Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lauren Edwards]

I will make a little more progress.

This is the cost of accepting the status quo: the fear and worry for those who know that palliative care may not be enough to avoid a difficult and painful death. It snatches away their final moments, which, as I know from speaking to friends and family in Australia, can be much better spent when there is a safe voluntary assisted dying system in place.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. Is she aware of the sheer number of palliative care consultants who are not prepared to take part in assisted dying, and the impact that that will have on the palliative care system? In my constituency, all three palliative care doctors who work in Plymouth’s Derriford hospital are against assisted dying and are saying that they would leave the profession. How can we offer palliative care at the same time as assisted dying?

[Lauren Edwards]

I would point out that there is a range of views among those in the palliative care community. It is specifically for that reason that the Bill allows them not to be involved in the process if they do not wish to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Palliative and social care need fixing, and that is a concern that unites the House. It is a scandal that how well people die depends on where they live, but to suggest that this Bill should wait until palliative care has been improved is a fallacy for two reasons. First, the Bill gives us an opportunity to improve palliative care. It places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to tell this House what the state of palliative care in this country is, and whether people can even access it. No Government have ever been required to answer that question, and under this Bill, they would be. I would go further and say that this assessment should be in place before the Bill comes into force and should be an annual update to Parliament, but that amendment cannot be made to a Bill that does not exist. If we vote down this Bill today, we will delay and deny the possibility of mandating a genuine assessment of the state of palliative care in this country.

The second reason it is a fallacy is that Hospice UK has told us repeatedly that it would be inappropriate to even imply that hospice and palliative care can address pain in all circumstances; we know that it does not, and honestly cannot. When we say that we will fix palliative care first, we are promising something that no palliative care system has ever delivered or will ever be able to deliver, and we are asking people to die in pain waiting for something that cannot be given. If we vote this Bill down, we will be no closer to understanding the state of palliative care.

I would also add that in this country, we already have “do not resuscitate” orders. Doctors suggest them, families agree, and a person who could have been revived dies, often without their voice featuring in any way. I have experienced this in my own personal circumstances—I had to run across to Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital and tell them to lift a “do not resuscitate” order that they had put in place without consulting me—so let us not pretend that this line is sacred, because no one in this place seems to be saying, “While we’re at it, let’s scrap ‘do not resuscitate’ orders.” Those are on the same continuum.

Let me turn to the other place and the question of procedure. A great many peers were doing precisely their job; others were laying siege to the Bill. If anyone does not want to accept that both those things are true, I ask them to look at their own bias. On some issues—treatable depression, eating disorders and whether a hospice can decline to take part—the Lords were right. When this House passed the Bill, we expected it to be debated and that amendments would come back to us in the ordinary way. “Erskine May” provides that where a Bill proceeds under the Parliament Acts, this House may suggest amendments to the other House without inserting them into the Bill. That power does not sit with the Bill’s promoter; it sits with anyone sat in this Chamber. If the Lords agree to those amendments, they are treated as Lords amendments already accepted by the Commons—they do not even need to come back to us. There is precedent in the Hunting Act 2004 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976, so the choice before us is not between an unamended Bill and no Bill. I am not asking the House to accept the Bill as it stands, and I myself will press amendments through that process, particularly regarding the audit of palliative care and treatable depression. The process can be improved.

As a Conservative, individual freedom, choice and personal responsibility shape my decision making until those freedoms cause harm to others. For years, I have listened to debates on this issue, waiting for the harm in the principle of giving us autonomy over our own bodies and our own deaths to materialise. There is no harm in the principle of assisted dying, and I am yet to hear an argument that exposes it. This Bill applies to those who have six months left to live—no one else—and I am arguing for a freedom that harms no third party, but will relieve a great deal of suffering.

