Shivani Raja

Party	Office	Area	Period	Began	Ended	Source
Conservative	MP	Leicester East	4 Jul 2024 – present	elected	—	Party history

Latest on this tracker 22

29 Oct 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{209BFCB0-04C5-453B-BF8C-F42833901873}"> </QNum> It has been really clear today that cost control is a crucial element in the success of this project. Should there be safeguards for motorists within the regulatory framework where, for example, unexpected charges arise or costs are excessive? Will Godfrey: At the heart of the regulator’s responsibilities would be furthering the interests of current and future users. Those are exactly the kind of considerations that would be at the heart of how you approach the regulation, how you set up the instruments—I am referring specifically to the licence—and how you then hold the company to account against that licence. For the first control period, in the case of the lower Thames crossing, the licence would be awarded by the Department, so the particular tolling structure and the level of tolls would be set through that competition for the first licence. Thereafter, the way that the ORR operates is that the code that the ORR would be responsible for creating on the approach to tolling arrangements will clearly be important once you are past that first point. My feeling is that the arrangements necessary to provide protections to end users around, for example, tolling and toll shocks and so on feel about right to me in the enabling legislation. What is really important is what goes into the licence and what we put into the code, and then how the company responds. I hope there will be a virtuous circle, in which there is a clear signal of what is expected, we hold the company to account, it delivers and implements it, and we then take the feedback from the market. I do not know if you were anticipating a different concern, but I will pause there in case I have not answered your question.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
No, that is fine. Do you have anything to add, Mr Palmer? Matt Palmer: I think it is beyond my scope—National Highways is here as an operator and a constructor. I think Will has probably answered the question properly.
Hansard source
20 Oct 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Funeral Services: Regulation
Any regulation of the funeral sector must avoid unnecessary administrative burdens on small, local providers. How will the Department ensure that any proposed regulatory framework is proportionate and does not unfairly increase costs for independent funeral directors across my constituency and the country?
Hansard source
14 Oct 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
We all understand that the protection of women and girls is a matter that transcends party politics. Today’s debate is not about point scoring, but it is an important conversation that we need to have. The current direction of this Government’s immigration policy is harming our women and girls. In communities across the country, those who are most vulnerable are put at risk by hordes of single men who do not understand basic human rights, including the right not to be raped. Why are we allowing individuals into our country who do not have the capacity to function as part of British society? Small boat crossings surged by 50% between the 2024 general election and the end of 2025, reaching nearly 65,000 people. I know that Government Members will have their fair share of statistics to deploy in this debate, but we must focus on the situation right now and how to address it. The impact of that vast influx is felt right now by teenage girls who are too scared to walk to school alone, and by young women who are filled with fear when travelling home after an evening with friends. That fear is felt by our mothers, sisters, daughters and friends. I have felt that fear myself. Promises from those on the Government Benches to smash the gangs are hollow and empty. The Prime Minister is enjoying his new-found rhetoric of hope, but I encourage him and his ministerial colleagues to visit communities such as Piddington and Crowborough and see the reality that confronts the women and girls there. Let us not make the mistake of thinking that we do not have a choice in this matter. In the first instance, I suggest to Government Members that a rural village of 350 people is not a suitable site for more than 1,000 single men. Beyond that, we in this House have the power to make policy decisions that will protect our women and girls. Our Conservative borders plan details just some of the measures that we could take to tackle illegal immigration, including leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act, removing it from all immigration-related matters. As it stands, the ECHR is a barrier to common sense. Why are Government Members so resolutely committed to remaining part of a treaty that prevents the deportation of foreign rapists and paedophiles? Lord Wolfson’s review confirmed that the UK Government are significantly constrained by ECHR membership. As long as we remain bound by these foreign court regulations, we cannot carry out the core duties that we owe to the British people. Any notion that we would lose fundamental rights upon leaving the ECHR is simply false. Advanced democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand function effectively without the constraints of the convention, and it is naive to believe that the birthplace of parliamentary democracy cannot do the very same. I agree that our country has been built on legal immigration, but we must be crystal clear that the doctors, nurses, builders, engineers and teachers who come here to contribute to our country and strengthen our economy are not the same as single men sitting in asylum camps and living off taxpayer money. My constituency is a testament to that distinction. It is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country and one of the most entrepreneurial, with more than 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises driving Leicester’s economy. Making that distinction is crucial. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration undermines everyone who seeks to come here legally—those who want to integrate and spend thousands of pounds on visa applications and work tirelessly to build a better life for their families. That is who we as a Conservative party stand up for. In closing, I encourage Members of this House to talk to women who now fear leaving their homes. They should listen to their fathers, brothers and husbands and hear how little hope they feel under this Government’s plans. They should go to Crowborough and see how the Home Office’s occupation of the training camp there is bringing hope to residents in Wealden. When we force more than 1,000—
