Crime and Policing Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Wow. I would like to know if the hon. Member actually knows of any woman who would put themselves in that situation if there was not coercion or control of some kind. Obviously, a lot of research and conversations have been going on for years on this issue. I understand that people across the House have deeply held religious views—indeed, I was brought up a Catholic. My issue, from what I have been told, is this: how would that woman go about it? If it was by taking abortion pills, she would have a baby. Painting a picture of killing an unborn child in that way does not help to serve what we are doing in this place. We need to protect the women. [Interruption.] I need to make progress.

In the meantime, doctors, nurses, midwives, medical bodies, abortion providers and parliamentarians have come together to try to end the criminal prosecution of women on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. This is a specific and urgent problem, and one that is simple to fix. New clause 1 is the only amendment that would protect women currently at risk of prosecution and protect abortion services. That is why it has the explicit backing of every abortion provider and every organisation that represents abortion providers in England and Wales. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Nursing also endorse it. Numerous violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women and Girls Coalition, Refuge, Southall Black Sisters, Rape Crisis England and Wales, Imkaan, and the Centre for Women’s Justice, are also behind new clause 1.

The public overwhelmingly support this change too. I implore colleagues not to lose sight of the moral imperative here: namely, vulnerable women being dragged from hospital bed to police cell on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies. This is urgent. We know that multiple women are still in the system awaiting a decision, accused of breaking this law. They cannot afford to wait.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put an end to this in a simple and secure manner. This is the right change at the right time, so I implore colleagues who want to protect women and abortion services to vote for new clause 1. Let us ensure that not a single desperate woman is ever again subject to traumatic criminal investigation at the worst moments of their lives. There must be no more Lauras. There must be no more Nicola Packers.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 106, which stands in my name, but first I will speak briefly to new clause 1, which we have been discussing so far. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) spoke about some pretty harrowing cases, and said how the first lady was utterly traumatised by having had her abortion at home, which she received via telemedicine. My new clause seeks to make women safer by ensuring that they are seen and given the opportunity for proper medical consultation before they get to the stage where they are given inappropriate medication because of a misunderstanding, and then end up traumatised, delivering a relatively mature foetus unexpectedly at home.

The hon. Lady did not say during her speech whether she believes that a baby should be terminated right up to term, but I want to put on the record that I do not. I work as an NHS consultant paediatrician, and I have cared for and personally held babies in my hands from 21 weeks and six days’ gestation right through to term. I am very aware that babies from, say, 30 weeks upwards have a more than 98% chance of survival, so although I am supportive of women’s right to choose early in pregnancy, I am not supportive of similar rights in relation to healthy babies right up to term.

Until the pandemic, women had to attend abortion clinics, where they would see a professional and talk through their desire for an abortion and the reasons for it. At the clinic, it would be checked that the woman was pregnant and how far pregnant she was. The hon. Lady raised cases of women who believed they were so far pregnant, but who turned out to be much further pregnant, which are well known; sometimes it goes the other way. One of the key reasons for this confusion is that women often bleed in early pregnancy, and they may believe that those bleeding episodes represent a period; when a woman thinks that she is 10 weeks pregnant, therefore, she may actually be 14 weeks pregnant.

That consideration is important in the context of accessing an abortion because at-home abortions via telemedicine are allowed only up until 10 weeks. The reason for that is not to be difficult or awkward, or to make it more difficult for women to access abortions; instead, it is a safety issue, because we know that complications are greater later in pregnancy. What happens in the early stages is that the procedure essentially causes the foetus to be born. If that happens to a baby much later in pregnancy, the procedure will cause it to be born when it has a chance of survival, which can lead to a traumatic experience for the mother as they deliver a much larger foetus than expected. It can lead to bleeding and, in one case I am aware of, has led to the death of a mother who was given pills to take at home when she was much further along in her pregnant than she had expected.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If this is about safety, then we also have to think about the safety of the baby. In my constituency, a baby had a live birth at 30 weeks’ gestation. Tragically, that baby went on to live for just four days, struggling over that period, and then died. Must we not consider the baby’s safety as much as the woman’s safety?

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think we need to consider both.

I remember a case involving a lady, Carla Foster, in June 2023. From my reading of the case, she admitted to lying about where she was in her gestation, saying that she was further back in pregnancy, at seven weeks, when she was actually much further along; she turned out to be around 33 weeks pregnant when her baby—her little girl, whom she called Lily—was born. In the papers I have read about the case, she described being traumatised by the face of that baby, which could have been prevented if she had been to a proper clinic and seen a health professional, as that health professional would have clearly seen that she was not seven weeks pregnant, and that taking abortion pills intended for early pregnancy was not a suitable or safe medical intervention.

If one has a termination later in pregnancy, it is done by foeticide. Essentially, an injection of potassium chloride is administered to kill the baby, and then the baby is born in the usual way, but deceased. That is why it is important to know what the gestation is—because the termination offered under the law is done by a different route, to make sure that it is done safely. We know that the later in pregnancy a termination happens, the more a woman is at risk of medical complications.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an expert and well-informed speech, and I shall be supporting her amendment. On the point about the risks involved with abortion to birth, what does she think about jurisdictions such as New Zealand and the State of Victoria in Australia that have decriminalised abortion and seen a significant increase in failed late-term abortions—where a baby is born and there has been a lot of physical harm and risk as a result?