During our last debate, I told the House that my mother’s last words were, “I cannot go on like this.” She died a few days later, and that was a great kindness to her, even if it was a great cruelty to me and my children. However, too many in this country—this great, compassionate country—go to sleep at night desperate for the pain to end. They wake the next morning knowing that they must endure another day of it—a body that betrays them or wracks them, and that no medication will soothe—and another day in which this House has denied them the option of bringing it to an end, with their families and on their own terms.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am going to keep going. Members have often spoken of unexpected recoveries that have led them to oppose the legislation. That is the news we wish for every person we love and for every loved person we have. Last year, I was told twice that I would die—most likely or potentially—given complications I had that I will not speak about at the moment. I know what it is to want to survive. I know what it is to fight. But for many, that day is not coming—there will be no reprieve of that kind—and we cannot write laws about the dying in the hope of a miracle that will not come for most. As such, I will vote for the Bill, because living in a perpetual state of torture cannot be right, and we cannot allow people to wait longer. I urge hon. Members who are undecided to vote for the Bill. I urge them not to end the argument, but to continue it; I will stand with them in tabling amendments in the other place.

Fathers and Positive Male Role Models

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Like other Members before me, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this Backbench Business debate. I was pleased to support the application several months ago, and I am glad to be able to respond to it from the Front Bench today.

We need to be honest about what the evidence tells us: good fathers make an overwhelmingly positive contribution to their children’s lives, yet around 2.5 million children in this country have no father figure at home, and by the age of 17, 47% of young people are no longer living with both parents at the same address. The relationship between a child and their father matters. For sons, a father can demonstrate how to be a man, how to behave around women and how to raise a family of their own one day. For daughters, a father can embody the positive attributes that she looks for in a man when she is older, making her less vulnerable to those who would exploit or mistreat her. Children with secure relationships with their fathers are less likely to experience depression, anxiety, low self-esteem or self-harm.

I was fortunate to grow up with a strong father figure—my dad, Mike. I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) about Christmas eve. Since I was four years old, my dad and I have gone shopping together on Christmas eve to buy presents for my mum. He bought them; I, like a bit of a silly girl, went home and wrapped them for him—something I have to admit I still do at the age of 45. It is part of the story and bond I share with my dad, knowing that each Christmas eve, whether it includes lunch and, as we have got older, an alcoholic drink or two, we will go out together, do our shopping and then head home. My little sister never gets to do it, so it is definitely part of my relationship with my dad.

Unfortunately, not everybody gets to have that experience. One UK study found that 14-year-old girls who did not have a close relationship with their father or a father figure were at significantly greater risk of mental health difficulties. Researchers also link secure father-daughter relationships with better educational and career outcomes, stronger social skills and better mental health. For sons, close relationships with fathers are associated with a reduced risk of antisocial and criminal behaviour, along with other risky behaviours. Those outcomes affect a child’s life long after they turn 18.

When we look at the wider challenges facing boys and men, this topic becomes even harder to ignore. The “Missing Men” report tells us that in the final quarter of 2025, more than 450,000 young men aged 16 to 24 in England—nearly one in seven—were not in education, employment or training. At school just 61% of boys reached a good level of development by the age of five in 2024-25 compared with 75% of girls. Three quarters of children in custody report having an absent father. We must stress that none of that means that an absent father automatically causes poor outcomes. There are many factors involved, but it should make us ask a straightforward question: are we doing enough to support fathers to be involved in their children’s lives? Too often, fathers seem to be an afterthought; that needs to change.

We need to look at what happens when relationships break down. There is a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children. There is a presumption that it will aways be the mother who takes custody of the children, with the father permitted to see them once a fortnight if he is fortunate enough. Meanwhile, that same child has easy access to content from harmful male online influencers, starting as soon as they get their first smartphone, if not before. We are replacing a positive male role model with an inherently negative one and then claiming to be shocked by the results.

Where there are safeguarding concerns, the child’s welfare must come first, but where there is a safe, loving and willing father, the starting point should be meaningful involvement and as much contact as possible. The Government’s position, laid out in clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, is to repeal the statutory presumption that a child’s welfare is generally furthered by the involvement of both parents. Existing law already allows courts to restrict unsafe contact; repealing the presumption without a suitable replacement, such as a child-centred parental relationship test, could lead to greater inconsistency and conflict. It may also weaken children’s relationships with safe parents.

A child should have real men in their lives: fathers, grandfathers, teachers, coaches and mentors can show them what responsibility and good character look like. That brings me to the language we use. We need to ditch the worst excesses of identity politics when it comes to boys and men. For too long, the phrase “toxic masculinity” has been used in a way that blurs the distinction between masculinity and genuinely harmful behaviour. Let me be clear: violence, abuse, cruelty and misogyny are wrong, but masculinity is not. Masculinity should be an extremely positive force for good. There is nothing toxic about being strong, courageous, ambitious, competitive, protective or determined. When combined with responsibility, self-control and respect, they are the exact attributes that enable society to flourish.

In Plymouth, where I am a MP, there is a great network call Man Culture, which puts those principles into practice. Man Culture organises workshops for men right across the city, tackling issues such as toxic masculinity and preventing male violence against women and girls. It seeks to address issues identified by the Plymouth Violence against Women and Girls Commission, which I chaired a few years ago. That work was a direct response to two tragedies in the city: the incel-inspired Keyham shooting, where five people and the shooter died, and the abduction from a bus stop and brutal murder of a young woman a few months later. The report also recommended working with young boys, because to challenge harmful behaviours, we need to have honest conversations, and those have to start young.

We should teach boys how to use strength responsibly and not to be ashamed of having strength in the first place. We should teach boys how they can use their strength to build things rather than to tear things down. The approach must be not to tell boys that masculinity is the problem, but to give them examples of men worth becoming. Fathers are some of the most important examples of that. A good father can show his son that strength does not mean aggression, confidence does not mean arrogance, and responsibility means keeping your word and looking after the people you love. Positive male role models are also needed beyond the home. As has been mentioned, only 14% of nursery and primary schoolteachers in England are men, and although I am proud that my brother is one such teacher, that figure is not high enough. We need men as teachers in early years and primary settings.

The problems will not be solved by another strategy document alone. Prevention starts earlier, with families, fathers and communities, and with giving boys a sense of purpose, responsibility and belonging. I pay tribute to the men who volunteer in scouting and uniformed groups across my constituency; we should recognise and be grateful for such men. However, that is not enough. We need to do even more. Having this conversation does not mean turning the issue into a competition between men and women. It must be about supporting mothers and fathers who are working together to create something greater than the sum of their individual parts, ensuring that family services properly involve fathers, where they can safely contribute, and making sure that, where it is safe and appropriate, children can maintain meaningful relationships with both parents.

This debate is not about pretending that fathers are the answer to every problem, but they are an important part of the answer whose absence makes everything else more difficult, and Government policy should recognise that. If we want stronger families, better outcomes for children and boys who grow into responsible men, we need to stop treating fathers as an optional extra. Fathers matter, masculinity matters and male role models matter; it is time that our politics treat them as such.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned, the former Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, asked the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), to take on a national summit on men and boys. My hon. Friend and I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what has happened since then. Is that summit still going ahead, and when will we hear more information about it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

4. How many biological male prisoners are held in the general women’s estate.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

15. How many biological male prisoners are held in the general women’s estate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

There are fewer than five transgender women in the general women’s estate. The exact figure cannot be provided without breaching data protection legislation obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

The judgment in Scotland relates to prison rules that apply in Scotland only—England and Wales have separate rules, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt know. I gently remind him that the rules in England and Wales were introduced in 2023. They mean that transgender women with male genitalia or any history of violent or sexual offending are not held in the women’s estate, except in truly exceptional cases that are signed off at a ministerial level. This Government inherited those rules, and Ministers have not approved the placement of any transgender women in women’s prisons. This is a classic case of this iteration of the Conservative party spending all its time in opposition criticising the very policy that it introduced.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 and that Scotland has taken the relevant steps. The Minister responded to my hon. Friend with a fairly vague answer about what needs to happen in England. We know that there are women who are not biological females in the women’s estate in England and Wales. When will women get the same protections as in Scotland?

[Jake Richards]

The policy that we are implementing in England and Wales is lawful; it complies with the Prison Rules 1999 and the Equality Act 2010. The guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has come out. We have 40 days to consider and ratify it, and we will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened during the Second Reading debate, he would have heard me say that demand in the system is up. Police arrests are 10% up. For all those reasons, alongside the backlog that we inherited from the Conservative Government, it is important that we put in place reform that is sustainable for the long term, and that is why there is not a sunset clause.

[Rebecca Smith]

About 6,200 cases are awaiting justice in the south-west. Sexual offences cases take about 320 days, but local victims and defendants deserve justice. The excellent example of Liverpool Crown court highlights how it is possible to tackle the case backlog and secure justice without impacting defendants’ right to a jury trial. Given that tackling the backlog using efficiency, not removing the right to a jury trial, has the backing of the public and the Opposition—and, indeed, Labour MPs—when will the Secretary of State back down from his entirely un-British decision to minimise the use of jury trials?