Hansard source
11 Sep 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
As Members of this House, our fundamental obligation, above all political considerations, is to protect those who are most exposed, most vulnerable and least able to advocate for themselves. I acknowledge that colleagues from all parties view this Bill as a measure of compassion, but if compassion is to truly serve the public interest, then it must be paired with rigorous scrutiny and an examination of all consequences of the intended legislation. I voted against this Bill on Second Reading in 2024 and on Third Reading in 2025, and I intend to do so again today. I believe that Government should assist people to live, not to die. Our focus should be on providing hope and support to all those who feel that death is the only way out of a dark situation. That is the purpose of humanity—to preserve life. We should prioritise the improvement of palliative care and end-of-life care, as opposed to directing taxpayer money away from those services and into assisted suicide. Around 60% of the public agree that we should first fix our NHS before even considering whether to introduce assisted suicide into law. I note that during his tenure as Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) concurred with that majority in June 2025, describing how such a measure would take time and money that is already in short supply. In addition, our new Prime Minister has outlined his commitment to a new national care service and to implementing reforms to strengthen our existing services. I welcome the fact that this Prime Minister is acting to protect the function of our health and care networks to support our constituents in life, because ultimately the NHS should be saving lives, not taking lives. Our palliative and end-of-life care services are an essential part of our NHS and wider healthcare system. I pay tribute to LOROS hospice, which provides free and high-quality care to terminally ill and adult patients across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. It cares for around 2,500 people and plays an important role in our community in Leicester East, not only in its direct support for patients, but through its provisions to wider families and friends affected by such situations. In its evidence to the Public Bill Committee, it highlighted that there should be one specialist palliative care bed for every 12,000 people, but, with just 22 beds, it has one bed for every 55,000 people. How can I turn around to my constituents and say that they will have a choice other than assisted death against that backdrop?
Hansard source
11 Sep 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Respectfully, I will not take interventions. Many colleagues wish to speak, and I am mindful of time—please forgive me. I am disappointed and concerned that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) has reintroduced an identical Bill to the House and ignored all the issues revealed, even the ones admitted to by the noble and learned Lord Falconer in the other place. This Bill’s failure is not just a sign of how inadequate the private Member’s Bill process is for a Bill of this magnitude; it is an alarm over the lack of safeguards for vulnerable people—the very demographic that we in this House are supposed to protect and support. The purpose of this House is to legislate well. We are here to advocate for our constituents, share our differing opinions and use our privileged positions of influence to impact the outcome of legislation, but the methods and attitude of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood completely discount the hours of debate that took place on the assisted suicide legislation in the last Session. The amendments tabled in the other place were not unreasonable; they were legitimate safeguards to protect those in our society who are vulnerable. Many of those amendments were from external organisations, and 26 amendments were from the Law Society. Those amendments would have ensured the safety of those with eating disorders and Down’s syndrome and increased the chance of catching abusive situations in which an individual is being pressured to end their life. There were amendments from trade unions to protect the compensation rights of families of workers suffering from occupational or industrial diseases who seek an assisted death. The Leader of the House told MPs before summer that lessons needed to be learned about how we take the public with us and build consensus, rather than just keep ploughing on. He said that Members should consider if the PMB route is really appropriate, but it seems that his words fell on deaf ears. We stand here in the mother of Parliaments as representatives of the millions of British citizens throughout our constituencies, and we have the right to debate issues, because generations before us fought tirelessly to secure that right. The threat of the use of the Parliament Acts to drive through this legislation completely disregards safeguards for vulnerable people. It requires us not to care if no further changes are made to the Bill. I am well aware that this subject of debate is not easy or straightforward, and that it is painful for a lot of our constituents and distressing for Members across the House. Let me come to my last point. One of my many concerns with the concept of assisted suicide relates to coercion. As we have heard in the House, coercion can come in many forms. Members across this House will know that my constituency of Leicester East has one of the highest concentrations of non-white British and multi-ethnic populations in the country, and I will say again that I am enormously proud of that, but I will not support any Bill that leaves them vulnerable to coercion. Legal experts gave evidence to the Bill Committee during the previous Session stating that in some cultures, “decision-making is a collective process involving family and community members.” We cannot allow the fear and distress of people experiencing palliative care, end of life care or simply struggling with the prospect of living another day to be taken advantage of. It is dangerous that this House would consider creating legislation that would allow space for people to be encouraged and, in some instances, forced to take a decision to end their life when at their most vulnerable. Let me conclude by reminding the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood that 59% of voters in her own constituency agree that this Bill should not be the priority of this Government. Does she sit here today to truly represent her constituents? If she does, and if she takes into account the situations of those in her constituency who are vulnerable, she will acknowledge that it would be morally void to support this Bill any further.