[Dr Johnson]

Every jurisdiction has a democratic right to do as it chooses and I respect that, but it is a tragedy when we hear of cases where late-term abortions have not been supported by medical care or the law, and women and infants have suffered significant harm as a result.

I want to raise the case of Stuart Worby. Some people say that this issue is about protecting vulnerable women, but in this case, which was prosecuted in December 2024, a man who did not want his partner to be pregnant, when she did want to be pregnant, decided to take matters into his own hands. He asked a woman who was not pregnant to get the pills for him. He put them in a drink and gave them to his partner, inducing a miscarriage. He has rightly been put in jail for that, but the case demonstrates that there are men out there who will obtain tablets with the help of a woman. That could not have happened if women had to have an in-person appointment, because the woman arriving at the clinic to get the abortion pills on the man’s behalf would be clearly seen not to be pregnant, so would not be able to obtain the medication. My amendment seeks to protect women—women who are wrong about their gestation or who are mistaken in thinking they have had a bleed or whatever—to make sure that they have a safe termination using the right mechanisms.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that I, too, will be supporting her amendment. There has been a lot of talk in this place in recent weeks about coercion—in a different Bill and in a different context. The kind of coercion that she describes is a reality. It is all fine and well to have a fanciful middle-class view of the world, but as I said in respect of a different Bill, there are many wicked people doing many wicked things. The kind of coercion that she describes is the truth; it is the reality.

[Dr Johnson]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I shall come to coercion a little later. First, let me go back to new clause 1, which decriminalises the woman having an abortion in relation to her own pregnancy. It seems to me that what many wish to do is decriminalise abortion up until term. That is a legitimate position that some people take.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I urge the hon. Lady to rethink what she is saying. There is nothing in new clause 1 that refers to abortion up until term. There would be no change to the abortion law—absolutely no change at all. We are not saying aborted to term, and it is extremely harmful for her to say that.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Currently, it is illegal for a woman to procure her own abortion between 24 weeks and term if the baby is healthy. If there is a problem, she has to have it done by doctors in hospital. Under the proposed new rules, we will have is a situation where a woman can legally have an abortion up until term if she wants to do so— [Interruption.] Yes, at any gestation. That is a completely legitimate argument. It is not one that I support or agree with, but it is a legitimate argument that people can make. If that is the case, they should have the courage of their convictions and make it.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

If criminal law does not work as a deterrent, why did late-term abortions increase in the State of Victoria and in New Zealand after decriminalisation? If we look at New Zealand in 2020, there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions between 20 weeks’ gestation and birth compared with 2019. Therefore, criminal law does act as a deterrent, and when it is removed we see an increase. We need to learn from different jurisdictions in that regard.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Lady is right to say that we have seen an increase in incidences of people taking abortion pills late. Previously it was very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the pills—it was certainly impossible to obtain them through NHS clinics—but now it is possible, because people can use a telemedicine clinic. They say that they are seven weeks pregnant and ask for pills, and we have seen examples where people have asked for the pills much further on in their pregnancy—into the 30 weeks—obtained the medicine and made themselves very unwell in doing so.

Turning to coercion, when a doctor sees a patient, they take at face value everything the patient tells them. When a lady uses telemedicine to have an abortion, it is not possible for a doctor or clinician to know whether somebody else is in the room with them, or sat the other side of the camera forcing them to say what they are saying. It is not possible for the doctor to know whether the lady is pregnant or not or whether the person asking for the medicine will be the person who takes it. That is very unsafe.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, although the same would apply if someone were face to face with a doctor; for example, I could get abortion pills and then give them to someone else after my appointment. I represent a semi-rural constituency, where we struggle with lack of bus routes and medical facilities. I understand her concerns about coercion, but there will be lots of women in my constituency who are victims of domestic violence and coercion for whom it will be significantly harder to access telemedicine were her amendment to be passed. A point was made about middle-class people, but it would be poorer people who struggle to access the service as a result of her amendment.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Lady is correct that if a woman got the tablets at a clinic, she could give them to somebody else, but in order to get them in the first place she would need to be 10 weeks pregnant, and the clinician would check that she was pregnant. When the medication appears not to have worked, questions would perhaps be asked about where the tablets had gone, so I think there is an inherent safety feature there.

The hon. Lady brings up the issue of bus routes. That is important, but the question is whether we should improve the bus routes or make medical services less safe. Most clinical services are accessed by individuals attending hospitals or clinics, and in some respects this instance is no different, because it is important that proper medical checks are done. I am not trying to limit people’s access to what is clinically legally available. I am trying to make sure that people are safe when they do so.

I want to turn to women who have been trafficked or are being forced into sex work. We talked yesterday in the House about young girls who had been groomed and raped in the grooming gangs scandal. Would we put it past those evil, nasty men to have got drugs and given them to these young girls to hide the evidence of their crimes? I would not.