[Mr Lammy]

It was not un-British when the Callaghan Government made reforms at the end of the 1970s, and it was not un-British when Margaret Thatcher made changes in 1989. It is precisely because we are lifting the system, which was on its knees under the last Government, that it is absolutely the opposite of un-British to support victims, especially women, who find themselves in the criminal justice system.

Violence against Women and Girls

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I do agree with my right hon. Friend: I fully support what the Government are doing and I fully support their aims and goals. We might have slightly different ways of getting there, but all of us in this House want the same thing. We need to be supportive. If we scrutinise the Government and suggest areas where they might improve their position or their policies, it is not a criticism of their intent; it is merely that we think there may be other ways of doing things or that there may be improvements that could be made. I took such suggestions when I was a Minister in the faith in which they were intended, and I hope that that will happen here. I am certain that, with the two Ministers on the Front Bench, that will absolutely be the case.

Earlier, I was talking about the levers that can be pulled. When those levers need to be enforced by law enforcement, local authorities, the health service or education, there is a real frustration that there is not a simple direction that can be given so that everyone understands the changes that, as a Minister, one wants to see. That is why cross-departmental work is so important. I believe that inter-ministerial groups are being deployed again, which is an excellent step, and I wholeheartedly congratulate the Government on that. When I was a Minister, such groups were so, so important.

We must also ensure that there is a multi-agency working. We have to make sure—I saw this myself as a Minister—that the police are not the point of last resort. I remember going to visit the A&E at the Royal Stoke, my local acute hospital, 10 years ago and seeing the domestic violence specialists spotting the signs of domestic abuse. That is vital. So, too, is the schoolteacher recognising that when the child is coming to school late every day, or missing their class, something is wrong and action needs to be taken. We cannot always leave this to the police and law enforcement. We must make sure that there is multi-agency working. Having domestic abuse specialists in 999 centres and emergency centres is another a good step.

I introduced a VAWG strategy in 2016 when I was a Minister. Another one was introduced in 2021, and I know that we will get another one soon. I am certain that that will be victim focused. These are crimes that cannot be tackled without putting the emphasis on the victims. But all victims are different. The abuse that one victim has suffered will be different from that of another victim.

Let us be clear: getting someone who has been a victim of one of these most horrendous of crimes to accept that they are a victim is incredibly difficult. To be brave enough to pick up the phone to dial 999 is a really big step, because that victim has probably been enduring the abuse over many, many occasions. She does not believe that she is a victim. She thinks that she is in control. She thinks that she can deal with this problem without involving the authorities. We have to get to the point where victims are able to accept that they are victims and where we give them the support that is needed. That is why the multi-agency approach is so important.

A victim of female genital mutation will be different from a victim of modern slavery, and a victim of domestic abuse will be different from a grooming victim. They all have individual needs. Even within the categories, there will be different needs. It may be better for some victims of domestic abuse to remain in their homes and for the perpetrator to be removed and tackled. [Interruption.] Absolutely. I see the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley doing a thumbs away sign. I totally agree with her. However, for other victims that will simply not be practical. There need to be places of safety that those victims can be taken to. Those places of safety need to be different for each victim. A mother with children needs a different place from a young girl, and that young girl needs a different place from somebody who has severe learning disabilities, mental health issues or addiction. There are all sorts of problems that victims face—often caused by the abuse—and they need different approaches.

I have made the point about multi-agency working, but we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. There needs to be a strategy that looks across all aspects of the four Ps, as they used to be called in my time at the Home Office—the pursuit, protect, prevent and prepare strands. We need to make sure that we take every step possible.

I welcome the ringfencing of funding that the Minister talked about. I am keen to make sure that police, fire and crime commissioners and mayors who have responsibility for these areas have the correct funding to commission the services that they need to support victims.

My final point is on the online world. Not only do new offences get created, but the online world has provided a place of safety for perpetrators. Behaviour that is simply unacceptable offline is something that is normalised, socialised and anonymised online. A person can go online and find somebody who has a similar interest to them in something that is totally and utterly unacceptable. They have some images that they can share. They do not know who they are dealing with, so therefore it is fine. They can look at those images because nobody knows that it is them, nobody knows what they do in the real world, and nobody knows that they are looking at them. It also seems absolutely normal, because everybody else is doing it in this room. This is an incredibly difficult thing to solve. It is really difficult to get normal policing methods to work in this environment.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a valuable point about the dangers online. Does she agrees that one of the big threats is the incel community? This highlights the need to approach violence against women and girls from a public health perspective, because we cannot just rely on the police to deal with it. Often there are mental health issues and all sorts of family breakdown challenges. Does she agree that tackling the incel issue is vital in this environment?

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is something that has to start in schools and in the workplace. We need to ensure that all of society appreciates, understands and gets behind this.

To conclude, I started the internet safety strategy as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I am pleased that we have the Online Safety Act 2023, but if the Government wish to do more, they have my wholehearted support. I might scrutinise their work, but I will support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

In 2021, Plymouth, part of which is in my constituency of South West Devon, had two horrific tragedies affecting a number of people. We had the Keyham shootings, which were incel-linked, hence my question about that earlier, and the tragic murder of Bobbi-Anne McLeod. I know that both Ministers are well aware of those cases. What came out of those tragedies was an opportunity to shine a light on VAWG in the city in a way that had never happened before, as well as to see what was already being done, and what more could be done to make things even better, and ultimately to make women and girls safe, and feel safe.

The Plymouth violence against women and girls commission was established in response, and I had the privilege of leading it. It took us six months, but we worked cross party, and we reported back with 15 recommendations, which were supported by organisations and businesses right across the city. Hon. Members may be interested to know that we deliberately called it the “Male Violence Against Women and Girls Report”. At the time, it felt as though we were breaking ground, but we have moved on a long way since then. In January 2023, one of the recommendations, which was for a Westminster Hall debate, came to fruition, so my name was mentioned in Hansard. The Ministers both took part in that debate, which my predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter, organised, and it enabled us to share our learning, which we were really keen to do.

We all know that violence against women and girls is a huge topic, and it is very difficult sometimes even to figure out the best way to approach it. That is why we approached it through the lens of public health. We recognised that there are no quick fixes, and that multiple factors influence the likelihood of someone being a perpetrator or a victim, and that was key to what we did. We wanted to change culture and behaviour in the city, and to support women and girls by being victim-focused and trauma-informed. I pay tribute to the organisations that were already working hard to do that in the city, including Trevi, First Light, Ahimsa, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and our police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, as well as the police and the city council. In particular, I want to name Hannah Shead, who has worked for Trevi for a number of years and is now moving on. I thought it would be nice to get her mentioned. We also recognise the importance of creating safe spaces and the building blocks for the future.

That was two years ago, and I will briefly update the House on what we have done since. A key thing we did was appoint a strategic lead in the city, and there are now four women—Meghan, Verity, Tracy and Lisa—whose job it is to bring everything that is happening across the city together. If any Members want to take a good example back to their constituencies, I would highly recommend that one.

On changing culture, there was a focus on allyship and education for those of all ages. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done fantastic work in schools focusing on pornography, and we have seen the establishment of a group called Man Culture, which wants to work collaboratively on reducing VAWG in the city. It received funding under the serious violence duty, and has delivered workshops that facilitated conversations about healthy and positive masculinity, a subject raised today.

A huge amount is being done to support women and girls and to make it easier to access support. Since 2022, the city has been pursuing co-ordinated community response accreditation. It is working with Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, and we want to ensure that we have an assessment of how we deal with all this multi-agency work. There has been a review of the city’s multi-agency risk assessment conference, which has led to improvements and a new steering group, which is ongoing. It is looking at developing a multi-agency tasking and co-ordination process in the city, and the working group for that was launched in autumn 2024. We want the council, police, probation and local charities to work with perpetrators, engaging with them, disrupting their behaviour, and seeing high-harm domestic abuse perpetrators tackled.