Hansard source
9 Sep 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Pharmacies: Government Funding
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government funding for local pharmacies. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am pleased to have secured this debate, and I thank colleagues from both sides of the House for joining me to discuss this vital pillar of our primary care network. Community pharmacies are the frontline of healthcare in our constituencies. In Leicester East, they are not just commercial premises but places that serve the very heart of our community. It is estimated that 1.6 million people access pharmacy services in neighbourhoods every day, ranging from elderly residents accessing swift advice to busy families picking up emergency prescriptions and vulnerable constituents using the opportunity to receive healthcare close to home without needing a GP appointment. Despite that, in Leicester East and across the country this crucial sector is reaching a tipping point. Independent economic analysis of community pharmacy finances for the NHS revealed that community pharmacy is facing a funding gap of around £2.5 billion. As a consequence, England lost roughly 1,000 pharmacies between 2016 and 2026, which is an 8% decline. In Leicester East, we have seen our local provision drop from 32 pharmacies down to 29, which is a net loss of 9% of our local community network. Behind the numbers is a harsh reality for a vast number of people. We have to consider not only the impact of small business closures on our local high streets, but the everyday consequences for residents who rely on pharmacies for their care. A loss of three pharmacies may sound like a minor shift, but the real implication is deeply concerning. Fewer pharmacies means longer journeys for frail patients, longer queues at the counters that remain open and increased pressure on nearby GP surgeries that are forced to pick up the slack. We have seen a 19.5% increase in online pharmacies since 2021, and although it is positive that medication and assessments can be accessed in that way, it must be a priority for the Government to protect in-person high street chemists. The closures are obviously not due to a lack of demand. People across my constituency recognise the importance of local pharmacies and use their services constantly. The reason for the closures lies in the structural financial strains that make running an independent pharmacy untenable. My team and I have had several conversations with the owners and staff of pharmacies across Leicester East, and I recognise and thank them for all their hard work on the frontline of our healthcare provision. They have raised several alarming issues; I hope that, by outlining them today, we can collectively commit to positive and constructive changes to support these independent businesses. The current reimbursement model for medicines is the first aspect of the system that fails independent providers. As it stands, pharmacies are expected to buy medicines up front. They can then wait anywhere from two to three months for the NHS to reimburse those costs. To make matters more severe, the NHS reimbursement calculation works on the assumption that pharmacies receive massive bulk-buy discounts from suppliers. Large national chains may possess the purchasing power to make that assumption work, but such bulk discounts simply do not exist for a small, independent community pharmacy in Leicester East. Small pharmacies routinely pay more to acquire necessary drugs than the NHS repays them. Although concessionary pricing mechanisms exist to adjust for market spikes, the delay in the adjustments means that independent contractors are constantly left bridging the shortfall. That disparity forces wholesalers to look overseas for cheaper stock, creating supply chain bottlenecks and leaving local pharmacists to face the frustration of patients when vital medicines are backordered for weeks. The Independent Pharmacies Association recently conducted research that shows that an average pharmacy dispensing 10,000 items a month still faces a shortfall of circa £56,000 compared with what is needed to keep in pace with inflation. Pharmacies cannot be expected to continue to foot this bill. The Government must do more to ensure that pharmacies are properly reimbursed, to prevent further pressure and demand on other areas of our NHS. On top of the margin pressures, pharmacy owners in my constituency are caught in a constant struggle between rising operating costs and completely fixed incomes. Over recent years, overheads have increased right across the board. The recent decisions to raise employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage and to escalate business rate liabilities have significantly increased the financial burden on pharmacies up and down the country. Furthermore, unlike other small high street businesses, community pharmacies receive no business