What about those who want to preserve the honour of their family by preventing their daughter from being pregnant? What about those who think that the baby being carried by their partner is of the wrong gender—they would like a boy but are having a girl? What about those who are trying to cover up sexual abuse, particularly of teenagers and young girls, by causing a termination to hide the evidence of their crimes? What if a partner does not want a baby? Stuart Worby got caught, was prosecuted and is rightly in jail, but how many others have done that and not got caught? We simply will never know.

No one knows who is taking these medications. If we have proper clinics, gestation can be checked, a clinician can ascertain more effectively if a woman is being coerced, and they can make the abortion medically as safe as possible. My amendment is not pro-life or pro-choice. It is pro-safety.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think we all agree that there are concerns about vulnerable people and abortion law in this country, but we disagree about how to address them. I propose new clause 20 as a way to address those concerns and recognise that the issue of abortion access is increasingly under attack, not just in our country but around the world. If we think that we face these challenges because we have outdated laws in this country, why would we retain them in any shape or form rather than learning from best practice around the world for all our constituents?

To start, let me put on the record that I take seriously all the concerns raised across the House about abortion. I recognise that this is a complex issue, I hear strongly the stories about investigations and prosecutions, and I want to see change, but I also recognise that change does not come without consequences. New clause 20, therefore, is based on what is good abortion law—what many of us have worked on. It is based on what the sector itself used to say mattered, which was that abortion law in England and Wales should recognise developments in modern abortion law in Northern Ireland, delivering on the promise we made in this place in 2019 that abortion was a human right, that safe care was a human right for women, and that we should see a progression of minimum human rights standards on abortion, including through the proposals of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

I want to start with how the new clause would do that. I want to be clear that only this new clause would provide for decriminalisation. Decriminalisation, as defined by Marie Stopes, means removing abortion from the criminal law so that it is no longer governed by both the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929, because that would protect both clinicians and those who are at threat of criminal prosecution. Decriminalisation would not impact the regulations on safe medical use, medical conduct, safeguarding—I recognise that is a serious concern—or the distribution of medicines, and neither would it stop tackling those people who seek to use abortion as a form of abuse or coercion. I want to explain how,

In decriminalising and removing the laws that have caused those problems, the new clause would keep the 1967 Act not as a list of reasons why someone would be exempted from prosecution but as a guide to how abortion should be provided. Many of us in the House would recognise the shock for our constituents that abortion is illegal in theory and that the guidelines in the 1967 Act are the settled will of this place. To resolve any regulatory challenges, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to comply only with sections 85 and 86 of CEDAW—the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Those sections are about minimum, not maximum, standards of care, and that is only if the Secretary of State believes there appears to be an incongruence that needs to be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

We know that the majority of abortions happen at less than 10 weeks in this country, but we should protect the time limit. We should also protect the medics involved, because the person who gets a fatal foetal abnormality diagnosis after 20 weeks is the person we should protect most of all. If we reduce that time limit, and if we start to target medics—it could happen in this country, as in America—those people who are asked to carry to term a baby who they know will die will not get our protection. Yes, we must stop the investigations and prosecutions under outdated laws that make no sense, but we must also protect people at that most heartbreaking moment when they are told that a baby that they really want will not live. That is what keeping the 1967 Act does.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry; I cannot take interventions because of time.

Those who worry that new clause 20 removes outdated laws should look at the limited number of prosecutions that have taken place under existing laws, and compare it to the number of investigations that have taken place. Let us deal with the claims that are being put about. First, there is a claim that repeal would mean that there would no longer be the crime that MSI has called reproductive coercion. That is what it called the offence of coercion in the Serious Crime Act 2015, which it hailed. That offence would remain, and it explicitly covers forcing someone to have an abortion, giving the same penalty as section 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Those who claim that coercing someone to have an abortion would be legal under new clause 20 have not paid attention to that legislation, or to the calls from the abortion providers to ensure that more healthcare providers—and, it seems, more Government lawyers—are aware of that 2015 law, and of reproductive coercion.

Those who claim that the loss of the “concealment of the body” law in section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act would facilitate live abortions should look at the existing laws on grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm, which are used in such cases because of the difficulty of proving an offence under section 60, and indeed because of the requirements of the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. Having given birth to a baby at 37 weeks, I want to be very clear why time limits and medical decisions matter when it comes to abortion, not just to the application of substance misuse laws. Let us be very clear that there would be criminal offences to cover the cases that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) described, but we are also talking about removing laws that have criminalised people who have had stillbirths. These are people who need our compassion, and who need us to be able to differentiate between an outdated law that criminalises abortion and the malicious intent in the substance misuse legislation.

People should recognise how seldom these offences can be proved because they make no sense. Also, in retaining the 1967 Act, we retain the good faith principle for all parties to an abortion. That would deal with the trope of sex selection; nobody can prove that abortion for sex selection reasons has happened, but that is covered in the good faith arrangements that are retained with the 1967 legislation.

I return to the subject of Northern Ireland, because it was not the absence of regulation that made a difference; it was Parliament voting to make abortion a human right, and then the Government working with us to make it happen. Voting for new clause 20 would kick-start a similar process. We know that Government lawyers never really like to deal with change—who does?—but this is the proper and appropriate way to proceed, and in our Parliament, this is the only way for Back-Benchers to make changes on matters of conscience.