A huge amount has been done on creating safe spaces. Of particular note is—the House will have to bear with me; it is a long name—Plymouth’s evening and night-time economy predatory behaviour disruption partnership. It is working on a pilot looking at how we can bring together civic and criminal justice tools to tackle predatory behaviours. Criminal justice tools are often not enough, or do not hit a trigger point. In the past 12 months, we have had 12 community protection notice warnings served, one antisocial behaviour stage 2 warning served, and five meetings at police stations with words of advice. That is cracking action. We have brought together those criminal justice actions to tackle that predatory behaviour. Well done to everyone involved. The key is working together and holding each other to account.

Still on the theme of safe spaces, I will touch on single-sex spaces. I ask the House to hear me out, as I say this with a real spirit of gentleness. I appreciate that there are a lot of women out there—some are my constituents—for whom this issue is particularly important, and it is important that their voices be heard. There is a concern among women about the lack of clarity over language and guidelines, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), when she was Women and Equalities Minister, called for examples of guidance that might wrongly suggest that people have a legal right to access all single-sex spaces and services on the basis of their self-identified gender. The new Government responded to that in December, and we are concerned that it has led to a lack of clarity about whether a single-sex space can be used by those who self-identify, or is specifically just for women.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend is making another powerful speech, and her real-life examples of how we can change things with a multi-agency approach are so powerful. Her point on clarity is important, and I urge her to keep fighting to make sure we have that clarity.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution. It would be great if Ministers could address that point this afternoon, so that those who are watching this debate can understand whether the Government will recommit to doing something on single-sex spaces.

To go back to Plymouth, the experts in our city are beginning to look at the fact that the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created the statutory standing for children to be considered victims in their own right. The men and women working on the issue in Plymouth are beginning to wonder whether we should call it violence against women and children, rather than girls, because the challenge with any label is that it can take our focus off what we need to be talking about. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.

I have briefly set out the results of the commission on violence against women and girls and our recommendations. Members are all welcome to visit Plymouth to see what we have done. We have not solved the problem, but we have gone a long way to playing our part in tackling violence against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I want to make a brief contribution to this incredibly powerful debate, to draw attention to a specific and extreme form of violence against women and girls that is taking place right now across the whole of the United Kingdom: trafficking and modern slavery. Women and girls are trafficked into and around the UK, for sex and for other forms of exploitation such as labour exploitation and domestic servitude. They are among the most vulnerable people in our society.

Before being elected, I worked for three years on anti-trafficking in Scotland. The stories from my time there will haunt me: women trafficked and forced into prostitution, forced by their captors to have sex with multiple men a day with the money going to their captors, and forced to participate in pornography. These are women with no social networks and no knowledge they were even in Scotland. We say, “Listen to women”. These women did not have the English language skills to say no. There are pimping websites where men would leave reviews of the women they had paid to have sex with. I will not quote them, but they are spine chilling. It was perfectly clear that these men knew that the women were trafficked, coerced and unhappy. Some comments showed that that was the point. They knew that some were girls, not women.

We must do more to tackle this extreme violence against women and girls. I want to make four brief points. First, let me do something unusual and praise the previous Government. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 set up structures that were important and effective—the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who is in her place, was instrumental in that—but it has fallen into severe abeyance. The focus on supposed abuse of the modern slavery system has all but wrecked the good system we had. Extremely long waits for the national referral mechanism have made it essentially dysfunctional, and we no longer give women who seek help the assurance that they will not be deported or prosecuted. This is important: no woman is complicit in her own abuse.

Secondly, we must support frontline organisations. The organisations that support vulnerable women operate on a shoestring budget, such as the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Scotland. We have to stop making these organisations apply for funding every year. On that note, when I was working in Scotland, across the sector, even people who were quite suspicious of the Labour party, always spoke extremely highly of the Safeguarding Minister.

Thirdly, we must prevent re-trafficking. I consider it the biggest failure of the British state that women who escape their traffickers and come to the state for help later find themselves back in the hands of their traffickers. Small basic interventions and joined-up thinking would prevent that. But too often we say, “Well, you’re rescued now. Off you go and make yourself a life.” These vulnerable women fall back into the claws of their traffickers. It should shame us all.

I was a bit nervous about participating in this debate because I am conscious that the fight to stop violence against women must be led by women. We do not need men pontificating about what they think should happen. But I think there is a role for men, not just because men are also trafficked in the UK but because concepts of masculinity are changing for my generation and men younger than me.