rates reliefs on their premises—a major oversight for essential healthcare providers operating right at the heart of our local economies. When running costs go up for a normal high street business, such as a local shop, café or dry cleaners, it can adjust its prices to cover higher wage bills and energy costs. Independent communities pharmacies cannot do that. Their primary income is fixed directly by the Government tariff. When employment taxes increase or utility bills rise, independent business owners cannot pass those costs on. They must absorb the loss directly until their reserves run dry. I welcome that our new Prime Minister has introduced business rates relief for the leisure and hospitality sector, but does the Minister agree that we must also introduce further assistance for the pharmacy sector? GP and dental premises benefit from the NHS reimbursement of business rates, while community pharmacies, which also provide vital frontline services, do not. Introducing a form of relief to end the disparity for local pharmacies would make a substantial difference. In addition to the fixed margins, the current funding framework expects community pharmacies to deliver essential services at a financial loss. For example, home delivery services for housebound or vulnerable residents became vital during the pandemic, and remain a crucial lifeline for many elderly constituents across Leicester East, but local pharmacies receive no core NHS funding to run delivery vehicles or pay driver wages. They fund the operations entirely by themselves, committing their own profit to ensure that vulnerable patients receive their medication on time. In addition, pharmacy owners have described how, although the Government support preventive clinical services, the rules and restrictions imposed are unnecessarily constraining. It is positive that vaccinations and immunisation are being moved into pharmacies, but the Independent Pharmacies Association suggests that shifting more flu vaccinations into pharmacies could free up around 4.5 million GP appointments each year. As we approach winter and flu season, the Government should seriously consider the benefits of reallocating services, and ensure that proper funding is in place to back up the increased expectations. Blood pressure screening is another service that is being redirected to pharmacies. It is a simple, cost-effective way to catch cardiovascular issues early and prevent avoidable hospital admissions, yet under the current NHS caps reimbursement is limited to just one check per patient every five years. No small business can survive indefinitely when its costs are rising, its prices are frozen by the Government and it is expected to deliver services for free. This financial pressure feeds directly into an acute workforce crisis. The pharmacy pressures survey published by Community Pharmacy England revealed stark results: 60% of pharmacy teams reported active staffing shortages, and 54% of owners said they were struggling to recruit permanent staff. Crucially, more than 80% reported longer patient wait times and more than half acknowledged that shortages were reducing their ability to offer direct advice. We are also seeing a troubling rise in temporary closures, when a pharmacy must shut its doors for hours or days at a time simply because it cannot secure a qualified pharmacist. The freedom of information data collected by Healthwatch across various integrated care boards revealed that, in a single year, there were nearly 14,000 temporary closures across England, resulting in over 46,000 lost hours of care. Without strategic planning for staffing, the long-term future of our community pharmacies remains deeply uncertain. The Company Chemists’ Association estimates that England could face a shortfall of 16,000 community pharmacists by 2036. While it is positive that thousands of pharmacists have been recruited into the GP practices via the additional roles reimbursement scheme, we must be careful not to strip our high street pharmacies of the very talent they need to remain open. As the long-awaited NHS long-term workforce plan continues to undergo revisions, it is vital that the Government give sufficient priority to the baseline staffing needs of community pharmacy. We know that expanded training targets and the roll-out of independent prescribing qualification upon registration present a real opportunity to expand clinical care on our high streets. Similarly, recent regulatory challenges to allow pharmacy technicians to supply specified medicines and deliver services under the Pharmacy First scheme have the potential to free up valuable pharmacist time. But none of these reforms will succeed if the underlying pharmacy network is allowed to shrink due to unfunded operational mandates. I want to be entirely fair to the Government and to Ministers and acknowledge that we have seen some positive movement in this policy area. Progress is being made, but we