Those of us who recognise that reproductive rights are the foundation of social justice know that now is the time to act. If we are not free to control what happens to our bodies, we cannot be free in the rest of our lives. Those who are playing politics with abortion play politics with equality. The Vice-President of the US has attacked our buffer zones. We should not tolerate his interference in any matter of human rights. Only new clause 20 would give buffer zones that human rights footing. We would not ask a woman to carry to term a baby that would die at birth, but again, there are people in this place who call our abortion laws ludicrous, and who advocate for a reduction in the time limit, putting a woman’s health second. That would not happen with a human rights framework.

Those of us who care about these rights need to act tonight. Less than half of all men under 40 in this country believe that abortion should be legal in most cases, so those who feel that abortion is a settled matter that cannot be weaponised in our politics need to listen to the drumbeat already banging loudly in this country. We face a choice today. We know that these laws are outdated. Do we retain but limit them, or do we remove them and get ahead of what is to come? I urge colleagues who care about these matters to listen to our American counterparts, who bitterly regret not having acted under Biden and Obama to protect abortion access, and who now find medics being prosecuted and dragged across state lines. Do we learn from how Parliament has acted before?

Procedurally, Members know that if new clause 1 is passed, new clause 20 cannot go to a vote, so they will not have the chance to say whether they believe that a safe and legal abortion is a fundamental human right. I want to be clear that I will support new clause 1, but with great hesitation. That is not because I dismiss those proposing it. I hope we can all agree that there are genuine and decent terms for disagreement. It is because new clause 20 brings in a lock on ministerial powers. It explicitly restricts what Ministers and the Government—not Parliament—can do on this subject in a delegated legislation Committee.

It has been surprising to learn, in these debates, how few people have had the joyous experience of sitting in a delegated legislation Committee, stacked by the Whips with Government MPs, that makes major changes to the law, but in 15 years, that has happened to me a number of times. We have seen it on tuition fee rates and welfare cuts, and the previous Government tried to do it with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Only new clause 20 would stop Ministers using regulatory powers to overturn abortion rights. They could use them only to bring in human rights-compliant regulations. Conversely, if new clause 1 is passed, there are no constraints on how Ministers could use the powers. The Minister might say that the new clause brings in no requirement to make regulations. That is true. New clause 1 does not require regulation, but it can and will facilitate it. As the Hansard Society points out, Ministers sometimes seek powers in a Bill to enable them to take actions that they consider appropriate. That leaves Ministers with huge powers.

New clause 1 would bring abortion within the province of this legislation and give the Secretary of State enabling powers to make laws relating to abortion, as long as they would not reverse the disapplication of abortion law to a person acting in relation to their own pregnancy. The powers could be used to target medics, or the family of a person seeking an abortion. I therefore ask the Minister to explicitly give a commitment that if new clause 1 is passed, there will be no further regulation on abortion under the Bill, and no application to make new clause 1 workable or to clarify the impact of a prosecution on the anti-abortion laws that remain. If the Minister cannot do that, by definition she proves that that power will exist. By contrast, new clause 20 would restrict that. It would give power back to this place. Nobody can bind a future Parliament, but we can demand that it is not small Committees of hand-picked, select MPs making decisions on the Government’s behalf, and that each of us should be able to act on behalf of our constituents.

Criminalisation does not reduce or deter abortion; it just makes it harder to carry out safely. We should be clear that criminalisation will remain if only new clause 1 is passed. If we want the decriminalisation that the sector has always advocated for—for good reason—it is only through new clause 20 that we can achieve that. I hope that colleagues in the Lords will have heard this debate, and will not let these matters rest.

Regret has no place in politics. It certainly has no place in the politics that I came here to represent. When there are those who would seek to attack women in this way, I pledge to continue fighting for women’s rights. I pledge to continue fighting to make abortion a human right in this country, and I ask colleagues to consider the case for doing so in this way. But I ask people who care about this to think about this moment and whether we will ever have another one when this Parliament could act in such a positive, constructive and established way. We can get one thing over the line. Why not make it the thing that would make the biggest difference to our constituents?

--- Later in debate ---

Becca was 19 years old when she gave birth to her baby in hospital. She had accessed legal abortion care through a licensed clinic, thinking she was in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. She had suffered a very rare complication, and her pregnancy was later on than she and her doctors expected. Her parents reported that she had gained no weight, had had regular periods and had been working night shifts for the NHS only hours before.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine Fookes]

Due to time, I will not; I apologise.

When Becca gave birth, her baby was small and premature. She says the first hospital she stayed in was amazing, providing support for her, her partner and their baby. The second, however, made the decision—against professional guidance and rules on patient confidentiality —to report her and her partner to the police on suspicion of attempted abortion. One month after her child was born, Becca returned home to register the birth. The police swooped. Both she and her partner were arrested, her from her parents’ house and him from their baby’s cot side. They were held in police cells and interviewed under caution, without understanding what was happening or why.

