents had a choice. Through scrimping, saving and sacrifice, they got me into a small independent private school. From that school, I got into Cambridge, I practised as a barrister and I made it to Parliament.”
“First, independent schools are positive for the economy. They contribute £16 billion to the economy, support 300,000 jobs contributing £5 billion in tax revenue, and save the taxpayer £4 billion by educating pupils outside the state sector. All of that would be put at risk by this ill- thought-out policy. Secondly, special education schools will be hard hit by this punitive policy. There are 96,000 pupils at SEND schools who are not on an EHCP and, simply put, they will be put at risk by the policy. Where will those children go when these special schools are put out of business? Many specialist schools in the state sector are already over-subscribed. Lastly, this tax on aspiration will simply push many poorer pupils out of good-quality schools, and parental choice will be destroyed. I feel passionate about this policy.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for leading the debate. Frankly, this Labour party policy is a viciously cynical ploy to allow Labour to masquerade as class warriors and as the working-class heroes taking on the elite. However, the reality is that they are champagne socialists pretending to be social justice champions. This policy is not about education, outcomes, the welfare of children or supporting the British people: it is about division and removing choice. It will harm educational outcomes and cause hardship. Far from being the class warriors of our age, Labour will become the party that kills off social mobility through this tax on aspiration, personal choice and responsibility, and social mobility. There are three reasons why the policy is misguided.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his hard work and genuine commitment to seriously tackling this issue, and I was pleased to work with him and CST last year. The reality is that the Jewish community has been demonised and targeted, is scared and has been let down by the authorities. The Jewish community needs its champions and friends to speak in its defence without fear or favour. Lord Ian Austin, who sits in the other place, is one such courageous advocate who has campaigned for decades against antisemitism and Islamism. Does my right hon. Friend share my deep concern about organisations such as Midland Heart, which has suspended Lord Austin as its chair merely for his speaking against Islamism, terrorism and antisemitism?”
“The former has chosen to roll out end-to-end encryption without safeguards and the latter has rolled out advanced data protection, which will allow these bad actors to go dark, which will severely disable agencies and law enforcement from identifying them and taking action, and will enable—indeed it will facilitate—some of the worst atrocities that our brave men and women in law-enforcement agencies deal with every day.”
“I know that the Home Secretary wants to make progress, but I am grateful for the opportunity to comment. These reforms to the IPA are necessary to upgrade our world-class regime and ensure that our frameworks are kept up to date with evolving threats and, importantly, technology. We know that the terrorists, the serious organised criminals, the fraudsters and the online paedophiles all take advantage of the dark web and encrypted spaces: to plan their terror, to carry out their fraudulent activity and to cause devastating harm to innocent people such as children, in the field of online paedophilia. Does he share my concern and indeed frustration with companies such as Meta and Apple?”
“Amendment 11 seeks to remedy a fatal flaw in the Bill, which is that, as currently drafted, it will lead us directly to a rerun of the scenario that we saw on 14 June 2022, when the Home Office and the then Administration had identified a cohort of illegal migrants and filled a plane ready to take off to Rwanda, but at the 11th hour, pursuant to an opaque process, a decision was made by a still unidentified judge in a foreign court that had the effect of blocking the flight— [ Interruption. ] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) have something to say?”
“I rise to speak in support of amendment 11, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), which commands the support of 60 of my colleagues. I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and I would like to respond to some of them in the course of my speech. We are here to fix a problem. It is the problem that we are all seized by, which is stopping the boats. This is our third attempt to fix this problem. We passed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, we passed the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and we are here again in 2024, the third time round, with the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. The British people are fed up. They have run out of patience and they have run out of time, and this is our last chance to get it right.”
“Despite the seriousness of his offending, and despite the risk he posed to the public, his article 8 rights, interpreted in a vastly elastic way—a distorted, illogical way—operated to stop him being deported. Article 3 was invoked in the case of D v. UK. We can all agree with article 3, which prohibits torture and inhumane or degrading treatment but, in this case of a non-UK national who was convicted of dealing drugs, the Strasbourg court held that the effect of discontinuing his medical treatment, available in the UK but not in his destination country, amounted to inhumane or degrading treatment under article 3. Why should a convicted drug dealer be entitled to public services here and not be deported?”
“Public sector decision making has been stymied, thwarted and undermined by a heavily resourced, activist legal industry that is undermining Government decision making, stymying policy making and undermining law enforcement and public safety. I have a few examples. Take the case of OO, a Nigerian national who was sentenced in 2016 to four years in prison for offences including possession of crack cocaine and heroin with intent to supply. He pleaded guilty to battery and assault in 2017. Those are serious offences. In 2020, the first-tier tribunal allowed his appeal against deportation on the grounds that he had very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria that outweighed the public interest in his deportation.”
“That is the context of the European convention’s genesis. To respond to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the problem we are dealing with is the Court. It is the Court that has become politicised. It is the Court that has become interventionist. It is the Court that does not follow the traditional common-law rules of precedent to which the English courts subscribe. The Strasbourg Court and its judges have distorted the original European convention on human rights into something that bears no reflection to its original intention. That has been exacerbated by Labour’s Human Rights Act. In recent decades we have seen a rights culture and litigiousness around immigration, asylum and many other areas.”
“They are a creation of the Strasbourg court and the Strasbourg judges, and they have evolved over time pursuant to the living instrument doctrine that is espoused by the Strasbourg court and that has inflated and expanded its remit over decades, beyond anything conceived by the original drafters or any intention set out in the original versions of the European convention. I believe that no one here disagrees with the aspirations and the content of the European convention on human rights. I do not disagree with anything set out in that document, which contains noble, vital and fundamental human rights that we are all proud to defend fervently and fiercely: against oppressive regimes; against authoritarianism; against genocide; against mass killings; and against some of the worst atrocities history has seen.”
“I will tell the hon. Gentleman where we have a problem with a foreign court. In that scenario, when English courts had refused injunctions by the migrants to get off the flight, the foreign court overrode English judges, overrode the will of the Government and overrode the will of the British people to control our borders and stop the boats. That is the problem with a foreign court, and that is the problem that we are trying to fix. When that flight was grounded in June 2022, it was because of rule 39 interim injunctions. Those orders are not contained in the European convention on human rights, and they are not a product or a content of the original convention.”
“Let me conclude by saying that this is our last chance to fix this problem. We have stretched the patience of the British people. This comes down to a simple but profound question: who governs Britain? Is it us, the democratically elected representatives who have been directly sent here on behalf of the British people, on a clear mandate and with a clear instruction of what to do, and whose laws are passed by a clear and transparent majority, to which we can all be held to account at the ballot box? Or is it an opaque forum many miles away, in a different country, that is distant, outsourced, foreign and does not share our values—”
“Friend has made: the UK Government now have a duty to establish that foreign health services are sufficient before we deport people who may well pose a risk to public safety and, in some cases, national security in this country. Those are the overall problems with the Court—not the convention, but the Court. Rule 39 is another symptom of the problem that we have with the Court and the judges, which is why the amendment is vital. It will make it clear that rule 39 orders are not binding and that it will be for the UK Government to make the decision on deportation, not a foreign court—an unidentified judge somewhere far away who does not have the same ambition or aspiration as this UK Government to stop the boats. That is why I will support the amendment enthusiastically today.”
“I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that point. Article 3, and a stretched interpretation of it originating in the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, by politicised judges pursuing a political agenda, has led to a perception that here in the UK we have an international health service, not a national health service. Lastly, let us consider the case of AM (Zimbabwe) in 2022, thanks to which it has now become law that states that want to remove someone have to prove that medical facilities available to the deportee in their home country would remove any real risk that their lifespan would be shortened by their removal from NHS facilities. That is exactly the point that my right hon.”
“It was what people voted for in 2016 in the Brexit referendum by a majority. I know that most Opposition Members do not want to believe in the majority, still live in denial and do not want to accept the facts. It is what people voted for by a huge majority in 2019: to control our borders and to stop the boats. We made a promise.”
“I will not give way. Is it a forum that does not share our values, that has made decisions time and time again that are odds with what the British people have indicated they want and that has operated to undermine our public safety, national security and good governance? It is the operation of the Strasbourg Court—we can call it the Strasbourg Court or a foreign court, and we can argue about semantics—the European Court of Human Rights, that we are concerned with here. That Court is currently controlling this country’s ability to stop the boats. That Court and its jurisprudence are preventing this Government from delivering for the British people. We made a vow to the British people that we would stop the boats. That was a solemn vow that I took incredibly seriously.”
“NATO is not a court. I am slightly embarrassed that I have to make that clear to the hon. Lady, as that is really elementary politics. We are being governed by a foreign court and judges who do not have our interests at heart. The decisions coming from that court are stopping us controlling our borders. The amendment will prevent that foreign court from stopping us, so we need to support the amendment because it will fix the Bill. The Bill needs to work. It is our last chance. If we get it wrong, the British people will not forgive us, and they will be right not to do so.”
“57) Harriett Baldwin, supported by Ms Harriet Harman, Nickie Aiken, Tim Loughton, Sarah Champion, Philip Davies, Dame Maria Miller and Jess Phillips, presented a Bill to make provision for the succession of female heirs to hereditary titles; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 36 ). Off-Road Vehicles (Registration) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Anne McLaughlin presented a Bill to make provision for a compulsory registration scheme for certain off-road vehicles; to require such vehicles to display a registration plate; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 37 ).”
“Health and Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Elizabeth Truss, supported by Dame Priti Patel, Ian Paisley, Jackie Doyle-Price, Dr Caroline Johnson, Nick Fletcher, Miriam Cates, Ben Bradley, Tom Hunt, Robin Millar, Andrew Lewer and Marco Longhi, presented a Bill to regulate access to hormone therapy for children under the age of 18; to make provision relating to social transition practices in schools and other settings; to make provision regarding the meaning of the protected characteristic of sex; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 35 ). Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.”