must ensure that the pace of our action matches the urgency of the situation before us. The community pharmacy contractual framework—CPCF—settlement for 2026-27 secured almost £3.7 billion for the sector, which is a £340 million increase on the previous year. That builds on the two-year agreement that saw funding rise in previous settlements. Pharmacy trade bodies have expressed concern, however, that the funding uplift will not be sufficient to support the introduction of independent prescribing. We must ensure that the new expectations placed on pharmacies to share services are matched by funding commitments. We have also seen practical relief in the write-off of historic pandemic-era medicine margin debt, and in adjustments to the single activity fee. Furthermore, the roll-out of the Pharmacy First scheme has demonstrated the real appetite for community-level care. Across England, more than 10,900 pharmacies are participating, delivering millions of consultations for common conditions like earache, shingles and minor infections. That is a demonstration of real and effective triage that takes pressure off A&E departments and GP surgeries. However, we must listen to what sector stakeholders are telling us. Community Pharmacy England welcomed the recent funding adjustments as a step away from real-term cuts, but was explicit that this was a “first step” towards stability and not the final destination. The National Pharmacy Association made the same point: structural underfunding means that current settlements will struggle to match the “true cost” of service delivery. The Health and Social Care Committee was blunt in its analysis, describing the current CPCF funding model as “not fit for purpose” and “overly complex”. A major flaw in the scheme is that pharmacies only get paid for many clinical services if local GPs or hospitals actively refer patients to them. In practice, that leaves independent business owners completely dependent on someone else’s admin system, meaning many pharmacies are fully staffed and ready to treat people but receive zero referrals simply because a local surgery is not using the system properly. The current policy framework is simply not delivering for our high streets, and we need an operational model fit for the next decade. If we want pharmacies to continue delivering on the frontline, expanding Pharmacy First, delivering preventive health checks and taking pressure off our local GP surgeries, we must fix the underlying economic model that keeps their doors open. As a Conservative, I believe in supporting small business owners, encouraging enterprise and removing unnecessary administrative barriers. High street pharmacies are independent businesses delivering frontline public care efficiently, but when Government policy sets fixed tariffs while escalating business rates liabilities and employment taxes, it creates a system that actively undermines independent providers. I ask the Minister to address four specific, practical areas today. The first is reimbursement reform. We must review the drug reimbursement formula and concessionary pricing mechanisms, so that payment calculations reflect the actual market acquisition prices paid by the independent pharmacies, rather than relying on assumed bulk discount rates that small independent businesses simply cannot access. The second area is contractual and operational certainty. We need to update the CPCF to ensure that core funding is predictable, transparent and fair, rather than heavily dependent on variable, patchy referral targets managed by NHS bodies over which pharmacy owners have no control. The third area is business overhead and rates relief. I urge the Minister to work with colleagues in the Treasury to address the cumulative tax and cost burden facing small health providers. That includes reviewing business rates liabilities and the impact of the employer national insurance contribution increases on independent high street providers. The final area is workforce and capacity support. NHS workforce planning must balance the expansion of primary care roles with the baseline staffing requirements of high street community pharmacies. As policies such as independent prescribing expand, Ministers must ensure that independent pharmacies are provided with the direct resource and funding needed to put clinical roles into practice safely. Community pharmacies are one of the most cost-effective, high-impact assets that our healthcare system possesses. They keep people well, they prevent avoidable emergency admissions, and they give local high streets across Leicester East and the country vital commercial and civic life. The current approach needs real correction to ensure that independent business owners and patients are properly supported. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I urge the Government to give our local pharmacies the financial certainty and stability that they desperately need and deserve.