When they were bailed, social services visited their house and told them they were not allowed to care for their baby without supervision, meaning that Becca could not breastfeed or hold her baby until her parents were approved as supervisors. During that visit, the social worker made a difficult situation even worse, telling the family their baby was deaf and blind as a result of the alleged abortion attempt. The baby was not. This casual cruelty by a social worker caused immense distress. Fortunately, Becca, her partner and her baby are now doing well. Social services agree that they are good parents and are no longer monitoring them.

I imagine that many Members across the Chamber today had never thought this kind of cruelty existed under abortion law in this country. I know that I had never considered it. The truth is that the current legal framework harms women and girls when they are at their most desperate, and the only people who can stop it are us here in Parliament today. While changing the law by voting through new clause 1 today cannot erase what happened to Becca and her family, it can stop it happening to any more women. I urge Members to keep women like Becca in the forefront of their minds when they vote. Think of Becca and vote for new clause 1.

Immigration

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I will make some progress.

The Government’s amendment makes reference to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and the obvious truth is that their Bill will not make a great deal of difference. It creates a Border Security Commander. I know Martin Hewitt and I have every respect for him, but the Border Security Commander has no powers. All the Bill provides are functions, and those functions include preparing an annual report and publishing a strategic priority document. With all due respect to the immigration Minister, I do not think the people smugglers will be very concerned by an annual report or a strategic priority document. The so-called counter-terror-style powers in the Bill amount to confiscating mobile phones and using slightly enhanced surveillance tactics on the criminal gangs. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but the truth is that it will make no difference. As the National Crime Agency has said, law enforcement alone will not fix this problem, because if we dismantle one gang, another will simply pop up in its place. That is what the National Crime Agency assessed a year or two ago.

We do know what worked in Australia, which had an even bigger problem than us about 10 years ago, with about 50,000 people crossing to Australia. It set up Operation Sovereign Borders, which entailed a removals deterrent, and they used Nauru rather than Rwanda. In a few months, after only a few thousand people had been removed there, the illegal maritime crossings to Australia stopped entirely. The number went down to zero because the deterrent effect meant that people in Indonesia did not even attempt the crossing in the first place, and because those crossings were stopped, hundreds and hundreds of lives were saved. So it is clear to me that we need a removals deterrent, like Rwanda, to prevent these crossings.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I visited Rwanda, and I was impressed by the facilities being built for the migrants due to go there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had the Rwanda scheme not been cancelled by the current Government, the people due to go there would be being cared for and would be setting up new and successful lives, and we would not have people dying in the channel?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I completely agree, and I commend my hon. Friend for going to look at the facilities there. Had that scheme been started as intended, on 24 July, the deterrent effect would by now have stopped these crossings. In fact, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sends people to Rwanda, so it is clearly good enough for them. Other countries, including Germany, are now looking at removals deterrents. It is clear that the Government should restart a proper removals deterrent, and I urge them to do so urgently.

We have presented a Bill to this House which contains serious and credible measures to limit legal migration, to take action against illegal migration and to ensure people with no right to be here are removed, including foreign national offenders. One of the most important measures is to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters, because over the years UK judges in the immigration tribunal have adopted evermore expansive definitions of ECHR articles to allow dangerous foreign criminals to remain in this country. There are thousands of examples of the definitions of the articles—not just article 8, but article 3 as well—being stretched and stretched over the years beyond any definition of common sense, and certainly beyond anything contemplated by the framers of the ECHR 70 or so years ago.

That is why the Human Rights Act must be repealed so that Parliament decides the rules, not judges applying expansive interpretations. I will give just one example. There was a Zimbabwean paedophile who failed to be deported back to Zimbabwe. A judge—I think using article 3, not article 8—said no, the paedophile could not be sent back to Zimbabwe in case he faced some hostility back in Zimbabwe. What about the rights of children in the United Kingdom to be protected from paedophiles? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign national offenders? That is why we need to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters. That is why it is in our Bill, and I call on the Government to support it.

It is time to deliver what the British public want. The Opposition have developed a credible and detailed Bill to do that. I call on the Government, if they are serious, to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Collective responsibility apparently never used to matter to the Conservative party, but if we remember some of the history we will know that that was actually true.

I want Members to cast their minds back to the summer of 2022, and the 20-week period from Chris Pincher having his night at the Carlton Club all the way through to when the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) had to write an emergency Budget. The Conservative Government descended into utter chaos, with three different Prime Ministers and four different Home Secretaries taking turns in office. What was happening with small boats in the channel during those particular 20 weeks? We had not 12,000 or 13,000 arrivals, but 30,000 arrivals.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No.

There were 30,000 arrivals in the space of 20 weeks— not 220 or even 500 boats, but 670 boats. How did that happen? The Conservatives were all too busy fighting among themselves and crashing the economy to bother about protecting our borders.