[Rebecca Smith]

Earlier in my contribution, I referred to Man Culture. If I can be of any assistance at all in the hon. Gentleman’s quest to find some examples, another organisation I would be delighted to recommend to him is Beyond Equality. If there is anything I can do, I would be happy to do that.

[Chris Murray]

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, because it will be for both genders to step up. We can see concepts of masculinity transforming before our eyes, exacerbated by the internet but also by political interventions. It is incumbent upon us—the younger generation of men—to stand up and face that head on.

Trafficking is one of the most extreme kinds of violence against women. It is happening all over the UK right now. We can do more to stop it, and we must.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The Government recently announced a mandatory levy on the companies directly to provide support and NHS-led services. I will pass his comments to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to give him an answer.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

13. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the backlog of court cases on victims of crime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Bearing down on the outstanding caseload in the Crown court and bringing down waiting times is a priority for the Government. We want to ensure that every victim has the swift access to justice that they deserve. We know rape victims are waiting a disproportionately long time for their trials, and that is why we have committed to working with the judiciary to fast-track those cases through the courts.

[Rebecca Smith]

Recently, Truro Crown court, which serves my constituency of South West Devon, has been forced to shut one day a week due to recent budget cuts and the judicial sitting day reductions. Some cases have already been postponed until late 2025, including lengthy cases that involve victims of violence, and it is prompting those victims to consider withdrawing their cases. Given the maxim justice delayed is justice denied, what additional steps are being taken to support victims to continue with their cases across Devon and Cornwall?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As the hon. Lady knows, rape is an abhorrent crime and cases are usually complex. That means despite judges prioritising cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses, rape victims can wait disproportionately longer than victims of other cases for their trial to come to court. I remind her that the Government have increased the number of court sitting dates by 500 days this year, and the Lord Chancellor agreed to increase capacity in the magistrates courts so that we can get through cases more quickly. We are also introducing independent legal advocates in the new year to advise rape victims from report to trial, which will ensure they stay in the system longer, feel supported and get to trial.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is really about rates of recall, which is what happens when licence conditions are breached, including breaches of curfew. Recall rates for SDS40 releases are tracking similarly to recall rates for other offenders. We will publish those statistics once they have been assured in the usual way, which I believe will be immediately after Christmas.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

17. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of recent changes to the early release scheme on the demand for housing provided by local authorities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

With this Government’s scheme, unlike the previous Government’s rushed scheme, we are giving our excellent staff time to work with national and local housing partners to minimise any impact on local authorities.

[Rebecca Smith]

Given that secure housing on release has a proven positive impact on the recidivism rate of ex-offenders, which is something we all welcome, how many prisoners released early by this Government are being housed in hotels?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Fewer than 20.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I may be having another meeting, with the hon. Gentleman, as well as looking at the court in Chorley, and I am happy to discuss that matter with him.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

11. What support her Department is providing to victims of domestic abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

This Government are deeply committed to supporting domestic abuse victims, and we provide funding to police and crime commissioners, who commission community-based support services for domestic abuse victims and survivors, and independent domestic violence advisors. Domestic abuse victims are automatically eligible for certain special measures in court such as screens or video links, and the pathfinder pilot in family courts aims to improve experiences and outcomes for children and families affected by domestic abuse.

[Rebecca Smith]

Devon and Cornwall-based domestic abuse charity First Light south-west, and national domestic abuse charity Hourglass, which works specifically with older victims, have highlighted to me the challenges that they face with short-term funding streams for their work. The current year-on-year funding model results in issues with the recruitment and retention of staff, which in turn impacts on service provision to victims. Specialist services are especially vulnerable given the nature of the support they provide. Will the Minister commit to providing sustainable long-term funding for frontline domestic abuse services, including for specialist services for older victim survivors, so as better to support victims in my constituency and across the country?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The work that Hourglass and many others do is outstanding, and I place on record my thanks to it for championing the rights of older victims across the piece. The Ministry of Justice provides police and crime commissioners with annual grant funding to commission local practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. I am hearing loud and clear the calls from the sector, but it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the announcement of funding after March 2025. We cannot agree that before the spending review, but the Ministry of Justice has allocated £1.2 million of funding over two years to support the training and infrastructure of ISVAs and IDVAs and to support fantastic organisations such as Hourglass that do such brilliant work.