Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   UK Visas and Immigration: Processing Times

   New research shows that foreign nationals are claiming almost £1 billion in benefits each month. We now face the highest number of asylum claims ever recorded—up another 9% since Labour took office. Meanwhile, the 42,000 appeal backlog at the end of 2024 is projected to more than double to almost 100,000 by the end of this year. The Home Secretary herself has admitted to the media that her White Paper would cut immigration by just 50,000. This is utterly inadequate. Without real deterrence and stricter measures, the visa processing delays will only worsen, so will the Minister commit to two concrete measures: implementing the previous Conservative threshold of £38,000; and introducing a legally binding annual migration cap that actually delivers accountability?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Strategic Defence Review

   While it is welcome that the SDR refers to the need for more routine protection of subsea cables and pipelines and of maritime traffic, there is no specific mention of the same commitment to the protection of North sea oil and gas platforms, rigs and floating production, storage, and offloading vessels. They are just as important to our energy security, which is our national security, and there could be much more catastrophic consequences if they were attacked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those structures will be included in any plan for the routine securing and protecting of critical national infrastructure?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Rape Gangs: Statutory Inquiry

   12. If she will establish a national statutory inquiry into rape gangs.

   Hansard source
4. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Rape Gangs: Statutory Inquiry

   Senior figures in the Catholic Church and the Church of England were found to have conspired to cover up child abuse by priests. Senior figures in the Labour party are now opposing local inquiries in places such as Bradford, London and Wales, and Ministers here oppose a national rape inquiry. We have also heard from a former Labour Member of Parliament, Simon Danczuk, that he was told not to raise the issue of the ethnicity of some of the perpetrators. When will Labour put aside its electoral interests and stand on the side of the abused?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Government Announcements

   My constituents will wonder about a Government who promised to do things differently. They said that they would be transparent and be whiter than white—then they behave like this. One almost feels sorry for the Leader of the House, because she is trying to defend the indefensible. It is not enough to express regret that journalists were given access to the document in full before Privy Counsellors, the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, or that this trailing in full went on days ahead. What we need is action. Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), will the Leader of the House commit to looking into the issue, whether through a formal inquiry or not? Secondly, will she meet one to one with the Prime Minister to express her clear opinion that what has happened is not acceptable? I would like specific answers to both those questions.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   Buses are the most popular form of public transport in the country, carrying passengers on twice as many journeys as trains and serving thousands more stops nationwide. As the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, from the centre of London to the remotest areas, they can get teenagers to school, allow pensioners to visit friends and connect people to jobs that they would not otherwise be able to take. They keep town centres alive, connect our communities and ensure that those with mobility issues, as well as the most vulnerable, can get around.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   It is a little bit early, but I will give way.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   It is because there is no Division later. It is not because nobody cares, but because there is not going to be a Division. The previous Conservative Government recognised just how vital local bus services are to keeping communities connected. From 2020 to when we left office last summer, the previous Government committed £4.5 billion to support and enhance bus services, including more than £2 billion to help local authorities implement their bus service improvement plans. Perhaps most importantly, we also introduced the £2 bus fare cap.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   Yes, indeed. We are very interested in doing that, which is why we inserted a purpose clause in the other place to ensure that the key focus of this Bill is solely on passengers. By maintaining the £2 bus fare cap, we ensured that bus travel remained affordable and accessible to as many people as possible, while helping families manage the cost of living. We have voiced deep concerns in both this Chamber and the other place about the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable, of Labour’s decision to scrap the £2 cap and raise it to £3. Make no mistake: this is bad for those in work, who will be £3,500 worse off because of this Government’s jobs tax, and bad for pensioners, who have seen their winter fuel payments cut and their energy bills rise, despite repeated promises from Labour to cut their energy costs by £300.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    As always, my right hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter, and I have to say that I agree with him. I would like to make one thing abundantly clear from the outset: we do not oppose franchising in principle. When implemented properly, franchising can be a powerful mechanism for improving services, addressing local transport challenges and delivering the quality services that passengers rightly demand and expect.

    Hansard source
11. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I will make a bit of progress. However, the Bill in its original form does not do that. The Secretary of State has acknowledged, and I agree, that the Bill does not mandate franchising everywhere, and that is a sensible step, but the Bill does not prioritise passengers, and nothing in it guarantees an improvement in service standards. The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era, without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.

    Hansard source
12. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Yes, my hon. Friend is completely correct, and I will come to that a bit later in my speech. While we do not oppose the franchising of bus services, we do oppose a particular assumption that underlines this legislation, which is that the public sector is the solution to everything. Some local authorities may have the expertise and resources to successfully franchise passenger bus services, but let us be clear that many do not. The very central premise of the Bill—giving every local authority the unchecked power to implement franchising, regardless of its resources or capacity—is not an act of empowerment; it is irresponsible. By removing the need for the Secretary of State to consent to franchising, as required under the previous Conservative Government, this Government are eliminating crucial safeguards.

    Hansard source
13. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    With respect to my right hon. Friend, I will not, because I am conscious that lots of Members want to speak. Those safeguards are designed to ensure that franchising serves the passengers who rely on our bus services and the taxpayers who pay for them. The expertise required to design, manage and operate franchised networks is not readily available in most councils. That is why the Bus Services Act 2017 limited franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which are bodies with the scale, resources and democratic mandate to take on such responsibilities. Crucially, the legislation we enacted to pave the way for mayoral combined authorities to issue franchising models also required those authorities to demonstrate that franchising would deliver genuine benefits for passengers. The removal of that requirement by this Bill is concerning, and it betrays the view held by those on the Government side of the House that the public sector is inherently infallible. Members will not be shocked that I do not share that view, but they do not need to take my word for it.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I will make some progress and then give way. Members should take the word of Centre for Cities, which has made it clear that expanding franchising could expose councils to serious financial risks, because after decades of deregulated services, many transport authorities simply lack the skills and capacity to manage a comprehensive bus network, yet would be financially responsible if an undertaking goes wrong. These are not just hypothetical concerns. The experience in Greater Manchester illustrates just how easily costs can spiral, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket. The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that initial projections published in Greater Manchester combined authority’s transport revenue budget put the cost of transitioning to a franchised system at £134.5 million for 2024-25. That figure has since ballooned, with ongoing operational costs now forecast to exceed £226 million per year by 2025-26, which is a 68% increase in one year. Over four years, the scheme could cost up to £1 billion—far, far more than anticipated. Moreover, the House will know that the annual level of bus subsidy in London last year amounted to £646 million. Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the entire country. It also has the highest level of bus use. Yet even with all those advantages, it requires that level of annual subsidy just to keep the network running.

    Hansard source
15. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    The risk of the Bill is that it does not come with substantial funding attached. That is the problem. It is mismanaging the public’s expectations. I expect we will hear from a parade of Labour MPs talking about how it will transform services in their local area. Without the required level of funding, it simply will not.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which is that without substantial extra levels of funding from the Government, that simply will not happen. Local authorities may have the powers to do it, but they simply will not have the ability. The Government have talked about the amount of money they are putting into the Bill and the Secretary of State referred to it in her speech, but it is a mere £1 billion, of which £700 million has been earmarked for bus planning documents, not actual services. Less than 30% is being directed toward the delivery of bus services themselves, which will not touch the sides. Giving local authorities the legal power to do something without the money is mere window dressing. If these challenges can emerge in Greater Manchester and Greater London despite all their resources, planning and political leadership, what should we expect elsewhere? The truth is that we do not know, and that highlights the danger at the heart of the Bill. On a connected vein, through franchising, we may end up extinguishing a number of highly successful private sector businesses, reducing them to operating for a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and fares. Quite aside from losing the expertise that the private sector brings to the network, the Government risk removing any incentive for the private sector to invest in our bus networks, potentially leaving the taxpayer with ever greater burdens. Despite my various concerns about this legislation, I would like to recognise that the Bill we see before us was greatly improved during its passage through the other place—improvements driven notably but not exclusively by Conservative peers. The purpose clause, which obligates the Secretary of State to consider service performance, quality and accessibility, was a much-needed addition, as was the amendment requiring an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 fare cap. Successful amendments requiring the Secretary of State to review bus services to villages in England, to develop a programme to eliminate serious injury during bus operations, and to require bus operators to record all data regarding assaults and violent behaviour, were all tabled by peers from other political parties to His Majesty’s Opposition and, collectively, they improve the Bill. The latter amendment was tabled by the noble Lord Woodley, a Labour peer and former joint general secretary of the Unite trade union. It was, bizarrely, opposed by Labour peers, but it succeeded with the support of Conservative peers and those of other parties. A further successful Conservative amendment was passed, mandating a review of the national insurance burden on special educational needs transport, following the increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that it is deeply regrettable that Labour peers were whipped to vote against a measure designed solely to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society. In opposing the special educational needs transport amendment in the other place, the Government asserted: “The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 1756.] Leaving aside the breathtaking arrogance of that statement, it is directly contradicted by the very providers tasked with delivering these vital services. The chairman of the 24x7 Group, one of the largest operators of SEND transport in the country, has warned that changes to national insurance contributions could significantly raise employment costs, making some contracts unviable. That has the potential to leave thousands of children without access to the transport they rely on to attend school. To oppose even a review of such consequences is not just shortsighted; it speaks to a worrying indifference about the impact of this legislation on vulnerable passengers. The Opposition were also disappointed that Labour peers voted against introducing a safeguard against repeated franchising assessments for the same geographical area, which risks wasting public resources and creating instability for operators and passengers alike. Similarly, it was disappointing to see Labour peers not support plans to ensure that floating bus stops do not threaten the safety of those who are blind and partially sighted. Likewise, if improving passenger services is at the heart of the Bill, I fail to understand why Labour peers were whipped to vote against the amendment that would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene when franchised services fail due to poor local management. Does the Secretary of State really believe that passengers should be left stranded simply because a local authority is unable to deliver? I do not believe that to be the case and I look forward to her amending the Bill as it proceeds through the House. Why did Labour peers vote against those measures? Once again, it would appear that ideology took precedence over passengers. That is why we will push to reinstate these prudent amendments as the Bill proceeds through the House. The Liberal Democrats supported many of the measures in the other place and I sincerely hope they will do the same in this House, for the benefit of passengers. In conclusion, franchising may well play an important role in improving the bus networks of the future, but the Bill alone will not get us there. That is because the Bill does not prioritise those who matter most: the people who rely on buses every single day to get to work, attend school, reach appointments and stay connected with their communities. While we welcome the positive changes made by peers in the other place and we will not divide the House on Second Reading, we cannot vote for a Bill that lacks basic safeguards, ignores the risks and prioritises ideology over impact. We will therefore seek to improve the Bill as it proceeds through the House. I urge the House to consider not just the political implications of this legislation, but its real-world consequences for the millions who depend on these services every day.

    Hansard source
17. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Topical Questions

    Regarding non-crime hate incidents and the amount of police time taken to investigate them, does the Minister agree that the clue is in the name? They are “non-crime”. Does she also agree that already stretched police should focus their efforts on tackling real crime, rather than being the virtue-signalling thought police?

    Hansard source
18. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Hub and Spoke Dispensing etc.) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I will not go through everything the Minister set out, but we are amending the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medicines Act 1968 to enable hub and spoke dispensing. The regulations before the Committee will improve seven key areas. They will enable cross-business outsourcing; clarify the legal definitions of wholesale dealing and retail sale; extend outsourcing to NHS GPs; establish hub and spoke frameworks, legally defining what the hub and spoke model is and enabling hubs to assemble medicines; tighten up labelling and information rules; introduce data-sharing provisions; and clarify premises-based supply. The pros of doing that, and the reason why the previous Government were introducing legislation to do so, is that it will provide efficiency gains, improve access, modernise the legislation, and improve patient safety and data protection. There are some cons and concerns, however, particularly regarding the complexity of implementation and whether pharmacies will need to invest in new systems. There are data privacy risks, as the world is seeing an increasing number of cyber-attacks, which is a concern as we are adding more areas for data sharing. In addition, the regulatory ambiguity resulting from removing definitions from the 1968 Act may cause initial confusion during the transition. Between 16 March and 8 June 2022, the previous Government consulted on legislative proposals to allow pharmacies and dispensing doctors to access hub and spoke dispensing models. Two different models were proposed: “Model 1 is where the patient presents a prescription to the spoke. The spoke then sends the relevant information on to the hub so that they can carry out their agreed dispensing actions. The hub then sends these dispensed medicines back to the spoke, which may have further responsibilities to perform such as providing advice on the medicine to the patient, before supplying them to the patient. In model 2, the same pathway is followed in that the patient presents a prescription to the spoke, which then sends the relevant information to the hub. The hub then assembles and prepares the medicine before supplying the completed order directly to the patient.” On Monday 13 May 2024, shortly before the general election was called just over a year ago, the previous Government published a response to the consultation. The majority of respondents, being medium and larger pharmacy chains, representative sector organisations and other related businesses, supported the proposals. However, a majority of individuals, smaller pharmacies and independent pharmacies did not support the policy change. At the time, the proposed next step was to make several amendments to the 2012 regulations, including the creation of two new models: spoke-hub-spoke and spoke-hub-patient. The previous Government intended to lay a final statutory instrument before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly with a view to the legislation coming into force on 1 January 2025. However, because of the election, that statutory instrument was not laid. The Minister reiterated this Government’s position in response to a question from the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall): “A wide range of community pharmacies and representative organisations fed into the public consultation on hub and spoke reform, and I am pleased to confirm that their responses were overwhelmingly positive in support of model 1 of hub and spoke, which we will be going with.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 774.] There are two problems here—the implementation and the principle—and I will take them in turn. The impact assessment, which was updated in April 2025, found uncertainty about the potential costs of establishing the hubs, the operating costs and the level of uptake of hub and spoke dispensing. Paragraph 78 stated: “It has not been possible to determine the initial set up costs for hubs, due to the variety of different hub solutions and because we do not have a concrete assessment of the number and types of hubs that might open due to this policy.” Paragraph 136 said: “The key uncertainties in this IA are around the level of take up of hub and spoke arrangements and the net level of savings to dispensing costs that could arise”. And paragraph 137 said: “Ultimately hubs are private businesses who would need to conduct their own analysis and research into the level of market interest when deciding how much to invest in building hub capacity.” In the light of that, can the Minister tell us whether there will be any further funding to implement this change? How will he record data on uptake and changes? And what incentive is there for businesses to take this up? Will it be mandated? Given the abolition of NHS England, where will the data be collated, who will collate it, and when will it be published? I have now addressed the practical part, so I will now focus the Committee’s attention on the other part. The previous Government proposed to take forward both models: model 1, which was patient-spoke-hub-spoke-patient; and model 2, which was patient-spoke-hub-patient. I have been contacted on the latter by Pharmacy2U, which is the largest online distance-selling pharmacy. Every month, Pharmacy2U dispenses more than 3 million items directly to the homes of 1.5 million customers, so it offers an alternative for patients. It asks why there was no formal consultation on the changes from the previous Government’s position, whether Ministers had considered whether this change excludes the perspectives of distance-selling pharmacies, and what the expected impact of excluding model 2 will be.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Hub and Spoke Dispensing etc.) Regulations 2025

    Of course, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, with his august history as a pharmacist. My job in the Opposition is to raise these issues with Ministers for consideration. At the heart of my point is that, by choosing only one model and not offering two, we are closing down the opportunity for not only patients but businesses. If we want to invent in the NHS, that seems a bad way of doing it. It is why the last Government suggested that having a couple of models allows people to invest in, invigorate and improve our system, because otherwise, innovation will fall behind. That is at the heart of the questions I am posing to the Minister. That leads me nicely on to my follow-up question. Does this mean that the Minister will choose not to introduce model 2? Is that likely to be in line in the future, and if so, when? Those questions go to the principle of this. The last Government decided that there were two options to accommodate all different fields, be it dispensing GPs, community pharmacies, large-scale chemists and pharmacies or, indeed, distance-selling pharmacies. It is really important to take into account the whole environment we have in the health service. We will not divide the Committee, but we would like answers to those questions about the practicalities and policies behind the regulations.

    Hansard source
20. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Decriminalising Abortion

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate and the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening it. As shadow Justice Minister, I have spoken on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in recent debates on assisted dying, and I do so again today on another complex issue that similarly draws on ethical, legal and moral questions. I do not think that today’s debate is a failure; it reflects the complexity of the issue at hand. Like assisted dying, calls to decriminalise abortion can trigger profound disagreement among families, friends and indeed, Members of Parliament of the same and different political parties. I deeply respect the perspectives of those advocating for this change and everyone who signed the petition, including 142 constituents of mine in Bexhill and Battle. I do not know the new hon. Members quite as well, but I have come to deeply respect the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on many issues, even if we do not see eye to eye on this. If there were to be a vote, the historical position has always been that it would be a free vote. There are a variety of views among Conservative MPs, councillors and members, and His Majesty’s Opposition would remain neutral. In my experience, the preponderance of Conservative thought, particularly among parliamentarians, has been caution about decriminalisation because, it is argued, it carries risks that could undermine the current balance of rights and protections enshrined in our legal framework. Let me be absolutely clear to people watching, especially women who might be worried that the UK is somehow rowing back on our abortion provision: in England, Scotland and Wales, abortion is lawful, provided that the usual criteria in the Abortion Act 1967 are met. There are different criteria in Northern Ireland, but the previous Government introduced a new legal framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland to that effect. As hon. Members have said, the Abortion Act 1967 provides grounds for an abortion, exempting women from prosecution under the Offences against the Person Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. The petitioners have asked us to consider whether abortion should be decriminalised completely, so that no woman, or potentially no individual who assists her, can be prosecuted for an abortion under any circumstances. When considering abortion, we are not just considering the wellbeing, autonomy and rights of the pregnant woman. Our society and legal system have also given consideration to the welfare of the unborn child. The phrase “unborn child” is, on the face of it, a clear and simple one, but in moral and legal terms it lacks the moral clarity we feel about the moral considerations due to a child after its birth. Religious thought of all kinds very often ascribes moral rights of a high magnitude to an unborn child at any stage. More scientifically focused viewpoints try to give consideration to the level of development, sensitivity to pain and suffering, or the point at which an unborn child might survive outside the womb. I think it is fair to say that there is a very widely held view that a human embryo at any stage is afforded moral consideration beyond that given to any other collection of equivalent cells. In the case of abortion, the law is designed to recognise that. Criminal law is the manner in which we safeguard the vulnerable and uphold the sanctity of life in our system. Abortion laws, as they stand, provide a structure to ensure the rights of everyone involved, including pregnant women and unborn children, are considered with a degree of fairness and that there is accountability.

    Hansard source
21. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Decriminalising Abortion

    Although my right hon. Friend and I might not agree on where we draw the line on each of those very complex issues in different circumstances, I absolutely sympathise with the view that individuals sit within society and we have a wider obligation. Sometimes, laws and our customs are not there just for the benefit of individuals; they are there because of wider considerations.

    Hansard source
22. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Decriminalising Abortion

    What I said was that traditionally in this country the nature of how we oversee and protect sanctity of life questions and those who might extinguish life is through the criminal law. Of course, the hon. Member is right to point out that in other jurisdictions, including in Northern Ireland, they might do it differently, but that is the tradition, certainly in England and Wales and, in most regards, in Northern Ireland, too. I do not think that it is fair for her to use an example of doing things differently to suggest that arguments different from that are not valid. In fact, generally speaking I found her remarks during this debate to be quite insensitive to the complexities of the issues at hand. She was tempted to focus more of her time on talking about Trump than on the very delicate balancing act that many people bring to debates about this morally complex issue. I will now continue with my speech. We must also remember that ultimately any prosecution undertaken by the CPS must meet the test for being in the public interest. We must not confuse questions about the appropriateness of sentencing and the appropriateness of an individual decision to prosecute with an overall question about whether the criminal law itself is the right or wrong mechanism through which we regulate this activity. Proponents of decriminalisation often cite the World Health Organisation’s recommendation from 2022, which advocates removing barriers such as criminalisation. Although such recommendations should, of course, carry weight with many, it is essential to view them through the lens of our unique societal context here in the UK. The bulk of the World Health Organisation’s recommendations are very much focused on countries that have a much lower rate of access to abortion, in all sorts of different ways, and so they sit within a different context. Our abortion laws have evolved over time to reflect the delicate balance between the rights of pregnant women and the ethical considerations surrounding unborn life. I would caution against taking a universal recommendation from a global organisation as a litmus test for whether we are or are not doing things correctly. When prosecutions occur, they are no doubt distressing for those involved. However, we also should be wary of changing the law in response to individual cases without looking at the operation of the law as a whole and, as I have said, without considering other elements, such as the operation of the law by the CPS, that have a bigger role to play than the law in itself. Accountability is a cornerstone of ethical practice and criminal law serves as a mechanism through which accountability is ensured in many spaces. Without such safeguards, society is potentially less able to properly address situations where procedures are conducted wrongly. These are questions that demand careful consideration and proper parliamentary debate before any changes to existing laws are made. As I and others have already mentioned, debates about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Gower and others will provide the opportunity for that. In their response to the petition, the Government have stated that they have no current plans to change the law on abortion and I am sure the Minister will say more about that in her closing remarks. Although discussions about potential refinements to current laws are valid and deserve proper consideration, I suspect that a number of MPs would argue that the removal of criminal penalties must be approached with caution. As I have said already, the hon. Member for Gower has tabled new clause 1 to the Crime and Policing Bill, and Members will know that debate on amendments tabled to the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill did not happen because of the timing of last year’s general election. Successive Governments have adopted a neutral stance on abortion and treated it as a free vote issue. However, I understand that the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention was unable to clearly restate that assurance on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill. I would welcome it if the Minister who is here today confirmed in her remarks that the Government will continue to be neutral on abortion. Amnesty International has framed abortion as a human rights issue, advocating for its decriminalisation. However, all measures must be applied in a manner that respects the rights of all affected parties, including the unborn. The ethical and moral considerations surrounding abortion are multifaceted and these complexities cannot be overlooked. Before I conclude my remarks, I will say something about the tone of this debate. As we engage with this issue over the next few weeks and months, it is imperative that we consider the diverse perspectives and experiences that shape opinions on abortion law. I hope that we will all strive to find solutions that uphold dignity, fairness and justice for all. The legal framework governing abortion must maintain an emphasis on protecting both individual rights and societal values. As I said earlier, abortion is an issue that transcends simplistic policy analysis. It is a matter of ethics, justice and the principles that define who we are as a society. The Opposition believe that abortion law should remain robust, balanced and capable of addressing the complexities of these issues. It will be for individual MPs to decide how that balance is best struck.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Government Announcements

    It is not just by giving statements to the media that this Government disrespect the House. Just before we went into recess, we had a farcical situation where the shadow Secretary of State for Education had to bring forward an urgent question asking for a written statement to be made earlier in the day. The Government very clearly decided to make a written statement later in the day, and sent a Minister to come here, not answer hon. Members for the whole urgent question and refuse to say what the content of the written statement was—a statement that the Government had already written and intended to publish later that day. That was done simply to avoid scrutiny. What representation did the Leader of the House make on that day to ensure that information was given to the House in a timely fashion so that it could be scrutinised, rather than the Government hiding away?

    Hansard source
24. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Strategic Defence Review

    Sleaford and North Hykeham is home to RAF Cranwell, RAF Digby, much of RAF Waddington and Beckingham training ranges. This defence review will be read with interest across the constituency. Many of my constituents serve in the armed forces, are veterans or work in the defence industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment to the expansion of RAF Digby that is planned? Will he ensure that he supports the Greater Lincolnshire regional defence and security cluster, which was established in 2023?

    Hansard source
25. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Topical Questions

    T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Topical Questions

    On Friday in my constituency I met the leader of Hillingdon council, which hosts 3,000 asylum seekers in Home Office accommodation—the most per capita of any local authority in the country. He told me that the council faces a £5 million per annum funding shortfall, which is more that its entire budget for libraries and culture on supporting asylum seekers. What plans does the Home Secretary have to ensure that local authorities are reimbursed in full for the role they play in supporting asylum seekers in this country?

    Hansard source
27. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Government Announcements

    It is very helpful that in the last few minutes the Leader of the House has confirmed that the media were briefed directly, before the House, on the content of the review. I am grateful to her for being so honest, but I do not think that it is enough for her to promise not to do it again. Will she order an inquiry in Government about how the decision came to be made and who authorised the briefing of journalists? Whoever it was needs to apologise directly.

    Hansard source
28. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Strategic Defence Review

    The Defence Secretary has just thrown into doubt the future of the new medium helicopter. I am very concerned to hear that that programme clearly may not go ahead. Can he tell the House whether he plans to reduce the number of RAF Chinooks, which—as he knows—are very important both to our special forces and to our Army? Are there any plans to reduce the number of Chinooks?

    Hansard source
29. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Fraud

    6. What recent assessment she has made of trends in the incidence of fraud.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Fraud

    The figures were, of course, coming down, but the incidence of fraud—much of it online—is now back up to a new high. Many factors are involved, but will the Government look at taking further steps, including requiring enhanced intelligence sharing between platforms and banks, and better mandatory user identification on sites such as dating apps and online marketplaces?

    Hansard source
31. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Topical Questions

    Can I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the amendment I have tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would extend the definition of exploitation in the Modern Slavery Act to include orphanage trafficking? It is a horrific crime that affects about 5 million children across the world, and it is something we need to recognise in our legislation.

    Hansard source
32. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Neighbourhood Policing

    I recently met the chief constable of West Mercia to discuss neighbourhood policing. The West Mercia area covers Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire, and the word is that the integrated care board reorganisation will split that area into one that covers Warwickshire and one that covers some of Shropshire. I have had a letter from the police and crime commissioner citing the chief constable’s concerns that amid that reorganisation and the local government reorganisation, safeguarding the most vulnerable and children could fall between the cracks. Will the Home Secretary have a word with her Cabinet colleagues to ensure that does not happen?

    Hansard source
33. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Strategic Defence Review

    My constituents in Gosport will be keen for the Secretary of State to clarify two points. First, the line on page 105 about reconsidering “training estate needs” will concern many, so will he confirm that the outstanding training establishments at HMS Sultan and HMS Collingwood, which employ so many, will not be under threat? Secondly, when will the promised funds for accommodation come through? The previous Government spent £400 million on upgrading accommodation, which was beginning to filter through, but some 69 service family accommodation units in Gosport are now empty because they are deemed not fit for human habitation, and that is getting worse under his watch.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

    I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the people and emergency services in Liverpool. On the Home Secretary’s watch, this year so far has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel. The Government’s laughable claim to “smash the gangs” lies in tatters—they are not smashing gangs; they are smashing records. The right hon. Lady mentioned the French. The French prevention rate on land is lamentably under 40%, and even those who are stopped are then released to attempt a crossing again the next day. Although she talks about action at sea, nothing has happened whatsoever. At the weekend we saw pictures of the French police just standing there taking photographs while illegal immigrants departed. Does the Home Secretary agree that the recent 12-year fishing deal should be suspended until the French agree to stop those small boats at sea and prevent illegal immigration?

    Hansard source
35. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

    Immigration is at a record level on the Home Secretary’s watch, but as usual she does not answer the question or take responsibility. Let me try this instead: it emerged yesterday that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, chose not to refer for a longer sentence under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme—as the Attorney General can—a man who had been given just 28 months for rape, yet Lucy Connolly got more prison time for a tasteless tweet. Why does Lord Hermer think rape is less serious than Twitter comments? This is two-tier justice in action. Does this not show that Lord Hermer has appalling judgment and the Prime Minister should fire him?

    Hansard source
36. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Order. Before I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, it might be helpful to indicate that after the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be a five-minute time limit. I do not propose to drop it any further than that and, given the number of Members here, many may be disappointed.

    Hansard source
37. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Order. I have made this point before, but interventions really must be shorter than that. There are many hon. Members who wish to get in.

    Hansard source
38. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    With a birthday contribution, I call Alex Mayer.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
40. 2 Jun 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Before I call the Minister, can I just remind Members—I appreciate that I am largely preaching to the choir here—that they are expected to attend for the wind-ups when they have spoken in a debate. Today, many Members have not had the opportunity to be called, but have sat here throughout; perhaps they will point that out to their colleagues.

    Hansard source