Let us not forget the role that the shadow Home Secretary played in that little bit of Conservative party history. In the space of 20 weeks, he went from tech Minister to no ministerial role, to Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to Paymaster General, to police Minister, but none of that was his most important role. We should remember—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No; I am going to make some of these points. We should all remember that the shadow Home Secretary was once credited as being the economic guru behind Liz Truss’s premiership. This is the man who helped Liz Truss to write her catastrophic mini-Budget, drive the country off a cliff and scupper her own premiership.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The history lesson of who was which Minister in which Government when is obviously all available on the internet, if people want to look. How does it relate to the matter we are discussing today, which is what the current Government are doing to tackle migration?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I look forward to hearing her views in the debate later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No, I have given way enough. I will carry on and make my points, because we do not have much time.

Since the general election, we have established the Border Security Command to draw together the work of all relevant agencies, supported by at least an extra £150 million this financial year. We have backed UK law enforcement to play a leading role in major international operations to take out the gangs and their supply chains further up the smuggling route. We have deepened co-operation with key allies, including France. We have struck new agreements with Germany, Iraq, Italy, the Calais Group and the G7. We have hosted a major international summit on border security—the first of its kind, with over 40 countries in attendance.

We have also transferred the staff and resources from the failed Rwanda scheme and used them to return more than 24,000 individuals with no right to be in the UK. We increased asylum decision making by 52% in the last three months of 2024, and we have ramped up illegal working enforcement visits and arrests by 40%.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No. As this Government have made clear consistently, this is just the start. We need to go further, and we will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Pinkerton]

No.

That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) tabled an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to allow asylum seekers waiting more than three months to work. That is humane, it is pragmatic, and it would help to grow the economy. The Conservatives failed to address that injustice for a decade, and Labour has also failed to grasp the nettle since. It is disappointing that both parties voted against that sensible policy, which would have ensured that those seeking asylum paid their own way.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I will. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is making an interesting speech, for giving way. He talks about the importance of safe and legal routes, of which there are several, but does he accept that if those safe and legal routes are capped to some extent, there will still be people for whom there is not a safe and legal route, who may then risk their life in the channel?

[Dr Pinkerton]

We must also recognise that safe and legal routes are one mechanism that needs to be pursued —so too is international aid, which allows people to stay broadly in the regions from which they may otherwise be displaced. We often forget that Jordan has the highest number of refugees of any country in the world.

We welcome this Government’s attempt to address the wreckage left by the previous Government, but let us be clear: any new immigration policy must come with a credible action plan for filling vital jobs without harming the economy. Let us start with a higher carer’s minimum wage. Right now, our social care sector is in crisis: there are simply not enough workers and millions of people are missing out on essential care. Instead of properly investing in the British workforce, the Conservatives chose the short-term fix: underpaid overseas workers propping up an underfunded system. With those workers being squeezed from all sides, many care homes are at breaking point, and families are being left to pick up the pieces.

It is disappointing that Labour’s national insurance increases are only adding to the pressures in that sector. The Government’s recent immigration announcements look set to disproportionately hit the care sector. Let me be absolutely clear: the people who come to Britain to care for our elderly and disabled are not the problem. They are vital to this country and to the wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and they deserve our thanks and respect, not to be demonised by those who failed to pay British workers properly in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course Brexit and particularly free movement led to a massive influx of people. When David Blunkett, now Lord Blunkett in the other place, was Home Secretary, he estimated that as a result of free movement 13,000 people would arrive in this country. In fact, the figure was in the hundreds of thousands and when settled status was granted it turned out to be millions. So the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the effects of Brexit.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will not because I know others want to get in and I am already testing the Deputy Speaker’s patience.

The truth of the matter is that we need to address migration not only for the reasons I have given about population growth and the damage to social cohesion and the economy, but because unless we do so the British people will assume, and rightly so, that people here just do not get it. Well, I do, and I hope those on my Front Bench now do, and the Government need to wake up and smell the coffee pretty soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

When I worked in the Home Office, for the first couple of years net migration fell—after that, it rose. The Conservatives, like the Labour party, have failed the public on immigration. I am happy to accept that, but Members on the Government Benches show no sign of any contrition or of learning anything from experience.

While politicians have talked vague nonsense for years about British values, sometimes values that could equally be said to be French or Dutch or whatever, and sometimes values not even shared by many British people, the constituent pieces that add up to our shared identity and culture are precious. Without our shared identity, there is less social trust, little solidarity and less willingness to compromise and make sacrifices for one another. It is undeniable that mass immigration and the radical diversity it has brought have undermined that shared national identity.

What of the justifications for this massive social change? We have been told for years that it is vital for our economy, but mass immigration has displaced British workers from their jobs and undercut wages. The zealots who still support mass immigration will no doubt scoff that I am guilty of the lump of labour fallacy. If I am, so is the Migration Advisory Committee and various immigration experts. The only fallacy is believing that importing millions of fiscally negative immigrants will make us richer.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Nick Timothy]

I will in a moment. That fallacy is now enshrined in Whitehall policy through the Office for Budget Responsibility, which insists that immigration creates fiscal headroom without calculating, as the Danish Ministry of Finance does, the true long-term fiscal cost of immigration by national background of migrants. I will now give way, unlike the Immigration Minister when she was going on.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) talked earlier about the five cities-worth of people being brought into the country. What that essentially means is that we have to build five more cities to accommodate them. Has that not increased house prices and, in fact, made many young people poorer and meant they find it more difficult to get on the housing ladder?

