European Entry and Exit System

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

The point about Scottish holidays has been well made by colleagues. We can model volumes relatively accurately, because we know who is and is not on holiday and who has and has not booked holidays. We have prepared throughout for different spikes, particularly around different events. I was worried— forlornly, it seems—that Manchester City fans would not be able to get to the champions league final. I am sad to say that, as it turned out, we did not face that particular challenge.

The right hon. Gentleman’s point about coaches is very important in terms of both passengers and drivers. It is a heavily regulated profession, which means that there are hard and fast rules about what drivers can do. Coach companies are well placed, because they routinely travel on these routes—it is their business. We are having conversations with all sorts of transport carriers about preparation and planning.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Yesterday, in a session of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Mr Eddy Montgomery—a senior Home Office official—revealed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) that this Government are focusing purely on the ports. A senior official has confirmed that this Government are concerned only about the ports and about who is coming into Great Britain, not Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree with that, given all that has happened in Northern Ireland with regard to illegal immigration?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Lady may or may not have had the chance to see from the transcript or, indeed, the video that I was on the subsequent panel for that session. That is not the view of the UK Government; the point being made was that we have significant levels of immigration enforcement for the common travel area. There have been over 2,600 visits since the general election, and more than 1,000 people have been removed from the UK as a result of those visits, 500 of them back to the Republic of Ireland—we take that enforcement very seriously. Of course, for very good reason, we focus on all of our ports as a point of challenge, but that enforcement activity happens across Northern Ireland, not just at the ports. We take an intelligence-led approach to Northern Ireland, and we always will, because we do not want to see the CTA abused.

Border Security: UK-Ireland Co-operation

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK-Ireland co-operation on border security. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Ten years ago today, the citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. That historic decision should have ushered in a new era. People voted to strengthen our borders, reclaim our sovereignty and put the safety of our citizens first.

During the negotiations that followed, Northern Ireland was repeatedly assured that our place in the United Kingdom would be respected and protected, but what has followed has been nothing short of betrayal. Post-Brexit settlements were largely negotiated by politicians who voted to remain—people whose hearts were never in the democratic mandate with which they were entrusted. The result: a border system so broken that only one asylum seeker has been returned to the Republic of Ireland since 2020—I repeat, that is only one asylum seeker over a five-year period—even as illegal entrants exploit the border day after day. That is simply unacceptable.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The party that she and I belong to has been highlighting this back-door approach for a number of years, but the Government have refused to act. The people recently took to the streets in their thousands to tell their Government peacefully that action was needed. Does she agree that the Government must listen and begin to act today? We look forward to what the Minister will say to reassure us.

[Carla Lockhart]

I will address just that as I go on with my speech. We are the only part of the UK with a soft land border with the EU. That reality has been downplayed by politicians in London and Dublin alike when it comes to illegal immigration. Northern Ireland has been left uniquely exposed—the weak link in the UK’s border security chain—and our people have been put at risk. In the case of the Sudanese attacker, they were quite literally at risk of life and limb. The attempted beheading in Belfast has served as a brutal reminder to us all. That is what happens when Northern Ireland’s security is treated as an afterthought.

The attacker came here illegally. He travelled from Sudan to Paris, flew to Dublin and took a bus to Belfast. That is all public knowledge. He was granted asylum with astonishing haste. He passed through two other safe countries first. He completed a 10-page application to gain access—really? It is simply not acceptable that our UK border with the Republic of Ireland has been left so porous.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Given the clear and present danger posed by terrorism across the world, organised crime, and the trafficking of drugs, people and illegal weapons across the border, does she agree that it is incumbent on both Governments to deepen real-time intelligence and data sharing, and to tighten the legal and procedural frameworks to streamline extradition? I also point out that our border is totally open; thousands of people could be entering the UK through Northern Ireland. We do not have any numbers, we do not know who is coming, and we do not know how good or bad those individuals could be.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The first duty of Government is to protect its citizens. When violent offenders can simply walk or drive across the border, that duty is not being met. The Government have taken strenuous efforts to check goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland, including plants, agricultural machinery and seeds, yet illegal migrants can simply hop on a bus from the Republic of Ireland and cross the border, no questions asked and no vetting required.

When functioning properly, the common travel area is a practical arrangement that works well for people living right across these islands. It ensures that UK and Irish citizens can travel relatively freely within the zone, at least in principle. That is a sensible system and we should keep it that way.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Is the hon. Lady surprised by the misrepresentation from the Secretary of State about what the common travel area means? It means simply that there is common travel for those who are legally in the country, not those who are illegally in the country. Is she also surprised that, for all the Government’s talk, they have taken no steps to deal with the pull factors that bring these illegal immigrants to the United Kingdom? They get free accommodation immediately when they apply for asylum, a weekly amount of money and they are registered with a GP and a dentist, and we are then surprised that they pass through many safe countries to come to the United Kingdom.

[Carla Lockhart]

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is reading my speech—I agree totally. For the CTA to work, it cannot be abused. It was built on trust between two sovereign nations. It is not a back door for illegal migration. In theory, the CTA is not intended for asylum seekers, but, in practice, the open land border is being shamelessly exploited by people who want to dodge UK immigration controls. The attack in Belfast is clear evidence that this loophole is wide open to abuse by dangerous individuals.

The problems do not stop there. Abuse of the CTA is happening right across the board, not only on our roads but at our airports and seaports. In the past year alone, more than 900 individuals have been detected abusing CTA routes. Northern Ireland is being used as a soft point of access into the United Kingdom. While London and Dublin trade warm words about co-operation, our ports, airports and communities are carrying the burden of a system that is simply not working.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the issue of the porous border, no one expects a hard border constituting installations and so on, but I have been trying to get the Government to release the figures about how many electronic travel authorisations there have been, and I never get an answer. We do not even know the numbers for people who are coming in legally to tour, visit or holiday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend is correct. The fact that there is a lack of information that the Government are willing to provide on all manner of things regarding the border and movements back and forward is frustrating.

We need bus and rail checks like those in the Republic. The Republic of Ireland already carries out immigration checks without damaging the CTA. It has shown that it is perfectly possible to balance two things: maintaining the ease of movement while implementing targeted enforcement to protect public safety. We must remember that nothing in the Belfast agreement prevents proper immigration checks. The agreement requires the removal of military infrastructure. It did not, and never could, prevent the UK from protecting the integrity of its own borders.

When migrants began fleeing to Northern Ireland to avoid the Rwanda scheme, the Republic of Ireland responded by intensifying immigration checks on vehicles travelling south. Buses and other vehicles regularly get pulled over on roads south of the border in order to verify people’s identity documents. If the Republic can use that kind of targeted enforcement to protect its citizens, why can we not do the same in Northern Ireland?

