Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Debate between Diana Johnson and Caroline Johnson

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It might help the shadow Home Secretary if I say that the number of hotels has gone down under this Labour Government. [Interruption.] Despite what the shadow Home Secretary says, the number of hotels has gone down since the Government came into power.

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

Violent disorder is always wrong, but we need to recognise that it is a symptom of people’s outrage at the current situation, and of their fear of crime—particularly sexual crime—in their community. The Minister should focus not on the tone of questions in the House and what has happened in the past, but on what she will do to solve the problem. In that respect, I agree with what the Father of the House said about requiring a credible deterrent, so does the Minister regret cancelling the Rwanda scheme?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I totally disagree with what the hon. Lady said. Violent disorder is not a symptom—it is criminal. It is thuggery; it is attacks on our brave police officers. There is no reason or excuse for what happened last summer or for any violent disorder that may happen in future. It is criminal, it should be prosecuted, and people should face the full consequences of the law.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Caroline Johnson

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

I can only absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s intervention.

I also want to talk about coercion, because we know that some women may be coerced into having an abortion.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Before the hon. Lady moves on, I want to raise something with her. Obviously she has a clinical background, and she will know jolly well about the range of safeguarding measures that all clinicians, the royal colleges and all those involved in abortion care have to follow. She makes it sound as though no safeguards are in place. For instance, if a 14-year-old telephoned a clinician to seek advice around abortion, that clinician may well say, “I want to see you face to face.” There is nothing to stop that happening, and that may well be a proper safeguard that would carry on, irrespective of whether telemedicine carries on today.

[Dr Johnson]

With respect, the right hon. Lady makes my point for me, because that is right: there is nothing to stop that happening, and it may be that the doctor would say that they wanted to see the patient, but they do not have to do so. We know that abortions are being prescribed by telemedicine to children under the age of 18. If this measure had been looked at properly by the House as a single issue, rather than as this amendment to something else, we would have stipulated that children under the age of 18 should not be receiving abortions over the telephone without proper appointments, as I think they should and as the right hon. Lady, if I understand her correctly, also seems to be saying that they should.

We know that sometimes women and girls can be coerced into having abortions that they do not want, perhaps because the baby is of a gender or sex that the father does not want, perhaps because they are being abused, or perhaps they are being trafficked or sexually assaulted. It is very difficult for a woman to tell someone about that over the telephone, whereas if a woman is seen in clinic, she has that one-to-one opportunity.