[Nick Timothy]

Indeed. I remember when Dominic Raab was the Housing Minister and he made that point. The response from the Labour party was one of sheer hysteria, with accusations of bigotry. My hon. Friend is completely right.

Mass immigration has also killed labour market pressures for employers to invest in skills and training, labour-saving technology and the pay and conditions of their workers. Then there is the capital stock of the country. When our population increases at the kind of speed we have experienced, what do we expect to happen? There are fewer hospitals and surgeries, less space on trains and the road, and fewer flats and houses and police officers and prison spaces per person than before.

Let us dwell for a moment on the social problems that we have created for ourselves. According to the census, there were six London boroughs where a majority of people were born abroad. In towns and cities across the country, the census shows that we can draw a line where on one side the white British population lives and on the other lives an Asian Muslim population. The reasons that should alarm us ought not to need spelling out.

We are importing many of the world’s hatreds. Just look at the Saturday marches against Israel and the intimidation of Jewish communities, or the riots we saw in Leicester three years ago. When the Prime Minister referred to an island of strangers, he was not wrong, even if the Immigration Minister did not back him up in using that language in her speech.

The pity is that the policy response is risible. From Tony Blair to Boris Johnson, we have seen successive Governments talk things up, only to deliver ultra-liberal immigration policies. [Interruption.] Yes, this is the point, and Labour still will not learn. This Government are pursuing the same cynical path. Their policies are pathetic. They cannot even tell us if indefinite leave to remain changes will apply to immigrants already in the country. We know that Labour lacks what it takes to drastically cut the number of people coming into the country or to remove all the people who are here who break the law, claim benefits or take out more than they put in. I hope, and I believe that my party has rediscovered the necessary steel. The future of our country will depend on it.

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We now have many laws on coercion in our country—passing laws on coercion is something that the previous Government did do. If it can be evidenced that anybody coerced somebody into not reporting, or gently tried to cover something up, that would be seen as criminal and considered to be a cover-up. Obviously, this will all be tested when such cases come to pass.

Funnily enough, the Crime and Policing Bill Committee, which I am also meant to be on, may get up to clause 45 today—we will get back to that Committee immediately after this statement. I am more than happy to have conversations with the hon. Lady, but the Church, faith leaders and faith groups are absolutely within the purview of the measures. Making sure that we do not create workarounds for certain things is in everybody’s best interest.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), gave very graphic and disturbing examples of horrific abuse suffered by just a couple of the young ladies affected by these grooming gangs. She asked important questions about the gangs, and I was disappointed that instead of answering her questions, the Minister talked about the number of meetings that her predecessors have had, and about the fact that many girls are abused by people who are not in grooming gangs. Of course that is true, but both are important.

The Minister, in answer to an earlier question, invited another Member

“to push for more, as I would do if I were not in my current ministerial position.”

Why are the inquiries limited to only five areas? What about those in the other areas? Does she not recognise that giving people a choice on whether their area is investigated or not is an incentive for those who wish to cover up either to not bid or to not bid well for those inquiries? Above all, who or what is preventing her from delivering the more that she would push for if she was sitting here?

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Reports about the Met police raid and arrests at the Quaker meeting house in Westminster last Thursday have caused great alarm, particularly because Quakers are renowned for their non-violent and pacifist principles. The incident raises serious concerns about the police’s approach to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest. What explanation have the Met police given the Minister for their actions that night?

[Dr Johnson]

As the hon. Gentleman will realise, this is an operational matter for the Metropolitan police, and I am sure that they will provide further commentary at some point.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Dawn Thurkettle and the Rugby Street Pastors, and particularly the recently commissioned pastors, on all the excellent work that they do to lower the temperature on nights out in our town? They show kindness and listen to people on our streets, and play an important role in our community.

[Dr Johnson]

I would be delighted to pay tribute to Dawn and the Rugby Street Pastors for their excellent work. Many street pastors around the country do really important work in keeping people safe and secure on nights out.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The final question goes to the Father of the House.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

That certainly should not be happening. If my hon. Friend wants to talk to me about it, I will try to see what happened in that instance.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

A directive from the Treasury reported in The Times appears to suggest that house building by the Government will help with the backlog of asylum seekers staying in hotels. Does the Minister believe that individuals who have arrived in the UK illegally should be given access to social housing ahead of British citizens?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The Mother of the House has long had an interest in these issues and has often spoken on them. I would say that it is important for the UK to have a fair and effective asylum and immigration system. Immigration has always been an important part of the UK, but for it to be so, the rules need to be respected and enforced. We cannot allow the criminal gangs to put life at risk in that way or to undermine our border security. It is as a result of the operations of those criminal gangs that 78 people died while attempting to cross the channel in 2024 and that we have seen those quite horrific tactics.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The Home Secretary is clearly describing the grotesque way in which evil people traffickers encourage people to cross the channel, but my constituents find it difficult to understand why people want to come across the channel from France, which is a lovely country where many people enjoy holidaying and it is so safe. What is her understanding of why people make that journey and how will the Bill specifically help to reduce the number who do?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Lady will know, this challenge has been escalating for six years. We have seen a huge increase in the number of boat crossings, and underpinning that increase is the development of a criminal industry. In 2018 there were barely a handful of boat crossings, and now an entire criminal industry has developed based on false advertising and marketing, and on being able to promise people that they will be able to work illegally. That is why the previous Government’s complete failure to take enforcement action on illegal working or to make sure that there was a proper system in place for returns has been deeply damaging.

The Bill provides statutory underpinning for the new Border Security Command. For too long, different agencies with responsibility for border security have been operating in silos, without clear strategy or direction. Criminals can exploit that fragmentation, and the new Border Security Command that we established last summer is drawing together the work of different agencies including Border Force, the National Crime Agency, local police forces, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, immigration enforcement, the intelligence and security agencies and, because strengthening our borders means working internationally, the work of the Foreign Office on border security. Led by former police chief Martin Hewitt, Border Security Command is already having an impact, driving law enforcement co-operation across Europe and beyond. By placing it on a statutory footing and securing its authority and direction, for the first time border security is being treated as the national security issue that it needs to be, engaging with the multiple challenges and threats that we face around our borders.

The Bill strengthens the powers that law enforcement can use against ruthless and devious criminals. For too long, the ringleaders and facilitators of this wretched trade have been able to evade justice by ensuring that they are not present when the money changes hands or the boats set off. That has to change. Learning from early intervention counter-terrorism powers, the Bill will make possible much stronger early action against smuggler and trafficking gangs. New powers will better target supply chains, making it an offence to organise the buying, selling and transporting of small boat parts, motors and engines to be used for illegal entry—not waiting until we can prove that the boats in question were used to arrive at Western Jet Foil.

We are making it an offence to organise the logistics or gather information for the purposes of organised immigration crime, making clear that that is targeting criminal gangs who are profiting from trading in people, not those who help rescue others from serious danger or harm. We are giving law enforcement powers to seize and search the mobile phones of those arriving on small boats, to trace the gangs who organised their journey. As Rob Jones from the National Crime Agency said,

“if you get effective legislation, and you get concerted effort across the system internationally, you can make a real difference.”

That is why a Bill such as this is so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

No, what the National Crime Agency said was that we need a deterrent. That is what it said, that is what I quoted, and the Government’s own Border Security Commander made the same point.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Last year, as part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I visited Rwanda to see the accommodation at Hope hostel that was to be provided to people who were moved under the Rwanda scheme. I learned from that visit that, yes, people would have been deterred from going across the channel, but that migrants who were sent to Rwanda would have been well looked after, well cared for and able to set up a new life, free from the war and famine that they were fleeing.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and trouble to visit Rwanda, which almost no supporter of the Bill has ever bothered doing. It is clear that the Rwanda scheme would have had a deterrent effect, had the Government allowed it to start. The National Crime Agency has said that, and we have seen it work in Australia. The fact that this Government are removing only 4% of people who cross by small boat—meaning that 96% are able to stay—explains why so many more people have crossed the channel under this Government than under the previous regime.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Dr Caroline Johnson to ask the final question.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The House has agreed this afternoon that cultural sensitivities should not get in the way of police investigations. However, it would appear that they have and they perhaps still are, and that victims have been let down and that current victims might be being failed even today. There is a specific problem with gangs of organised men, who are systematically raping and abusing young children. Within that group, there is an over-representation of men of Pakistani heritage. We need to understand why, but piecemeal investigation, town by town, will not help us to do that, will not serve the interests of victims, by ensuring they get the justice they deserve, and will not prevent future cases.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I’ll be watching you!

[Dr Johnson]

It is always a pleasure to answer the hon. Gentleman. That work will be ongoing. We want to recruit from the widest possible groups in our communities, and to encourage young people to think about a career in policing.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for his efforts to tackle a problem that is of great concern to my constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham, and I welcome the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty because many of my constituents have questioned how courts can tell us what to do. However, there is a provision, as he says, for individual claims. Can he tell me in what circumstances such an individual claim could expect to be successful, and how long that and the appeal process would be expected to take?

[James Cleverly]

The provision for individual claims is nothing to do with the safety of Rwanda, and that is the important distinction that needs to be made. Of course, there do need to be provisions for appeals—that is a normal part of any judicial or legal process—but the point is that in this Bill we are taking a huge step forward in our ability to work with Rwanda on refugee assessment, administration and ultimate relocation.

Legal Migration

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I assure my hon. Friend that we will deliver these proposals with alacrity and at pace.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My constituents believe migration figures are too high, so I welcome today’s statement and thank the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister for their hard work to develop the proposals. We heard from the Opposition how some large businesses will bemoan the fact that they no longer have access to cheap labour undercutting the British workforce, but does the Home Secretary agree that raising the threshold to £38,000 means that businesses will need to invest in technology, higher wages and better conditions for the domestic workforce?

[James Cleverly]

To be really profitable, a lot of businesses understand that their best choice is to invest in their own businesses and people. Through the super-deduction policies put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are encouraging businesses to invest in technology to unlock productivity and in the people they employ, because we are committed to a high-wage, high-productivity, high-growth economy.