When people see weak border controls and a Government unwilling to grip the issue, frustrations grow. Upper Bann is home to people from many different backgrounds who make an enormous contribution to our community every day. They run businesses, work in our hospitals and care homes, contribute to our economy and enrich community life. I am particularly proud of the Indian community in Upper Bann. They are a wonderful people, whose entrepreneurial spirit and strong family values have enriched our constituency. That is why I draw a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigration. My concerns today are about illegal immigration and the border that is too often exploited by those trying to bypass proper processes.

As politicians, we must stop talking around this issue and start addressing it. The public deserve honesty about long-standing failures to tackle immigration and secure our borders. Tensions do not appear out of thin air, and if politicians simply offer warm words while dodging the root cause, those tensions will only deepen. Legitimate concerns must not be dismissed.

We must also be honest about another uncomfortable truth. It is not racist to be concerned about illegal immigration. It is not racist to expect secure borders. It is not racist to ask who is entering our country, how they have arrived here and whether the system is operating fairly or correctly. The overwhelming majority of people raising these concerns are decent, law-abiding citizens who care deeply about their communities and their country. They have every right to express their concerns through peaceful and lawful protests.

Too often, however, those asking legitimate questions have been dismissed, smeared or ignored. Some of the language used by sections of the media and weak politicians has been disgraceful. Rather than engaging with genuine public concerns, they have chosen to caricature, lecture or label people. That approach does not solve the problem; it only deepens public frustration and further erodes trust in our institutions. As politicians, our responsibility is not to silence concerns or pretend that they do not exist. Our responsibility is to listen, speak honestly and take action when action is needed.

Let me be clear: I condemn violence. I have repeatedly called for calm, for respect for the law, and for the space to address the real issues that lie beneath the anger. There is no justification for attacking innocent people, destroying property or attacking the police. That being said, we must not be distracted from the legitimate concerns about illegal immigration. The root cause of the problem can no longer be ignored. We need people to see that the Government in Westminster are on their side. That starts with being honest about why so many people are coming to the United Kingdom and exploiting the soft border.

Britain is seen as an attractive destination. Those who arrive know they will receive taxpayer-funded accommodation, weekly financial support payments, free access to NHS healthcare, school places for their children, interpretation services, legal aid and other forms of support. They also know that enforcement is weak and removals are rare, which is a powerful pull factor.

The cost for asylum hotel accommodation in 2023, at the height of the crisis, was around £9 million per day, every day. Even now, it is estimated that the cost of housing asylum seekers will rocket to £15.3 billion, as opposed to the £4.5 billion that had been forecast. That is more than three times the original estimate. These are not abstract figures; this is taxpayers’ money that could otherwise be spent on the NHS, our schools, our roads and our police.

The British people are generous and compassionate; they will always support those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. But every Government have a first duty to look after their own citizens. Let us be honest: the boats that people see coming in have single males on them, and if I or you were fleeing a war-torn country, what is the first thing you would seek to protect? It would be your wife and your family. While the extra emergency funding for the PSNI is welcome, the damage has already been done. We need action that prevents the violence in the first place.

In closing, I have three requests of the Minister. First, what steps will he take to ensure that there is an operational plan that includes the rapid removal of those with no right to be here and a joint approach that stops violent offenders exploiting the differences between the two jurisdictions? Secondly, what steps will he take to review CTA safeguards and press for action regarding better checks in Northern Ireland? Lastly, how does he intend to restore public trust in the UK’s broken, exploited immigration system?

If we truly want to realise the promise of Brexit, Northern Ireland’s place in the Union must mean something. Protecting citizens is a basic duty of any sovereign state, and that includes consistent border control across all four nations of the UK. If we take the tough decisions now, we can forge a future where security is guaranteed and sovereignty is upheld, and we have a UK that stands strong, tall and united once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his well-made points. I disagree that those important diplomatic relations and agreements are hollow, but I will take away the point about the Irish border and feed it back to officials. That is disturbing, and of course I absolutely disagree with it.

I turn briefly to our work on immigration enforcement. We have removed nearly 70,000 individuals since the end of March, which is a 41% increase on the number of returns recorded in the previous 21-month period. The Government will step up and intensify immigration enforcement to track down, detain, arrest and remove illegal migrants in Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary is investing more than £3 billion in immigration enforcement activity over the next three years, including in Northern Ireland, where we will see a 20% increase in officers compared with 2023.

I cannot ignore the extremely important points made about the incident in Belfast, which disturbed us all. I agree that action needs to be taken to ensure that those in our country do not commit offences. Foreign national offender removals have increased significantly under this Government, but we do not hide behind that. We understand that there is more to do, and we will continue to pursue, deport and remove those who should not be here. I will not go into any more detail about that specific individual than we have already given. We have confirmed that he is Sudanese, and we know how he entered the country.

An important point was made about pull factors. We inherited a situation in which illegal and legal migration was too high. Illegal migration is still too high. We see that on small boat crossings and other clandestine entry points. We have reformed and are reforming the immigration system to remove the pull factors, making it less attractive to come to the country. We are aligning our asylum system with the rest of Europe to reduce the asylum shopping that we have seen over the last four or five years. We are also making it easier to remove and deport people, which is why that number is up 41% to nearly 70,000, but we will go further, and there will be more announcements on that in due course.

Illegal migration is costly, which is another reason to bring it down. Asylum accommodation costs the taxpayer far too much, so we are moving individuals out of hotels and into larger sites. In Northern Ireland, asylum accommodation has reduced by about 10%.

I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann for securing this debate. I am grateful to her and all Members who contributed. They raised important points, and I am pleased to have had this opportunity to reaffirm the UK Government’s steadfast commitment.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the Minister for his response, but my constituents will be listening, and they will say that they have learned absolutely nothing and know nothing more about illegal immigration than is already in the public domain. They will have heard the word “disturbing” in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who referenced the case of an individual returning three times.

We are living with this in Northern Ireland. We are living in communities that feel unsafe because of illegal immigration, yet they see a Government who are not even willing to take the full time to debate this issue, and are unwilling to give us evidence that they are taking it seriously. The Minister talks about data sharing—really? We need action. We need buses. We need real checks. We need action, not data sharing.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I absolutely disagree with the framing that we are not taking this issue seriously. We are here today having a debate, and on top of that we are working day in, day out to fix the immigration system that we inherited. Deportations, removals and asylum processing are up, and hotel use is down. That is not by accident; it is through commitment and hard work from the Home Office.

I am the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal, and I, too, am at the front of the illegal migration problem, so I understand the frustration and the passion. I agree that it is not racist to have those views against illegal migration. We are working so hard to fix it, but it does not happen overnight. Members have an absolute commitment from the Home Secretary and all Home Office Ministers that we are dealing with it, and we are looking at the CTA, too. As I have set out, a close and active partnership is already in place, and it will undoubtedly remain an integral part of our efforts to detect, disrupt and deter the threats we face to secure our border and ultimately to keep our country safe.

Question put and agreed to.

High Street Shops: Illicit Activity

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech.

Our high streets are more than just places to shop. They are at the heart of our communities; they are places where people meet, local businesses grow and neighbourhoods come to life. That is why illicit activity on our high streets not only undermines the honest businesses that work hard to serve the community but makes people feel unsafe in their communities. They see illicit activity go unchecked and feel powerless.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Crowds and antisocial behaviour outside shops are often a red flag for the activity inside them. That is an issue not just for the Home Office and HMRC, but for the police. To make our towns safe, the individuals engaging in that type of activity outside shops also need to be dealt with. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. People sometimes feel intimidated by those who congregate around shops, and that makes them feel unsafe.

Southgate and Wood Green constituents have told me that, aside from the sale of counterfeit vapes and tobacco, they have witnessed drug dealing openly taking place outside cafés and other premises. They have witnessed phoenix shops—which open for a few weeks, close and then reopen under a different name—dodging tax and business rates and contributing nothing to the local area. It is clear that organised crime is behind that, as many hon. Members have said.

Serious and organised crime is estimated to cost the UK Government at least £47 billion annually. Investing in the protection of our high streets should be at the top of our priorities. The recent Home Office and Treasury announcements are a good start, but we need a co-ordinated approach, with one Department taking the lead in solving this problem, which cuts across Departments. If we are to crack the problem, co-ordination and information-sharing at local government and national Government levels will be key.

That is why I welcome the Government’s new national high street organised crime unit, which has been established to co-ordinate across Government, policing and enforcement agencies. That is, alongside the £30 million for combating high street criminality, a welcome step forward. However, to act as fast as possible, we must also give authorities more power to tackle crime head-on.

As is the case in my constituency, trading standards teams are already stretched. We desperately need more investment in trading standards, including more trading standards officers. Specialist financial investigators are also urgently needed to address money laundering, and I am pleased that the Treasury has promised to invest in them. We must do more at the pace that this challenge demands.

However, although the Government’s efforts to tackle illicit activity are welcome, enforcement alone cannot close an already widening gap. Criminal networks are often hidden behind front operators with no obvious criminal record, making it difficult for local authorities to identify risks before damage is done. Colleagues have already referred to the Bibob Act in the Netherlands, which focuses on prevention and tackling the issue before it can come to life on high streets. I would very much welcome powers like those in that Act.

As we work to tackle the criminality on some of our high streets, we must ask how we can prevent it from taking root in the first place. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government are considering giving greater powers to local authorities and trading standards officers to tackle illicit activity on our streets? What steps she is taking to ensure that there is greater co-ordination in Government and at local level?

I welcome all the changes that the Government are making to protect our high streets from illicit activity, including the extension of closure order powers. However, more needs to be done to tackle this challenging issue. We must restore public confidence and more vibrant and thriving high streets. To do so, we need to use all the weapons at our disposal to cut out once and for all the cancer of illicit and criminal activity.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I join my hon. Friend and Members across the House in condemning the actions of the far right utterly. They are completely unacceptable. We should all take a stand against the far right weaponising this horrifying murder—this terrible tragedy for the Nowak family—to spread further division, which is not what this moment requires. I hope that that stand has broad support across the House.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My thoughts are with Henry’s family. As I listened to his dad yesterday, I could not help but cry at the loss that his family have suffered, and at the fact that the video footage will be etched on their minds forever.

It appears that we have an undercurrent of anti-white racism brewing in the UK. We see white people jailed for allegedly inciting racial hatred on social media, while members of other communities are not even prosecuted for viciously attacking police officers. Henry Nowak deserved better—he did not deserve to be attacked; he did not deserve to spend his final moments pleading for help and saying that he could not breathe; he did not deserve not to be believed; and, above all, he did not deserve to die. Why did it take this Government until yesterday to speak out on this matter, while they run to virtue signal on many other cases? Is the UK no longer a safe place for people like Henry Nowak?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The reason the Government did not comment until yesterday is because a criminal case was going through our courts. Members of this House, and certainly members of the Government, are not commentators for the purposes of social media. Ministers of the Crown must respect the independence of our criminal justice system and the ability of our courts and independent legal processes to function so that, when findings of fact are made, a conviction happens and a sentence is passed; it commands public confidence across the whole country, because everyone knows it was not interfered with politically; and that it was, in fact, an independent assessment of the facts of a case. I remind the hon. Lady and all Members that that is the responsibility we all have. I urge her to reflect on that.

Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman]

Absolutely, and that has always been the case. Equally, we need to learn from the fact that it has always been the case and not be surprised when these things happen. We must not wring our hands and say, “There is harm being done—what could we possibly do about it?” We need to think smarter than that and bring in legislation that is much more forward-thinking and adaptable, and enables swifter action.

As hon. Members have already pointed out in this debate, digital abuse and exploitation are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls. Research from Internet Matters found that 99% of new deepfakes are of women and girls. Moreover, according to the Revenge Porn Helpline, 98% of intimate images reported to its service were of women and 99% of deepfake intimate image abuse depicts women. It has also been discovered that many AI nudification tools do not actually work on images of boys and men.

We have now reached a point where AI tools embedded in major platforms are capable of producing sexual abuse material, demonstrating serious failings in our current framework. X’s AI tool, Grok, is a case in point. We have talked about this many times before. Grok facilitated the illegal generation and circulation of non-consensual sexual images, yet Ofcom’s response was, I am sorry to say, woefully slow. The executive summary of the violence against women and girls strategy states that it will

“ensure that the UK has one of the most robust responses to perpetrators of VAWG in the world.”

I agree with that intention, but we must recognise that Ofcom’s response was not wholly robust. We must do something about that; we owe it to women and girls in this country to act sooner and stronger. We need more effective legislation and a regulator with the capability and confidence to take appropriate and, crucially, swift action.

I welcome the move to make the creation of non-consensual intimate AI images a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, but that will be effective only if online platforms and services are held accountable under that Act. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called on the National Crime Agency to launch an urgent criminal investigation into X, which should still happen, and to treat the generation of illegal, sexual abuse material with the seriousness it demands. We must act decisively when social media platforms refuse to comply with the law.

It is also time that we introduce age ratings for online platforms and limit harmful social media to over-16s. How can we expect to tackle violence against women and girls when the next generation is being drip-fed misogynistic content on social media?

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is right. Does she agree that online pornography remains an issue that needs to be tackled? The statistics show that more than 50% of young boys aged 11 to 13 have already seen porn, and that it is shaping their minds about what consent is.

[Marie Goldman]

There are so many aspects to this problem. What we, the parents, saw in the fledgling days of social media is not at all what our children are seeing now. We need to recognise that and act against it. What our children see online is already affecting their worldview. Internet Matters research from 2023 found that 42% of children aged nine to 16 had a favourable or neutral view of the well-known misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate, and that older teenage boys were particularly susceptible. That is incredibly worrying. Decisive action to tackle the digital exploitation of women and girls is needed across the board. Online harm is genuine harm, and we must treat it as such. There is a lot of work to do, but I am keen to work cross-party to get it done. I hope the Minister is too.

Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

There should be some methodology, but the Government are going the wrong way on this. They are looking to tighten up the modern slavery and trafficking regulations and make it more difficult for women to claim that they have been trafficked—even when they have. We know that there are women that have been held in Yarl’s Wood or detention centres after being trafficked because they do not have the correct paperwork. Of course they do not have the correct paperwork; they have been trafficked, used in sex work and forced into these horrific situations, and the Government are putting them in a detention centre and then saying that they will not get a visa because they did not have the right documentation.

We have a responsibility to protect people. It says in “Restoring Order and Control” that there are some rules in relation to the European convention on human rights and the Refugee convention around which there are not discretionary powers. For some—for example, in relation to family life—the public interest can be balanced against that requirement. However, when it comes to trafficking, the Government do not have that discretion. If they refuse to believe trafficked people, and it is later agreed that those people have been trafficked, the UK Government are putting them through more trauma. They are putting people who have experienced worse things than most of us could ever imagine through more trauma because they refuse to believe them. Then, because they may disclose this late, as they do not want to talk about the sex work that they have been forced into and the rapes they have suffered—because it is very difficult to talk about those things—the UK Government say to them, “Well, you didn’t disclose this in time, so you can’t be a true asylum seeker. You can’t be a true refugee because you didn’t come forward and talk about the most horrific moments in your life to a man that you don’t know.” That is in relation to legal aid support.

There are major issues with the continuing lack of stability. The changes away from hotel accommodation to some of the accommodation at barracks can mean that people are more isolated and less able to access support. In Aberdeen, we have little in the way of lawyers who can cover asylum cases—and immigration lawyers in general, actually—and people are having to travel significant lengths in order to get that, on their £7 or £9 a week. Someone cannot get from Aberdeen to Glasgow on seven quid a week—it cannot be done for less than about 30 quid, unless it is on a Megabus, and even that can be quite dear.

Accommodation does not take into account the fact that provision is not there. If people are going to be put in Cameron barracks in Inverness, for example, it is even more difficult for them to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh in order to speak to the right lawyer who will be able to help and be willing to take on their immigration case. Creating that extra level of isolation for people who are already struggling—putting people in an isolated community in the Cameron barracks, rather than in a community setting where they can integrate—means that people who are isolated will become even more so, and people who are at risk will become even more at risk.

We know that even in hotels, people suffer as a result of their protected characteristics, and who are at risk of harm as a result of unsafe situations. That is multiplied when people are moved out of hotels into places such as barracks.

I have a few more things to cover. In relation to the assessment of safe countries for removal, the blanket designation of a country as safe is inherently incredibly risky. It may be safe for some people to be in Syria right now, but it is not safe for everyone. It is not safe for a Syrian woman who came here as a result of gender-based violence to go back to her family in Syria—or to go back to Syria at all—because of the likelihood that her family would take action against her. It is not safe for a gay person who fled because they were correctively raped to go back to Syria.

The decision about blanket designations is really difficult, considering the Government are saying that they are looking at vulnerable groups and talking about individuals. Creating a blanket safe designation that can be changed at any point in that 20-year period means they can suddenly say to someone, “You are going to have to go back to this country where you were correctively raped, because the UK Government have now decided—with very little in the way of parliamentary scrutiny—that this country is safe.” The problem is that we have not got that information. The Minister may feel that there will be special categories in place, but we have not been told that. We have not been given the impact assessment for how that will look. We have not been told what those provisions will be. Somebody who is living here, who is terrified about being sent back, has no comfort right now, because they do not know whether their case will be considered separately or whether their country will just be deemed safe and they will be sent back.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member speaks very passionately about this issue. Does she agree that the same can be said of those who have been engaged in rape and criminal activity in Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole, but that they should be sent back? It is a real bugbear for people that there seems to be some protection for people who engage in those types of activity, so that they are not sent back to where they came from.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The UK Government have said that they are looking at increasing the number of countries they have returns agreements with, so that people who have committed crimes can be sent back.

Let me talk once more about the LGBT issue. If a trans or gay refugee is here, and it is illegal for them to be trans in their country—they are likely to be beaten up or correctively raped as a result of being, for instance, a lesbian in their country—the UK Government expect them to live openly here, in the sexuality that they are, but with the threat of their country becoming a safe country and their being sent back. People will now know that they are gay, because they have had to live openly here, and that threat of return will now continue for a significantly longer period of time. Gay and trans people are now in a horrific Catch-22: they are forced to live openly here to have their refugee status agreed, but if their country is designated as a safe country, they may be sent back.

Pakistan is apparently safe for trans people because, according to the UK Government, people face only discrimination, not persecution, for being trans in Pakistan, despite the fact that somebody can come here as a trans refugee having been persecuted in Pakistan. The UK Government say, “It is okay, because it’s a discrimination thing, not persecution thing; don’t worry—you’ll be fine.” The Government expect them to live as an out trans person here—knowing that their cousin might see them on Facebook, or that somebody might hear about them living their real life and being themselves here—but, as a result of the UK Government’s policies, they will be forced to go back to somewhere where they are at an even higher risk of persecution.

On the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty says that public sector organisations must have due regard to protected characteristics and try to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of those characteristics, despite the fact that the Government’s policies will more negatively impact people with protected characteristics. I have asked questions about the special consideration of vulnerable groups, because we need significantly more information about that. I do not expect the Minister to provide all that today, but I would like a commitment that that information will be forthcoming; otherwise, people will be terrified because they will have, hanging over them, the possibility that the Government will not take into account whether someone is trans or has suffered from gender-based violence in other places.

On the length of time before disclosure, I just do not believe that we can set a time limit when it comes to violence against women and girls or gender-based violence. We cannot tell people that they have to disclose things within a certain period of time or they will not be granted refugee status. That is not something we can force on victims. Changes need to be made in that regard.

There has been no impact assessment. I asked written parliamentary questions about equalities impact assessments, and we were told that they would come in due course. When? When will we get the equality impact assessments? I would love the Home Office to act in a trauma-informed way, but it seems that we are not going to do so. For some reason, the public interest—which is, apparently, in deporting as many people as possible—cannot be balanced with the need to look after people who, through no fault of their own, have gone through unimaginable horrors. That will have a detrimental impact on all those who are seeking asylum.

On the legal aid crisis, I would love reassurance from the Minister that the Government are going to make changes to legal aid. I do not understand how they are possibly going to manage a 30-month time period when they cannot manage the current time period.

I finish with a statement from Layla, who spoke to Women for Refugee Women about why she came to the UK and what her experiences were here. The UK Government talk about removing the pull factors, but the pull factors are not the economy or the fact that people can get jobs. Layla puts it better than I ever could. She said:

“I didn’t see the UK as a cruel type of country. The idea is that the UK is a Great Britain: we will save you, especially women’s rights, human rights. We initiate all the law, international law, you name it. The UK is a very outstanding country. But when I came here, I feel like it’s a fake, because why do you need to show that you are so good in the eyes of the world, but you are treating asylum seekers like this? It’s hypocrisy.”

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I have no time limit, Dr Huq, but I have only a limited number of questions. This debate is sparsely attended, but I do not think the Minister should interpret that as a lack of interest in the issue. It might well be because of where we are at in the parliamentary cycle—it is the day before our break, and there might not be the whipping on this penultimate day that there is on other days. In addition, people might not have understood the breadth of the potential of this debate when we talk about protected characteristics.

I want to talk about the protected characteristic of age, which includes children and young people. We identified age as a protected characteristic and we have signed up to the UN convention on the rights of the child. A group of 100 organisations, the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, have come together to provide an excellent briefing—I will send to the Minister, if he has not received it. Their main objective is to protect the rights and safety of young migrants and refugee children. I do not think I can get across the depth of concern among those who have been engaged in dealing with refugee children in particular over the years.

I have to say—I am trying to be as diplomatic as I can on this—that some of the language used by Ministers has been a disgrace. A Minister putting out tweets saying, “Deport. Deport. Deport.”, does not reflect what we are about across the House and all parties. That is not what we are intending to do. We are trying to uphold the British tradition of welcoming people here who seek sanctuary and to put in place a system that deals with their needs. Many of us have argued that the best way of doing that is safe routes, fast processing and more support for integration. I am not sure, and I think many people are anxious about this, that some of the statements made by Ministers reflect the view of the House overall—as I say, across all parties. I regret that. I was shocked even by some of the language used by the Secretary of State on the day that the statement on asylum policy was made.

Maybe I have repeated this too often, but in my constituency, I have two detention centres, and I have been dealing with them now since when I was a councillor in the Greater London Council—40 years. There are 2,500 asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency, and I welcome them. My community has held together very well on that; we rub together pretty well. There have been some recent demonstrations in one small area of my constituency, but that has largely been provoked by outsiders pursuing their own political ambitions. Overall, we have welcomed asylum seekers.

I congratulate my community on the work that they have put in. Various local community organisations and religious groups, across the whole field of religion, have provided support. From that experience, when we have discussed over the years those who have suffered the most, in many instances it has always been the children. I welcome Government Ministers to sit down with some of the professionals who are working with these children. I declare an interest: my wife is an educational psychologist and she works in the schools in our community that asylum children go to. Many of these children are deeply traumatised by their experience in their country of origin and by their journey here. Now they are being traumatised by some of the treatment they are receiving as a result of some of the political campaigns going on in our society.

There can be nothing worse for a child or family than to look out of their hotel window and see baying crowds outside, demanding that they go or that they be evicted. A few weeks ago, we even had a group of masked men who turned up at one of these hotels and tried to break into it. The police valiantly addressed that situation, but some of them were injured as a result.

Those children have gone through experiences that none of us would ever want our own children to go through. I am worried that we are in the process of introducing reforms that could retraumatise them in a way that some of them will never recover from.

The Government are on the first steps of the path of the new system that they are proposing, but a lot more debate and discussion needs to take place. I think this debate is about trying to make it clear to the Government some of the issues that we need more information about and that need to be addressed in a much wider-ranging consultation, not only with MPs, but with those on the frontline who have to deal with them.

Basically, I have five specific issues that I want to raise today. The first is indefinite leave. The second is family reunion and the third, linked to that, the review of article 8, which we have been told will happen. The fourth is financial support and the final one is appeals. I am sorry if some of what I am about to say repeats anything that has already been mentioned by other hon. Members.

On indefinite leave, the Government are now introducing this core protection status. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. PCS includes the civil service workers who process these claims, and I have not yet met one of them who thinks we have the ability or resources in place to conduct a review of every case every two and a half years, because that is what we are talking about. We cannot process the cases as they are now.

I congratulate the Government on the work that they are doing to speed up the processing. The reason we are in such difficulty is that the previous Government had started to speed up the process—I actually went on to the Floor of the House and congratulated a Tory Minister on doing so—but then they introduced the Rwanda scheme and everything stopped. It is no wonder that we now have a backlog. This Government are speeding up the processing, which I welcome, but then to load on to that system a new review every two and a half years—it just cannot be done. No one believes that it can be done. The proposal has no credibility

There is also the issue with regard to the individual country reviews. Exactly as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, it is about more than individual countries; we are talking about case-by-case reviews, which will be necessary. In addition, some of the Foreign Office assessments of individual countries are either out of date, or do not reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground there now. As a result, the system will place people here in positions of immense vulnerability.

We should try to walk in that child’s footsteps. What will it be like for that child to know that, every 30 months, they will not necessarily be going to the same school, living in the same place, or having the same friends, but will risk being shipped back to a country of origin that some of them barely know? We need to think.

The hon. Member talked about working with those who are trauma-experienced. It is vital that the Government now do that, and sit down to discuss with professionals in this field the worries and fears that they have. Indeed, it is also worth the Government sitting down with some of the asylum seekers themselves, just to get an understanding of what they have gone through: the trauma that they have experienced is not only caused by what happened in their country of origin; the traumatising journey that they have had to make is also bad and, as I have said, when they get here they have been faced, under previous Governments in particular, with a “hostile environment”. That insecurity has led to deep psychological concerns. For us to revisit all that on children on a regular basis is cruel as well as unworkable.

Regarding the process itself, I still have not got my head around the way people can qualify for reduced routes—the five-year route, or the 15-year route. There is real anxiety that, if anyone receives any form of public assistance by way of social security, benefits or even accommodation, they will somehow be debarred from the 20-year route. There was even an example reported in the press a few weeks ago where someone had been trying to borrow money to pay back the benefits that they thought they had received because that would disqualify them and force them into the 20-year route. There needs to be a great deal more clarity about how that works.

As the hon. Member said, 92% to 93% of family reunion visas—I think about 1,200—in the last year were for wives and children. In my experience of dealing with asylum seekers over the years, the family has simply sat down and taken the decision that it will be the male who will seek refuge first because they are concerned that the female and the children will not survive the route. If we consider our own families, that is exactly what we would do: we would try to get at least someone to safety, and often it would be the one who has the best overall chance of surviving. Once that person is here, they want their family to join them. That is not exploiting the system; that is how the system should work. That is how refugee systems work across the world. By denying any element of family reunion—I look forward to the detail of the review on that—we are penalising the child by preventing them from being with their parents in the future.

[Carla Lockhart]

I have to disagree with the right hon. Member. I believe that if he were fleeing a war-torn country, he would want to see his wife and family—particularly his family—brought to safety first. Sadly, we do not see that. We see young males making that trip. That is not right and they should be sent back.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Lady and I will have to disagree on that. In my experience, the decision for the male to come here is often made on the basis of the family itself asking, “Who can get here? Who can survive that journey? Who can get through?”. That provides some hope that the family can join them. There is a difference with those that move into the next country in close proximity—but, again, we have to fulfil our responsibility to the whole family. I am concerned that if we start in any way undermining that right to family reunion, the people who will be penalised most will be the children deprived of being brought up with their parents.

We are told that the article 8 review will take place in 2026. It would be invaluable to have the earliest and broadest consultation possible. Exactly as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, we need early impact assessments on all the decisions being made so that we have the detail of what the impact could be. We can consult the wider public. A lot of false information goes out into communities about the whole asylum process and causes resentment. If we are going to review article 8, we need to explain how it operates now, what its intentions are, what changes could be made when it is reviewed and what impact that would have. I am hoping that the review is about beneficial impact, rather than being a prejudicial attempt to prevent family reunion from taking place overall.

Let me explain very crudely my anxieties about financial support. The Government are going to revoke the legal duty to provide housing and financial support and make it discretionary for some bodies. I have a Conservative council. Its housing policy at the moment has changed the length of time that someone has to be within the area. It was five years; it is now 10 years to be able to even get on the housing waiting list. As a result, I have families who wait 10 years and, by the time a property is allocated to them some of their children have grown up and they no longer qualify as a family. We go through that process. If we make it discretionary, we need to know from the Government what happens to the organisations, such as my council, that are not willing to fulfil some basic duties and responsibilities.

I have one final point—I can see, Dr Huq, that you are getting anxious about time. On the replacement of judges with adjudicators in appeals, we need to see the detail, such as adjudicators’ qualification and training, and how they will be selected and monitored. The adjudicator is only one process, however. Unless there is proper representation and resourcing, particularly of legal aid access, the system will grind to a halt, there will be bad decisions and we will be back to appeals. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the bulk of victories will be on appeal because the system is not working effectively. I hope for a response from the Government and for detailed consultation, as rapidly as possible, on all these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague is absolutely right—I will refer to those matters shortly. There is no use saying that what he refers to is not happening or that there is a small number of asylum seekers—that is not the case. The images of small boats show overwhelmingly that they carry young men. They are more economic migrants—most of them look extremely fit and well. They are illegal immigrants coming by the backdoor to seek greater help in the benefits system, rather than the families I want to stand up for, who are fleeing oppression and threat to life.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech; he is doing an excellent job. Does he agree that people are concerned about spiralling costs? Asylum seeker accommodation costs are set to rise to £15.3 billion across the UK over the next decade, including from £100 million to £400 million in Northern Ireland. When our services are already at breaking point, that is frustrating people. Surely the Government have a duty to look after the people who are born and raised here before committing to that spend.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague is right. I know that the Minister will consider all these matters, and I hope that he will give us an answer to that question. I can understand why so many are outraged that we would take winter fuel payments away from our own hard-working pensioners while doing nothing about migrants who seem to want an easy way of life. People have that perception about those who come along on plastic boats from Calais to Dover. I want us to put those migrants aside very quickly.

I try to be compassionate and understanding in everything I do in this House—although I am no better than anybody else—but I see a very clear difference between an economic migrant who wants to use the benefits system and a family who have no safe place to be. That must be highlighted. As a member of APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, Dr Huq, you will understand only too well that many Christians are persecuted in Syria and across the middle east, and in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Myanmar. All being well, on 8 January we will have a Westminster Hall debate on the persecution of Christians in Myanmar.

The previous Government had a Syrian resettlement scheme, and six Syrian families came to Newtownards. They did not have a big grasp of the language, but our community drew together and supported them. Those six families are still there. They have had children there, they have jobs, they have learned the language, they have children at school, and they have houses. They did so by their own bootstraps, so to speak, and that should be recognised as something good that happens.

I believe that the Government must make changes to the system and take a hard line, returning those young men back to France or wherever they have travelled from or through, but I have a genuine fear that these changes may prevent those who are truly in need of asylum from claiming it. By the end of 2024, 132 million people had been forced to flee their homes. I have a large number of figures here, and I do not have time to mention them all, but there are 42.7 million refugees, 5.8 million people in need of international protection and 4.4 million stateless persons. It is clear that we cannot take them all in. That is why we must have a robust system in place to provide foreign aid to help where we can and take those who specifically need our help.

We cannot and must not allow the abuse of the system to end the system in its entirety—the goodness of the system that the Minister and the Government are trying to bring in—in the same way that we do not allow the abuse of drugs to prevent doctors from using the rules and regulations to prescribe them. Across the world, there are almost 74 million internally displaced people and 8.4 million asylum seekers. Again, we cannot take them all, but we can take some—I think we have a duty to do so.

We need a fit-for-purpose system that allows those who are persecuted for their faith to find a refuge and build a life with their families, such as those Syrian families who came to Newtownards eight or nine years ago. They are integrated—part of us—and contributing to society there. They want to assimilate, become British and espouse our values. We must remind ourselves of our all-important British values of tolerance and compassion as we address this problem without literally throwing the babies out with the bathwater—or English channel water, as the case may be. I thank the Minister in anticipation of his answer. I also thank the two Opposition spokespeople, who I know will make valuable contributions. I wish you, Dr Huq, and all colleagues a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Illegal Migrants: Unknown Whereabouts

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

The scale of illegal immigration and its impact on our country is simply not understood in this Parliament, and nor do most Members even care. British people are genuinely scared—women are frightened to go into their towns alone, and parents are terrified to let their children walk to school. It is getting worse and worse. The British people are not stupid; they can see their communities radically changing, and they can feel their streets becoming more unfamiliar, more dangerous and more menacing, all while the Home Office deliberately conceals the true extent of the change from our citizens.

I am contacted by dozens and dozens of women who genuinely fear for their lives and who feel ignored by this place—ignored by those who are supposed to represent and protect them; ignored and abandoned; thrown to the wolves in pursuit of some sick multicultural experiment that is being forced on our people, one that has very real-world consequences.

What happened just yesterday? Two Afghan illegal migrants were jailed for raping a schoolgirl. The footage exists—she filmed herself during the rape. Even the men’s barrister warned that it would lead to “disorder” if it was released, as it was so horrific. “You’re going to rape me”, the girl cried as she was dragged away. She screamed for help and begged not to be taken. One of the migrants gagged her with his hand. The Afghan men forced her to perform sex acts in a secluded area. She is heard screaming for help; she calls for her friends; she wants to go home. She is pleading for help from passers-by—none came. Can you imagine her horror, her fear and her desperation? Think if it was your daughter. How would that make you feel? Honestly, think about that.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is giving a very powerful introduction to his speech. He and I share profound concerns about the scale of illegal migration to the UK, and the ability of those migrants to arrive here and then disappear. For me, the most disturbing aspect of the case that he has mentioned, which was reported yesterday, is the fact that we are being gaslit by the media. Those two Afghani boat arrivals were described as being from Leamington—they are not from Leamington. Does the hon. Member agree that women and girls are less safe in this United Kingdom now, today, than they were five years ago, for this reason?

[Rupert Lowe]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I completely agree with what she has said.

The girl was then pushed to her knees before being brutally raped. Another—one of too many.

Last year, a 35-year-old old Iranian small-boat migrant raped a 15-year-old girl in an alleyway. He was known to police in Germany, where he had been convicted of assault offences. He told the girl she could be his “sex doll”, and that he wanted to—I quote— “fuck her”, before dragging her down an alleyway, forcing her to her knees outside a secluded doorway, and then raping her. The poor girl’s anguished mother later asked, “Why was he in this country?” It is a question that millions and millions of British people are asking. Why are they here?

These are unimaginable horrors, but they are happening, right across our country, every day, brutally and relentlessly. This House may not like to hear this, but it must listen; it must understand; it must digest. This is a political choice, and it is one that this Parliament has made. These are men who should never have been in our country to begin with. They should have been detained, and they should have been deported, indiscriminately and without question. They were not: they were housed, fed and cared for at taxpayer expense. They were released on to our streets and allowed to roam freely—thousands and thousands of them, unvetted foreign men from barbaric cultures that have no place in our communities. Words cannot adequately describe my disgust at what has been forced on to the British people.

Since being elected, I have used what little influence I hold to try and uncover the impact of these migrants and just how severely the British people are suffering because of it. I have asked more than 600 questions of the Home Office, but I receive very few answers, particularly when the question is regarding illegal migrants. “No data”, “not centrally collected” and “disproportionate costs” are often cited. I thought that perhaps it was incompetence, but evidence has come to my attention that proves the Home Office has been misleading MPs. On 20 January, I asked the Home Office

“what information the Department holds on the number of irregular migrants defined as absconders.”

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I will not give way, as the hon. Gentleman has more than had the opportunity to make his case. We have said that that is what we will do, and that is what we will do. On that basis, there really is no need for Lords amendment 37, but as I say, we will test the co-operation of Conservative Front Benchers. Will it last even 48 hours? From the hon. Gentleman’s demeanour, I suspect it will not.

It is so important that this legislation reaches the statute book quickly. The need for these powers is urgent, and we are down to one point of disagreement with the other place. This Bill is central to the Government’s actions to strengthen border security. It includes new, transformative measures to deliver on our manifesto commitment to identify, intercept, disrupt and prevent serious and organised crime through new criminal offences, expanded data-sharing capabilities and improved intelligence. It will disrupt the business models of organised crime groups and reduce unlawful migration to the UK.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the Minister accept that despite his opening remarks and his words about Northern Ireland, the reality and the understanding of people in Northern Ireland is very different, given that we are subject to EU law in this space? This is a very real issue for people in Northern Ireland. They want zero tolerance of illegal entry and fast removal of those who are blocking up our public services, which are already stretched to capacity, so will the Minister go further and have this sovereign UK Parliament legislate for Northern Ireland to protect our borders?

[Alex Norris]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She may have heard me say before that it is not in the interests of anyone, anywhere in the UK, for the work of establishing order and control at the United Kingdom’s southern border to create displacement challenges with regard to the common travel area. That is something we are very concerned about, and it is something that I talk to colleagues across the UK and beyond about. Of course, we have had very successful interventions in this area, such as Operation Comby.

Turning to her question about future legislation, she will have heard what the Home Secretary had to say the other day. There will be plenty of opportunities within that process to have those sorts of conversations, but our resolution is to make sure that we have a system that establishes order and control. That is what this legislation is in service of, and it is what the work set out on Monday is in service of.

Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

While the inquiry is ongoing, that will be a matter for the chair. However, I know from the inquiries that I have been involved in that were successful and victim-centric that there always has to be a system for supporting the victims, both with taking part in the inquiry and with the trauma that might be brought up. Usually, those two things are separate, but I will say this once again: I will not be the chair of this committee. Undoubtedly, it is about ensuring that victims are protected throughout the process. Should they want to go out and speak publicly both negatively and positively about that process, I would absolutely welcome that. People should never be prevented from speaking. We have to ensure that support is available, regardless of how they wish to gain it.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

There should be nothing more precious in the eyes of this Parliament than the protection of children, particularly those who suffered at the hands of these barbaric individuals. Many of us are parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents and this cuts very deep. I know that the Minister cares and is a caring person, but today we need decisive action. Given that one of the victims has walked away from the inquiry—

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Two.

[Carla Lockhart]

Given that two of the victims have walked away from the inquiry, will the Minister clearly state how she will ensure that a fully independent inquiry can take place and that it prominently includes victims?

[Jess Phillips]

All I can say is that there is a reason that I cannot stand in front of the victims, who I am meant to be getting feedback from right now, and definitely say when the chair will come. I could have just put my finger in the air and picked out some random judge—we could have done that—but I am listening to victims’ feedback. Again, I have to stress that that process is not easy. There are difficult dynamics within groups of people and the people who we have asked to engage are dealing with difficult things, so undoubtedly, that is not uncomplex. As anyone who has worked with groups of people who have been wronged, shamed and treated badly will know, it would be a lie to stand here and tell them that there is a straight line and a simple answer—and I am not willing to do that.

Crime and Policing Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry, but I cannot. I will tell him afterwards why I cannot, but I promise that it is not out of a lack of respect for his position.

Some say that Northern Ireland is different, but why would we think that women in Northern Ireland are different from women in England and Wales when it comes to human rights? We are seeking not to remove our regulations, but to apply the same test to them. We simply want the Secretary of State to ask whether they are human-rights compliant. Those who celebrated bringing abortion to Northern Ireland, and who continue to promote it, did not just celebrate the provision of a service; they celebrated the liberation of women from this inequality, which we risk perpetuating for our constituents.

[Carla Lockhart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry, but I cannot take any interventions.

New clause 20 is primarily about whether we think that abortion is a human right, and how we apply that principle to our laws here. It is also about the very present and real threat to access in our communities. Members will have seen outside this place the modern anti-abortion movement that we now have in the UK, and will have received the scaremongering emails. Of course those in that movement are reacting more strongly than ever to the idea of women having this human right protected in law, because their opposition is not about children. If it was, they would not shout at mine when they see them in the street. It is about controlling women. They do not openly advocate for an end to abortion access, but they make lurid claims, including the claim that there would be abortion at birth, so let me put that one to bed. Because new clause 20 retains the 1967 framework, it retains not just the time limit—crucially, it is different from new clause 1 in that regard—but all the provisions in the 1967 Act relating to everyone involved in an abortion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I rise in support of new clause 1 and new clause 20. I am someone who chooses the spend the majority of my time in this place focusing on women, who make up 51% of the population —on mothers, parents, women’s health and maternity—and I would like specifically to address comments that have been made in the Chamber today which pit the life of a foetus against that of a mother. Despite the fact that 40% of MPs are now women, and that every single one of us represents a constituency that will be 50% women, I rarely hear women’s issues being discussed here. On every issue in this House there is an angle that affects women differently, and that especially affects those caring for children differently, yet we do not speak about it.

When people speak against abortion in any form, I am stupefied by the bubble from within which they speak. Will they also speak out about the risk of giving birth when two-thirds of maternity wards are deemed unsafe by the Care Quality Commission? I doubt it. Will they speak out about the fact that more than 1.6 million women are kept out of the labour market because of their caring responsibilities, which are seven times those of men? I doubt it. Will they speak out about children in temporary accommodation, the extortionate cost of childcare, medical negligence and the decimation of Sure Start? I doubt it.

Until hon. Members have done their time making this world one thousand times better for mothers and parents, as it needs to be, I suggest that they reflect on the audacity of making a judgment in isolation today that cries, “Life.” Every decision we make in this place comes relative to its context. A woman who ends up in the truly agonising position of having an abortion is protecting a life—she is protecting her own life. Hers is the life that hon. Members choose to vote against if they vote against these amendments; hers is the life hon. Members would be choosing to discard.

As others have said, in reality, the amendments before us today will affect very few people, but will critically mean that while a woman is the carrier of a child, she will not be criminalised for anything to do with or within her body. Given how little the world tends to care about women and their bodies, I personally trust those individual women far more than I trust any state or judicial system that has yet to prove it can properly support the rights of women. That is why I will be voting for this and any amendments that further the rights of women over their own bodies.

[Carla Lockhart]

I believe that both lives matter in every pregnancy—both the mum’s life and the child’s life. Abortion is often framed as a choice between the rights of the mother and of the child. I reject that framing, but today we are considering two amendments, new clause 1 and new clause 20, that would be bad for both women and unborn children; and one amendment, new clause 106, that would protect both women and unborn babies who are old enough to survive outside the womb.

In the last Parliament, I, along with a number of colleagues, warned that the pills-by-post scheme for at-home abortions would cause an increase in medical complications, dangerous late abortions and coerced abortions. Sadly, those warnings have become reality. A study based on a freedom of information request to NHS trusts found that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill at home, provided by the NHS, in 2020, needed hospital treatment for complications; that is the equivalent of more than one in 17 women or 20 per day.

Last December, Stuart Worby was jailed after using abortion pills, obtained by a third party through the pills-by-post scheme, to induce an abortion in a pregnant woman against her knowledge or will. Such cases could have been prevented if abortion providers had not pushed, in the face of warnings about precisely such incidents, for the removal of in-person appointments where a woman’s identity and gestational age could be accurately verified, and any health risks assessed.

The issue of inaccurate gestational age has led indirectly to the amendments before us today. Abortion providers have themselves conceded, and I quote Jonathan Lord, former medical director for Marie Stopes, that, until recently,

“only three women have ever been on trial over the past 160 years”

for illegal abortions. Since then, there has been an increase in investigations and prosecutions, albeit a small number compared to the quarter of a million abortions we now have every year in the United Kingdom. This small rise in prosecutions has been caused by the pills-by-post scheme, which has enabled women, either because they miscalculate their own gestational age or through dishonesty, to obtain abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit, when at-home abortions are legal and considered safe for women, and even beyond our 24-week time limit for abortions. Tragically, this has led to viable babies’ lives being ended.

What is the answer? I suggest it cannot be to make things worse by decriminalising abortion. That would be bad for women and unborn lives, removing the legal deterrent against dangerous late-term, unsupervised abortions that would put women at risk as well as babies, even long after they are viable in the womb. This would render our already very late time limit redundant in a context where pills can be obtained without any reliable in-person gestational age check.

The alternative solution is to end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultation. That is why I support new clause 106, and the public support it too. New polling has found that just 4% of women support the current pills-by-post arrangement and two thirds want a return to in-person appointments. Decriminalisation may allow the problems with the pills-by-post scheme to be covered up, but it will not stop the problems happening. In fact, it will incentivise more dangerous late-term abortions of viable babies.

Let me close by turning to Northern Ireland. When the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) hijacked the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc.) Act to impose abortion on Northern Ireland, she argued that women in Northern Ireland faced discrimination because they did not have access to the same abortion provision as women in Great Britain. Let me very clear: Northern Ireland is very different. Northern Ireland does not have the pills-by-post scheme, so a direct correlation with GB cannot be made. I ask hon. Members to support new clause 106.