“British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Gavin Robinson presented a Bill to make provision about British citizenship in respect of people born in Ireland after 31 December 1948 who are, or have been, resident in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 202 4 , and to be printed (Bill 33 ). Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Ruth Jones presented a Bill to require offenders serving community and certain other sentences to provide information about names used and contact details. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 202 4 , and to be printed (Bill 34 ).”
“57) Kevin Brennan, supported by Steve Brine, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Clive Efford, Julie Elliott, Damian Green, Dr Rupa Huq, Simon Jupp, Jane Stevenson and Giles Watling, presented a Bill to create an offence of unauthorised entry at football matches; and to provide for the offence to be listed as an offence for which a football banning order can be imposed following conviction. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 31 ). Licensing Hours Extensions Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 2003 so that licensing hours orders can be made by negative resolution statutory instrument. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 32 ).”
“Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Gareth Johnson, supported by Sir David Evennett, Mr Louie French, Dean Russell, Sir Robert Goodwill, Theresa Villiers, Elliot Colburn, Bob Blackman, Steve Tuckwell, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Mr Mark Francois and Julie Marson, presented a Bill to amend the boundaries of the Greater London Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone; to provide that Transport for London may not make an order amending those boundaries without the consent of the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 30 ). Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.”
“Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 27 ). Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mr Jonathan Lord presented a Bill to require operator licences authorising the carrying out of spaceflight activities to specify the licensee’s indemnity limit. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 28 ). Public Procurement (British Goods and Services) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sarah Champion presented a Bill to make provision about public procurement in respect of British goods and services; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 29 ).”
“57) Anna Firth presented a Bill to create offences of dog abduction and cat abduction and to confer a power to make corresponding provision relating to the abduction of other animals commonly kept as pets. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 26 ). Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Kim Johnson, supported by Sir Robert Neill, Mr Barry Sheerman, John McDonnell, Paula Barker, Rachel Hopkins, Kate Osamor, Liz Saville Roberts, Kenny MacAskill and Chris Stephens, presented a Bill to amend the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 to provide that only a person who directly commits, or who makes a significant contribution to the commission of, an offence may be held criminally liable.”
“57) Jack Brereton, supported by Jonathan Gullis, Jo Gideon, Eddie Hughes, Andrew Lewer, Grahame Morris, Damien Moore, Martin Vickers, David Morris, Neil O’Brien, Mrs Sharon Hodgson and Nick Fletcher, presented a Bill to require local authorities to designate high streets in their area; to require local authorities to undertake and publish periodic reviews of the condition of those high streets; to require local authorities to develop action plans for the improvement of the condition of those high streets; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 25 ). Pet Abduction Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.”
“57) Selaine Saxby presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with restricting the importation and non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 23 ). Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mark Tami, on behalf of John Spellar, supported by Henry Smith, presented a Bill to make provision prohibiting the import of hunting trophies into Great Britain. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 24 ). High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.”
“Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Alicia Kearns, on behalf of Lloyd Russell-Moyle, supported by Elliot Colburn, Mr William Wragg, Dr Jamie Wallis, Caroline Nokes, Gary Sambrook, Dehenna Davison, Iain Stewart and Michael Fabricant, presented a Bill to prohibit practices whose predetermined purpose is to change a person’s sexual orientation or to change a person to or from being transgender; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 22 ). Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.”
“Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 19 ). Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mr Laurence Robertson presented a Bill to change the period of life expectancy relevant to certain pension rules. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 20 ). Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Christian Wakeford, on behalf of Wayne David, presented a Bill to make provision about the misuse of litigation to suppress freedom of speech. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 21 ).”
“57) Julie Elliott, supported by Dame Angela Eagle, Damian Green, Siobhain McDonagh, Yvonne Fovargue, Wendy Chamberlain, Sir Mark Hendrick, Ian Mearns, John Stevenson, Alison Thewliss and Dame Meg Hillier, presented a Bill to make provision about the funding of building societies and the assimilation of the law relating to companies and the law relating to building societies. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024 , and to be printed (Bill 18). Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Chris Elmore presented a Bill to make provision about shared parental leave and pay in certain cases where a mother has died; and for connected purposes.”
“Now, I may not have always found the right words in the past, but I refuse to sit by and allow us to fail. The trust that millions of people placed in us cannot be discarded as an inconvenient detail. If we summon the political courage to do what is truly necessary, difficult though it may be—to fight for the British people—we will regain their trust. If the Prime Minister leads that fight, he has my total support. Bills Presented Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.”
“Fifthly, Parliament must be prepared to sit over Christmas to get the Bill done. All of this comes down to a simple question: who governs Britain? Where does ultimate authority for the UK lie? Is it with the British people and their elected representatives, or is it in the vague, shifting and unaccountable concept of international law? On Monday, the Prime Minister announced measures that start to better reflect public frustration on legal migration. He can now follow that up with a Bill that reflects public fury on illegal migration and actually stop the boats. It is now or never. The Conservative party faces electoral oblivion in a matter of months if we introduce yet another Bill destined to fail. Do we fight for sovereignty, or do we let our party die?”