Hansard source
9 Sep 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Pharmacies: Government Funding
Thank you for your chairmanship of the debate, Mr Betts. I express my sincere thanks to colleagues from across the House who have contributed today. It is a reflection of how valued our local pharmacies are in communities throughout the country, and it highlights the importance of our commitment to improving Government support for these invaluable frontline small businesses. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for his contribution. He is a long-standing advocate for pharmacies and has witnessed at first hand the value that high street pharmacies bring to our communities and their potential to improve primary care provision. I thank him for his commitment to serving the community, which started at a very young age, as we heard. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for bringing his experience to the debate and raising the important issue of integration across primary care. I thank him and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) for all their hard work on the APPG. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for his continued efforts and campaigning for community pharmacies. The breadth and range of the contributions reflect how deeply this issue resonates in every constituency in the country. I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response and for taking the time to address the concerns raised. These initial measures, welcome as they are, must be the starting point for further structural reform. Our local high street pharmacies are independent businesses delivering essential public care right on the frontline, but, as we have heard throughout the debate, they cannot continue to absorb squeezed margins, rising wage bills and uncompensated business rates liabilities while their income remains tightly capped by fixed Government tariffs. To ensure that our primary care network remains resilient, I urge the Minister and her team to take away the four core priorities raised today: reforming the medicine reimbursement model and concessionary pricing mechanisms; updating the community pharmacy contractual framework; collaborating with Treasury colleagues to address the rising overheads; and ensuring that the NHS long-term workforce plan safeguards high street community pharmacy capacity. Community pharmacies keep our constituents well, relieve acute pressures on our GP surgeries and A&E departments, and bring vital commercial life to our local high streets across Leicester East and the entire nation. They are one of the most cost-effective assets in our primary care system, but they require a stable economic foundation to survive. I urge the Government to give our independent local pharmacies the financial certainty, fair treatment and long-term backing they so urgently need and deserve. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government funding for local pharmacies.
Hansard source
9 Sep 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Smart Glasses
The privacy of a woman is non-negotiable, and I hope the Minister will agree that we need to carefully monitor technological advancements to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place, in particular with regard to AI tools being used to undress women and children without consent. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure the continued protection of women and children?
Hansard source
7 Sep 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood
The topic of this debate is a matter of great sensitivity, but I oppose the proposal in the petition. Automatically recognising intended parents as legal parents from birth could remove important safeguards at precisely the moment when a child is most vulnerable. We should begin with the most important person in this debate: the child. A child cannot consent to a surrogacy arrangement, and they cannot understand the promises adults have made. They cannot know what might happen if circumstances change—and circumstances can change. We have seen cases where arrangements that began with everyone in agreement broke down during the pregnancy. In 2023, the Court of Appeal dealt with a case where a parental order was set aside and the surrogate mother was ultimately awarded contact with the child four times a year. That child was conceived using the surrogate’s own egg. She had to fight for that contact against the wishes of the commissioning parents. When we are told that everything is agreed before birth, we have to ask what happens when it is not. The current law recognises that possibility. A parental order cannot be applied for until six weeks after birth, and the surrogate has to confirm that she is willingly giving up her parental rights. That six-week period is not a pointless delay; it is a breathing space and a safeguard. It recognises that giving birth to a child is not simply the completion of a contract, but a profound physical and emotional event, and that the law should allow time for circumstances and feelings to be properly considered. The current system also provides scrutiny through the family court and CAFCASS social workers. If we remove that oversight, we are not simply removing paperwork; we are removing an independent layer of protection around a child. We need to understand how much that matters, because surrogacy is growing rapidly. Parental order applications increased from just 117 in 2011 to 537 in 2025, and the majority of applications now involve international surrogacy. That should make us more cautious, not less. When a child is born through an international arrangement, there can be questions about consent, identity, immigration, the circumstances of the surrogate and whether proper safeguards were followed. As recently as 2025, the High Court dealt with a case where the intended parents had never met the surrogate carrying the child, and did not even have information about her identity. The case took more than 15 months and involved four court hearings. That shows us why proper scrutiny is necessary. Compassion must never mean abandoning scrutiny, because when adults disagree, a child has to live with the consequences. That is why I cannot support automatic legal parenthood from birth. The child must come first.
Hansard source

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Latest on this tracker 22

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Funeral Services: Regulation

MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Pharmacies: Government Funding

Pharmacies: Government Funding

Smart Glasses

Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood